128 AN INCIDENT IN THE HisToRY OF KIRKCUDBRIGHT. 
pledge for Kirkcudbright, described as a “pretty haven,’’ was 
“ Barnaby Douglas’s son,’’ described as worth nothing. 
More than forty years later a new Meikle Yett appears to 
have been considered necessary. According to a minute of 
Council of 19th April, 1590, the building of the Meikle Yett was 
let to Herbert Gladstanes. The details are all carefully speci- 
fied, and the height was to be such that “himself and his grey 
horse riding may not reik the hand to the pien stane thereof.” 
The next we hear of the Meikle Yett is about a century and a-half 
later. In the Council minutes of 3rd September, 1739, we have 
a further reference to it. John Kerr, mason in Kirkcudbright, 
petitions the “Right Honourable the Magistrates and Town 
Council of Kirkcudbright for the sum of £6 11s 11d, the balance 
of an account for £12 7s 3d for having two years previously built 
and finished the port of the burgh on the same place where the 
old port called the Meikle Yett stood.’? The Council ordered 
the petitioner to produce his contract and acts of Council to 
which he ought to refer. Kerr expressed his surprise that he was 
ordered to do this. He was unable to do so. However, the 
past Bailies and great part of the past Council knew very well 
he was employed; “yea, they desired me to do the work, and 
engaged to pay me or see me paid.’’ Kerr proceeds that the 
work testified for itself, and the account given in by him in his 
former petition “this day will stand tryall before any Corporation 
or quorum of crafts, and sure I ought (to receive) payment, as it 
could not be alleged I owe the town any sum, nor promised, nor 
was it in my power to do it gratis. Please, therefore,’’ proceeds 
the earnest “cry and prayer,’’ “to order me payment of the said 
balance, to prevent putting your past members, who engaged to 
see me paid, to further trouble. Your gracious answer is still 
humbly expected.’’ 
The Council’s answer was the laconic one—“ Adheres to the 
Inter Loquitor in the petitioner’s petition this day.’’ In 1771 
the community petitioned to have it removed, and the Magis- 
trates, “being of opinion that it was no longer required for de- 
fence, and that its removal would not only be an improvement to 
the street, but encourage building eastwards, granted the re- 
quest.’’ In consideration of the sum of ten guineas, and his 
engaging to erect a new house immediately to the north of where 
the gate stood, it was sold to Mr Freeland, a merchant, and, if 
