66

borrowing small sums from his friends between quarter-day and quarter-day, which were all punctually refunded. But what, it may be asked, can be said regarding his last despairing cry, Save me from the horrors of a jail?" Over twelve years ago, it was my good fortune to discover in Dumfries the whole documents connected with the trust estate of the Poet, the acting members of which took upon themselves the realisation of his effects for behoof of his widow and family. They are official documents, in the hand of Wm. Thomson, a local lawyer, who acted for the family when Currie's edition was in preparation, countersigned by Gilbert and Mrs Burns, and are now in the Burns Museum, Kilmarnock, having been purchased on advice given to the Corporation of that town. From these documents (ten in number) we learn that the sum total of Burns's debts at the date of his death was £14 15s, and the balance of Gilbert's loan amounted to £183 16s 7d. His books and furniture are not valued. Some of the entries in Gilbert's accounting are exceedingly interesting. For instance, they inform us that the Poet paid regularly for the boarding, clothing, and education of "dear bought Bess to the day of his death, and he also allowed his mother an annuity of £5, also paid regularly every year. A man who accomplished all this, and left a sum of £180, exclusive of moveable effects, to his widow, cannot be described as dying steeped to the lips in poverty. His hysterical appeal to George Thomson and his cousin at Montrose for the loan of £5 was the expiring cry of his independent spirit about to be set free from the weak tabernacle of clay. He required not to go so far afield. Scores of his Dumfries friends would immediately have paid the draper's bill which so discomposed him, and which had been sent in the ordinary course of business, with no threat, or the slightest shadow of it, of legal proceedings. It must have been paid by one or other of his friends, for it does not appear in the posthumous list of debts. The remittances from Thomson and his cousin arrived too late, and were cashed by Mrs Burns

after the necessary legal steps, several weeks after his death. A full account of these documents will be found in the Burns Chronicle (No. IX., 1900), and also in a newspaper article which appeared in the Glasgow Herald (December 11th, 1899).

The full estate of the Poet was not declared in Dumfries Sheriff Court. Gilbert pled inability to repay his brother's

loan without bankruptcy, and as a matter of fact, neither his debt, nor any part of it, was discharged till 1820. This may have given currency to the poverty fiction, but the discovery of the real facts has exploded it as effectually as the atrocious libel of the Merry Muses, which we have dealt with in former numbers of the Chronicle.

EDITOR.

GEORGE THOMSON TO PROF. WILSON.

Edinburgh, 14th January, 1818.

Dear Sir, I presume you know that Gilbert Burns has been employed by Cadell & Davis, booksellers, as the Editor of a new edition of his brother's Works, and to add such information as he may think proper to give relative to his life or writings.

This affords him a fair opportunity of correcting what has been unjustly asserted to the prejudice of the Poet's character by his different Biographers or Critics. He has accordingly written, in his own mild and modest way, what he means to say; and has replied to the very strong statement which Dr Currie made as to the Poet's dissipation, and the neglect of all his duties, in his latter years chiefly, by a reference to letters from Mr Findlater, now Collector of Excise in Glasgow, and Mr James Gray, of the High School, who lived in Dumfries at the time-both having had occasion to see the Poet daily, and having been perfectly well acquainted with his habits and way of life. And surely the voluntary testimony of respectable men, speaking of what passed under their own eyes, is far better entitled to credence than any opposite statement which Dr Currie confided in, upon the information of persons unknown or from rumour.

Against the Doctor, however, Gilbert Burns does not mean to say a word ;* he must have been misled by his informers, and could not err otherways-for the candour and uprightness of his mind would not have permitted him to assert anything which he himself did not believe to be correct.

Unhappily, however, Dr Currie's statement has been made a text upon which the most offensive commentaries and unfounded calumnies have been raised by successive Biographers and Reviewers. This, I think, is manifest from the letters of Collector Findlater and Mr Gray, contained in the paper drawn up by Gilbert Burns, which I beg leave to send you.

