The object is to burst out suddenly with one of the fictitious names, and thus take the party bearing it by surprise. If the individual mentioned, not immediately recollecting the name he bore, failed, on the instant, to say “No me,” by way of denying the accusation respecting the dog, he was subjected to a forfeit; and this equally happened if he cried “No me,” when it was the name of another person which was mentioned. The forfeits were disposed of as in the former case.—_Popular Rhymes_, pp. 125-126. It will be seen that the first version of Chambers more nearly resembles “Hey Wullie Wine” (vol. i. p. 207), and that the latter part of the version given by Mactaggart is similar to “Three Flowers” (ante, p. 255, and the first part to “Trades,” p. 305). Mr. W. Ballantyne sent me a version from Biggar as played when he was a boy. It is similar to Mactaggart’s. This game may indicate an earlier form of playing at forfeits than the “Old Soldier,” “Turn the Trencher,” and kindred English games. Mactaggart does not state that any article belonging to the person who perpetrates the offence was given up and afterwards redeemed by the owner performing a penalty. In Chambers’ versions this is done. It may be that, in Mactaggart’s case, each offending person paid his or her penalty immediately after committing the blunder or offence instead of a leader collecting the forfeits from all offenders first, and then “crying” all together afterwards. Whether the game originated in the practice of “tabu,” or was an outcome of the custom of restitution, or ransom, legally made for the commission of crimes, such as that called wergeld, the penalty or price to be paid to the relatives of a slain man, or of punishment for certain offences then being in the hands of a certain class of people, we cannot now decide; but it was customary for penalties to be attached to the commission of minor offences, and the punishment enforced without appeal to any legally constituted authority. The object of most of the present forfeit games seems to have been to make the offenders ridiculous, or, in the case of the above form of games, to find out the person loved or hated. In Shropshire “Crying the Weds” is the name given to the game of playing at forfeits. Wadd means a pledge. Jamieson says “Wears” signifies the “Wars.” “At the wars” is a common mode still retained of describing the life of a soldier. Ihre supposes that the early term wadd or wed is derived from wadd-cloth, from this kind of merchandise being anciently given and received instead of money; when at any time a pledge was left, a piece of cloth was used for this purpose, and hence a pledge in general would be called wadd. In Waldron’s description of the Isle of Man (ante, vol. i. p. 139) is an account of a Twelfth Day custom which throws light on the game as described by Chambers. See “Forfeits,” “Hey Wullie Wine,” “Three Flowers,” “Trades.” Wadds and the Wears (2)