SIR,-I am obliged to Mr Carrick for his lengthy and courteous reply to my note on the above subject; but he must permit me to say that nothing it contains leads me to alter my opinion or to understand his. He seeks to minimise the historical quarrel between Burns and Creech as the only instance on record of any quarrel

between them." This is rather on the lines of the excuse offered by the man who was accused of inebriety, that " he had been drunk only once for the last twenty years," and which was found to cover the fact that he had never been sober all that time! If there was only one quarrel between Burns and his publisher it was long enough and bitter enough to cut up into a score of average misunderstandings.

The facts of the case seem to be these. Creech was a cautious man of business, and very naturally looked on the products of Burns's muse from the intelligible standpoint of profit and loss. "As to the merit of the book and its interest," he frankly said, "there can be no doubt; the question of sale is what I have to consider." It is also extremely natural, having undertaken to produce the work, he should speak warmly of it in some of the numerous and short-lived journals he issued. But the praise of a publisher for the wares he has to dispose of need not be interpreted as the sign of a warm and devoted friendship to the man who had originally produced them.

In the after transactions that ensued between author and publisher, one is bound to say that Creech does not appear to very high advantage. It seems impossil le to acquit him of remissness and negligence in his dealings with the Poet, though one may not be quite prepared to go so far as some historians and accuse him of craft or worse. The impression that would be left on the minds of most unbiassed readers after a careful study of the subject is that Creech, with some sincere admiration for Burns, looked upon him in a strictly professional light, and was not averse to making out of him as much grist for the mill as he could. All which is quite natural and right enough, but contains not the least warrant for embalming him in history as one of the best friends Burns ever had."

66

To show that the above is well within fact let me quote some references that Burns makes to Creech in his correspondence. To save space I omit the names of those who received the letters, but give the dates :--

Sept. 28, 1787.-" I am determined not to leave Edinburgh till I wind up my affairs with Mr Creech, which I am afraid will be a tedious business.'

Nov. 6, 1787.-" This day will decide my affairs with Creech. Things are, like myself, not what they ought to be; but better than what they appear to be."

January, 1788.-" I have broke measures with Creech, and last week I wrote him a frosty keen letter. He replied in terms of chastisement, and promised me, upon his honour, that I shall have the account on Monday; but this is Tuesday, and yet I have not heard a word from him. God have mercy upon me, a poor... incautious, duped, unfortunate fool."

May 25. 1788.-" I am really uneasy about that money which Mr Creech owes me per note in your hand."

January 4, 1789.- "I cannot boast of Mr Creech's ingenuous fair dealing to me. He kept me hanging about Edinburgh from 7th August, 1787, until the 13th April, 1788, before he would give me a statement of affairs; nor had I got it even then but for an angry letter I wrote him, which irritated his pride. I could-not a tale, but a detail, unfold; but what am I that I should speak against the Lord's anointed Bailie of Edinburgh ?"

And then this, after two years:

October, 1791.-"I have not been so lucky in my farming. Mr Miller's kindness has been just such another as Creech's was : but this for your private ear :—

'His meddling vanity, a busy fiend,

Still making work, his selfish craft must mend.'

By the way, I have taken a d- d vengeance of Creech. He wrote me a fine, fair letter telling me that he was to print a third edition; and as he had a broker's care of my fame, he wished to add everything new I have written since, and I should be amply rewarded with a copy or two to present to my friends! He has sent me a copy of the last edition to correct, but I have as yet taken no notice of it, and I hear he has published without me. You know, and all my friends know, that I do not value money; but I owed the gentleman a debt which I am happy to have it in my power to repay."

Pretty good all this between the best of friends!

Mr Carrick makes much of the fact of Creech having procured for Burns the notice and patronage of the Lord Glencairn. Again, with the utmost courtesy, is this a fact? My friend's words are: Had young Glencairn and Creech not been brought up together by Mrs Creech in Dalkeith, Burns would never have enjoyed Glencairn's powerful help and patronage." The real facts are these: Provost Ballantyne of Ayr introduced the Poet to Mr Dalrymple of Orangefield, who was a near relative by marriage to Glencairn, to whom he introduced Burns. It was after this that Lord Glencairn showed practically his interest in Burns by bringing him into contact with Creech as a possible publisher. Burns's own words are, in 1786: I have found (in Edinburgh) a worthy warm friend

in Mr Dalrymple of Orangefield, who introduced me to Lord Glencairn, a man whose worth and brotherly kindness to me I shall remember when time will be no more." This is surely explicit enough as to the channel of acquaintanceship with Lord Glencairn.

66

One has no quarrel with Creech. All that a student of the past, who has no theory to support, desires, is to strip him of borrowed, or rather of bestowed plumes. 10 call Mr Creech one of the best friends Burns ever had," in the face of the facts may be charity, but to my humble thinking it is far from being

HISTORY.

66

SIR,-There seems little use in continuing a correspondence in which one side consistently ignores evidence and statements which do not support it. History" brings up all the references to the quarrel between Burns and Creech, and occupies half a column with the extracts. In my little book on William Creech I have given due justice and have quoted the sarcastic lines of Burns as to his publisher friend, but all “ History's" quotations are reduced to worthlessness when Burns himself negatived all he had said and written in prose and verse against Creech by declaring that at last Creech gathered in the profits of his poems and had been quite "amicable and fair." The hard-up Poet grumbled through a couple of years as to not getting money, but at last he was quite satisfied. As to Glencairn's patronage, I am quite aware that it was Glencairn who brought Burns to Creech. The formal introduction of Burns to Glencairn was, I am aware, through Dalrymple; but this does not invalidate my statement that the early relationship between Creech and Glencairn as boys together made both take a warmer interest in the struggling Poet than they would otherwise have done. Indeed, History's reference to Burns's formal introduction to Glencairn is only another proof of Creech's power; for that nobleman could think of no kinder or more practically helpful turn that he could do to the struggling ploughman than introduce him to his old schoolfellow and friend, Willie Creech. For old friendship's sake Creech interested himself in Burns and changed Glencairn's formal and casual patronage into warm interest and practical helpfulness.