If you would take the trouble to peruse that paper, and are satisfied on the subject, then the favour which I take the liberty to ask of you, for the sake of your great poetical brother, and for the sake of truth, is, that you would take up the pen, and write a short review of the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews of Burns;

* In one connection, Gilbert says: 'Dr Currie is wrong here, but he must not be contradicted."--[ ED.].

such as brother.

might be added to Gilbert's Vindication of his injured

I have been induced thus far to presume on your good nature, and your generous sympathy in the cause of Genius, by reading in the Vindication of Wordsworth (generally attributed to you), some remarks on one of those Reviews of Burns, which are so eloquent and powerful and just as to be equally creditable to the head and the heart of their author, whoever he may be. If they are yours you could, from the documents which I now place in your hands, enlarge and complete them, and thus render an act of justice to the memory of the great Bard who has done so much honour to his .country.

Many a time has my heart ached to read both the Edinburgh and Quarterly Review of Burns. On reading the fourth, fifth, and sixth pages of the former, it seemed to me as if the Critic had sat down to his ungracious task with a strong prejudice against the Poet's character, and a sort of aristocratical feeling as if the pride of the Scholar could not brook the elevated rank attained by the Ploughman. How else can we account for the supercilious and harsh tone of the Review, more calculated to lower the man than to do justice to the Poet? Could anything be more flippant than the first sentence? "Burns is certainly by far the greatest of our poetical prodigies from Stephen Duck down to Thomas Dermody." 'Ducks and Dermodys hitched into the same line with Burns! This is but poorly redeemed by our being told that the two latter are already forgotten while the name of Burns has not yet gathered all its fame. But the climax of the Reviewer's illiberal and unjust account of Burns's character and writings is to be found in the long paragraph which begins thus : But the leading vice in Burns's character, and the cardinal deformity indeed of all his productions, was his contempt, or affectation of contempt, for prudence, decency and regularity," &c., &c., The man that could thus characterise the poetry of Burns, could only have opened the volumes here and there. If he had read them through, it is impossible that he could thus have spoken of them; and were we, in the language of Scottish law, to call on him for a condescendance he would find it necessary to beg pardon for his rash and unfounded and unqualified assertions.

66

If he meant merely the Letters of Burns, why did he not say so? Even these would not bear out the Critic in his sweeping character of all the productions of Burns. This observation is not applicable even to many of the letters; but supposing for a moment that it is applicable to all the letters, they were not published by their author, but were gathered from all quarters after his death; and it may fairly be asked, whether it is just or liberal to make Burns responsible for epistolary effusions not written for the public eye, and in the

'publication of which he had no voice whatever? It would have been no more than candid in the person seated as a judge upon the productions of the Bard, whose voice could not be raised in his own defence, to have distinguished between the poems published by himself, having the benefit of his revision and correction, and those careless epistles obtained from his various correspondents, many of which he would probably have put into the fire if he had been alive.

The Reviewer, however, does not seem to have attended to this important consideration, or to have discriminated between what was deliberately given to the public by Burns himself, and what were posthumous, and not intended by him for publication at all— I mean his letters.

66

He goes on to tell us that Burns is perpetually making a parade of his thoughtlessness, inflammability, and imprudence, and talking with much complacency and exultation of the offence he has occasioned to the sober and correct part of mankind ;" and he alleges that "this odious slang infects almost all his prose (his letters), and a very great proportion of his poetry.” Is this a correct account of Burns, or is it not a most exaggerated caricature ?

Of a kin to this is the observation about "the cruelty and baseness of spending, in vain superfluities, that money which belongs of right to the pale industrious tradesman and his famishing infants, and of raving about friendship and philanthropy in a tavern while his wife's heart is breaking at her cheerless fireside, and his children pining in solitary poverty." The justice of the general observation is undeniable; but why does the Reviewer introduce it, but for the cruel and unjust purpose of its being applied by the reader to the character of Burns, who, far from being such a man, was well known to be most affectionate, both as a father and a husband? His widow, I know, has uniformly said so, and the gentlemen before-mentioned had the best access to see the marked attention which he paid to the education of his children. And it is a well-known truth-which of itself shews how cruelly the character of Burns has been libelled-that although his income from the Excise did not exceed from £40 to £70 a year, he died without being £5 in debt.* This circumstance affords irrefragable proof of misrepresentation on the part of the Reviewer, when he asserted that the leading vice in Burns was his contempt for prudence, decency, and regularity.

That Burns was fond of society cannot be matter either of doubt or surprise, and it is notorious that in Scotland the society of gentlemen is seldom obtained without the circulation of the bottle. Do

*Mr Thomson is in error here. See supra. [Ed.].