← catalogue

Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Geoponici" to "Germany"

by Various · English · Gutenberg #37523 · 1,011,182 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Geoponici" to "Germany"
    
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, "Geoponici" to "Germany"

Author: Various


        
Release date: September 24, 2011 [eBook #37523]
                Most recently updated: January 8, 2021

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37523

Credits: Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
        Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net


*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA, 11TH EDITION, "GEOPONICI" TO "GERMANY" ***




Produced by Marius Masi, Don Kretz and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net








Transcriber's notes:

(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
      printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
      underscore, like C_n.

(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.

(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
      paragraphs.

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
      inserted.

(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek
      letters.

(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:

    ARTICLE GEORGE III.: "George III. therefore waited his time."
      'George' amended from 'Goerge'.

    ARTICLE GEORGE THE SYNCELLUS: "He was the syncellus (cell-mate, the
      confidential companion assigned to the patriarchs ..." 'companion'
      amended from 'campanion'.

    ARTICLE GEORGIA: "The governor's power of veto extends to separate
      items in appropriation bills, but in every case his veto may be
      overridden by a two-thirds vote of the legislature." 'overridden'
      amended from 'overriden'.

    ARTICLE GERMAN LITERATURE: "But it had no vitality of its own; it
      virtually sprang into existence at the command of Charlemagne ..."
      'existence' amended from 'existance'.

    ARTICLE GERMAN LITERATURE: "The unkempt literature of the
      Reformation age admittedly stood in need of guidance and
      discipline, but the 17th century made the fatal mistake of trying
      to impose the laws and rules of Romance literatures on a people of
      a purely Germanic stock." 'guidance' amended from 'guidauce'.

    ARTICLE GERMANY: "The sandstone range of the Elbe unites in the
      east with the low Lusatian group, along the east of which runs the
      best road from northern Germany to Bohemia." 'sandstone' amended
      from 'standstone'.

    ARTICLE GERMANY: "... farther inland, and especially east of the
      Elbe, coniferous trees are the most prevalent, particularly the
      Scotch fir; birches are also abundant." 'particularly' amended from
      'praticularly'.




          ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA

  A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
           AND GENERAL INFORMATION

              ELEVENTH EDITION


            VOLUME XI, SLICE VII

            Geoponici to Germany




ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:


  GEOPONICI                       GERARD, ETIENNE MAURICE
  GEORGE, SAINT                   GERARD, FRANCOIS
  GEORGE I.                       GERARD, JEAN IGNACE ISIDORE
  GEORGE II.                      GERARD, JOHN
  GEORGE III.                     GERARDMER
  GEORGE IV.                      GERASA
  GEORGE V. (of Great Britain)    GERAULT-RICHARD, ALFRED LEON
  GEORGE V. (of Hanover)          GERBER, ERNST LUDWIG
  GEORGE I. (of the Hellenes)     GERBERON, GABRIEL
  GEORGE (of Saxony)              GERBERT, MARTIN
  GEORGE OF LAODICEA              GERBIL
  GEORGE OF TREBIZOND             GERENUK
  GEORGE THE MONK                 GERGOVIA
  GEORGE THE SYNCELLUS            GERHARD, FRIEDRICH WILHELM EDUARD
  GEORGE, HENRY                   GERHARD, JOHANN
  GEORGE PISIDA                   GERHARDT, CHARLES FREDERIC
  GEORGE, LAKE                    GERHARDT, PAUL
  GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC          GERICAULT, JEAN LOUIS ANDRE THEODORE
  GEORGETOWN (British Guiana)     GERIZIM
  GEORGETOWN (Washington, U.S.A.) GERLACHE, ETIENNE CONSTANTIN
  GEORGETOWN (Kentucky, U.S.A.)   GERLE, CHRISTOPHE ANTOINE
  GEORGETOWN (South Car., U.S.A.) GERMAN BAPTIST BRETHREN
  GEORGETOWN (Texas, U.S.A.)      GERMAN CATHOLICS
  GEORGIA (U.S.A.)                GERMAN EAST AFRICA
  GEORGIA (Transcaucasia)         GERMAN EVANGELICAL SYNOD OF N. AMERICA
  GEORGIAN BAY                    GERMANIC LAWS, EARLY
  GEORGSWALDE                     GERMANICUS CAESAR
  GEPHYREA                        GERMANIUM
  GERA                            GERMAN LANGUAGE
  GERALDTON                       GERMAN LITERATURE
  GERANDO, MARIE JOSEPH DE        GERMAN REED ENTERTAINMENT
  GERANIACEAE                     GERMAN SILVER
  GERANIUM                        GERMAN SOUTH-WEST AFRICA
  GERARD (archbishop of York)     GERMANTOWN
  GERARD (Tum, Tunc, Tenque)      GERMANY (part)
  GERARD OF CREMONA




GEOPONICI,[1] or _Scriptores rei rusticae_, the Greek and Roman writers
on husbandry and agriculture. On the whole the Greeks paid less
attention than the Romans to the scientific study of these subjects,
which in classical times they regarded as a branch of economics. Thus
Xenophon's _Oeconomicus_ (see also _Memorabilia_, ii. 4) contains a
eulogy of agriculture and its beneficial ethical effects, and much
information is to be found in the writings of Aristotle and his pupil
Theophrastus. About the same time as Xenophon, the philosopher
Democritus of Abdera wrote a treatise [Greek: Peri Georgias], frequently
quoted and much used by the later compilers of _Geoponica_ (agricultural
treatises). Greater attention was given to the subject in the
Alexandrian period; a long list of names is given by Varro and
Columella, amongst them Hiero II. and Attalus III. Philometor. Later,
Cassius Dionysius of Utica translated and abridged the great work of the
Carthaginian Mago, which was still further condensed by Diophanes of
Nicaea in Bithynia for the use of King Deiotarus. From these and similar
works Cassianus Bassus (q.v.) compiled his _Geoponica_. Mention may also
be made of a little work [Greek: Peri Georgikon] by Michael Psellus
(printed in Boissonade, _Anecdota Graeca_, i.).

The Romans, aware of the necessity of maintaining a numerous and
thriving order of agriculturists, from very early times endeavoured to
instil into their countrymen both a theoretical and a practical
knowledge of the subject. The occupation of the farmer was regarded as
next in importance to that of the soldier, and distinguished Romans did
not disdain to practise it. In furtherance of this object, the great
work of Mago was translated into Latin by order of the senate, and the
elder Cato wrote his _De agri cultura_ (extant in a very corrupt state),
a simple record in homely language of the rules observed by the old
Roman landed proprietors rather than a theoretical treatise. He was
followed by the two Sasernae (father and son) and Gnaeus Tremellius
Scrofa, whose works are lost. The learned Marcus Terentius Varro of
Reate, when eighty years of age, composed his _Rerum rusticarum, libri
tres_, dealing with agriculture, the rearing of cattle, and the
breeding of fishes. He was the first to systematize what had been
written on the subject, and supplemented the labours of others by
practical experience gained during his travels. In the Augustan age
Julius Hyginus wrote on farming and bee-keeping, Sabinus Tiro on
horticulture, and during the early empire Julius Graecinus and Julius
Atticus on the culture of vines, and Cornelius Celsus (best known for
his _De medicina_) on farming. The chief work of the kind, however, is
that of Lucius Junius Moderatus Columella (q.v.). About the middle of
the 2nd century the two Quintilii, natives of Troja, wrote on the
subject in Greek. It is remarkable that Columella's work exercised less
influence in Rome and Italy than in southern Gaul and Spain, where
agriculture became one of the principal subjects of instruction in the
superior educational establishments that were springing up in those
countries. One result of this was the preparation of manuals of a
popular kind for use in the schools. In the 3rd century Gargilius
Martialis of Mauretania compiled a _Geoponica_ in which medical botany
and the veterinary art were included. The _De re rustica_ of Palladius
(4th century), in fourteen books, which is almost entirely borrowed from
Columella, is greatly inferior in style and knowledge of the subject. It
is a kind of farmer's calendar, in which the different rural occupations
are arranged in order of the months. The fourteenth book (on forestry)
is written in elegiacs (85 distichs). The whole of Palladius and
considerable fragments of Martialis are extant.

  The best edition of the _Scriptores rei rusticae_ is by J.G. Schneider
  (1794-1797), and the whole subject is exhaustively treated by A.
  Magerstedt, _Bilder aus der romischen Landwirtschaft_ (1858-1863); see
  also Teuffel-Schwabe, _Hist. of Roman Literature_, 54; C.F. Bahr in
  Ersch and Gruber's _Allgemeine Encyklopadie_.


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] The latinized form of a non-existent [Greek: Geoponikoi], used
    for convenience.




GEORGE, SAINT (d. 303), the patron saint of England, Aragon and
Portugal. According to the legend given by Metaphrastes the Byzantine
hagiologist, and substantially repeated in the Roman _Acta sanctorum_
and in the Spanish breviary, he was born in Cappadocia of noble
Christian parents, from whom he received a careful religious training.
Other accounts place his birth at Lydda, but preserve his Cappadocian
parentage. Having embraced the profession of a soldier, he rapidly rose
under Diocletian to high military rank. In Persian Armenia he organized
and energized the Christian community at Urmi (Urumiah), and even
visited Britain on an imperial expedition. When Diocletian had begun to
manifest a pronounced hostility towards Christianity, George sought a
personal interview with him, in which he made deliberate profession of
his faith, and, earnestly remonstrating against the persecution which
had begun, resigned his commission. He was immediately laid under
arrest, and after various tortures, finally put to death at Nicomedia
(his body being afterwards taken to Lydda) on the 23rd of April 303. His
festival is observed on that anniversary by the entire Roman Catholic
Church as a semi-duplex, and by the Spanish Catholics as a duplex of the
first class with an octave. The day is also celebrated as a principal
feast in the Orthodox Eastern Church, where the saint is distinguished
by the titles [Greek: megalomartyr] and [Greek: tropaiophoros].

The historical basis of the tradition is particularly unsound, there
being two claimants to the name and honour. Eusebius, _Hist. eccl._
viii. 5, writes: "Immediately on the promulgation of the edict (of
Diocletian) a certain man of no mean origin, but highly esteemed for his
temporal dignities, as soon as the decree was published against the
churches in Nicomedia, stimulated by a divine zeal and excited by an
ardent faith, took it as it was openly placed and posted up for public
inspection, and tore it to shreds as a most profane and wicked act.
This, too, was done when the two Caesars were in the city, the first of
whom was the eldest and chief of all and the other held fourth grade of
the imperial dignity after him. But this man, as the first that was
distinguished there in this manner, after enduring what was likely to
follow an act so daring, preserved his mind, calm and serene, until the
moment when his spirit fled." Rivalling this anonymous martyr, who is
often supposed to have been St George, is an earlier martyr briefly
mentioned in the _Chronicon Pascale_: "In the year 225 of the Ascension
of our Lord a persecution of the Christians took place, and many
suffered martyrdom, among whom also the Holy George was martyred."

Two Syrian church inscriptions bearing the name, one at Ezr'a and the
other at Shaka, found by Burckhardt and Porter, and discussed by J. Hogg
in the _Transactions of the Royal Literary Society_, may with some
probability be assigned to the middle of the 4th century. Calvin
impugned the saint's existence altogether, and Edward Reynolds
(1599-1676), bishop of Norwich, like Edward Gibbon a century later, made
him one with George of Laodicea, called "the Cappadocian," the Arian
bishop of Alexandria (see GEORGE OF LAODICEA).

Modern criticism, while rejecting this identification, is not unwilling
to accept the main fact that an officer named Georgios, of high rank in
the army, suffered martyrdom probably under Diocletian. In the canon of
Pope Gelasius (494) George is mentioned in a list of those "whose names
are justly reverenced among men, but whose acts are known only to God,"
a statement which implies that legends had already grown up around his
name. The caution of Gelasius was not long preserved; Gregory of Tours,
for example, asserts that the saint's relics actually existed in the
French village of Le Maine, where many miracles were wrought by means of
them; and Bede, while still explaining that the _Gesta Georgii_ are
reckoned apocryphal, commits himself to the statement that the martyr
was beheaded under Dacian, king of Persia, whose wife Alexandra,
however, adhered to the Christian faith. The great fame of George, who
is reverenced alike by Eastern and Western Christendom and by
Mahommedans, is due to many causes. He was martyred on the eve of the
triumph of Christianity, his shrine was reared near the scene of a great
Greek legend (Perseus and Andromeda), and his relics when removed from
Lydda, where many pilgrims had visited them, to Zorava in the Hauran
served to impress his fame not only on the Syrian population, but on
their Moslem conquerors, and again on the Crusaders, who in grateful
memory of the saint's intervention on their behalf at Antioch built a
new cathedral at Lydda to take the place of the church destroyed by the
Saracens. This cathedral was in turn destroyed by Saladin.

The connexion of St George with a dragon, familiar since the _Golden
Legend_ of Jacobus de Voragine, can be traced to the close of the 6th
century. At Arsuf or Joppa--neither of them far from Lydda--Perseus had
slain the sea-monster that threatened the virgin Andromeda, and George,
like many another Christian saint, entered into the inheritance of
veneration previously enjoyed by a pagan hero.[1] The exploit thus
attaches itself to the very common Aryan myth of the sun-god as the
conqueror of the powers of darkness.

The popularity of St George in England has never reached the height
attained by St Andrew in Scotland, St David in Wales or St Patrick in
Ireland. The council of Oxford in 1222 ordered that his feast should be
kept as a national festival; but it was not until the time of Edward
III. that he was made patron of the kingdom. The republics of Genoa and
Venice were also under his protection.

  See P. Heylin, _The History of ... S. George of Cappadocia_ (1631); S.
  Baring-Gould, Curious _Myths of the Middle Ages_; Fr. Gorres, "Der
  Ritter St Georg in der Geschichte, Legende und Kunst" (_Zeitschrift
  fur wissenschaftliche Theologie_, xxx., 1887, Heft i.); E.A.W. Budge,
  _The Martyrdom and Miracles of St George of Cappadocia_: the Coptic
  texts edited with an English translation (1888); Bolland, _Acta
  Sancti_, iii. 101; E.O. Gordon, _Saint George_ (1907); M.H. Bulley,
  _St George for Merrie England_ (1908).


