Bastardy Bond 1779: 'recognizance'

[thewideeyedowl]

A Bastardy Bond from 1779 mentions three people (but only their roles are needed here):
i) the single woman who was pregnant
ii) the man who was the father of the expected child
iii) the single woman's father

Both men were labourers, and the three people lived in different parishes.

They appeared before a Justice of the Peace at the March Quarter Sessions and a 'recognizance' of £10 was set for each man if the father of the expected child defaulted on his obligations according to the law on bastards 'from the eighteenth year of the late queen Elizabeth', i.e. about 1576. In fact, the father-to-be did not default and the recognizance became void. The word 'discharged' is handwritten at the top of the Bond.

These then are my questions:

1. Would both men have had to lodge the money with the court at the time of the Bond (12 March 1779)?
2. Would the Bond money have been held in safekeeping somewhere? If so, where?
3. Why was the single woman's father also party to the Bond?

In all other ways, this Bond seems straightforward - it is a 'pro forma' with just names/dates entered by hand by the JP.

Many thanks for help with this one - it is my first bastardy Bond and I did not know quite what to expect.

I have posted without naming names because the terms used in a Bond like this might also puzzle other people. But if you are curious about the names, then refer to: https://www.british-genealogy.com/threads/85807-1800-The-parents-are-alias-Ezard.-Meaning/page2 (#13).

Owl

[thewideeyedowl]

Have now done a bit more reading and also discussed it ('recogniznce') with someone who knows how 'bail' works. So, conclusions to date:
1. The 'recognizance' was a surety (in this case, £10) that would have to be paid if the subject of the Bond did not appear before the Justices at the Quarter Sessions. If the person did appear (and had fulfilled obligations?), then there would be nothing to pay. Basically, it worked in the same way as bail - money has to be paid only if the person bailed does not turn up,at court.
2. In the case under discussion, no money changed hands.

But I still need help/suggestions as to why the young woman's father was also named.

Have also found out that £10 in 1779 would be approximately equivalent to £1300 in 2015.

Well, that's it for today, folks - off to roost.

Owl

[Megan Roberts]

I suspect that the single woman’s father may have been drawn into this matter for one of either or a combination of (a) she was below the age of majority, and/or (b) she may have been residing in a different parish but probably her parish of settlement was the same as her father’s. This second point would have relevance if there was a question of the single woman needing parish relief, since the parish of residence would want to reclaim any monies from the parish of settlement. However, it is worth noting that after 1742 illegitimate children did not inherit its parents right to a settlement. Illegitimate children were deemed to be settled where they were born.

I don’t know the answers to your other questions.

[TerryJ]

Yes, she was 20 years of age when she gave birth and lived at home with her parents. The names of parents on the baptism record are given as hers and the name of her father as the father. The opinion on this is split, one thought is that the vicar of a very small parish would do this as a favour(just a little white lie) whereas the other school of thought is would 'a man of the cloth' do such a thing?

[Lesley Robertson]

I doubt whether he would have lied in his register, but then people often do what isn't expected.

Isn't this still within the time when women were regarded as the responsibility of their father until they married (hence the tradition of giving the bride away)?

[thewideeyedowl]

This was always intended to be a thread exploring the terms used in a Bastardy Bond/Recognizance, because that could be helpful to many people.

So, in my view, Megan in #3 has got it right - the Bastardy hearing had to take place because there were concerns about who was going to pay for the kid when it arrived. I have now studied, and also transcribed, the Recognizance and it is clear that the expected child would be chargeable upon the parish in which it was born. And they didn't want that! Though the expectant mother was living in that parish, she had been born in the neighbouring parish and her father still lived there. So I have to conclude that the expectant mother had settlement in the parish of her birth/her father. And that, presumably, was why her father was involved, even though at the time of the hearing she was in fact 21 (nearly 22).

The errant boyfriend lived in another parish.

TerryJ - a very warm welcome to Brit Gen. I am sending a PM because we need to check sources and dates.

Owl

[helachau]

My reading of these recognizance bonds is that surety was required that the subject of the bond would appear at the subsequent quarter sessions. If the individual could not meet the level of the bond set others could stand surety to meet the level set. Without the bond the "offender" was detained until these sessions were held.

Usually members of the family rallied round to provide surety if the subject of the bond couldn't meet the requirements. In this instance I read it that the father of the lady in question was standing surety - in a sense a vote of confidence in the subject of the bond.

You couldn't compel an individual to stand surety - it was voluntary ie. as in bail.

[Guy Etchells]

Have now done a bit more reading and also discussed it ('recogniznce') with someone who knows how 'bail' works. So, conclusions to date:
1. The 'recognizance' was a surety (in this case, £10) that would have to be paid if the subject of the Bond did not appear before the Justices at the Quarter Sessions. If the person did appear (and had fulfilled obligations?), then there would be nothing to pay. Basically, it worked in the same way as bail - money has to be paid only if the person bailed does not turn up,at court.
2. In the case under discussion, no money changed hands.

But I still need help/suggestions as to why the young woman's father was also named.

Have also found out that £10 in 1779 would be approximately equivalent to £1300 in 2015.

