e, betwixt sunrise on the one day and sunrise
on the next. We can easily understand the overmastering desire of the
warden's deputy to lay Kinmont "by the heels," as he had long been
notorious for his depredations on the English Border, but it is incumbent
on the representatives of the law that they should honour it in their own
persons, and, however many crimes might be laid to the charge of the
famous freebooter, he was justly entitled to enjoy the freedom, which a
wise legal provision had secured, even to the greatest offenders. The
excuse given by Scrope for this manifest breach of Border law is an
exceedingly lame one. He says:--"How Kinmont was taken will appear by the
attestations of his takers, which, if true, 'it is held that Kinmont did
thereby break the assurance that daye taken, and for his offences ought to
be delivered to the officer against whom he offended, to be punished
according to discretion.' Another reason for detaining him is his
notorious enmity to this office, and the many outrages lately done by his
followers. He appertains not to Buccleuch, but dwells out of his office,
and was also taken beyond the limits of his charge, so Buccleuch makes the
matter a mere pretext to defer justice, 'and do further indignities.'"[94]

That Kinmont had broken the assurance taken at the warden court is an
assertion in support of which neither has "takers," nor Scrope give a
scintilla of proof. Had such a thing really happened, there surely would
have been no difficulty in establishing the fact; but this is not done, or
even attempted to be done, by those whose interest it was to prove the
accusation up to the hilt. The other reasons adduced for this
unwarrantable proceeding will not bear serious consideration. That Kinmont
bore no goodwill to Scrope or those associated with him in his office, may
be taken for granted; and that he and his friends and associates had been
guilty of many outrages on the English Border, goes without saying. But a
slight examination of the excuses will be sufficient to show that they are
mere subterfuges. The point in dispute is carefully left out of view by
the English warden. No doubt Kinmont richly deserved to suffer the utmost
penalty of the law on the ground of his misdemeanours; but he had been
present at the warden court, where he would never have gone had he not
felt sure that he was amply protected from arrest by the law to which we
have referred. It may be said that nearly eve