130 KIRKCUDBRIGHT IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY. 
? 
“Mlynburnes,’’ on the east side of the common street, for 2s of 
ground annual, for the erection of a house; and he is taken 
bound to build in line with the mill wall. In February, 1584, a 
number of plots lying north and west of the “ Moit,’’ or Moat, 
are let in feu at 3s 4d each. In one case the length is specified 
at sixty feet. The Moat Well is also mentioned in the descrip- 
tion of boundaries. On 11th February, 1579, a sale is made 
to Robert Hall, burgess, of certain “common land beneth the 
toun and at the buttis,’’ as it shall be “ proppit and markit ”’ 
by certain persons appointed and sworn for the purpose. The 
price is to be forty merks. Of that sum, the Council assigns 
£20 to John Foster, a former Treasurer, in payment of a debt 
due to him; and ten merks to James Cant, “ wardane’’ (who 
was also the Kirkmaster), in settlement of his claim, probably 
for arrear of salary. These payments absorb the whole sum. 
It would seem, therefore, that it was the pinch of necessity 
which compelled the community to part with so many slices of 
their birth right. An incidental reference in a court case to a 
private person, Hercules Hal, uplifting 30s yearly “maills of 
the Castledykes ’’ (16th Dec., 1579), shews that before the year 
1572 the burgh had parted with this portion of their patrimony, 
of which they received a royal gift in 1509. 
The Boreland farms were then, as now, one of the most 
important possessions of the town. They, as well as common 
lands lying around the burgh, were divided into “ skairs,’’ or 
plots of equal size, regarding which the original rule would 
seem to have been that they should be let annually to the bur- 
gesses ; but with that persistent tendency to expansion that seems 
inherent in “the rights of property’’ those who were at first 
annual tenants subsequently secured long leases, and with the 
lapse of time acquired a prescriptive interest in their holding 
that put them almost on the footing of proprietors. Of the in- 
convenience arising from this state of matters, and the way in 
which it operated to the prejudice of other burgesses, we have 
evidence in the following elaborate minute of date May, 
1580 :— 
“The qlk day the Provost, Bailzeis, Counsall, and com- 
munitie of the said burgh, being conveint in the tolbuith of the 
same, in ane assensit court, understanding that the common 
landis beneth the said burgh wir gevin be thame in feu to the 
