Farmer George, Volume 1

c process of purification. He was a religious man, somewhat narrow in his views, and he held sacred things in great respect. At the coronation, after he had been anointed and crowned, when the Ar

id the monarch, and himself laid aside the crown.[178] Indeed he held very strong views as to the Sacrament, and when in 1805 Lord Chesterfield[179] prior to an Installation asked if the new Knights of the Garter would be required to take it, "No, My Lord," he r

ed a fashionable preacher of the day if he, too, were acquainted with them. "No, please your Majesty, my reading is all modern. The writers of whom you speak are now obsolete, though I doubt not they might have been very well at the time." The King looked at him, thinking of the man's own sermons, and replied: "There were giants on earth in those days."[181] One day George missed an under-gardener, and inquired as to the

usekeeper and admonished her severely: "I will suffer no persecution during my reign!" "The Methodists are a quiet good kind of people and will disturb nobody; and if I can learn that any persons in my employment disturb them, they shall be immediately dismissed," he said when an attempt was made to interrupt the service at a Methodist chapel; and when a Bible Society was formed at Windsor, and the name of the Independent m

oncern with which my breast was affected at receiving an authentic information that routs have made their way into your palace," he wrote to Archbishop Cornwallis, when in 1772 he was informed by the Countess of Huntingdon that the prelate's wife had given a ball. "At the same time I must signify to you my sentiments on this subject, which hold these levities and vain dissipations as utterly inexpedient, if not unlawful, to pass in a residence for many centuries devoted to Divine studies, religious retirement, and the extensive exercise of

m into excesses, such as the striking out in his copy of the Prayer-Book in the prayer for the Royal Family the words "our most Gracious Kin

ther, in the l

eorge slipped in

tumult dwindl

ising the hundre

eventing and punishing of vice, profaneness, and immorality," which was especially commended to the notice of "judge

ORG

out a religious observance of God's holy laws: to the intent thereof that religion, piety, and good manners may (according to our most hearty desire) flourish and increase under our administration and government, we have thought fit, by the advice of our Privy Council, to issue this our royal proclamation, and do hereby declare our royal purpose and resolution to discountenance and punish all manner of vice, profaneness, and immorality, in all persons of whatsoever degree or quality, within this our realm, and particularly in such as are employed near our royal person; and that for the encouragement of religion and morality, we will, upon all occasions, distinguish persons of piety and virtue, by marks of our royal favour. And we do expect and require that all persons of honour, or in place of authority, will give good example of their own virtue and pi

his was followed by the discouragement of gambling at Court. When George discovered that at the Twelfth Night celebrations at St. James's Palace hazard was played for heavy stakes, he was horrified. First, he restricted the number of tables, later limited the hour

urt been popular, for, if the courtiers obeyed their master's behest, it is probable that those in lower ranks might follow the exalted example. Things began well. "For the King himself, he seems all good-nature, and wishing to satisfy everybody," Walpole wrote at the beginning of the reign. "All his speeches are obliging-I saw him yesterday, and was surpr

re abandoned. Lady Buckingham was the only woman there on Sunday se'nnight. In short, one hears of nothing but dissatisfaction, which, in the city, rises almost to treason." Lord Holland, too, noted the prevalent feeling. "A young, civil, virtuous, good-natured King might naturally be expected to have such a degree of popularity as should for years defend t

the palace. As these fell into the province of the Lord Steward, nothing was heard of but cooks cashiered and kitchens shut up. Even the Maids of Honour, who did not expect rigours from a great officer of Lord Talbot's complexion, were reduced to complain of the abridgment of their allowance for breakfast."[187] The drastic changes in Lord Talbot's department brought down upon the nobleman a diatribe from Wil

