Archiver > ABERDEEN > 2007-10 > 1193409004

From: "ann zeman" <>
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] returning to Boddoms
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:30:04 -0700
References: <c7c.16b02bb6.3451a76b@aol.com> <472050C2.9030202@which.net><00b601c816e1$4592cb40$6401a8c0@Lyn> <4720ACDA.9010505@which.net><BAY114-DAV1404CEEA429ED5832667CFD9950@phx.gbl><4721A57F.10109@which.net>

Thanks, Gavin, once again. Your knowledge is such an asset to this forum!
I have one other question I forgot to add to the previous:
Some families are paying tax for their children--example: "George
Cruickshank, tennent, of valuatione is 7s. 6d., with his oun, his wyfe, his
sone, and daughter in familia, their poll is....1 11 06"
As above, sometimes the son or daughter is not named, sometimes is, but
William Mitchell and his wife, who according to OPR at this time had at
least 3 quite small children, has no children mentioned.
Question is: was there an age after which children paid tax and if they were
small they were exempt? I'm trying to understand why no children were
mentioned for him.

And, was there a poll a few years later that has been transcribed for us,
that might mention the names of the children?
Thanks again
Ann Zeman

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Bell" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 1:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] returning to Boddoms

ann zeman wrote:

>I ordered the People of Belhelvie and Newmachar 1696 poll booklet, and
>my William Mitchell, and now I have some questions.
>A list of tenants is given, with Robert Mar given as Tennent, and other
>names are followed by the term "ther,". What does "ther" signify?

It is an old spelling for "there", meaning that he lived in the same
place. The "tennent" was the one who paid a rent to the landlord, while
the others "ther" probably paid in kind or in labour to the "tennent".

>It seems
>to be other than servent, as they are identified as such. Would it be a
>laborer? William Mitchell's name is followed by "ther", and his and his
>wife's share looks like 14 shillings, compared to the tenant's share, one
>pound and four shillings. Don't know whether any info is to be gleaned from

I think it means he was some kind of sub-tenant, not directly employed
by the main tenant, but probably paying him in labour or kind for the
use of a small bit of land.

>Also, as I read through the booklet, it appears that the wealthy landowners
>are either excused as gentlemen from paying tax (!) or their proportion of
>the valuation is divided up and paid by their tenants (?) Am I

I suspect you may be mis-counting. I don't have the Belhelvie and
Newmachar Poll Tax booklet to hand, but in Longside the list starts:

The valuation of the whole parioch is £4592-11-0
The Earl Marischall his valuation is £1572-11-0
His tennents proportiones thereof is £15-14-6

The "Poll Tax" was complicated, and in fact was not a simple tax "per
head". There was an amount payable based on the rental value of the
parish, an amount payable on money income or sums invested, and the
actual "Poll Money" of 6 shillings-per-head.

I take the above summary to mean that out of the total of £1572-11-0
due on rental values, £15-14-6 (the 100th part) was paid by his tenants,
leaving £1556-16-6 of the rental-based assessment to be paid directly by
the Earl. The balance of £3036-14-6 for the parish as a whole was then
made up of the 6 shillings-per-head flat-rate plus whatever additional
amounts people may have been liable for their money income and savings.

This parish is unusual in that there is a single "heritor" or landowner,
the Earl Marischall, but if you look at the start of the list for
Belhelvie or Newmachar I suspect you will find a similar overall
valuation for the parish, with a proportion assigned to the "heritors",
a figure representing the 100th part of that payable by the tenants, and
the balance made up of poll and individual income-based sums.

There are entries like the following:

"John Dalgardno at Milne of Rora, for his pairt of the said valuation
6s-8d, but being a gentleman, is not liable therfor: £3-6-0"

- but I think this is a case of the taxman giving with one hand and
taking away with the other. Gentlemanly status apparently excuses John
from paying his share of the rental valuation, and the 6
shillings-per-head, but he obviously had significant wealth in other
forms, so is paying for that. I suspect the assumption was that
"gentlemen" would have sufficient investments to make it not worthwhile
chasing them for minor sums because they would be caught by other parts
of the taxation.

Gavin Bell

To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: