The Canongate Burns (83 page)

It is a melancholy reflection, that in an age when the theory of Government and legislation has been so well developed by a long succession of celebrated writers, mankind still struggle with the imperfections experienced in more unenlightened days.

The People of France in endeavouring to unshackle themselves from the oppression of their Government, and trusting to the theories of philosophers, have fallen a prey to an oligarchy, who hold unbalanced every branch of government; this they have under-gone, although theory has often said that the same persons must not be Legislators and Judges, and the dread occasioned by the misfortunes of that country, induced the people of this to fall into the opposite extreme – the adoration of Regal Power.

The Alarmists have cried down all Reform in Parliament as dangerous, and Parliament has given into the hand of the Crown our dearest rights. Nothing now remains, but to renew that act of Henry VIII by which the King's Proclamation may have the force of an Act of Parliament; for as the majority of our House of Commons is not elected by a majority of the People, nor by a majority of those, who, under the present system have a right to vote, we have no
security for its speaking the sense of the People; and, like the Romans in the days of Augustus Caesar, are insulted, with the forms of a free Government, while, in some of the most important parts, the substance is lost.

To tell us that Reform is dangerous, is to say, my children, be good and don't complain, you will have all you desire granted you at a more convenient time. Will anyone who knows the history of mankind assert, that any liberty or privilege we shall have lost, will be ever spontaneously restored, even by the wisest and best of Kings? During the prosperous reigns of Nerva, Trajan, and the Antonines, the Roman world was governed with wisdom and equity; but those Emperors, although they knew the miseries which the People had suffered under their predecessors, never put one bar on the omnipotence of their own authority; and the succession of Commodus shews, that though a good Prince need not be shackled, those shackles ought to exist, as no Sovereign, let him be ever so good and just, can become immortal but in the page of history.

It therefore is proper, that every man who has a love for his King and country, should wish to see the Government brought back to the spirit of its institution: because every free man should hold his privileges dear; and because, when he sees ministers endeavouring, under insidious pretexts, to increase the power of the Crown at the expense of those privileges, he should forsee the most terrible consequences; for either the Government must become absolutely despotic, or the bulk of mankind, not properly sensible of the fine texture, and intrinsic value of our Constitution, may one day join in a general cry against Kings, and overturn the regal part of the Government.

The present time seems to be the crisis which is to determine whether England is to remain a free country or not. At this moment you and I are subject to be seized and confined without having a right to demand a trial; for when a Minister can send his
marechausée
1
into your house, and take you in silence to a dungeon, what security can you have against a transportation to some distant region? This has not been the case as yet, but what does the annihilation of your dearest privileges tend to but this; will not our children, perhaps, be subject to such an iron sceptre?

This prospect of our future condition, whether we be overwhelmed by tyranny, or become the victims of anarchy, is alarming to men who value, and who understand the British Constitution. Ministers continually warn us to dread innovations, while we daily see the encroachments made on the free part of the Government, which, although they have not yet been called by that name, are not to be stopped by having the word innovation retaliated on them. I will briefly declare what reflection I have made on the subject of our Government, and if I am guilty of errors, shall hope to stand corrected through the medium of your paper.

The spirit of the British Constitution seems to consist in this: That the House of Commons are the deputies of the separate districts of this island, who meet to deliberate for the common good; while the House of Peers, forming the Aristocratical part of the Constitution, may be a check on the Tribune of the People, and, at the same time, constitute the highest Court of Judicature; from the Crown, we are insured in the quick execution of our laws, and we blend with the advantages of a Republic, all those of a Monarchy. But when the servants of the Crown are at the same time permitted to be Tribunes of the People; when the vassals of Nobles enjoy the same pre-eminence, on what do the bulk of this nation rest the bulwark of their liberty? The same parliament that has continued the suspension of the Habeus Corpus may establish a Committee of the House of Commons to take cognizance of cases of High Treason; the Tribunal of the Star Chamber may be renewed; and should that be the case, how are we to help ourselves, when so great a military force exists in these kingdoms.

Our present situation is critical: we are involved in a war without properly knowing why! Do we propose ourselves to re-establish the regal authority in France? That were a vain hope, all our Allies have nearly abandoned us. Do we wish to defend Holland? The Dutch are better disposed towards France than towards us. What object do we propose by the war? the Minister acquires great patronage, and he is thus enabled to keep his place, at the public expense, and by the lives of his fellow-subjects. How many have already been the victims of his ambition; and he tranquilly holds his place, though he knows that his countrymen daily bleed to keep him there? This might, one would think, better become a Roberspierre; but before we feel abhorrence at the cruelty of the Convention, let us ask ourselves, Whether those who vote for the continuance of the war be not as unfeeling? What signifies it to the sufferers, whether they fall by the guillotine of Roberspierre, or by the massacres which the Great Catherine and the King of Prussia
have committed for the sake of good order, Religion, &c. Will Poland feel any better effects from those, than France from the former? Does not the same hold good with regard to the subjects we daily lose on the Continent?