print d

HEN META

folk. At Weymouth he passed a field where, although it was harvest time, only one woman was at work, and, surprised by this neglect of work, he asked where were the other labourers. The woman said they had gone to see the King, and added: "I would not give a pin to see him. Besides, the fools will lose a day's work by it, and that is more than I can afford to do. I have five children to work for." "Well, then," said his Majesty, putting some money in her hands, "you may tell your companions who are gone to see the King, that the King came to see you."[189] Occasionally he would pay a compliment, as on one occasion at a review at Winchester when David Garrick, having dismounted and lost his horse, which, alarmed by the noise, had broken

anding it back. "Keep it, my good man, 'twill do as well for the next horse you sell," which shows more knowledge of the world than is usually accredited to the speaker. One day Colonel Manners, who was in high favour at Court, sought an interview. "Let him in," the King replied, "he is not only Manners, but good manners." When at the end of March, 1781, Lord Bateman waited on him to ask at what hour his Majesty would have the stag-hounds turned out, "My Lord, I cannot exactly answer that," he

have lost your temper. You know my great regard for you, and I may therefore venture to tell you I am glad to hear it."[194] Humorous, too, was his remark, à propos of George Selwyn's love of horrors. Selwyn was present at a levée, and withdrew after George had spoken to him, although it was known the monarch was to confer the honour of knighthood upon a country sq

er to mark their zeal and attention to his Majesty; but the King, desirous of recovering his fallen glove without having to thank any one for it, or perhaps wishing to display his activity, also attempted to seize it, in which he succeeded. On rising, the King's cane slipped from his hold, and again the King was the successful candidate for the prize. No

he King, holding out his hands for his property, his face, in consequence of his stooping, as red as his coat, exclaimed: 'Never mind about the honour of the thing, never mind, n

st heartily, in which the whole of the cortège surrounding hi

rs to the wheel, they gave him respectively half-a-guinea and a guinea. The driver was puzzled to receive a larger coin from the Prince of Wales than from the monarch, who heard of the man's perplexity, and, meeting him again some tim

mour and justice combined has been preserved. Picking a pocket was not a capital felony, but in those days taking anything privily from the person, of the value of one shilling, was punishable with death. George abolished for all practical purposes this absurd distinction, for when the warrant for the

Court, in the presence of the King and Queen, "My Lord Kingsale," said the monarch, "you are entitled to remain covered in the presence of your sovereign, but not in the presence of a lady." Again, when Addington quarrelled with Pitt, he went to surrender the key of the Council box that he held a

ing himself ever to unbend even with ministers who were brought into daily contact with him, and during the interview, however long it might be, he would stand, and so prevent the minister from taking a seat. Indeed, on one occasion when Pitt was suffering from gout, George kept him stan

one occasion Mrs. Siddons, who was summoned to read a play before the

to earth, she

d that at the

e, who marked

pour'd a tend

dons is quite

'm sure she

ants, her spir

sure, be happ

? Why, the r-

, one fairly

m adjoining

one moment, st

fine a gentleman as we may suppose Louis the Fourteenth or Charles the Second."[201] This regal dignity was, however, not always sustained in private. "The oscillations of his body, the precipitations of his questions, none of which, it was said, would wait for an answer, and the hurry of his articulation"[202] were so many faults; and the famous "What? what?" with which he concluded his sent

ed in his early years, grew confirmed as time went on. No story, however seemingly absurd, was rejected as untrue by his loyal sub

e, a monarch, ti

g and s

in w

nceless, ha

and rider w

onsequence and

rough curio

oor old woman

blear-ey'd, g

ot, illum'd by

apple dumplin

ow the naked

monarch, in

, 'What's this? what

g in his hand, His eyes w

ajesty the du

monstrous hard, i

he dame reply'd, Low curtseying,

range thing!' (Turning the dum

raordinary the

ti's conjuring

ld never of a

me where, where,

she, 'I never knew[Pg 190] That

e staring mona

e devil got

s scheme revealed By which th

e Solomon of

ace with full

rincesses so be

wonders of th

ole week, to show The wisdo

deep was Maj

ed the lodging

oof with verdigris.[204] George took an active part in the question which arose about 1778, whether lightning conductors, which at this time were ordered to be placed near all the powder magazines, should have blunted or pointed ends. A great dispute was raging: Sir John Pringle, President of the Royal Society, Dr. Franklin, and many men of light and leading advocating points, a view controverted by Sir Joseph Banks and some others. It was obviously a question for scientific experts, but the King, a

ure by

O MAKE APP

is taste was quite uninformed and his critical faculties negligible: he preferred Benjamin West to Reynolds, and Peter Pindar "wept over the hard

ctavius! te

ugustus, us

murdered you,

mind vile R

r royal cou

orld the tyrant

st own thou

of the pain

-not extraor

thou must

up so near

pers from the be

Beattie, who was his and hi

r voice, MacOssian sings,

r Beattie's b

ome most lam

avourites, and

awr's yore Woolly S

r. In his respect for letters he conceived the idea to establish an Order of Minerva for eminent writers and scientists. "The knights were to take rank after the Knights of the Bath, and to sport a straw-coloured ribbon and a star of sixteen points. But there was such a row among the literati as to the persons who should be appointed, that the plan was given up, and Minerva and her star never came down amongst us."[207] He

but it is hinted he was not always inspired by the right mo

orge in

bon shou

of England

no way

en to

the histori

urg, and he obeyed the summons, at a cost of fifty pounds for carriage, for which he was repaid only with thanks; and it was the payment by the King of twenty-five pounds for a picture, the

ed to give him a last sitting for the ornaments, as it was too much trouble, but eventually was prevailed upon to allow Mrs. Papendiek to act as her deputy. No money was paid. The King told him to remove it to town, and have it engraved. When that was d

when the Empress of Russia asked for a portrait of himself by Reynolds, the monarch, with "laudable

and I belie

Queen of No

an of prodi

ort of epith

ar, just happeni

heaven upon a

ain King, not

ir Joshua's h

the roy

teelly, sat to

ter Redman, who had fallen upon evil days, a Poor Knight of Windsor; he released a man who had been imprisoned twelve years in Dorchester Jail for a debt of ￡100 by pa

ss he stopped all the hunt to give an old man something for opening a gate at Bray Wick: after a long search for his purse he produced from it a penny and bestow

an ol

ING PRISONERS I

fling sums of money, and while he would authorize, nay encourage, the spending of millions to further some matter upon which he had set his heart, he would sit at home and work out the cost of his

, sublimely sings Of sharp

es, and lambs, a

f every so

on fruitful sows; Who sell skim

ese, the thievi

rning us'd to

cabbages and

wholesome ve

poultry for the

hrough the vil

ondrous kind!)

pay for what t

g by Isaac Cr

MENTS AT FAR

with a large Civil List.[216] Their miserly tendencies were noted and commented upon with disgust at the Queen's first party, given on November 26, 1762, a "gingerbread affair," which, including the ladies-and-gentlemen-in-waiting, did not consist of more than a baker's dozen of couples. On this occasion, though dancing began before seven o'clock and went on uninterrupted till long after midnight, there was no supper, an omission that furnished Lord Chesterfield with the opportunity for

is a very se

yeth thirst-nay

of a chase, or

are passing m

a little hou

with eternal s

penury in connexion with those who were summoned to amuse the royal circle, and of som

since, I hear

one of impud

kings and quee

ight they ord

ong, encor'd, fo

ara to her s

oft, and

mandate

op the dame wa

ffer'd to her

he was not suff

oodness-grande

will it eve

ng and chaise-h

pray, think ye? Fi

rty. 'No, no.'

in reason, c

r us!-twenty

ever be so

e her twenty

then, no longe

ise-hire and u

r wonderful

M--ies gave-no

ointed preceptress in English reading to the Princesses, but without salary,[218] was summon

ories twain! Why

ray, like comm

call it crue

duct, I'd cry,

ons freely s

such people is