Thk Raid at Ditmfries on Lammas Kven. '.<7 



hurgh. The latter, therefore, based its chiim upon posses- 

 sion with, as we shall hear, a reservation as to title. 



On 1 2th May the case was duly considered by the Lords 

 of Council. The Provost protested that whatever the Lords 

 did in the case should not hurt the burgh, for he would not 

 admit that they were competent judges as to the groumi 

 right or ownership, but only as to the possession or exercise 

 of the right. ^ He further offered to prove the possession to 

 have been held by the burgh " past memor of man." Lorti 

 Crichton asked note that whereas he produced a charter 

 under the Great Seal as his title his adversaries produced 

 nothing. 



Then occurs a curious incident illustrative of that inter- 

 ference with the course of justice which we do not so lightly 

 regard nowadays, but which in the sixteenth century was a 

 necessary adjunct to a King. The burgh was in possession 

 of a letter from the Crown forbidding Lord Crichton to hold 

 ■courts of blood in Dumfries without definite permission from 

 the King. This Crichton appealed against, and the Lords of 

 Council ad\ ised the King to suspend the letter " cognition 

 •of the causs not being had." The rest of the action they 

 continued to 28th July.^^ The decision of the Council was a 

 set back to Dumfries, and might have meant further blood- 

 shed. The King, however, did not take the advice of the 

 Council, and appears to have snubbed them, for two days 

 later they meekly retracted their advice. The phraseology 

 by which the Council saved its dignity is curious. " The 

 Kingis hienes wt avise of his lords of counsale forsaid under- 

 stands that his grace knew perfirle quhy he gaif the said 

 lettres quhilk wes for the stanching of debats and effeusioun 

 of blude that myt happen betuix the s;'id pertijs through tlie 

 balding of the saidis courts as has bene committet ellis likeas 

 the sade lord creichtone grantit tham befor the Kingis grace 

 and his saids lords." We are also given Lord Crichton's 

 belief with regard to his rights. Ho " granted elikewise 

 that nouther he nor his fader was in possession of blude in 



50 MS. Acta Dom., Vol. XX., fol. 20:{ ; r/V/r Appendix VI. 



51 Op. cit., Vol. XX.. fol. 204. 