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] G.A. Smith (_Hist. Geog. of Holy Land_, p. 164) points out
    another coincidence. "The Mahommedans who usually identify St George
    with the prophet Elijah, at Lydda confound his legend with one about
    Christ himself. Their name for Antichrist is Dajjal, and they have a
    tradition that Jesus will slay Antichrist by the gate of Lydda. The
    notion sprang from an ancient bas-relief of George and the Dragon on
    the Lydda church. But Dajjal may be derived, by a very common
    confusion between _n_ and _l_, from Dagon, whose name two
    neighbouring villages bear to this day, while one of the gates of
    Lydda used to be called the Gate of Dagon." It is a curious process
    by which the monster that symbolized heathenism conquered by
    Christianity has been evolved out of the first great rival of the God
    of Israel.




GEORGE I. [George Louis] (1660-1727), king of Great Britain and Ireland,
born in 1660, was heir through his father Ernest Augustus to the
hereditary lay bishopric of Osnabruck, and to the duchy of Calenberg,
which formed one portion of the Hanoverian possessions of the house of
Brunswick, whilst he secured the reversion of the other portion, the
duchy of Celle or Zell, by his marriage (1682) with the heiress, his
cousin Sophia Dorothea. The marriage was not a happy one. The morals of
German courts in the end of the 17th century took their tone from the
splendid profligacy of Versailles. It became the fashion for a prince to
amuse himself with a mistress or more frequently with many mistresses
simultaneously, and he was often content that the mistresses whom he
favoured should be neither beautiful nor witty. George Louis followed
the usual course. Count Konigsmark--a handsome adventurer--seized the
opportunity of paying court to the deserted wife. Conjugal infidelity
was held at Hanover to be a privilege of the male sex. Count Konigsmark
was assassinated. Sophia Dorothea was divorced in 1694, and remained in
seclusion till her death in 1726. When George IV., her descendant in the
fourth generation, attempted in England to call his wife to account for
sins of which he was himself notoriously guilty, free-spoken public
opinion reprobated the offence in no measured terms. But in the Germany
of the 17th century all free-spoken public opinion had been crushed out
by the misery of the Thirty Years' War, and it was understood that
princes were to arrange their domestic life according to their own
pleasure.

The prince's father did much to raise the dignity of his family. By
sending help to the emperor when he was struggling against the French
and the Turks, he obtained the grant of a ninth electorate in 1692. His
marriage with Sophia, the youngest daughter of Elizabeth the daughter of
James I. of England, was not one which at first seemed likely to confer
any prospect of advancement to his family. But though there were many
persons whose birth gave them better claims than she had to the English
crown, she found herself, upon the death of the duke of Gloucester, the
next Protestant heir after Anne. The Act of Settlement in 1701 secured
the inheritance to herself and her descendants. Being old and
unambitious she rather permitted herself to be burthened with the honour
than thrust herself forward to meet it. Her son George took a deeper
interest in the matter. In his youth he had fought with determined
courage in the wars of William III. Succeeding to the electorate on his
father's death in 1698, he had sent a welcome reinforcement of
Hanoverians to fight under Marlborough at Blenheim. With prudent
persistence he attached himself closely to the Whigs and to Marlborough,
refusing Tory offers of an independent command, and receiving in return
for his fidelity a guarantee by the Dutch of his succession to England
in the Barrier treaty of 1709. In 1714 when Anne was growing old, and
Bolingbroke and the more reckless Tories were coquetting with the son of
James II., the Whigs invited George's eldest son, who was duke of
Cambridge, to visit England in order to be on the spot in case of need.
Neither the elector nor his mother approved of a step which was likely
to alienate the queen, and which was specially distasteful to himself,
as he was on very bad terms with his son. Yet they did not set
themselves against the strong wish of the party to which they looked for
support, and it is possible that troubles would have arisen from any
attempt to carry out the plan, if the deaths, first of the electress
(May 28) and then of the queen (August 1, 1714), had not laid open
George's way to the succession without further effort of his own.

In some respects the position of the new king was not unlike that of
William III. a quarter of a century before. Both sovereigns were
foreigners, with little knowledge of English politics and little
interest in English legislation. Both sovereigns arrived at a time when
party spirit had been running high, and when the task before the ruler
was to still the waves of contention. In spite of the difference between
an intellectually great man and an intellectually small one, in spite
too of the difference between the king who began by choosing his
ministers from both parties and the king who persisted in choosing his
ministers from only one, the work of pacification was accomplished by
George even more thoroughly than by William.

George I. was fortunate in arriving in England when a great military
struggle had come to an end. He had therefore no reason to call upon the
nation to make great sacrifices. All that he wanted was to secure for
himself and his family a high position which he hardly knew how to
occupy, to fill the pockets of his German attendants and his German
mistresses, to get away as often as possible from the uncongenial
islanders whose language he was unable to speak, and to use the strength
of England to obtain petty advantages for his German principality. In
order to do this he attached himself entirely to the Whig party, though
he refused to place himself at the disposal of its leaders. He gave his
confidence, not to Somers and Wharton and Marlborough, but to Stanhope
and Townshend, the statesmen of the second rank. At first he seemed to
be playing a dangerous game. The Tories, whom he rejected, were
numerically superior to their adversaries, and were strong in the
support of the country gentlemen and the country clergy. The strength of
the Whigs lay in the towns and in the higher aristocracy. Below both
parties lay the mass of the nation, which cared nothing for politics
except in special seasons of excitement, and which asked only to be let
alone. In 1715 a Jacobite insurrection in the north, supported by the
appearance of the Pretender, the son of James II., in Scotland, was
suppressed, and its suppression not only gave to the government a
character of stability, but displayed its adversaries in an unfavourable
light as the disturbers of the peace.

Even this advantage, however, would have been thrown away if the Whigs
in power had continued to be animated by violent party spirit. What
really happened was that the Tory leaders were excluded from office, but
that the principles and prejudices of the Tories were admitted to their
full weight in the policy of the government. The natural result
followed. The leaders to whom no regard was paid continued in
opposition. The rank and file, who would personally have gained nothing
by a party victory, were conciliated into quiescence.

This mingling of two policies was conspicuous both in the foreign and
the domestic actions of the reign. In the days of Queen Anne the Whig
party had advocated the continuance of war with a view to the complete
humiliation of the king of France, whom they feared as the protector of
the Pretender, and in whose family connexion with the king of Spain they
saw a danger for England. The Tory party, on the other hand, had been
the authors of the peace of Utrecht, and held that France was
sufficiently depressed. A fortunate concurrence of circumstances enabled
George's ministers, by an alliance with the regent of France, the duke
of Orleans, to pursue at the same time the Whig policy of separating
France from Spain and from the cause of the Pretender, and the Tory
policy of the maintenance of a good understanding with their neighbour
across the Channel. The same eclecticism was discernible in the
proceedings of the home government. The Whigs were conciliated by the
repeal of the Schism Act and the Occasional Conformity Act, whilst the
Tories were conciliated by the maintenance of the Test Act in all its
vigour. The satisfaction of the masses was increased by the general
well-being of the nation.

Very little of all that was thus accomplished was directly owing to
George I. The policy of the reign is the policy of his ministers.
Stanhope and Townshend from 1714 to 1717 were mainly occupied with the
defence of the Hanoverian settlement. After the dismissal of the latter
in 1717, Stanhope in conjunction with Sunderland took up a more decided
Whig policy. The Occasional Conformity Act and the Schism Act were
repealed in 1719. But the wish of the liberal Whigs to modify if not to
repeal the Test Act remained unsatisfied. In the following year the
bursting of the South Sea bubble, and the subsequent deaths of Stanhope
in 1721 and of Sunderland in 1722, cleared the way for the accession to
power of Sir Robert Walpole, to whom and not to the king was due the
conciliatory policy which quieted Tory opposition by abstaining from
pushing Whig principles to their legitimate consequences.

Nevertheless something of the honour due to Walpole must be reckoned to
the king's credit. It is evident that at his accession his decisions
were by no means unimportant. The royal authority was still able within
certain limits to make its own terms. This support was so necessary to
the Whigs that they made no resistance when he threw aside their leaders
on his arrival in England. When by his personal intervention he
dismissed Townshend and appointed Sunderland, he had no such social and
parliamentary combination to fear as that which almost mastered his
great-grandson in his struggle for power. If such a combination arose
before the end of his reign it was owing more to his omitting to fulfil
the duties of his station than from the necessity of the case. As he
could talk no English, and his ministers could talk no German, he
absented himself from the meetings of the cabinet, and his frequent
absences from England and his want of interest in English politics
strengthened the cabinet in its tendency to assert an independent
position. Walpole at last by his skill in the management of parliament
rose as a subject into the almost royal position denoted by the name of
prime minister. In connexion with Walpole the force of wealth and
station established the Whig aristocracy in a point of vantage from
which it was afterwards difficult to dislodge them. Yet, though George
had allowed the power which had been exercised by William and Anne to
slip through his hands, it was understood to the last that if he chose
to exert himself he might cease to be a mere cipher in the conduct of
affairs. As late as 1727 Bolingbroke gained over one of the king's
mistresses, the duchess of Kendal; and though her support of the fallen
Jacobite took no effect, Walpole was not without fear that her
reiterated entreaties would lead to his dismissal. The king's death in a
carriage on his way to Hanover, in the night between 10th and 11th June
in the same year, put an end to these apprehensions.

His only children were his successor George II. and Sophia Dorothea
(1687-1757), who married in 1706 Frederick William, crown prince
(afterwards king) of Prussia. She was the mother of Frederick the Great.
     (S. R. G.)

  See the standard English histories. A recent popular work is L.
  Melville's _The First George in Hanover and England_ (1908).




GEORGE II. [George Augustus] (1683-1760), king of Great Britain and
Ireland, the only son of George I., was born in 1683. In 1705 he married
Wilhelmina Caroline of Anspach. In 1706 he was created earl of
Cambridge. In 1708 he fought bravely at Oudenarde. At his father's
accession to the English throne he was thirty-one years of age. He was
already on bad terms with his father. The position of an heir-apparent
is in no case an easy one to fill with dignity, and the ill-treatment of
the prince's mother by his father was not likely to strengthen in him a
reverence for paternal authority. It was most unwillingly that, on his
first journey to Hanover in 1716, George I. appointed the prince of
Wales guardian of the realm during his absence. In 1717 the existing
ill-feeling ripened into an open breach. At the baptism of one of his
children, the prince selected one godfather whilst the king persisted in
selecting another. The young man spoke angrily, was ordered into arrest,
and was subsequently commanded to leave St James's and to be excluded
from all court ceremonies. The prince took up his residence at Leicester
House, and did everything in his power to support the opposition against
his father's ministers.

When therefore George I. died in 1727, it was generally supposed that
Walpole would be at once dismissed. The first direction of the new king
was that Sir Spencer Compton would draw up the speech in which he was to
announce to the privy council his accession. Compton, not knowing how to
set about his task, applied to Walpole for aid. Queen Caroline took
advantage of this evidence of incapacity, advocated Walpole's cause with
her husband and procured his continuance in office. This curious scene
was indicative of the course likely to be taken by the new sovereign.
His own mind was incapable of rising above the merest details of
business. He made war in the spirit of a drill-sergeant, and he
economized his income with the minute regularity of a clerk. A blunder
of a master of the ceremonies in marshalling the attendants on a levee
put him out of temper. He took the greatest pleasure in counting his
money piece by piece, and he never forgot a date. He was above all
things methodical and regular. "He seems," said one who knew him well,
"to think his having done a thing to-day an unanswerable reason for his
doing it to-morrow."

Most men so utterly immersed in details would be very impracticable to
deal with. They would obstinately refuse to listen to a wisdom and
prudence which meant nothing in their ears, and which brought home to
them a sense of their own inferiority. It was the happy peculiarity of
George II. that he was exempt from this failing. He seemed to have an
instinctive understanding that such and such persons were either wiser
or even stronger than himself, and when he had once discovered that, he
gave way with scarcely a struggle. Thus it was that, though in his
domestic relations he was as loose a liver as his father had been, he
allowed himself to be guided by the wise but unobtrusive counsels of his
wife until her death in 1737, and that when once he had recognized
Walpole's superiority he allowed himself to be guided by the political
sagacity of the great minister. It is difficult to exaggerate the
importance of such a temper upon the development of the constitution.
The apathy of the nation in all but the most exciting political
questions, fostered by the calculated conservatism of Walpole, had
thrown power into the hands of the great landowners. They maintained
their authority by supporting a minister who was ready to make use of
corruption, wherever corruption was likely to be useful, and who could
veil over the baseness of the means which he employed by his talents in
debate and in finance. To shake off a combination so strong would not
have been easy. George II. submitted to it without a struggle.

So strong indeed had the Whig aristocracy grown that it began to lose
its cohesion. Walpole was determined to monopolize power, and he
dismissed from office all who ventured to oppose him. An opposition
formidable in talents was gradually formed. In its composite ranks were
to be found Tories and discontented Whigs, discarded official hacks who
were hungry for the emoluments of office, and youthful purists who
fancied that if Walpole were removed, bribes and pensions would cease to
be attractive to a corrupt generation. Behind them was Bolingbroke,
excluded from parliament but suggesting every party move. In 1737 the
opposition acquired the support of Frederick, prince of Wales. The young
man, weak and headstrong, rebelled against the strict discipline exacted
by his father. His marriage in 1736 to Augusta of Saxony brought on an
open quarrel. In 1737, just as the princess of Wales was about to give
birth to her first child, she was hurried away by her husband from
Hampton Court to St James's Palace at the imminent risk of her life,
simply in order that the prince might show his spite to his father who
had provided all necessary attendance at the former place. George
ordered his son to quit St James's, and to absent himself from court.
Frederick in disgrace gave the support of his name, and he had nothing
else to give, to the opposition. Later in the year 1737, on the 20th of
November, Queen Caroline died. In 1742 Walpole, weighed down by the
unpopularity both of his reluctance to engage in a war with Spain and of
his supposed remissness in conducting the operations of that war, was
driven from office. His successors formed a composite ministry in which
Walpole's old colleagues and Walpole's old opponents were alike to be
found.

The years which followed settled conclusively, at least for this reign,
the constitutional question of the power of appointing ministers. The
war between Spain and England had broken out in 1739. In 1741 the death
of the emperor Charles VI. brought on the war of the Austrian
succession. The position of George II. as a Hanoverian prince drew him
to the side of Maria Theresa through jealousy of the rising Prussian
monarchy. Jealousy of France led England in the same direction, and in
1741 a subsidy of L300,000 was voted to Maria Theresa. The king himself
went to Germany and attempted to carry on the war according to his own
notions. Those notions led him to regard the safety of Hanover as of far
more importance than the wishes of England. Finding that a French army
was about to march upon his German states, he concluded with France a
treaty of neutrality for a year without consulting a single English
minister. In England the news was received with feelings of disgust. The
expenditure of English money and troops was to be thrown uselessly away
as soon as it appeared that Hanover was in the slightest danger. In 1742
Walpole was no longer in office. Lord Wilmington, the nominal head of
the ministry, was a mere cipher. The ablest and most energetic of his
colleagues, Lord Carteret (afterwards Granville), attached himself
specially to the king, and sought to maintain himself in power by his
special favour and by brilliant achievements in diplomacy.

In part at least by Carteret's mediation the peace of Breslau was
signed, by which Maria Theresa ceded Silesia to Frederick (July 28,
1742). Thus relieved on her northern frontier, she struck out vigorously
towards the west. Bavaria was overrun by her troops. In the beginning of
1743 one French army was driven across the Rhine. On June 27th another
French army was defeated by George II. in person at Dettingen. Victory
brought elation to Maria Theresa. Her war of defence was turned into a
war of vengeance. Bavaria was to be annexed. The French frontier was to
be driven back. George II. and Carteret after some hesitation placed
themselves on her side. Of the public opinion of the political classes
in England they took no thought. Hanoverian troops were indeed to be
employed in the war, but they were to be taken into British pay.
Collisions between British and Hanoverian officers were frequent. A
storm arose against the preference shown to Hanoverian interests. After
a brief struggle Carteret, having become Lord Granville by his mother's
death, was driven from office in November 1744.

Henry Pelham, who had become prime minister in the preceding year, thus
saw himself established in power. By the acceptance of this ministry,
the king acknowledged that the function of choosing a ministry and
directing a policy had passed from his hands. In 1745 indeed he recalled
Granville, but a few days were sufficient to convince him of the
futility of his attempt, and the effort to exclude Pitt at a later time
proved equally fruitless.

Important as were the events of the remainder of the reign, therefore,
they can hardly be grouped round the name of George II. The resistance
to the invasion of the Young Pretender in 1745, the peace of
Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748, the great war ministry of Pitt at the close of
the reign, did not receive their impulse from him. He had indeed done
his best to exclude Pitt from office. He disliked him on account of his
opposition in former years to the sacrifices demanded by the Hanoverian
connexion. When in 1756 Pitt became secretary of state in the Devonshire
administration, the king bore the yoke with difficulty. Early in the
next year he complained of Pitt's long speeches as being above his
comprehension, and on April 5, 1757, he dismissed him, only to take him
back shortly after, when Pitt, coalescing with Newcastle, became master
of the situation. Before Pitt's dismissal George II. had for once an
opportunity of placing himself on the popular side, though, as was the
case of his grandson during the American war, it was when the popular
side happened to be in the wrong. In the true spirit of a martinet, he
wished to see Admiral Byng executed. Pitt urged the wish of the House of
Commons to have him pardoned. "Sir," replied the king, "you have taught
me to look for the sense of my subjects in another place than in the
House of Commons." When George II. died in 1760, he left behind him a
settled understanding that the monarchy was one of the least of the
forces by which the policy of the country was directed. To this end he
had contributed much by his disregard of English opinion in 1743; but it
may fairly be added that, but for his readiness to give way to
irresistible adversaries, the struggle might have been far more bitter
and severe than it was.

Of the connexion between Hanover and England in this reign two memorials
remain more pleasant to contemplate than the records of parliamentary
and ministerial intrigues. With the support of George II., amidst the
derision of the English fashionable world, the Hanoverian Handel
produced in England those masterpieces which have given delight to
millions, whilst the foundation of the university of Gottingen by the
same king opened a door through which English political ideas afterwards
penetrated into Germany.

George II. had three sons,--Frederick Louis (1707-1751); George William
(1717-1718); and William Augustus, duke of Cumberland (1721-1765); and
five daughters, Anne (1709-1759), married to William, prince of Orange,
1734; Amelia Sophia Eleonora (1711-1786); Elizabeth Caroline
(1713-1757); Mary (1723-1772), married to Frederick, landgrave of
Hesse-Cassel, 1740; Louisa (1724-1751), married to Frederick V., king of
Denmark, 1743.     (S. R. G.)

  See Lord Hervey, _Memoirs of the Reign of George II._, ed. by J. W,
  Croker (3 vols., London, 1884); Horace Walpole, _Mem. of the Reign of
  George II._, with notes by Lord Holland (3 vols., 2nd ed., 1847).




GEORGE III. [George William Frederick] (1738-1820), king of Great
Britain and Ireland, son of Frederick, prince of Wales, and grandson of
George II., whom he succeeded in 1760, was born on the 4th of June 1738.
After his father's death in 1751 he had been educated in seclusion from
the fashionable world under the care of his mother and of her favourite
counsellor the earl of Bute. He had been taught to revere the maxims of
Bolingbroke's "Patriot King," and to believe that it was his appointed
task in life to break the power of the Whig houses resting upon
extensive property and the influence of patronage and corruption. That
power had already been gravely shaken. The Whigs from their incompetency
were obliged when the Seven Years' War broke out to leave its management
in the hands of William Pitt. The nation learned to applaud the great
war minister who succeeded where others had failed, and whose immaculate
purity put to shame the ruck of barterers of votes for places and
pensions.

In some sort the work of the new king was the continuation of the work
of Pitt. But his methods were very different. He did not appeal to any
widely spread feeling or prejudice; nor did he disdain the use of the
arts which had maintained his opponents in power. The patronage of the
crown was to be really as well as nominally his own; and he calculated,
not without reason, that men would feel more flattered in accepting a
place from a king than from a minister. The new Toryism of which he was
the founder was no recurrence to the Toryism of the days of Charles II.
or even of Anne. The question of the amount of toleration to be accorded
to Dissenters had been entirely laid aside. The point at issue was
whether the crown should be replaced in the position which George I.
might have occupied at the beginning of his reign, selecting the
ministers and influencing the deliberations of the cabinet. For this
struggle George III. possessed no inconsiderable advantages. With an
inflexible tenacity of purpose, he was always ready to give way when
resistance was really hopeless. As the first English-born sovereign of
his house, speaking from his birth the language of his subjects, he
found a way to the hearts of many who never regarded his predecessors as
other than foreign intruders. The contrast, too, between the pure
domestic life which he led with his wife Charlotte, whom he married in
1761, and the habits of three generations of his house, told in his
favour with the vast majority of his subjects. Even his marriage had
been a sacrifice to duty. Soon after his accession he had fallen in love
with Lady Sarah Lennox, and had been observed to ride morning by morning
along the Kensington Road, from which the object of his affections was
to be seen from the lawn of Holland House making hay, or engaged in some
other ostensible employment. Before the year was over Lady Sarah
appeared as one of the queen's bridesmaids, and she was herself married
to Sir Charles Bunbury in 1762.

At first everything seemed easy to him. Pitt had come to be regarded by
his own colleagues as a minister who would pursue war at any price, and
in getting rid of Pitt in 1761 and in carrying on the negotiations which
led to the peace of Paris in 1762, the king was able to gather round him
many persons who would not be willing to acquiesce in any permanent
change in the system of government. With the signature of the peace his
real difficulties began. The Whig houses, indeed, were divided amongst
themselves by personal rivalries. But they were none of them inclined to
let power and the advantages of power slip from their hands without a
struggle. For some years a contest of influence was carried on without
dignity and without any worthy aim. The king was not strong enough to
impose upon parliament a ministry of his own choice. But he gathered
round himself a body of dependants known as the king's friends, who were
secure of his favour, and who voted one way or the other according to
his wishes. Under these circumstances no ministry could possibly be
stable; and yet every ministry was strong enough to impose some
conditions on the king. Lord Bute, the king's first choice, resigned
from a sense of his own incompetency in 1763. George Grenville was in
office till 1765; the marquis of Rockingham till 1766; Pitt, becoming
earl of Chatham, till illness compelled him to retire from the conduct
of affairs in 1767, when he was succeeded by the duke of Grafton. But a
struggle of interests could gain no real strength for any government,
and the only chance the king had of effecting a permanent change in the
balance of power lay in the possibility of his associating himself with
some phase of strong national feeling, as Pitt had associated himself
with the war feeling caused by the dissatisfaction spread by the
weakness and ineptitude of his predecessors.

Such a chance was offered by the question of the right to tax America.
The notion that England was justified in throwing on America part of the
expenses caused in the late war was popular in the country, and no one
adopted it more pertinaciously then George III. At the bottom the
position which he assumed was as contrary to the principles of
parliamentary government as the encroachments of Charles I. had been.
But it was veiled in the eyes of Englishmen by the prominence given to
the power of the British parliament rather than to the power of the
British king. In fact the theory of parliamentary government, like most
theories after their truth has long been universally acknowledged, had
become a superstition. Parliaments were held to be properly vested with
authority, not because they adequately represented the national will,
but simply because they were parliaments. There were thousands of people
in England to whom it never occurred that there was any good reason why
a British parliament should be allowed to levy a duty on tea in the
London docks and should not be allowed to levy a duty on tea at the
wharves of Boston. Undoubtedly George III. derived great strength from
his honest participation in this mistake. Contending under parliamentary
forms, he did not wound the susceptibilities of members of parliament,
and when at last in 1770 he appointed Lord North--a minister of his own
selection--prime minister, the object of his ambition was achieved with
the concurrence of a large body of politicians who had nothing in common
with the servile band of the king's friends.

As long as the struggle with America was carried on with any hope of
success they gained that kind of support which is always forthcoming to
a government which shares in the errors and prejudices of its subjects.
The expulsion of Wilkes from the House of Commons in 1769, and the
refusal of the House to accept him as a member after his re-election,
raised a grave constitutional question in which the king was wholly in
the wrong; and Wilkes was popular in London and Middlesex. But his case
roused no national indignation, and when in 1774 those sharp measures
were taken with Boston which led to the commencement of the American
rebellion in 1775, the opposition to the course taken by the king made
little way either in parliament or in the country. Burke might point out
the folly and inexpedience of the proceedings of the government. Chatham
might point out that the true spirit of English government was to be
representative, and that that spirit was being violated at home and
abroad. George III., who thought that the first duty of the Americans
was to obey himself, had on his side the mass of unreflecting Englishmen
who thought that the first duty of all colonists was to be useful and
submissive to the mother-country. The natural dislike of every country
engaged in war to see itself defeated was on his side, and when the news
of Burgoyne's surrender at Saratoga arrived in 1777, subscriptions of
money to raise new regiments poured freely in.

In March 1778 the French ambassador in London announced that a treaty of
friendship and commerce had been concluded between France and the new
United States of America. Lord North was anxious to resign power into
stronger hands, and begged the king to receive Chatham as his prime
minister. The king would not hear of it. He would have nothing to say to
"that perfidious man" unless he would humble himself to enter the
ministry as North's subordinate. Chatham naturally refused to do
anything of the kind, and his death in the course of the year relieved
the king of the danger of being again overruled by too overbearing a
minister. England was now at war with France, and in 1779 she was also
at war with Spain.

George III. was still able to control the disposition of office. He
could not control the course of events. His very ministers gave up the
struggle as hopeless long before he would acknowledge the true state of
the case. Before the end of 1779, two of the leading members of the
cabinet, Lords Gower and Weymouth, resigned rather than bear the
responsibility of so ruinous an enterprise as the attempt to overpower
America and France together. Lord North retained office, but he
acknowledged to the king that his own opinion was precisely the same as
that of his late colleagues.

The year 1780 saw an agitation rising in the country for economical
reform, an agitation very closely though indirectly connected with the
war policy of the king. The public meetings held in the country on this
subject have no unimportant place in the development of the
constitution. Since the presentation of the Kentish petition in the
reign of William III. there had been from time to time upheavings of
popular feeling against the doings of the legislature, which kept up the
tradition that parliament existed in order to represent the nation. But
these upheavings had all been so associated with ignorance and violence
as to make it very difficult for men of sense to look with displeasure
upon the existing emancipation of the House of Commons from popular
control. The Sacheverell riots, the violent attacks upon the Excise
Bill, the no less violent advocacy of the Spanish War, the declamations
of the supporters of Wilkes at a more recent time, and even in this very
year the Gordon riots, were not likely to make thoughtful men anxious to
place real power in the hands of the classes from whom such exhibitions
of folly proceeded. But the movement for economical reform was of a very
different kind. It was carried on soberly in manner, and with a definite
practical object. It asked for no more than the king ought to have been
willing to concede. It attacked useless expenditure upon sinecures and
unnecessary offices in the household, the only use of which was to
spread abroad corruption amongst the upper classes. George III. could
not bear to be interfered with at all, or to surrender any element of
power which had served him in his long struggle with the Whigs. He held
out for more than another year. The news of the capitulation of Yorktown
reached London on the 25th of November 1781. On the 20th of March 1782
Lord North resigned.

George III. accepted the consequences of defeat. He called the marquis
of Rockingham to office at the head of a ministry composed of pure Whigs
and of the disciples of the late earl of Chatham, and he authorized the
new ministry to open negotiations for peace. Their hands were greatly
strengthened by Rodney's victory over the French fleet, and the failure
of the combined French and Spanish attack upon Gibraltar; and before the
end of 1782 a provisional treaty was signed with America, preliminaries
of peace with France and Spain being signed early in the following year.
On the 3rd of September 1783 the definitive treaties with the three
countries were simultaneously concluded. "Sir," said the king to John
Adams, the first minister of the United States of America accredited to
him, "I wish you to believe, and that it may be understood in America,
that I have done nothing in the late contest but what I thought myself
indispensably bound to do by the duty which I owed to my people. I will
be very frank with you. I was the last to consent to the separation: but
the separation having been made and having become inevitable, I have
always said, as I say now, that I would be the first to meet the
friendship of the United States as an independent power."

Long before the signature of the treaties Rockingham died (July 1,
1782). The king chose Lord Shelburne, the head of the Chatham section of
the government, to be prime minister. Fox and the followers of
Rockingham refused to serve except under the duke of Portland, a
minister of their own selection, and resigned office. The old
constitutional struggle of the reign was now to be fought out once more.
Fox, too weak to obtain a majority alone, coalesced with Lord North, and
defeated Shelburne in the House of Commons on the 27th of February 1783.
On the 2nd of April the coalition took office, with Portland as nominal
prime minister, and Fox and North the secretaries of state as its real
heads.

This attempt to impose upon him a ministry which he disliked made the
king very angry. But the new cabinet had a large majority in the House
of Commons, and the only chance of resisting it lay in an appeal to the
country against the House of Commons. Such an appeal was not likely to
be responded to unless the ministers discredited themselves with the
nation. George III. therefore waited his time. Though a coalition
between men bitterly opposed to one another in all political principles
and drawn together by nothing but love of office was in itself
discreditable, it needed some more positive cause of dissatisfaction to
arouse the constituencies, which were by no means so ready to interfere
in political disputes at that time as they are now. Such dissatisfaction
was given by the India Bill, drawn up by Burke. As soon as it had passed
through the Commons the king hastened to procure its rejection in the
House of Lords by his personal intervention with the peers. He
authorized Lord Temple to declare in his name that he would count any
peer who voted for the bill as his enemy. On the 17th of December 1783
the bill was thrown out. The next day ministers were dismissed. William
Pitt became prime minister. After some weeks' struggle with a constantly
decreasing majority in the Commons, the king dissolved parliament on the
25th of March 1784. The country rallied round the crown and the young
minister, and Pitt was firmly established in office.

There can be no reasonable doubt[1] that Pitt not only took advantage of
the king's intervention in the Lords, but was cognizant of the intrigue
before it was actually carried out. It was upon him, too, that the
weight of reconciling the country to an administration formed under such
circumstances lay. The general result, so far as George III. was
concerned, was that to all outward appearance he had won the great
battle of his life. It was he who was to appoint the prime minister, not
any clique resting on a parliamentary support. But the circumstances
under which the victory was won were such as to place the constitution
in a position very different from that in which it would have been if
the victory had been gained earlier in the reign. Intrigue there was
indeed in 1783 and 1784 as there had been twenty years before.
Parliamentary support was conciliated by Pitt by the grant of royal
favours as it had been in the days of Bute. The actual blow was struck
by a most questionable message to individual peers. But the main result
of the whole political situation was that George III. had gone a long
way towards disentangling the reality of parliamentary government from
its accidents. His ministry finally stood because it had appealed to the
constituencies against their representatives. Since then it has properly
become a constitutional axiom that no such appeal should be made by the
crown itself. But it may reasonably be doubted whether any one but the
king was at that time capable of making the appeal. Lord Shelburne, the
leader of the ministry expelled by the coalition, was unpopular in the
country, and the younger Pitt had not had time to make his great
abilities known beyond a limited circle. The real question for the
constitutional historian to settle is not whether under ordinary
circumstances a king is the proper person to place himself really as
well as nominally at the head of the government; but whether under the
special circumstances which existed in 1783 it was not better that the
king should call upon the people to support him, than that government
should be left in the hands of men who rested their power on close
boroughs and the dispensation of patronage, without looking beyond the
walls of the House of Commons for support.

That the king gained credit far beyond his own deserts by the glories of
Pitt's ministry is beyond a doubt. Nor can there be any reasonable doubt
that his own example of domestic propriety did much to strengthen the
position of his minister. It is true that that life was insufferably
dull. No gleams of literary or artistic taste lightened it up. The
dependants of the court became inured to dull routine unchequered by
loving sympathy. The sons of the household were driven by the sheer
weariness of such an existence into the coarsest profligacy. But all
this was not visible from a distance. The tide of moral and religious
improvement which had set in in England since the days of Wesley brought
popularity to a king who was faithful to his wife, in the same way that
the tide of manufacturing industry and scientific progress brought
popularity to the minister who in some measure translated into practice
the principles of the _Wealth of Nations_.

Nor were there wanting subjects of importance beyond the circle of
politics in which George III. showed a lively interest. The voyages of
discovery which made known so large a part of the islands and coasts of
the Pacific Ocean received from him a warm support. In the early days of
the Royal Academy, its finances were strengthened by liberal grants from
the privy purse. His favourite pursuit, however, was farming. When
Arthur Young was issuing his _Annals of Agriculture_, he was supplied
with information by the king, under the assumed name of Mr Ralph
Robinson, relating to a farm at Petersham.

The life of the king was suddenly clouded over. Early in his reign, in
1765, he had been out of health, and--though the fact was studiously
concealed at the time--symptoms of mental aberration were even then to
be perceived. In October 1788 he was again out of health, and in the
beginning of the following month his insanity was beyond a doubt. Whilst
Pitt and Fox were contending in the House of Commons over the terms on
which the regency should be committed to the prince of Wales, the king
was a helpless victim to the ignorance of physicians and the brutalities
of his servants. At last Dr Willis, who had made himself a name by
prescribing gentleness instead of rigour in the treatment of the insane,
was called in. Under his more humane management the king rapidly
recovered. Before the end of February 1789 he was able to write to Pitt
thanking him for his warm support of his interests during his illness.
On the 23rd of April he went in person to St Paul's to return thanks for
his recovery.

The popular enthusiasm which burst forth around St Paul's was but a
foretaste of a popularity far more universal. The French Revolution
frightened the great Whig landowners till they made their peace with the
king. Those who thought that the true basis of government was
aristocratical were now of one mind with those who thought that the true
basis of government was monarchical; and these two classes were joined
by a far larger multitude which had no political ideas whatever, but
which had a moral horror of the guillotine. As Elizabeth had once been
the symbol of resistance to Spain, George was now the symbol of
resistance to France. He was not, however, more than the symbol. He
allowed Pitt to levy taxes and incur debt, to launch armies to defeat,
and to prosecute the English imitators of French revolutionary courses.
At last, however, after the Union with Ireland was accomplished, he
learned that Pitt was planning a scheme to relieve the Catholics from
the disabilities under which they laboured. The plan was revealed to him
by the chancellor, Lord Loughborough, a selfish and intriguing
politician who had served all parties in turn, and who sought to forward
his own interests by falling in with the king's prejudices. George III.
at once took up the position from which he never swerved. He declared
that to grant concessions to the Catholics involved a breach of his
coronation oath. No one has ever doubted that the king was absolutely
convinced of the serious nature of the objection. Nor can there be any
doubt that he had the English people behind him. Both in his peace
ministry and in his war ministry Pitt had taken his stand on royal
favour and on popular support. Both failed him alike now, and he
resigned office at once. The shock to the king's mind was so great that
it brought on a fresh attack of insanity. This time, however, the
recovery was rapid. On the 14th of March 1801 Pitt's resignation was
formally accepted, and the late speaker, Mr Addington, was installed in
office as prime minister.

The king was well pleased with the change. He was never capable of
appreciating high merit in any one; and he was unable to perceive that
the question on which Pitt had resigned was more than an improper
question, with which he ought never to have meddled. "Tell him," he
said, in directing his physician to inform Pitt of his restoration to
health, "I am now quite well, quite recovered from my illness; but what
has he not to answer for, who has been the cause of my having been ill
at all?" Addington was a minister after his own mind. Thoroughly honest
and respectable, with about the same share of abilities as was possessed
by the king himself, he was certainly not likely to startle the world by
any flights of genius. But for one circumstance Addington's ministry
would have lasted long. So strong was the reaction against the
Revolution that the bulk of the nation was almost as suspicious of
genius as the king himself. Not only was there no outcry for legislative
reforms, but the very idea of reform was unpopular. The country
gentlemen were predominant in parliament, and the country gentlemen as a
body looked upon Addington with respect and affection. Such a minister
was therefore admirably suited to preside over affairs at home in the
existing state of opinion. But those who were content with inaction at
home would not be content with inaction abroad. In time of peace
Addington would have been popular for a season. In time of war even his
warmest admirers could not say that he was the man to direct armies in
the most terrible struggle which had ever been conducted by an English
government.

For the moment this difficulty was not felt. On the 1st of October 1801,
preliminaries of peace were signed between England and France, to be
converted into the definitive peace of Amiens on the 27th of March 1802.
The ruler of France was now Napoleon Bonaparte, and few persons in
England believed that he had any real purpose of bringing his aggressive
violence to an end. "Do you know what I call this peace?" said the king;
"an experimental peace, for it is nothing else. But it was unavoidable."

The king was right. On the 18th of May 1803 the declaration of war was
laid before parliament. The war was accepted by all classes as
inevitable, and the French preparations for an invasion of England
roused the whole nation to a glow of enthusiasm only equalled by that
felt when the Armada threatened its shores. On the 26th of October the
king reviewed the London volunteers in Hyde Park. He found himself the
centre of a great national movement with which he heartily sympathized,
and which heartily sympathized with him.

On the 12th of February 1804 the king's mind was again affected. When he
recovered, he found himself in the midst of a ministerial crisis. Public
feeling allowed but one opinion to prevail in the country--that Pitt,
not Addington, was the proper man to conduct the administration in time
of war. Pitt was anxious to form an administration on a broad basis,
including Fox and all prominent leaders of both parties. The king would
not hear of the admission of Fox. His dislike of him was personal as
well as political, as he knew that Fox had had a great share in drawing
the prince of Wales into a life of profligacy. Pitt accepted the king's
terms, and formed an administration in which he was the only man of real
ability. Eminent men, such as Lord Grenville, refused to join a ministry
from which the king had excluded a great statesman on purely personal
grounds.

The whole question was reopened on Pitt's death on the 23rd of January
1806. This time the king gave way. The ministry of All the Talents, as
it was called, included Fox amongst its members. At first the king was
observed to appear depressed at the necessity of surrender. But Fox's
charm of manner soon gained upon him. "Mr Fox," said the king, "I
little thought that you and I should ever meet again in this place; but
I have no desire to look back upon old grievances, and you may rest
assured I never shall remind you of them." On the 13th of September Fox
died, and it was not long before the king and the ministry were openly
in collision. The ministry proposed a measure enabling all subjects of
the crown to serve in the army and navy in spite of religious
disqualifications. The king objected even to so slight a modification of
the laws against the Catholics and Dissenters, and the ministers
consented to drop the bill. The king asked more than this. He demanded a
written and positive engagement that this ministry would never, under
any circumstances, propose to him "any measure of concession to the
Catholics, or even connected with the question." The ministers very
properly refused to bind themselves for the future. They were
consequently turned out of office, and a new ministry was formed with
the duke of Portland as first lord of the treasury and Mr Perceval as
its real leader. The spirit of the new ministry was distinct hostility
to the Catholic claims. On the 27th of April 1807 a dissolution of
parliament was announced, and a majority in favour of the king's
ministry was returned in the elections which speedily followed.

The elections of 1807, like the elections of 1784, gave the king the
mastery of the situation. In other respects they were the counterpart of
one another. In 1784 the country declared, though perhaps without any
clear conception of what it was doing, for a wise and progressive
policy. In 1807 it declared for an unwise and retrogressive policy, with
a very clear understanding of what it meant. It is in his reliance upon
the prejudices and ignorance of the country that the constitutional
significance of the reign of George III. appears. Every strong
government derives its power from its representative character. At a
time when the House of Commons was less really representative than at
any other, a king was on the throne who represented the country in its
good and bad qualities alike, in its hatred of revolutionary violence,
its moral sturdiness, its contempt of foreigners, and its defiance of
all ideas which were in any way strange. Therefore it was that his
success was not permanently injurious to the working of the constitution
as the success of Charles I. would have been. If he were followed by a
king less English than himself, the strength of representative power
would pass into other hands than those which held the sceptre.

The overthrow of the ministry of All the Talents was the last political
act of constitutional importance in which George III. took part. The
substitution of Perceval for Portland as the nominal head of the
ministry in 1809 was not an event of any real significance, and in 1811
the reign practically came to an end. The king's reason finally broke
down after the death of the princess Amelia, his favourite child; and
the prince of Wales (see GEORGE IV.) became prince regent. The remaining
nine years of George III.'s life were passed in insanity and blindness,
and he died on the 29th of January 1820.

His wife, Charlotte Sophia (1744-1818), was a daughter of Charles Louis
of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (d. 1816), and was married to the king in London
on the 8th of September 1761. After a peaceful and happy married life
the queen died at Kew on the 17th of November 1818.

George III. had nine sons. After his successor came Frederick, duke of
York and Albany (1763-1827); William Henry, duke of Clarence, afterwards
King William IV. (1765-1837); Edward Augustus, duke of Kent (1767-1825),
father of Queen Victoria; Ernest Augustus, duke of Cumberland,
afterwards king of Hanover (1771-1851); Augustus Frederick, duke of
Sussex (1773-1843); Adolphus Frederick, duke of Cambridge (1774-1850);
Octavius (1779-1783); Alfred (1780-1782). He had also six
daughters--Charlotte Augusta (1766-1828), married in 1797 to Frederick,
afterwards king of Wurttemberg; Augusta Sophia (1768-1840); Elizabeth
(1770-1840), married Frederick, landgrave of Hesse-Homburg, 1818; Mary
(1776-1857), married to William Frederick, duke of Gloucester, 1816;
Sophia (1777-1848); Amelia (1783-1810).     (S. R. G.)

  The numerous contemporary memoirs and diaries are full of the best
  material for a picture of George III.'s reign, apart from the standard
  histories. Thackeray's _Four Georges_ must not be trusted so far as
  historical judgment is concerned; Jesse's _Memoirs of the Life and
  Reign of George III._ (2nd ed., 1867) is chiefly concerned with
  personalities. See also Beckles Willson, _George III., as Man, Monarch
  and Statesman_ (1907).


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] See Lord Fitzmaurice's _Life of Shelburne_, iii. 393.




GEORGE IV. [George Augustus Frederick] (1762-1830), king of Great
Britain and Ireland, eldest son of George III., was born at St James's
Palace, London, on the 12th of August 1762. He was naturally gifted, was
well taught in the classics, learnt to speak French, Italian and German
fluently, and had considerable taste for music and the arts; and in
person he was remarkably handsome. His tutor, Bishop Richard Hurd, said
of him when fifteen years old that he would be "either the most polished
gentleman or the most accomplished blackguard in Europe--possibly both";
and the latter prediction was only too fully justified. Reaction from
the strict and parsimonious style of his parents' domestic life, which
was quite out of touch with the gaiety and extravagance of London
"society," had its natural effect in plunging the young prince of Wales,
flattered and courted as he was, into a whirl of pleasure-seeking. At
the outset his disposition was brilliant and generous, but it was
essentially unstable, and he started even before he came of age on a
career of dissipation which in later years became wholly profligate. He
had an early amour with the actress Mary ("Perdita") Robinson, and in
the choice of his friends he opposed and annoyed the king, with whom he
soon became (and always remained) on the worst of terms, by associating
himself with Fox and Sheridan and the Whig party. When in 1783 he came
of age, a compromise between the coalition ministry and the king secured
him an income of L50,000 from the Civil List, and L60,000 was voted by
parliament to pay his debts and start his separate establishment at
Carlton House. There, under the auspices of C.J. Fox and Georgiana,
duchess of Devonshire, he posed as a patron of Whig politics and a
leader in all the licence and luxury of gay society--the "First
gentleman in Europe," as his flatterers described him as years went on.
And at this early age he fell seriously in love with the famous Mrs
Fitzherbert.

His long connexion with this lady may most conveniently be summarized
here. It was indeed for some time the one redeeming and restraining
factor in his life, though her devotion and self-sacrificing conduct
were in marked contrast with his unscrupulousness and selfishness. Mary
Anne (or as she always called herself, Maria) Fitzherbert (1756-1837)
was the daughter of Walter Smythe, the second son of Sir John Smythe,
Bart., of Acton Burnell Park, Shropshire, and came of an old Roman
Catholic family. Educated at a French convent, she married first in 1775
Edward Weld, who died within the year, and secondly in 1778 Thomas
Fitzherbert, who died in 1781, leaving his widow with a comfortable
fortune. A couple of years later she became a prominent figure in London
society, and her beauty and charm at once attracted the young prince,
who wooed her with all the ardour of a violent passion. She herself was
distracted between her desire to return his love, her refusal to
contemplate becoming his mistress, and her knowledge that state reasons
made a regular marriage impossible. The Act of Settlement (1689)
entailed his forfeiture of the succession if he married a Roman
Catholic, apart from the fact that the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 made
any marriage illegal without the king's consent, which was out of the
question. But after trying for a while to escape his attentions, her
scruples were overcome. In Mrs Fitzherbert's eyes the state law was,
after all, not everything. To a Roman Catholic, and equally to any
member of the Christian church, a formal marriage ceremony would be
ecclesiastically and sacramentally binding; and after a period of
passionate importunacy on his part they were secretly married by the
Rev. R. Burt, a clergyman of the Church of England, on the 15th of
December 1785.[1] There is no doubt as to Mrs Fitzherbert's belief,
supported by ecclesiastical considerations, in her correct and binding,
though admittedly illegal, relationship to the prince as his canonical
wife; and though that relationship was not, and for political reasons
could not be, publicly admitted, it was in fact treated by their
intimates on the footing of a morganatic marriage. The position
nevertheless was inevitably a false one; Mrs Fitzherbert had promised
not to publish the evidence of the marriage (which, according to a
strict interpretation of the Act of Settlement might have barred
succession to the crown), and the rumours which soon got about led the
prince to allow it to be disavowed by his political friends. He lived in
the most extravagant way, became heavily involved in debt, and as the
king would not assist him, shut up Carlton House, and went to live with
Mrs Fitzherbert at Brighton. In 1787 a proposal was brought before the
House of Commons by Alderman Newnham for a grant in relief of his
embarrassments. It was on this occasion that Fox publicly declared in
the House of Commons, as on the prince's own authority, in answer to
allusions to the marriage, that the story was a malicious falsehood. A
little later Sheridan, in deference to Mrs Fitzherbert's pressure and to
the prince's own compunction, made a speech guardedly modifying Fox's
statement; but though in private the denial was understood, it effected
its object, the House voting a grant of L221,000 to the prince and the
king adding L10,000 to his income; and Mrs Fitzherbert, who at first
thought of severing her connexion with the prince, forgave him. Their
union--there was no child of the marriage--was brutally broken off in
June 1794 by the prince, when further pressure of debts (and the
influence of a new Egeria in Lady Jersey) made him contemplate his
official marriage with princess Caroline; in 1800, however, it was
renewed, after urgent pleading on the prince's part, and after Mrs
Fitzherbert had obtained a formal decision from the pope pronouncing her
to be his wife, and sanctioning her taking him back; her influence over
him continued till shortly before the prince became regent, when his
relations with Lady Hertford brought about a final separation. For the
best years of his life he had at least had in Mrs Fitzherbert the
nearest approach to a real wife, and this was fully recognized by the
royal family.[2] But his dissolute nature was entirely selfish, and his
various liaisons ended in the dominance of Lady Conyngham, the "Lady
Steward" of his household, from 1821 till his death.

Notorious as the prince of Wales had become by 1788, it was in that year
that his father's first attack of insanity made his position in the
state one of peculiar importance. Fox maintained and Pitt denied that
the prince of Wales, as the heir-apparent, had a right to assume the
regency independently of any parliamentary vote. Pitt, with the support
of both Houses, proposed to confer upon him the regency with certain
restrictions. The recovery of the king in February 1789 put an end,
however, to the prince's hopes. In 1794 the prince consented to a
marriage with a German Protestant princess, because his father would not
pay his debts on any other terms, and his cousin, Princess Caroline of
Brunswick, was brought over from Germany and married to him in 1795. Her
behaviour was light and flippant, and he was brutal and unloving. The
ill-assorted pair soon parted, and soon after the birth of their only
child, the princess Charlotte, they were formally separated. With great
unwillingness the House of Commons voted fresh sums of money to pay the
prince's debts.

In 1811 he at last became prince regent in consequence of his father's
definite insanity. No one doubted at that time that it was in his power
to change the ministry at his pleasure. He had always lived in close
connexion with the Whig opposition, and he now empowered Lord Grenville
to form a ministry. There soon arose differences of opinion between them
on the answer to be returned to the address of the Houses, and the
prince regent then informed the prime minister, Mr Perceval, that he
should continue the existing ministry in office. The ground alleged by
him for this desertion of his friends was the fear lest his father's
recovery might be rendered impossible if he should come to hear of the
advent of the opposition to power. Lord Wellesley's resignation in
February 1812 made the reconstruction of the ministry inevitable. As
there was no longer any hope of the king's recovery, the former
objection to a Whig administration no longer existed. Instead of taking
the course of inviting the Whigs to take office, he asked them to join
the existing administration. The Whig leaders, however, refused to join,
on the ground that the question of the Catholic disabilities was too
important to be shelved, and that their difference of opinion with Mr
Perceval was too glaring to be ignored. The prince regent was
excessively angry, and continued Perceval in office till that minister's
assassination on the 11th of May, when he was succeeded by Lord
Liverpool, after a negotiation in which the proposition of entering the
cabinet was again made to the Whigs and rejected by them. In the
military glories of the following years the prince regent had no share.
When the allied sovereigns visited England in 1814, he played the part
of host to perfection. So great was his unpopularity at home that hisses
were heard in the streets as he accompanied his guests into the city.
The disgust which his profligate and luxurious life caused amongst a
people suffering from almost universal distress after the conclusion of
the war rapidly increased. In 1817 the windows of the prince regent's
carriage were broken as he was on his way to open parliament.

The death of George III. on the 29th of January 1820, gave to his son
the title of king without in any way altering the position which he had
now held for nine years. Indirectly, however, this change brought out a
manifestation of popular feeling such as his father had never been
subjected to even in the early days of his reign, when mobs were burning
jack-boots and petticoats. The relations between the new king and his
wife unavoidably became the subject of public discussion. In 1806 a
charge against the princess of having given birth to an illegitimate
child had been conclusively disproved, and the old king had consequently
refused to withdraw her daughter, the princess Charlotte, from her
custody. When in the regency the prince was able to interfere, and
prohibited his wife from seeing her daughter more than once a fortnight.
On this, in 1813, the princess addressed to her husband a letter setting
forth her complaints, and receiving no answer published it in the
_Morning Chronicle_. The prince regent then referred the letter,
together with all papers relating to the inquiry of 1806, to a body of
twenty-three privy councillors for an opinion whether it was fit that
the restrictions on the intercourse between the princess Charlotte and
her mother should continue in force. All except two answered as the
regent wished them to answer. But if the official leaning was towards
the husband, the leaning of the general public was towards the wife of a
man whose own life had not been such as to justify him in complaining of
her whom he had thrust from him without a charge of any kind. Addresses
of sympathy were sent up to the princess from the city of London and
other public bodies. The discord again broke out in 1814 in consequence
of the exclusion of the princess from court during the visit of the
allied sovereigns. In August in that year she left England, and after a
little time took up her abode in Italy. The accession of George IV.
brought matters to a crisis. He ordered that no prayer for his wife as
queen should be admitted into the Prayer Book. She at once challenged
the accusation which was implied in this omission by returning to
England. On the 7th of June she arrived in London. Before she left the
continent she had been informed that proceedings would be taken against
her for adultery if she landed in England. Two years before, in 1818,
commissioners had been sent to Milan to investigate charges against her,
and their report, laid before the cabinet in 1819, was made the basis of
the prosecution. On the day on which she arrived in London a message was
laid before both Houses recommending the criminating evidence to
parliament. A secret committee in the House of Lords after considering
this evidence brought in a report on which the prime minister founded a
Bill of Pains and Penalties to divorce the queen and to deprive her of
her royal title. The bill passed the three readings with diminished
majorities, and when on the third reading it obtained only a majority of
nine, it was abandoned by the Government. The king's unpopularity, great
as it had been before, was now greater than ever. Public opinion,
without troubling itself to ask whether the queen was guilty or not, was
roused to indignation by the spectacle of such a charge being brought by
a husband who had thrust away his wife to fight the battle of life
alone, without protection or support, and who, whilst surrounding her
with spies to detect, perhaps to invent, her acts of infidelity, was
himself notorious for his adulterous life. In the following year (1821)
she attempted to force her way into Westminster Abbey to take her place
at the coronation. On this occasion the popular support failed her; and
her death in August relieved the king from further annoyance.

Immediately after the death of the queen, the king set out for Ireland.
He remained there but a short time, and his effusive declaration that
rank, station, honours were nothing compared with the exalted happiness
of living in the hearts of his Irish subjects gained him a momentary
popularity which was beyond his attainment in a country where he was
better known. His reception in Dublin encouraged him to attempt a visit
to Edinburgh in the following year (August 1822). Since Charles II. had
come to play the sorry part of a covenanting king in 1650 no sovereign
of the country had set foot on Scottish soil. Sir Walter Scott took the
leading part in organizing his reception. The enthusiasm with which he
was received equalled, if it did not surpass, the enthusiasm with which
he had been received in Dublin. But the qualities which enabled him to
fix the fleeting sympathies of the moment were not such as would enable
him to exercise the influence in the government which had been
indubitably possessed by his father. He returned from Edinburgh to face
the question of the appointment of a secretary of state which had been
raised by the death of Lord Londonderry (Castlereagh). It was upon the
question of the appointment of ministers that the battle between the
Whigs and the king had been fought in the reign of George III. George
IV. had neither the firmness nor the moral weight to hold the reins
which his father had grasped. He disliked Canning for having taken his
wife's side very much as his father had disliked Fox for taking his own.
But Lord Liverpool insisted on Canning's admission to office, and the
king gave way. Tacitly and without a struggle the constitutional victory
of the last reign was surrendered. But it was not surrendered to the
same foe as that from which it had been won. The coalition ministry in
1784 rested on the great landowners and the proprietors of rotten
boroughs. Lord Liverpool's ministry had hitherto not been very
enlightened, and it supported itself to a great extent upon a narrow
constituency. But it did appeal to public opinion in a way that the
coalition did not, and what it wanted itself in popular support would be
supplied by its successors. What one king had gained from a clique
another gave up to the nation. Once more, on Lord Liverpool's death in
1827, the same question was tried with the same result. The king not
only disliked Canning personally, but he was opposed to Canning's
policy. Yet after some hesitation he accepted Canning as prime minister;
and when, after Canning's death and the short ministry of Lord Goderich,
the king in 1828 authorized the duke of Wellington to form a ministry,
he was content to lay down the principle that the members of it were not
expected to be unanimous on the Catholic question. When in 1829 the
Wellington ministry unexpectedly proposed to introduce a Bill to remove
the disabilities of the Catholics, he feebly strove against the proposal
and quickly withdrew his opposition. The worn-out debauchee had neither
the merit of acquiescing in the change nor the courage to resist it.

George IV. died on the 26th of June 1830, and was succeeded by his
brother, the duke of Clarence, as William IV. His only child by Queen
Caroline, the princess Charlotte Augusta, was married in 1816 to Leopold
of Saxe-Coburg, afterwards king of the Belgians, and died in childbirth
on the 6th of November 1817.

  George IV. was a bad king, and his reign did much to disgust the
  country with the Georgian type of monarchy; but libertine and
  profligate as he became, the abuse which has been lavished on his
  personal character has hardly taken into sufficient consideration the
  loose morals of contemporary society, the political position of the
  Whig party, and his own ebullient temperament. Thackeray, in his _Four
  Georges_, is frequently unfair in this respect. The just condemnation
  of the moralist and satirist requires some qualification in the light
  of the picture of the period handed down in the memoirs and diaries of
  the time, such as Greville's, Croker's, Creevey's, Lord Holland's,
  Lord Malmesbury's, &c. Among later works see _The First Gentleman of
  Europe_, by Lewis Melville (1906), a book for the general reader.
       (S. R. G.; H. Ch.)


FOOTNOTES:

  [1] For a discussion of the ecclesiastical validity of the marriage
    see W.H. Wilkins, _Mrs Fitzherbert and George IV._ (1905), chs. vi.
    and vii.

  [2] Mrs Fitzherbert herself, after her final separation from the
    prince, with an annuity of L6000 a year, lived an honoured and more
    or less retired life mainly at Brighton, a town which owed its rapid
    development in fashionable popularity and material wealth to its
    selection by the prince and herself as a residence from the earliest
    years of their union; and there she died, seven years after the death
    of George IV., in 1837. William IV. on his accession offered to
    create her a duchess, but she declined; she accepted, however, his
    permission to put her servants in royal livery. William IV. in fact
    did all he could, short of a public acknowledgment (which the duke of
    Wellington opposed on state grounds), to recognize her position as
    his brother's widow. Charles Greville, writing of her after her
    death, says in his _Diary_, "She was not a clever woman, but of a
    very noble spirit, disinterested, generous, honest and affectionate."
    The actual existence of a marriage tie and the documentary evidence
    of her rights were not definitely established for many years; but in
    1905 a sealed packet, deposited at Coutts's bank in 1833, was at
    length opened by royal permission, and the marriage certificate and
    other conclusive proofs therein contained were published in Mr W.H.
    Wilkins's _Mrs Fitzherbert and George IV_. In 1796 the prince had
    made a remarkable will in Mrs Fitzherbert's favour, which he gave her
    in 1799, and it is included among these documents (now in the private
    archives at Windsor). In this he speaks of her emphatically
    throughout as "my wife." It also contained directions that at his
    death a locket with her miniature, which he always wore, should be
    interred with him; and Mrs Fitzherbert was privately assured, on the
    duke of Wellington's authority, that when the king was buried at
    Windsor the miniature was on his breast.




GEORGE V. [GEORGE FREDERICK ERNEST ALBERT], king of Great Britain and
Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, emperor of India
(1865- ), second son of King Edward VII., was born at Marlborough House,
London, on the 3rd of June 1865. When four years old, he and his elder
brother, Prince Albert Victor, two years his senior, were placed under
the tutorship of John Neale Dalton, then curate of Sandringham. In 1877
the two princes became naval cadets on the "Britannia" at Spithead,
where they passed through the ordinary curriculum, and in 1879 they
joined H.M.S. "Bacchante" under the command of Captain Lord Charles
Scott, making a voyage to the West Indies, in the course of which they
were rated midshipmen. After a month at home in 1880 they returned to
the ship to make another prolonged cruise in H.M.S. "Bacchante," in the
course of which they visited South America, South Africa, Australia, the
Fiji Islands, Japan, Ceylon, Egypt, Palestine and Greece. A narrative of
this voyage, _The Cruise of H.M.S. "Bacchante_," compiled from the
letters, diaries and notebooks of the princes, was published in 1886. At
the close of this tour in 1882 the brothers separated. Prince George,
who remained in the naval service, was appointed to H.M.S. "Canada,"
commanded by Captain Durrant, on the North American and West Indian
station, and was promoted sub-lieutenant. On his return home he passed
through the Royal Naval College at Greenwich and the gunnery and torpedo
schools, being promoted lieutenant in 1885. A year later he was
appointed to H.M.S. "Thunderer" of the Mediterranean squadron, and was
subsequently transferred to H.M.S. "Dreadnaught" and H.M.S. "Alexandra."
In 1889 he joined the flagship of the Channel squadron, H.M.S.
"Northumberland," and in that year was in command of torpedo boat No. 79
for the naval manoeuvres. In 1890 he was put in command of the gunboat
H.M.S. "Thrush" for service on the North American and West Indian
station. After his promotion as commander in 1891 he commissioned H.M.S.
"Melampus," the command of which he relinquished on the death of his
brother, Albert Victor, the duke of Clarence, in January 1892, since his
duties as eventual heir to the crown precluded him from devoting himself
exclusively to the navy. He was promoted captain in 1893, rear-admiral
in 1901, and vice-admiral in 1903. He was created duke of York, earl of
Inverness, and Baron Killarney in 1892, and on the 6th of July 1893 he
married Princess Victoria Mary (b. 26th May 1867), daughter of Francis,
duke of Teck, and Princess Mary Adelaide, duchess of Teck, daughter of
Adolphus Frederick, duke of Cambridge. Their eldest son, Prince Edward
Albert, was born at White Lodge, Richmond, on the 23rd of June 1894;
Prince Albert Frederick George was born at Sandringham on the 14th of
December 1895; Princess Victoria Alexandra on the 25th of April 1897;
Prince Henry William Frederick Albert on the 31st of March 1900; Prince
George Edward Alexander Edmund on the 20th of December 1902; and Prince
John Charles Francis on the 12th of July 1905. The duke and duchess of
York visited Ireland in 1899, and it had been arranged before the death
of Queen Victoria that they should make a tour in the colonies. On the
accession of King Edward VII. (1901) this plan was confirmed. They
sailed in the "Ophir" on the 16th of March 1901, travelling by the
ordinary route, and landed at Melbourne in May, when they opened the
first parliament of the Commonwealth. They then proceeded to New
Zealand, returning by way of South Africa and Canada. An official
account of the tour was published by Sir Donald Mackenzie Wallace as
_The Web of Empire_ (1902). In November 1901 the duke was created prince
of Wales. On the death of Edward VII. (May 6, 1910) he succeeded to the
Crown as George V., his consort taking the style of Queen Mary.




GEORGE V., king of Hanover (1819-1878), was the only son of Ernest
Augustus, king of Hanover and duke of Cumberland, and consequently a
grandson of the English king George III. Born in Berlin on the 27th of
May 1819, his youth was passed in England and in Berlin until 1837, when
his father became king of Hanover and he took up his residence in that
country. He lost the sight of one eye during a childish illness, and the
other by an accident in 1833. Being thus totally blind there were doubts
whether he was qualified to succeed to the government of Hanover; but
his father decided that he should do so, as the law of the dissolved
empire only excluded princes who were born blind. This decision was a
fatal one to the dynasty. Both from his father and from his maternal
uncle, Charles Frederick, prince of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1785-1837),
one of the most influential men at the Prussian court, George had
learned to take a very high and autocratic view of royal authority. His
blindness prevented him from acquiring the shrewdness and knowledge of
the world which had assisted his father, and he easily fell into the
hands of unwise, and perhaps dishonest and disloyal, advisers. A man of
deep religious feeling, he formed a fantastic conception of the place
assigned to the house of Guelph in the divine economy, and had ideas of
founding a great Guelph state in Europe. It is, therefore, not
surprising that from the time of his accession in November 1851 he was
constantly engaged in disputes with his _Landtag_ or parliament, and was
consequently in a weak and perilous position when the crisis in the
affairs of Germany came in 1866. Having supported Austria in the diet of
the German confederation in June 1866, he refused, contrary to the
wishes of his parliament, to assent to the Prussian demand that Hanover
should observe an unarmed neutrality during the war. As a result his
country and his capital were at once occupied by the Prussians, to whom
his army surrendered on the 29th of June 1866, and in the following
September Hanover was formally annexed by Prussia. From his retreat at
Hietzing near Vienna, George appealed in vain to the powers of Europe;
and supported by a large number of his subjects, an agitation was
carried on which for a time caused some embarrassment to Prussia. All
these efforts, however, to bring about a restoration were unavailing,
and the king passed the remainder of his life at Gmunden in Austria, or
in France, refusing to the last to be reconciled with the Prussian
government. Whilst visiting Paris for medical advice he died in that
city on the 12th of June 1878, and was buried in St George's chapel,
Windsor. In February 1843 he had married Marie, daughter of Joseph, duke
of Saxe-Altenburg, by whom he left a son and two daughters. His son,
Ernest Augustus, duke of Cumberland (b. 1845), continued to maintain the
claim of his house to the kingdom of Hanover.

By the capitulation of 1866 the king was allowed to retain his personal
property, which included money and securities equal to nearly
L1,500,000, which had been sent to England before the Prussian invasion
of Hanover. The crown jewels had also been secretly conveyed to England.
His valuable plate, which had been hidden at Herrenhausen, was restored
to him in 1867; his palace at Herrenhausen, near Hanover, was reserved
as his property; and in 1867 the Prussian government agreed to
compensate him for the loss of his landed estates, but owing to his
continued hostility the payment of the interest on this sum was
suspended in the following year (see HANOVER).

  See O. Klopp, _Konig Georg V._ (Hanover, 1878); O. Theodor,
  _Erinnerungen an Georg V._ (Bremerhaven, 1878); and O. Meding,
  _Memoiren zur Zeitgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1881-1884).




GEORGE I., king of the Hellenes (1845- ), second son of King Christian
IX. of Denmark, was born at Copenhagen on the 24th of December 1845.
After the expulsion of King Otho in 1862, the Greek nation, by a
plebiscite, elected the British prince, Alfred, duke of Edinburgh
(subsequently duke of Coburg), to the vacant throne, and on his refusal
the national assembly requested Great Britain to nominate a candidate.
The choice of the British government fell on Prince Christian William
Ferdinand Adolphus George of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg,
whose election as king of the Hellenes, with the title George I., was
recognized by the powers (6th of June 1863). The sister of the new
sovereign, Princess Alexandra, had a few months before (10th March)
married the prince of Wales, afterwards King Edward VII., and his father
succeeded to the crown of Denmark in the following November. Another
sister, Princess Dagmar, subsequently married the grand duke Alexander
Alexandrovitch, afterwards Emperor Alexander III. of Russia. On his
accession, King George signed an act resigning his right of succession
to the Danish throne in favour of his younger brother Prince Waldemar.
He was received with much enthusiasm by the Greeks. Adopting the motto,
"My strength is the love of my people," he ruled in strict accordance
with constitutional principles, though not hesitating to make the
fullest use of the royal prerogative when the intervention of the crown
seemed to be required by circumstances. For the events of his reign see
GREECE: _History_.

King George married, on the 27th of October 1867, the grand duchess Olga
Constantinovna of Russia, who became distinguished in Greece for her
activity on behalf of charitable objects. Their children were Prince
Constantine, duke of Sparta (b. 1868), who married in 1889 Princess
Sophia of Prussia, daughter of the emperor Frederick, and granddaughter
of Queen Victoria; Prince George (b. 1869), from November 1898 to
October 1906 high commissioner of the powers in Crete; Prince Nicholas
(b. 1872), who married in 1902 the grand duchess Helen-Vladimirovna of
Russia; Prince Andrew (b. 1882), who married in 1903 Princess Alice of
Battenberg; Prince Christopher (b. 1888); and a daughter, Princess Marie
(b. 1876), who married in 1900 the grand duke George Michailovich of
Russia.




GEORGE, king of Saxony (1832-1904), the youngest son of King John of
Saxony (d. 1873) and Queen Amelia, was born at Dresden on the 8th of
August 1832. From an early age he received a careful scientific and
military training, and in 1846 entered the active army as a lieutenant
of artillery. In 1849-1850 he was a student at the university of Bonn,
but soon returned to military life, for which he had a predilection. In
the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 he commanded a Saxon cavalry brigade,
and in the early part of the war of 1870-71 a division, but later
succeeded to the supreme command of the XII. (Saxon) army corps in the
room of his brother, the crown prince Albert (afterwards king) of
Saxony. His name is inseparably associated with this campaign, during
which he showed undoubted military ability and an intrepidity which
communicated itself to all ranks under his command, notably at the
battles of St Privat and Beaumont, in which he greatly distinguished
himself. On his brother succeeding to the throne he became
commander-in-chief of the Saxon army, and was in 1888 made a Prussian
field marshal by the emperor William I. He married in 1859 the infanta
Maria, sister of King Louis of Portugal, and King Albert's marriage
being childless, succeeded on his death in 1902 to the throne of Saxony.
He died on the 15th of October 1904, at Pillnitz.




GEORGE OF LAODICEA in Syria, often called "the Cappadocian," from 356 to
361 Arian archbishop of Alexandria, was born about the beginning of the
4th century. According to Ammianus (xxii. 11), he was a native of
Epiphania, in Cilicia. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that his father was a
fuller, and that he himself soon became notorious as a parasite of so
mean a type that he would "sell himself for a cake." After many
wanderings, in the course of which he seems to have amassed a
considerable fortune, first as an army-contractor and then as a receiver
of taxes, he ultimately reached Alexandria. It is not known how or when
he obtained ecclesiastical orders; but, after Athanasius had been
banished in 356, George was promoted by the influence of the then
prevalent Arian faction to the vacant see. His theological attitude was
that known as semi-Arian or Homoiousian, and his associates were
Eustathius of Sebaste and Basil of Ancyra. At George's instigation the
second Sirmian formula (promulgated by the third council of Sirmium
357), which was conciliatory towards strict Arianism, was opposed at the
council of Ancyra in 358 (Harnack, _Hist. of Dogma_, iv. 76). His
persecutions and oppressions of the orthodox ultimately raised a
rebellion which compelled him to flee for his life; but his authority
was restored, although with difficulty, by a military demonstration.
Untaught by experience, he resumed his course of selfish tyranny over
Christians and heathen alike, and raised the irritation of the populace
to such a pitch that when, on the accession of Julian, his downfall was
proclaimed and he was committed to prison, they dragged him thence and
killed him, finally casting his body into the sea (24th of December
361). With much that was sordid and brutal in his character George
combined a highly cultivated literary taste, and in the course of his
chequered career he had found the means of collecting a splendid
library, which Julian ordered to be conveyed to Antioch for his own use.
An anonymous work against the Manicheans discovered by Lagarde in 1859
in a MS. of Titus of Bostra has been attributed to him.

  The original sources for the facts of the life of George of Laodicea
  are Ammianus, Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius and Athanasius. His
  character has been drawn with graphic fidelity by Gibbon in the 23rd
  chapter of the _Decline and Fall_; but the theory, accepted by Gibbon,
  which identifies him with the patron saint of England is now rejected
  (see GEORGE, SAINT). See C.S. Hulst, _St George of Cappadocia in
  Legend and History_ (1910).




GEORGE OF TREBIZOND (1395-1484), Greek philosopher and scholar, one of
the pioneers of the revival of letters in the Western world, was born in
the island of Crete, and derived his surname Trapezuntios from the fact
that his ancestors were from Trebizond. At what period he came to Italy
is not certain; according to some accounts he was summoned to Venice
about 1430 to act as amanuensis to Francesco Barbaro, who appears to
have already made his acquaintance; according to others he did not visit
Italy till the time of the council of Florence (1438-1439). He learned
Latin from Vittorino da Feltre, and made such rapid progress that in
three years he was able to teach Latin literature and rhetoric. His
reputation as a teacher and a translator of Aristotle was very great,
and he was selected as secretary by Pope Nicholas V., an ardent
Aristotelian. The needless bitterness of his attacks upon Plato (in the
_Comparatio Aristotelis et Platonis_), which drew forth a powerful
response from Bessarion (q.v.), and the manifestly hurried and
inaccurate character of his translations of Plato, Aristotle and other
classical authors, combined to ruin his fame as a scholar, and to
endanger his position as a teacher of philosophy. The indignation
against him on account of his first-named work was so great that he
would probably have been compelled to leave Italy had not Alphonso V.
given him protection at the court of Naples. He subsequently returned to
Rome, where he died in great poverty on the 12th of August 1484. He had
long outlived his reputation, and towards the end of his life his
intellect failed him. From all accounts he was a man of very
disagreeable character, conceited and quarrelsome.

  See G. Voigt, _Die Wiederbelebung des klassischen Altertums_ (1893),
  and article by C.F. Bahr in Ersch and Gruber's _Allgemeine
  Encyklopadie_. For a complete list of his numerous works, consisting
  of translations from Greek into Latin (Plato, Aristotle and the
  Fathers) and original essays in Greek (chiefly theological) and Latin
  (grammatical and rhetorical), see Fabricius, _Bibliotheca Graeca_ (ed.
  Harles), xii.




GEORGE THE MONK [GEORGIOS MONACHOS], called Hamartolos (Greek for
"sinner"), Byzantine chronicler, lived during the reign of Michael III.
(842-867). He wrote a _Chronicle_ of events, in four books, from the
creation of the world to the death of the emperor Theophilus (842),
whose widow Theodora restored the worship of images in the same year. It
is the only original contemporary authority for the years 813-842, and
therefore so far indispensable; the early parts of the work are merely a
compilation. In the introduction the author disclaims all pretensions to
literary style, and declares that his only object was to relate such
things as were "useful and necessary" with a strict adherence to truth.
Far too much attention, however, is devoted to religious matters; the
iconoclasts are fiercely attacked, and the whole is interlarded with
theological discussions and quotations from the fathers. The work was
very popular, and translations of it served as models for Slavonic
writers. The MSS. give a continuation down to 948, the author of which
is indicated simply as "the logothete," by whom probably Symeon
Metaphrastes (second half of the 10th century) is meant. In this
religious questions are relegated to the background, more attention is
devoted to political history, and the language is more popular. Still
further continuations of little value go down to 1143. The large
circulation of the work and its subsequent reissues, with alterations
and interpolations, make it very difficult to arrive at the original
text.

  EDITIONS: E. de Muralt (St Petersburg, 1859); J.P. Migne, _Patrologia
  Graeca_, cx.; C. de Boor (in Teubner series, 1904- ). See F. Hirsch,
  _Byzantinische Studien_ (1876); C. de Boor in _Historische
  Untersuchungen_ (in honour of Arnold Schafer, Bonn, 1882); C.
  Krumbacher, _Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur_ (1897).




GEORGE THE SYNCELLUS [GEORGIOS SYNKELLOS], of Constantinople, Byzantine
chronicler and ecclesiastic, lived at the end of the 8th and the
beginning of the 9th century A.D. He was the _syncellus_ (cell-mate, the
confidential companion assigned to the patriarchs, sometimes little more
than a spy; see SYNCELLUS) or private secretary of Tara(u)sius,
patriarch of Constantinople (784-806), after whose death he retired to a
convent, and wrote his _Chronicle_ of events from Adam to Diocletian
(285). At his earnest request, the work, which he doubtless intended to
bring down to his own times, was continued after his death by his friend
Theophanes Confessor. The _Chronicle_, which, as its title implies, is
rather a chronological table (with notes) than a history, is written
with special reference to pre-Christian times and the introduction of
Christianity, and exhibits the author as a staunch upholder of
orthodoxy. But in spite of its religious bias and dry and uninteresting
character, the fragments of ancient writers and apocryphal books
preserved in it render it specially valuable. For instance, considerable
portions of the original text of the _Chronicle_ of Eusebius have been
restored by the aid of Syncellus. His chief authorities were Annianus of
Alexandria (5th century) and Panodorus, an Egyptian monk, who wrote
about the year 400 and drew largely from Eusebius, Dexippus and Julius
Africanus.

  Editio princeps, by J. Goar (1652); in Bonn _Corpus scriptorum hist.
  Byz._, by W. Dindorf (1829). See also H. Gelzer, _Sextus Julius
  Africanus_, ii. 1 (1885); C. Krumbacher, _Geschichte der
  byzantinischen Litteratur_ (1897).




GEORGE, HENRY (1839-1897), American author and political economist, was
born in Philadelphia, Penn., on the 2nd of September 1839. He settled in
California in 1858; removed to New York, 1880; was first a printer, then
an editor, but finally devoted all his life to economic and social
questions. In 1871 he published _Our Land Policy_, which, as further
developed in 1879 under the title of _Progress and Poverty_, speedily
attracted the widest attention both in America and in Europe. In 1886 he
published _Protection or Free Trade_. Henry George had no political
ambition, but in 1886 he received an independent nomination as mayor of
New York City, and became so popular that it required a coalition of
the two strongest political parties to prevent his election. He received
68,000 votes, against 90,000 for the coalition candidate. His death on
the 29th of October 1897 was followed by one of the greatest
demonstrations of popular feeling and general respect that ever attended
the funeral of any strictly private citizen in American history. The
fundamental doctrine of Henry George, the equal right of all men to the
use of the earth, did not originate with him; but his clear statement of
a method by which it could be enforced, without increasing state
machinery, and indeed with a great simplification of government, gave it
a new form. This method he named the _Single Tax_. His doctrine may be
condensed as follows: The land of every country belongs of right to all
the people of that country. This right cannot be alienated by one
generation, so as to affect the title of the next, any more than men can
sell their yet unborn children for slaves. Private ownership of land has
no more foundation in morality or reason than private ownership of air
or sunlight. But the private occupancy and use of land are right and
indispensable. Any attempt to divide land into equal shares is
impossible and undesirable. Land should be, and practically is now,
divided for private use in parcels among those who will pay the highest
price for the use of each parcel. This price is now paid to some persons
annually, and it is called _rent_. By applying the rent of land,
exclusive of all improvements, to the equal benefit of the whole
community, absolute justice would be done to all. As rent is always more
than sufficient to defray all necessary expenses of government, those
expenses should be met by a tax upon rent alone, to be brought about by
the gradual abolition of all other taxes. Landlords should be left in
undisturbed possession and nominal ownership of the land, with a
sufficient margin over the tax to induce them to collect their rents and
pay the tax. They would thus be transformed into mere land agents.
Obviously this would involve absolute free trade, since all taxes on
imports, manufactures, successions, documents, personal property,
buildings or improvements would disappear. Nothing made by man would be
taxed at all. The right of private property in all things made by man
would thus be absolute, for the owner of such things could not be
divested of his property, without full compensation, even under the
pretence of taxation. The idea of concentrating all taxes upon
ground-rent has found followers in Great Britain, North America,
Australia and New Zealand. In practical politics this doctrine is
confined to the "Single Tax, Limited," which proposes to defray only the
needful public expenses from ground-rent, leaving the surplus, whatever
it may be, in the undisturbed possession of landowners.

  The principal books by Henry George are: _Progress and Poverty_
  (1879), _The Irish Land Question_ (1881), _Social Problems_ (1884),
  _Protection or Free Trade_ (1886), _The Condition of Labor_ (1891), _A
  Perplexed Philosopher_ (1892), _Political Economy_ (1898). His son,
  Henry George (b. 1862), has written a _Life_ (1900). For the Single
  Tax theory see Shearman's _Natural Taxation_ (1899).     (T. G. S.)




GEORGE PISIDA [GEORGIOS PISIDES], Byzantine poet, born in Pisidia,
flourished during the 7th century A.D. Nothing is known of him except
that he was a deacon and chartophylax (keeper of the records) of the
church of St Sophia. His earliest work, in three cantos ([Greek:
akroaseis]), on the campaign of the emperor Heraclius against the
Persians, seems to be the work of an eyewitness. This was followed by
the _Avarica_, an account of a futile attack on Constantinople by the
Avars (626), said to have been repulsed by the aid of the Virgin Mary;
and by the _Heraclias_, a general survey of the exploits of Heraclius
both at home and abroad down to the final overthrow of Chosroes in 627.
George Pisida was also the author of a didactic poem, _Hexaemeron_ or
_Cosmourgia_, upon the creation of the world; a treatise on the vanity
of life, after the manner of _Ecclesiastes_; a controversial composition
against Severus, bishop of Antioch; two short poems upon the
resurrection of Christ and on the recovery of the sacred crucifix stolen
by the Persians. The metre chiefly used is the iambic. As a versifier
Pisida is correct and even elegant; as a chronicler of contemporary
events he is exceedingly useful; and later Byzantine writers
enthusiastically compared him with, and even preferred him to Euripides.
Recent criticism, however, characterizes his compositions as artificial
and almost uniformly dull.

  Complete works in J.P. Migne, _Patrologia Graeca_, xcii.; see also _De
  Georgii Pisidae apud Theophanem aliosque historicos reliquiis_.
  (1900), by S.L. Sternbach, who has edited several new poems for the
  first time from a Paris MS. in _Wiener Studien_, xiii., xiv.
  (1891-1892); C. Krumbacher, _Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur_
  (1897); C.F. Bahr in Ersch and Gruber's _Allgemeine Encyklopadie_.




GEORGE, LAKE, a lake in the E. part of New York, U.S.A., among the S.E.
foothills of the Adirondack Mountains. It extends from N.N.E. to S.S.W.
about 34 m., and varies in width from 2 to 4 m. It has a maximum depth
of about 400 ft., and is 323 ft. above the sea and 227 ft. above Lake
Champlain, into which it has an outlet to the northward through a narrow
channel and over falls and rapids. The lake is fed chiefly by mountain
brooks and submerged springs; its bed is for the most part covered with
a clean sand; its clear water is coloured with beautiful tints of blue
and green; and its surface is studded with about 220 islands and islets,
all except nineteen of which belong to the state and constitute a part
of its forest reserve. Near the head of the lake is Prospect Mountain,
rising 1736 ft. above the sea, while several miles farther down the
shores is Black Mountain, 2661 ft. in height. Lake George has become a
favourite summer resort. Lake steamers ply between the village of Lake
George (formerly Caldwell) at the southern end of the lake and Baldwin,
whence there is rail connexion with Lake Champlain steamers.

Lake George was formed during the Glacial period by glacial drift which
clogged a pre-existing valley. According to Prof. J.F. Kemp the valley
occupied by Lake George was a low pass before the Glacial period; a dam
of glacial drift at the southern end and of lacustrine clays at the
northern end formed the lake which has submerged the pass, leaving
higher parts as islands. Before the advent of the white man the lake was
a part of the war-path over which the Iroquois Indians frequently made
their way northward to attack the Algonquins and the Hurons, and during
the struggle between the English and the French for supremacy in
America, waterways being still the chief means of communication, it was
of great strategic importance (see CHAMPLAIN, _Lake_). Father Isaac
Jogues, Rene Goupil and Guillaume Couture seem to have been the first
white men to see the lake (on the 9th of August 1642) as they were being
taken by their Iroquois captors from the St Lawrence to the towns of the
Mohawks, and in 1646 Father Jogues, having undertaken a half-religious,
half-political mission to the Mohawks, was again at the lake, to which,
in allusion to his having reached it on the eve of Corpus Christi, he
gave the name Lac Saint Sacrement. This name it bore until the summer of
1755, when General William Johnson renamed it Lake George in honour of
King George II.

General Johnson was at this time in command of a force of colonists and
Indians sent against the French at Crown Point on Lake Champlain. The
expedition, however, had proceeded no farther than to the head of Lake
George when Johnson was informed that a force of French and Indians
under Baron Ludwig August Dieskau was pushing on from Crown Point to
Fort Lyman (later Fort Edward), 14 m. to the S. of their encampment.
Accordingly, on the morning of the 8th of September a detachment of 1000
colonials under Colonel Ephraim Williams (1715-1755) and 200 Indians
under Hendrick, a Mohawk chief, was sent to aid Fort Lyman, but when
about 3 m. S. of the lake this detachment fell into an ambuscade
prepared for it by Dieskau and both Williams and Hendrick were killed.
The survivors were pursued to their camp, and then followed on the same
day the main battle of Lake George, in which 1000 colonials fighting at
first behind a hastily prepared barricade defeated about 1400 French and
Indians. Both commanders were wounded; Dieskau was captured; the French
lost about 300; and the colonials nearly the same (including those who
fell earlier in the day). Johnson now built on the lake shore, near the
battlefield, a fort of gravel and logs and called it Fort William Henry
(the site was occupied by the Fort William Henry Hotel till it was
burned in 1909). In the meantime the French entrenched themselves at
Ticonderoga at the foot of the lake. In March 1757 Fort William Henry
successfully withstood an attack of 1600 men sent out by the marquis de
Vaudreuil, governor of Canada, but on the 9th of August of the same year
its garrison, after being reduced to desperate straits, surrendered to
the marquis de Montcalm. By the terms of surrender the garrison was to
be allowed to march out with the honours of war and was to be escorted
to Fort Edward, but the guard provided by Montcalm was inadequate to
protect them from his Indian allies and on the day following the
surrender many were massacred or taken prisoners. The fort was razed to
the ground. In 1758 General James Abercrombie proceeded by way of Lake
George against Fort Ticonderoga, and in 1759 Baron Jeffrey Amherst,
while on his way to co-operate with General James Wolfe against Quebec,
built near the site of Fort William Henry one bastion of a fort since
known as Fort George, the ruins of which still remain.

A monument commemorative of the battle of Lake George was unveiled on
the 8th of September 1903, on the site of the battle, and within the
state reservation of 35 acres known as Fort George Battle Park. Horicon
is a name that was given to the lake by James Fenimore Cooper. The
Indian name of the lake was Andia-ta-roc-te.

  See Francis Parkman, _Montcalm and Wolfe_ (Boston, 1884); and E.E.
  Seelye, _Lake George in History_ (Lake George, 1897).




GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC, an American industrial institution, situated
near the small village of Freeville, in Tompkins county, New York,
U.S.A., 9 m. E.N.E. of Ithaca, at the junction of the Sayre-Auburn and
the Elmira-Cortland branches of the Lehigh Valley railway. The George
Junior Republic forms a miniature state whose economic, civic and social
conditions, as nearly as possible, reproduce those of the United States,
and whose citizenship is vested in young people, especially those who
are neglected or wayward, who are thus taught self-reliance,
self-control and morality. The founder, William Reuben George (b. 1866),
was a native of West Dryden, a village near Freeville, who as a business
man in New York City became interested in the Fresh Air Fund charity
supervised by the New York _Tribune_, took charge of summer outings for
city children (1890-1894), and, becoming convinced that such charities
tended to promote pauperism and crime among the older of their proteges,
devised first (1894) the plan of requiring payment by the children in
labour for all they received during these summer jaunts, then (1895)
self-government for a summer colony near Freeville, and finally a
permanent colony, in which the children stay for several years. The
Republic was founded on the 10th of July 1895; the only check on the
powers of executive, representative and judicial branches of the
government lies in the veto of the superintendent. "Nothing without
labour" is the motto of the community, so strictly carried out that a
girl or boy in the Republic who has not money[1] to pay for a night's
lodging must sleep in jail and work the next day for the use of the
cell. The legislative body, originally a House of Representatives and a
Senate, in 1899 became more like the New England town meeting. The
respect for the law that follows its enactment by the citizens
themselves is remarkable in a class so largely of criminal tendencies;
and it is particularly noticeable that positions on the police force are
eagerly coveted. Fifteen is the age of majority; suffrage is universal,
children under fifteen must be in charge of a citizen guardian. The
average age of citizens was seventeen in 1908. The proportion of girls
to boys was originally small, but gradually increased; in 1908 there
were about 70 girls and 90 boys. The tendency is to admit only those
aged at least sixteen and physically well equipped. In the Republic's
earlier years the citizens lived in boarding-houses of different grades,
but later in family groups in cottages (there were in 1910 twelve
cottages) under the care of "house-mothers." The labour of the place is
divided into sewing, laundry work, cooking and domestic service for the
girls, and furniture making, carpentry, farm work, baking bread and
wafers (the business of an Auburn biscuit factory was bought in 1903),
plumbing and printing for the boys. Masonry and shoe and harness making
were tried for a few years. There is an efficient preparatory and high
school, from which students enter directly leading colleges. The
religious influence is strong, wholesome and unsectarian; students in
Auburn Theological Seminary have assisted in the religious work; Roman
Catholic and Hebrew services are also held; and attendance at church
services is compulsory only on convicts and prisoners.

