by Robert Burns
To an Old Sweetheart
Wrote on the Blank Leaf of a copy of my First Edition, which I sent to an old Sweetheart, then married
First printed by Currie, 1800.
Once fondly lov’d, and still rememb’red dear,
Sweet early Object of my youthful vows,
Accept this mark of friendship, warm, sincere,
Friendship —’ tis all cold duty now allows.
And while you read the simple, artless rhymes,
One friendly sigh for him — he asks no more,
Who, distant, burns in flaming torrid climes,
Or haply lies beneath th’ Atlantic roar.
Written in 1786 after the Kilmarnock volume appeared and sent to Peggy Thomson. A copy was written into the Glenriddel manuscript where it is recorded that Peggy Thomson was the person addressed. The last line may echo Henry King’s death by drowning in Milton’s Lycidas.
Extempore Verses on Dining with Lord Daer
Mossgiel, October 25th.
First printed in Stewart & Meikle’s pamphlets, 1799.
This wot all ye whom it concerns,
I, Rhymer Rab, alias BURNS,
October twenty-third,
A ne’er to be forgotten day!
5 Sae far I sprachl’d up the brae, so, clambered, hillside
I dinner’d wi’ a LORD.
I’ve been at drucken Writers’ feasts; drunken
Nay, been bitch-fou ’mang godly Priests; very drunk
(Wi’ rev’rence be it spoken!)
10 I’ve even join’d the honor’d jorum,
When mighty Squireships o’ the Quorum
Their hydra drouth did sloken. thirst, satisfy
But wi’ a LORD! — stand out my shin! shoes
A LORD — a PEER — an EARL’S SON —
15 Up higher yet, my bonnet!
An’ sic a LORD — lang Scotch ells twa; such, long, over six foot
Our PEERAGE he looks o’er them a’,
As I look o’er my sonnet.
But O! for Hogarth’s magic pow’r,
20 To show Sir Bardie’s willyart glow’r, awkward stare
An’ how he star’d an’ stammer’d!
When goavan’s he’d been led wi’ branks, staring stupidly, bridle
An’ stumpan on his ploughman shanks, tramping, legs
He in the parlour hammer’d.
25 To meet good Stewart1 little pain is
Or Scotia’s sacred Demosthenes,2
Thinks I, they are but men!
But Burns, my Lord — Guid God! I doited, stammered
My knees on ane anither knoited, one another, knotted
30 As faultering I gaed ben! faltering, went in
I sidling shelter’d in a neuk, corner
An’ at his Lordship staw a leuk, stole a look
Like some portentous omen;
Except GOOD SENSE, and SOCIAL GLEE,
35 An’ (what surpris’d me) MODESTY,
I marked nought uncommon.
I watch’d the symptoms o’ the GREAT,
The GENTLE PRIDE, the LORDLY STATE,
The arrogant assuming;
40 The fient a pride, nae pride had he, not a jot of, no
Nor sauce, nor state, that I could see,
Mair than an honest Ploughman. more
Then from his Lordship I shall learn,
Henceforth to meet with unconcern,
45 One rank as well’s another;
Nae honest, worthy man need care, no
To meet with NOBLE youthfu’ DAER,
For he but meets a BROTHER.
Lord Daer, Basil William Douglas Hamilton (1763–94), was a son of The Earl of Selkirk whose family seat was in Galloway, near Kircudbright. Burns met him at the family home of Professor Dugald Stewart at Catrine near Mossgiel where he had been taken by his friend and fellow-mason, Dr John MacKenzie of Mauchline. (See Burns’s note of thanks to Stewart, Letter 53A.) The italicised stress on the personal Masonic connection in the poem’s last line cannot, like Burns’s relationship to Freemasonry itself, be overestimated. He was a member of five Masonic Lodges and visited many others. We still await the scholarly work on Freemasonry in late-eighteenth century Scotland which fully reveals its propensity for democratic reform. Indeed, the collapse of Freemasonry’s fortunes almost exactly coincides with that of Burns himself. Professor John Robison’s paranoid book of 1797, Proofs of Conspiracy against All Religions and Governments of Europe which specifically mentions Burns as an individual who had sadly over-reached himself, signals the end of the movement as a force for reform. Contemporary Freemasonry has politically, of course, nothing to do with the values of its eighteenth-century namesake. Mozart, as far as is known, did not compose for the Lambeg Drum.
Dugald Stewart had, as house guest, one of his brightest and best students. We know this because when the poem appeared in 1799 in a pamphlet with Burns’s letter (52) to Dr MacKenzie marking the occasion, Currie printed Dugald Stewart’s copy of the poem without ll. 20–5. Since these lines contain reference to Stewart himself and possibly Hugh Blair, this may have been because he did not want such luminaries associated with Daer who was by this time a deeply marked man by Dundas’s security apparatus. Typically, Kinsley underplays Daer’s political identity. He notes he was a successful agricultural ‘improver’ on the family estates and quotes Stewart’s remark in the above pamphlet that: ‘These lines will be read with no common interest by all who remember the unaffected simplicity of appearance, the sweetness of countenance and manners, and the unsuspecting benevolence of heart of Basil, Lord Daer.’ Admittedly Kinsley also notes from the Scots Peerage, ii. 489 that Daer was a member of the society of ‘The Friends of the People’, and a zealous advocate for parliamentary reform. What he either omitted or did not know was that Daer, like Thomas Muir, was actually in France in 1792 with his brother-in-law Sir James Hall, the noted geologist and chemist, in attendance at the National Assembly.
Kinsley is even more remiss regarding the degree and intensity of Daer’s radical activities in Scotland. He was a leading Scottish radical of the era and formed a branch of the Friends of the People in rural Wigtown, Galloway, during the early 1790s. When the Scottish Friends of the People set up in 1792 and met in National Convention, December 1792, Lord Daer was one of its leading figures and asked his fellow radicals to address him as Citizen Douglas, not Lord Daer, pointing out that such a title implied submission to feudal rank; that feudalism was itself at the very heart of political corruption in Britain and had to end before progress could be instituted. He is reported in the Edinburgh Gazetteer on 23rd January, 1793, commenting on the recent government onslaught on radical activity in Scotland:
That the late proceedings respecting examinations of supposed seditious persons, have been in many cases, arbitrary, inquisatorial and unconstitutional; and that such proceedings have a direct tendency to inflame the minds of the People … to create sedition where it never before existed.
Daer himself is listed in the spy memorandum from Claude Irvine Boswell to William Scott, Procurator Fiscal, as the delegate from Wigtown at the Convention of the Friends of the People, Edinburgh, 19th November, 1793. (See RH 2/4/73/f.200.)
Daer’s political importance and the quality of his intelligence can be perceived from his quite extraordinary letter to Charles Grey of 17th January, 1793. Part of the difficulties faced by the national radical groups (English, Irish, Scottish) was to synchronise and articulate their respective activities. As we know from Elaine McFarland’s recent work (Ireland and Scotland in the Age of Revolution), the Irish in 1792 and 1793 made desperate attempts to strengthen the will of the Scottish radicals. What is less well known is that there developed at the end of 1792 a parallel crisis in Scottish and English relationships which caused Daer to write to Charles Grey in response to Grey’s letter to William Skirving, the Scottish Secretary of the Friends of the People informing him of English withdrawal from the campaign for petitioning and parliamentary ref
orm. This elicited this extraordinary response from Daer which is here quoted in full since it takes us, more than perhaps any other single document, to the heart of Scottish radicalism in the 1790s and to a retrospective analysis of Anglo-Scottish relationships of a kind we have learned not to anticipate in the late eighteenth century because of the biased pro-Union emphasis initiated by Walter Scott and still prevalent in the ‘integrationist’ thesis favoured by most contemporary Scottish historians. Burns certainly did not share the concept of such easy integration. In Ode on General Washington’s Birthday, he saw an England self-betraying her inheritance of political liberty and, in so doing, dragging Scotland down with her. Daer’s retrospective analysis of Anglo-Scottish relations has the added benefit of, after over two centuries, being the best possible commentary on and analysis of the complex political attitudes to England that run through Burns’s writing. For once, as the poem suggests, Burns had found an aristocrat of the deepest integrity. Daer’s savagely premature death, three years before Burns himself, must have been a terrible blow. He was, as we will see in A Scots Prologue, Burns’s choice for the leader of a reformed, redeemed Scotland. This letter is taken from Edward Hughes’s invaluable ‘The Scottish Reform Movement and Charles Grey 1792–94: Some Fresh Correspondence’, Scottish Historical Review, v.35, 1956, pp. 26–41.
Dear Sir
I write to you in some alarm from a passage in your letter of the 13th inst. to our Secretary Skirving. You there say ‘In this part of the country I am afraid our supporters are not sufficiently numerous to render the attempt to procure petitions at present adviseable’. I am desired by several Gentlemen to ask an explanation. You must tell us explicitly whether you mean to petition or not, for if you don’t in England, neither (say they) will we in Scotland. I deprecate the idea of your not petitioning. Were your petitioners as few in number as the members of your societies, you should petition. When you talk of not petitioning do you think likewise of not moving in Parliament for a Reform? If so, many will consider it almost treachery in you & your friends. Not that I or anyone who knows you can think so. Nor do I mention it to influence you personally, for I trust to God that in the great line you have taken up you have set your mind above being influenced even by the disapprobation of your personal friends. But I mention it because I look upon it as of great consequence to keep our leading men and societies in London high in the estimation of the supporters of freedom at a distance. If you begin to petition in England, I am convinced from my local knowledge of several parts that a great body of the common people are inclined to petition and that it may very probably take a run amongst them. At any rate the strength of the Cause both here and in England consists more in its goodness, in the vigour of the men who support it and in the numbers who we are sure hereafter must join it than the numbers who are already declared. It is curious to see the error which prevails amongst the supporters of freedom in every place in England & in Scotland where I have been, that the declared friends of Reform are more numerous everywhere else. Our folks here are astonished at your information that you are not innumerable about London as perhaps you may be surprised when I say that the declared friends of Reform in Scotland are most contemptible in the view of counting noses, what ever they may be in counting heads. This I aver to be the fact, tho’ I believe immense numbers of non-declarents would sign a petition. Every reason you urge for petitioning to keep up the spirit etc. applies equally to England as to Scotland, but I ought perhaps to apologise for being carried away to speak of what should be done in England, instead of what is the likely consequences to result from it in Scotland. If the idea gets abroad that the friends of Reform in any place, or at least any leading place, are to lye by for any reason whatever, I believe it will in every place for the moment damp the ardor of their coming forward, if not extinguish it. You wish us in Scotland to come forward because we are more numerous. I believe that small as our numbers are, they are greater in proportion than in England, but far from enough to command protection from the Executors of the forms of law. If we are more numerous I believe also we are much more oppressed. By every act implying favor to Reform the people here expose themselves either to the heavy hand of Government or to the unceasing weight of little aristocratical oppression. If set forward alone, the arbitrary attacks against them will be more pointed than if countenanced by their friends in England: at least, they may think so which is the same, and they will feel all the bitterness of desertion in distress. It may even have a national bad effect, if this should go so far, or anything else should take such a turn as to make the Tweed appear a boundary in political sentiment or action, it requires more confidence in the good sense of our countrymen than even I can reasonably have not to believe that it is possible (though I do not think probable) that a fatal national jealousy may arise. Scotland has long groaned under the chains of England and knows that its connection there has been the cause of its greatest misfortunes. Perhaps you may shrug your shoulders at this and call it Scot’s prejudice, but it is time at moments like these when much may depend on suiting measures to the humour of the people, that you Englishmen should see this rather as it is or at least be aware of how we Scotsmen see it. We have existed a conquered province these two centuries. We trace our bondage from the Union of the Crown and find it little alleviated by the Union of the Kingdoms. What is it you say we have gained by the Union? Commerce, Manufactures, Agriculture. Without going deep into the principles of political economy or asking how our [sic] Government or any country can give these to any nation, it is evident in this case that the last Union gave us little assistance in these except removing a part of the obstacles which your greater power had posterior to the first union thrown around us. But if it did more what would that amount to, but to the common saying that we bartered our liberty and with it our morals for a little wealth? You say we have gained emancipation from feudal tyranny. I believe most deliberately that had no Union ever taken place we should in that respect have been more emancipated than we are. Left to ourselves we should probably have had a progression towards Liberty and not less than yours. Our grievances prior to the accession of the Stewarts to your throne were of a kind which even had that event not taken place, must before this time have been annihilated. Any share of human evil that might have awaited us we are ignorant of, whereas we feel what we have undergone. Even to the last of our separate parliaments they were always making laws for us and now and then one to remedy a grievance. And a people acquiring knowledge must have compelled a separate legislature to more of these. Since the parliaments were united scarcely four acts have been passed in as many score of years affecting Scots law or merely the incongruitities which must arise betwixt old laws and modern manners. As our courts of law found something of this to be necessary they instead of applying to the parliament at London have taken upon themselves with a degree of audacity which can hardly be made credible to a stranger, to make under pretence of regulating of court Little Laws (acts of parliament as they call them) materially affecting the liberty of the subject. Kept out of view by your greater mass so as never to make our concerns be the principal objects even to our own representatives, at a distance so as not to make our cries be heard in the capital which alone awes and arbitrary government; our laws and customs different so as to make our grievances unintelligible; our law establishment distinct so as to deprive us of the benefit of those constant circuits from the capital which by rendering the learned and spirited defender of the laws, dwelling at the source of actual power, acquainted with the lesser transactions of the remotest corner of the country, provides perhaps the greatest remedy to a half free state against some of the bad consequences of an extended territory. Our civil establishment distinct, so as to isolate the petty tyranny of office; even our greed and national vanity working to retain all these offices to natives so as still more to leave you (our then only protectors, although oppressors) ignorant of our internal situation. We have suffered the misery which is perhaps inevitable to lesser and remo
te country in a junction where the Governing powers are united but the Nations are not united. In short, thinking we have been the worse of every connection hitherto with you, the Friends of Liberty in Scotland have almost universally been enemies to Union with England. Such is the fact, whether the reasons be good or bad. I for one should still be of that opinion did I not look upon it that a thorough Parliamentary Reform would necessarily place us in a much better situation and higher in the political sphere whilst at the same time it would relieve you from that vermin1 from this country who infect your court, your parliament and every establishment. I, therefore, wish a closer Union of the Nations, but many here differ from me, some through principle, others through prejudice or pique, for these cannot at once be thrown off even by the rapid progress of philosophy and philanthropy amongst us. Perhaps we may require to be treated with delicacy and tenderness as a Nation whose temper is somewhat sour, who have sometimes met with insults & always felt the degradation of artificial inferiority. A steady watch ought to be kept and regard paid to every circumstance in our political progress which may be made a means further to cement or sever the two nations. Of these a possible one of the most important kind has long hung upon my mind and seems fast approaching. The keen Friends of Liberty here have commenced a plan of a Convention for Scotland of Delegates from all the Societies for Reform throughout this part of the Kingdom. It is this Convention who addressed our Society at Free Mason’s tavern and with whom you correspond, and most properly, for their declarations are strong, explicit, and strictly constitutional and their conduct, under provoking circumstances, firm and temperate. But though weak in its infancy it may, especially by the folly of the measures of Government, grow to a great strength. I doubt that you in England will never make great progress till you adopt something similar. It is requisite for keeping up that degree of knowledge and concert amongst your scattered friends, which the acquaintance by letters is inadequate to. It may even be necessary to save them from temporary extinction. As to such assemblies I believe you and I differ and you dread the magnitude of power which might thereby be accumulated, a degree of power which I look upon as necessary to withstand and prevail over the immense power of the Opposers of Reform and which I think might more safely be entrusted to a delegated, renovating body even tho’ sent from self-elected Societies, than to any self-elected body like the Jacobins in France, like the Society for Constitutional Information, or even like ourselves at Free Mason’s tavern. But without pretending to convince, I will speak hypothetically. If in England any such Convention or Assembly should take place and not in separate delegated Meetings for different districts in England but in one meeting for all England, I look upon it as of the highest consequence (though perhaps very difficult in the management) to get Scotland to unite in the same Assembly without sending its Delegates thro’ any intermediate Assembly for Scotland alone. In this and every view, I should wish the particular Societies to be encouraged to correspond directly with yours and others in London. One of the greatest bonds of union betwixt the two nations at present is that the Reformers here feel that they have need to lean upon you. If it be possible once to teach them that they can take the lead many may be for bidding you farewell. The very grievance of our present persecution may be thus turned to account. Were you to neglect us, it might excite the worst spirit of indignation and despair and even if contrary to our information, you are as much persecuted as us, but still show that you think of us and that you exert yourselves for us; tho’ it should be in vain, it will help to rivet us to you. Whilst I speak thus you will readily believe how particularly pleased I was as well as with others most grateful for the reception your Society gave to Mr. Thomas Muir and the interest you took in his relation of the proceedings in Scotland. Should a case ever happen to occur when a man thus appears before you, whose manner even disgusts and whose conduct cannot be approved of as wise or prudent, yet I trust the good sense of your Society will recollect only that he is a Martyr or an Envoy from Brethren in distress.