History calmly passes over all the proofs which I offered of Creech's friendly interest in Burns, his admitting him into the inner literary circle, his advertisement of the ploughman's genius and power in his magazines, his publishing of his works, and the undoubted fact that Creech practically opened the doors of Edinburgh learning and Society to the Ayrshire peasant. Burns acknowledged all this with gratitude. Cromek's Reliques of Burns

has many such references.

Take the Poet's letter to his publisher of 13th May, 1787: "My honoured friend, the inclosed I have just wrote nearly extempore in a solitary inn in Selkirk after a miserable wet day's riding. Yesterday I dined with Lady Hariet, sister to my noble patron, quem deus conservet [Glencairn's sister-in-law, Lady Harriet Dunn]. I could write till I would tire you as much with dull prose as I daresay by this time you are with wretched verse. But I am jaded to death, so with a grateful farewell, I have the honour to be, good sir, yours sincerely, Robert Burns." What was the use or purpose of Burns writing" Willie's awa'" unless he meant the sentiments of gratitude and respect ?

Others are

Eliminating the references in Burns's letters and poem to the unfortunate quarrel between Poet and publisher as to gathering in the profits, which Burns declared was finally accomplished honourably and fairly, I can see nothing to point to anything but friendship between the two. And certainly it would have been strange if the warm and generous heart of the Ayrshire Poet had not responded to the help and patronage of one who had so much power and influence in his hands. In my preface to William Creech I ventured to say, after enumerating the friendships of Lawrie, Blacklock, Glencairn, and Dugald Stewart, that " probably the most practical and useful friend Burns ever had was Willie Creech, who in song and letter is often referred to by him." Consideration of your space and other reasons deter me from adding other proofs than those I have offered that Creech was one of Burns's best friends, if not his very best. Personally, I think, in view of his practical help to the poor struggling Bard, he was the very best. equally entitled to their opinion. But in proof that I do not stand alone in my estimate of Creech's helpfulness to and friendship for Burns, it need only be said that when the idea of memorialising him in the place where he was born was suggested, all the leading Burns Clubs in the country subscribed to the movement; while at the service of unveiling, the Masonic Lodge of which both Creech and Burns were members came from Edinburgh in full force, headed by their Grand Master, to do honour to Burns's friend and benefactor, while the head of the Lodge, together with the Provost of Dalkeith and the descendants of Creech, unveiled the brass in Newbattle Church, to which most of them had been subscribers. In a leaflet drawn up independently for the use of the Canongate Kilwinning Lodge by the Grand Master-specially prepared for his ceremony of unveiling the ordinarily accepted view of Creech as Burns's friend and benefactor is taken, and I am quite sure History" will believe that Creech would not have had these honours paid him by independent bodies and individuals, had he been the " potato-counting Screw " which your anonymous correspondent would have us to believe he was. A great patron of letters and a great Lord-Provost,

66

his character is well described on the forgotten but splendid monument in Greyfriars' Churchyard, Edinburgh, which the city raised in honour of him at the public expense-a monument which is, alas! like the others in that historic God's acre, rapidly decaying. Creech was a great literary and social power in his day, and the valuable Raeburn portraits of him, still in the possession of his descendants, Sir Patrick Heron Watson, M.D., Charlotte Square, and Dr BoogWatson, reveal a fine face. His own magazines and Fugitive Pieces show him to have been a man of quick discernment and wide views -not a mere "man with the muck-rake." My friend" History's " story suggests another: When Tom Hood was dining at his friend Jerdan's, a large party being assembled, one of the guests indulged in some wonderful accounts of his shooting, very much after the manner of the " golf lie." "the fisherman's fib " as to the salmon which escaped, the razor which only cost a shilling, and the millionaire who entered the town with only a sixpence in his pocket. Descant

ing on the number of birds he had killed, the distance at which he had brought them down, and the character of the feathered ones who escaped his deadly fire, he at last raised the irresistible Hood into humour, who thereupon dropped into poetry and said :

"What he hit is history;

What he missed is mystery."

When History" can describe Creech in his relationship to Burns as he does-dwelling only on their temporary disagreement, and forgetting and ignoring all the rest-I think your readers will agree with me that while "what he hit is history so far as the Burns-Creech quarrel is concerned, still" what he missed is mystery so far as a proper appreciation of Creech is involved.-I am, &c.

Newbattle, 22nd June, 1904.

J. C. CARRICK.

SIR, I am quite willing to accept the hint contained in Mr Carrick's last letter that it is no use continuing this correspondence. But if we have not succeeded in convincing each other, we have shown, I hope, that a controversy on a purely historical question can be carried on with perfect courtesy and good-nature.

In exercising my right of replying on the discussion, I put aside as not germane to the question at issue Mr Carrick's references to the function lately held in Newbattle Church in memory of Creech. Nor have I ever attacked what Mr Carrick has written in his book on Creech, from which he makes extracts, as I have not had the pleasure of reading that work. It was the statement in your