The true medium between anarchy and tyranny ought to be strictly kept in view, for extremities touch; and therefore, so far from its being dangerous to reform our Parliament, we ought to rouse from the present infatuation, and before it is too late, before every trace of our Constitution be effaced, bring it back to those principles on which it is established: that is, make the theory and practice tally better together.

A. Briton

Burns promised to send radical material to the London Whig newspaper
The Morning Chronicle
in a letter of mid-March 1794. Replying to an offer of full-time work on the literary staff of this, the main Whig Opposition newspaper, conveyed to him on behalf of James Perry, the editor, by Captain Patrick Miller Jnr., Burns promised to supply not only occasional poetry, but:

A thorough search of
The Morning Chronicle
archives, looking specifically at anonymous and pseudonymous prose, has revealed this essay as being in all probability the result of his promise.

The essay appears in
The Morning Chronicle
, 1st January, 1795, printed over the pen-name ‘A. Briton', a signature we know Burns exclusively employed in 1788 (See notes for
Lines on Ambition
). There are, also, contextual pointers which suggest this is his composition.

Wishing not to miss any issues of the paper, Burns, revealingly, wrote to the newspaper sometime in January 1795, to complain that specific copies of the newspaper had not been sent to him. The January 1795 letter begins:

It was roughly nine months since Burns requested a free subscription, in exchange for poetry or prose. Letter 620B is dated approximately for mid-March 1794 and Letter 654 is dated roughly for January 1795. So, if Burns had kept his side of the bargain, it appears he was disappointed to have missed several issues of the newspaper. Yet, the letter is far more than merely a reader's request for missed issues. Burns almost scolds the editor, demanding that he receive a back copy of the newspaper. He does not tell the editor which issue he wants, that is, the date or dates of the daily newspaper (s) he missed. What jumps out of the page is the fact that Burns tells the Editor quite categorically that he is ‘a BRITON', a description that occurs twice for emphasis and is spelt out in large, bold letters. ‘A. Briton' is, of course, the signature employed under the new essay.

The newspaper demanded by Burns is one containing a speech by the Marquis of Landsdowne. Landsdowne, a Whig, spoke in the House of Lords on 30th December, 1794. The debate is covered on 31st December, 1794 and 1st January, 1795 in
The Morning Chronicle.
The debate in the House of Lords and the House of Commons centred on the King's speech. William Wilberforce added an amendment to the debate, moving a motion to negotiate peace with the French. The Marquis's speech is elaborate, powerful and anti-war; it dwells on the increased losses of British troops on the Continent and the fact that the allies arraigned against France were in disarray. The final note on the debate refers to ‘the abstract of the operations of the French Armies, read by the Marquis of Landsdowne'. Biographical studies have missed the fact that Burn
praised and aligned himself with the Marquis's passionate anti-war, anti-Pitt speech. Moreover, the political views outlined by Landsdowne are found in a more developed, elaborate and lucid essay under the psedonymn ‘A. Briton'
in the same newspaper
. So, in Letter 654 Burns, declaring himself loudly to be ‘a BRITON' demanded a copy of the newspaper in which the actual ‘A. Briton' essay appeared, 1st January, 1795.

When Letter 654 appeared in Cromek in 1808, it was supposedly left unsigned. Finding the fair copy of the letter Cromek guessed it was not sent by Burns to London, neglecting the fact that Burns often made copies of his letters. Indeed, Cromek further estimated that the letter must have been written on behalf of a Dumfries friend, unaware that the poet had joined the free subsciption list nine months previous. There is no reason to doubt the recorded letter is both
by
Burns and
from
Burns. The original was probably forwarded to the London newspaper. It remains unknown if the issue for 1st January, 1795 was sent to Burns. Contextual evidence, therefore, before examining textually the new prose essay, suggests that Burns is probably the author.

A textual examination of the new prose essay finds many echoes in the letter Burns wrote in April 1793, to Erskine of Mar:

He goes on to pinpoint flaws in the British body politic:

The phrase ‘every patriotic Briton' might be expected from an author who had already signed his name ‘A. Briton', but such a description is also central to the radical legacy inherited by Burns
from Addison and other writers of the Commonwealth school. That such were still his views in the Spring of 1793 is important in considering the sentiments and the pen-name of the new 1795 essay. To Erskine, Burns went on in a vein similar to the new prose:

Here, even the poet's sons are ‘independent
Britons'
. Burns's fear is that if political oppression steadily increases or conversely, liberties are further eroded, his children might eventually suffer. The new essay comments on this topic ‘will not our children, perhaps, be subject to such an iron sceptre?' An early manuscript of
Scots Wha
Hae
expresses this very sentiment ‘Do you hear your children cry / Were we born in chains to lie?' The letter to Erskine thus displays the poet's determination not to be silenced by his employers and asserts his right to be independent in his views.