Well, that's it for today, folks - off to roost.

Owl

If the reputed father of the child was not of good standing in the parish then a second surety was required, in this case he was possibly on good terms (well know) with the young woman's father so he stepped in.

The child (being a bastard) would take his/her parish of birth as parish of settlement rather than his/her mother's parish.

I should also state that trying to relate how much a sum of money in 1799 would be worth today is fruitless depending on what comparatives one uses the results will be anything between £877 and £56,550.

Cheers
Guy

[helachau]

A Guide to Justices....", Joseph Higgs, 1734
B******s
A Mittimus of the Father for Want of Sureties
To the Constable of &c and to the Keeper of &c

Whereas R.G is brought before me, (being one of His Majesty's Justices of the Peace for this County) by a Warrant, requiring him, either to enter into a Bond with sufficient Sureties, to discharge the Parish where the b*****d Child or Children which shall be born of the Body of A.C single Woman, wherewith she is now pregnant; or to enter into Recognizance with sufficient Sureties for his personal Appearance at the next General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be holden for the said County, there to abide by what the Court shall order: and whereas R.G hath refused, or cannot find Sureties, either by Bond or Recognizance as aforesaid: These are therefore to require you, on Sight thereof, to convey the said R.G to the Gaol or House of Correction abovesaid, and deliver him to the Keeper thereof, to be by him kept until he shall enter into Bond, or Recognizance, with sufficient Sureties as aforesaid or shall be otherwise lawfully discharged. Given &c...

The man has been accused by the woman. He can immediately accept responsibility and meet any financial obligations. Or he might challenge the claim when Bond/Recognizances/Detention kick in.. He can enter into Recognizance, under his own surety to appear or, if he cannot, others will step in? Else detention.

www.ukbmd.org.uk/genuki/chs/CheshirePoorLaw.pdf

I did start searching this list for an example of someone standing surety with the same name as the woman - yet to find one. Plenty where the putative father and person standing surety share the same.

[thewideeyedowl]

Thank you very very much to everyone who is taking such an interest in this thread and providing so much useful info.

Though determined not to name names in this thread (which is exploring the handling of bastardy in the late 18th century), I have discovered some info that might throw further light on the case in question.

It looks as if the errant boyfriend was a lad of 18 - in fact, he would have been 17 when he got the girl pregnant - so, by the laws of the time, he was a minor when the case went to court. Would that have affected the issue? I have also been looking for a possible death for his possible father, but that quest has defeated me - just too 'if-fy'. My thinking was that if his own father had died, then perhaps the girl's father would step in because he (her dad) would want the best for his own daughter and unborn grandchild.

The word "discharged" is written at the very top of the Recognizance, so the boyfriend must have agreed to the terms and was not hauled off to prison. That seems to be the end of the matter, as far as the courts were concerned. I can find no further references to the case.

Finally, just a note to let you know that #4 in fact relates to a different thread in this Illegitimacy forum: https://www.british-genealogy.com/threads/86105-Where-Do-I-Go-From-Here.

Once again, many thanks to all!

Owl

[Lesley Robertson]

I don't suppose that they married later?

(Purely idle curiosity)

[thewideeyedowl]

Indeed they did - on 1 January 1780. Please see this thread for the names behind the anonymised folk: https://www.british-genealogy.com/threads/85807-1800-The-parents-are-alias-Ezard.-Meaning.

Owl

[helachau]

Quote - "George found himself bound by a recognizance of £10 to appear again at the next Quarter Sessions and Jane's father was also issued with a recognizance"

I don't think you were bound or were issued with a recognizance - you entered "voluntarily".

[thewideeyedowl]

OK - thanks again! Must admit that I am still struggling a little with exactly how the word could be used in a sentence (as evidenced by the quote in the post above). Is there any guidance on that? As 'recognizance' is like 'bail', does it behave the same way grammatically? Suggestions and queries below:

'on recognizance' (?), as in 'on bail' (But is it possible to say 'on a/the rcognizance'?)
'stand recognizance for...' (?), as in 'stand bail for...' If it refers to a person; but if to an amount possibly: 'stand recognizance of £10'(??)
'answer recognizance' (?), as in 'answer bail' (?)
'recognizanced to..' (?), as in 'bailed to..' (?)

And just so that we can all get a very full picture of the word 'recognizance' - (:sleep1:) - here is the entry for it in SOED, reset/revised 1980 from the 1973 edition:

https://www.british-genealogy.com/extensions/uploads/ed07a7ad-c72d-4157-a901-d72033ed52bc.jpg

And, very very finally, here are some sources for info/background if you are researching a Bastardy Bond/Recognizance or suchlike:

http://alanmacfarlane.com/TEXTS/bastardy.pdf (That is his 2002 article "Illegitimacy and illegitimates in English history" in a revised edition of a 1980 book); AM is an historian and anthropologist.

Family Search has a Wiki page on this, which can be a good starting point: https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Illegitimacy_in_England.

And some of the info in this one made me smile: http://www.madaboutgenealogy.com/illegitimacy-documents/. (I loved the 'what she would have said/what he would have said'.)

Owl