There are "Woman's Aid" societies in New York City, Ithaca, Syracuse,
Buffalo, Boston and elsewhere, to promote the work of the Republic. A
"republic" for younger boys, begun at Freeville, was established in
Litchfield, Connecticut; and a National Junior Republic near Annapolis
Junction, Maryland, and a Carter Junior Republic at Readington, near
Easton, Pennsylvania, are modelled on the George Junior Republic. In
1908-1910 new "states" were established at Chino, California, Grove
City, Pennsylvania, and Flemington Junction, New Jersey. In February
1908 the National Association of Junior Republics was formed with Mr
George (its founder) as its director, its aims being to establish at
least one "republic" in each state of the Union, and in other countries
similar institutions for youth and miniature governments modelled on
that of the country in which each "state" is established, and to
establish colonies for younger children, to be sent at the age of
fifteen to the Junior Republic. At the time of its formation the
National Association included the "states" at Freeville, N.Y.,
Litchfield, Conn., and Annapolis Junction, Md.; others joined the
federation later.

  See William R. George, _The Junior Republic: its History and Ideals_
  (New York, 1910); _The Junior Republic Citizen_ (Freeville, 1895
  sqq.), written and printed by "citizens"; _Nothing Without Labor,
  George Junior Republic_ (7th ed., Freeville, 1909), a manual; J.R.
  Commons, "The Junior Republic," in _The American Journal of Sociology_
  (1898); D.F. Lincoln, "The George Junior Republic," in _The Coming
  Age_ (1900); and Lyman Abbott, "A Republic within a Republic," in the
  _Outlook_ for February 15, 1908.


FOOTNOTE:

  [1] The "government" issued its own currency in tin and later in
    aluminium, and "American" money could not be passed within the 48
    acres of the Republic until 1906, when depreciation forced the
    Republic's coinage out of use and "American" coin was made legal
    tender.




GEORGETOWN, the capital of British Guiana (see GUIANA), and the seat of
the colonial government, situated on the left bank of the Demerara river
at its mouth, in 6 deg. 29' 24" N. and 58 deg. 11' 30" W. It was known
during the Dutch occupation as Stabroek, and was established as the seat
of government of the combined colonies of Essequibo and Demerara (now
with Berbice forming the three counties of British Guiana) in 1784, its
name being changed to Georgetown in 1812. It is one of the finest towns
in this part of the world, the streets being wide and straight,
intersecting each other at right angles, several having double roadways
with lily-covered canals in the centre, the grass banks on either side
carrying rows of handsome shade trees. In Main Street, the finest street
in Georgetown, the canal has been filled in to form a broad walk, an
obvious precedent for the treatment of the other canals, which (however
beautiful) are useless and merely act as breeding grounds for
mosquitoes. The principal residences, standing in their own gardens
surrounded by foliage and flowers, are scattered over the town, as are
also the slums, almost the worst of which abut on the best residential
quarters. Water Street, the business centre, runs parallel to the river
for about 2-1/2 m. and contains the stores of the wholesale and retail
merchants, their wharves running out into the river to allow steamers to
come alongside. Most of the houses and public buildings are constructed
of wood, the former generally raised on brick pillars some 4 ft. to 10
ft. from the ground, the bright colouring of the wooden walls, jalousies
and roofs adding to the beauty of the best streets. The large structure
known as the Public Buildings in the centre of the city, containing the
offices of the executive government and the hall of the court of policy,
was erected between 1829 and 1834. It is a handsome, E-shaped,
brick-plastered building of considerable size, with deep porticos and
marble-paved galleries carried on cast-iron columns. The law courts,
built in the 'eighties, have a ground floor of concrete and iron, the
upper storey being of hardwood. Among other public buildings are the
town hall, the Anglican and Roman Catholic cathedrals, several handsome
churches, the local banks and insurance offices, and the almshouse. The
public hospital consists of several large blocks. The Royal
Agricultural and Commercial Society has a large reading-room and
lending library. The assembly rooms, above and owned by the Georgetown
club, has a good stage and is admirably adapted to dramatic and musical
entertainments. A museum (free), belonging to the Royal Agricultural and
Commercial Society, is chiefly devoted to the fauna of British Guiana,
but also contains an instructive collection of local economic,
mineralogical and botanical exhibits, a miscellaneous collection of
foreign birds and mammals, and an interesting series of views of the
colony. The botanical gardens to the east of the city are of
considerable extent and admirably laid out. The nurseries cover a large
area and are devoted chiefly to the raising of plants of economic
importance which can be purchased at nominal rates. The collections of
ferns and orchids are very fine. In the gardens are also located the
fields of the board of agriculture, where experimental work in the
growth of sugar-cane, rice, cotton and all tropical plants of economic
importance is carried on. Other popular resorts are the sea wall and the
promenade gardens in the centre of the city.

The local government of Georgetown is vested in a mayor and town council
elected under a very restricted franchise. The city is divided into
fourteen wards each with one representative. A councillor must possess,
either personally or through his wife, premises within the city of the
appraised value of at least $1500. A voter must either own house
property of the appraised value of $250 or occupy premises of an annual
rental of $240. There are indeed only 297 municipal voters in a
population of nearly 50,000. The revenue, just over L50,000 annually, is
mainly derived from a direct rate on house property. The colonial
government pays rates on its property and also gives a grant-in-aid
towards the upkeep of the streets. The expenditure is principally on
sanitation, fire brigade, streets, water-supply, street lighting and
drainage. Street lighting is carried out under contract by the Demerara
Electric Company, which has a monopoly of private lighting and works an
excellent tram service. Water for public and domestic purposes is taken
from the conservancy of the east coast and is delivered by pumping
throughout the city, but drinking-water is collected in tanks attached
to the dwellings from the rain falling on the roofs. The fire brigade is
a branch of the police force, half the cost being borne by the rates and
half by the general revenue. There is an excellent service of
telephones, a branch of the post office, and halfpenny postage within
the city boundaries. There are in Georgetown two well-equipped
foundries, a dry dock, and factories for the manufacture of rice,
cigars, soap, boots, chocolate, candles, aerated waters and ice.
Georgetown is connected by rail and ferry with New Amsterdam, by ferry
and rail with the west coast of Demerara, and by steamer with all the
country districts along the coast and up the navigable reaches of the
principal rivers.     (A. G. B.*)




GEORGETOWN, formerly a city of the District of Columbia, U.S.A., and now
part (sometimes called West Washington) of the city of Washington,
U.S.A., at the confluence of the Potomac river and Rock Creek, and on
the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal, about 2-1/2 m. W.N.W. of the National
Capitol. Pop. (1890) 14,046; (1900) 14,549. The streets are
old-fashioned, narrow and well shaded. On the "Heights" are many fine
residences with beautiful gardens; the Monastery and Academy (for girls)
of Visitation, founded in 1799 by Leonard Neale, second archbishop of
Baltimore; and the college and the astronomical observatory (1842) of
Georgetown University. The university was founded as a Roman Catholic
Academy in 1789, was opened in 1791, transferred to the Society of Jesus
in 1805, authorized in 1815 by Congress to confer college or university
degrees, and by the Holy See in 1833 to confer degrees in philosophy and
theology, incorporated as Georgetown College by Act of Congress in 1844,
and began graduate work about 1856. The college library includes the
historical collection of James Gilmary Shea. A school of medicine was
opened in 1851, a dental school in 1901 and a school of law in 1870. In
1909-1910 the university had an enrolment of 859 students. Rising in
terraces from Rock Creek is Oak Hill Cemetery, a beautiful
burying-ground containing the graves of John Howard Payne, the author
of "Home, Sweet Home," Edwin McMasters Stanton and Joseph Henry. On the
bank of the Potomac is a brick house which was for several years the
home of Francis Scott Key, author of "The Star-Spangled Banner"; on
Analostan Island in the river was a home of James Murray Mason;
Georgetown Heights was the home of the popular novelist, Mrs Emma
Dorothy Eliza Nevitte Southworth (1819-1899). Before the advent of
railways Georgetown had an important commerce by way of the Chesapeake
and Ohio Canal, by which considerable coal as well as some grain is
still brought hither, and of which Georgetown is now a terminus; the
canal formerly crossed the Potomac at this point on an aqueduct bridge
(1446 ft. long), but in 1887 the crossing was abandoned and the old
bridge was purchased by the United States government, which in 1889
constructed a new steel bridge upon the old masonry piers. Chief among
the manufactories are several large flour mills--Georgetown flour was
long noted for its excellence. There is a very large fish-market here.
Georgetown was settled late in the 17th century, was laid out as a town
in 1751, chartered as a city in 1789, merged in the District of Columbia
in 1871, and annexed to the city of Washington in 1878. In the early
days of Washington it was a social centre of some importance, where many
members of Congress as well as some cabinet officers and representatives
of foreign countries lived and the President gave state dinners; and
here were the studio, for two years, of Gilbert Stuart, and "Kalorama,"
the residence of Joel Barlow.




GEORGETOWN, a city and the county-seat of Scott county, Kentucky,
U.S.A., about 11 miles N. of Lexington. Pop. (1900) 3823 (1677 negroes);
(1910) 4533. Georgetown is served by the Cincinnati Southern (Queen &
Crescent Route), the Frankfort & Cincinnati, and the Southern railways,
and is connected with Lexington by an electric line. It is the seat of
Georgetown College (Baptist, co-educational), chartered in 1829 as the
successor of Rittenhouse Academy, which was founded in 1798. Georgetown
is situated in the Blue Grass region of Kentucky, and the surrounding
country is devoted to agriculture and stock-raising. One of the largest
independent oil refineries in the country (that of the Indian Refining
Co.) is in Georgetown, and among manufactures are bricks, flour, ice,
bagging and hemp. The remarkable "Royal Spring," which rises near the
centre of the city, furnishes about 200,000 gallons of water an hour for
the city's water supply, and for power for the street railway and for
various industries. The first settlement was made in 1775, and was named
McClellan's, that name being changed to Lebanon a few years afterwards.
In 1790 the place was incorporated as a town under its present name
(adopted in honour of George Washington), and Georgetown was chartered
as a city of the fourth class in 1894. Bacon College, which developed
into Kentucky (now Transylvania) University (see Lexington, Ky.), was
established here by the Disciples of Christ in 1836, but in 1839 was
removed to Harrodsburg.




GEORGETOWN, a city, a port of entry and the county-seat of Georgetown
county, South Carolina, U.S.A., at the head of Winyah Bay, and at the
mouth of the Pedee river, about 15 m. from the Atlantic Ocean, and about
55 m. N.E. of Charleston. Pop. (1890) 2895; (1900) 4138 (2718 negroes);
(1910) 5530. Georgetown is served by the Georgetown & Western railway,
has steamship communication with Charleston, Wilmington, New York City
and other Atlantic ports, and, by the Pedee river and its tributaries
(about 1000 m. of navigable streams), has trade connexions with a large
area of South Carolina and part of North Carolina. The principal public
buildings are the post office and custom house. Among the city's
manufactures are lumber, foundry and machine-shop products, naval stores
and oars; and there are shad and sturgeon fisheries. The growing of
cotton and truck-gardening are important industries in the neighbouring
region, and there is considerable trade in such products. The first
settlement here was made about 1700; and the town was laid out a short
time before 1734. The Winyah Indigo Society grew out of a social club
organized about 1740, and was founded in 1757 by a group of planters
interested in raising indigo; It long conducted a school (discontinued
during the Civil War) which eventually became part of the city's public
school system. In 1780 Georgetown was occupied by a body of Loyalist
troops, with whom the American troops had several skirmishes, but on the
10th of August 1781 General Francis Marion forced the evacuation of the
town and took possession of it. A few days later, an American named
Manson, who had joined the British forces, attacked the town from an
armed vessel, and burned about forty houses, the small body of militia
being unable to make an effective resistance. General Lafayette first
landed on American soil at Georgetown on the 24th of April 1777.
Georgetown was incorporated as a town in 1805, and was chartered as a
city in 1895.




GEORGETOWN, a city and the county-seat of Williamson county, Texas,
U.S.A., on the San Gabriel river, about 25 m. N. by E. of Austin. Pop.
(1890) 2447; (1900) 2790 (608 negroes); (1910) 3096. The city is served
by the International & Great Northern, and the Missouri, Kansas & Texas
railways. Georgetown is the seat of the Southwestern University
(Methodist Episcopal, South, co-educational), formed in 1873 (chartered
1875) by the combination of Ruterville College (Methodist Episcopal, at
Ruterville, Texas, chartered in 1840, and closed in 1850), McKenzie
College (at Clarksville, Texas, founded in 1841 and closed in 1872),
Wesleyan College at San Augustine (chartered in 1844, burned a few years
later, and not rebuilt), and Soule University at Chapel Hill (chartered
in 1856, but closed in 1870). The university includes a fitting school
at Georgetown, and a medical department at Dallas, Texas; in 1909 it had
an enrolment of 1037 students. The principal manufactures of Georgetown
are cotton and cotton-seed oil, and planing-mill products. In Page Park
are mineral springs, whose waters have medicinal qualities similar to
the famous Karlsbad waters. The first settlement was made here in 1848;
and Georgetown was incorporated as a town in 1866, and was chartered as
a city in 1890.




GEORGIA, a southern state of the United States of America, one of the
thirteen original states, situated between 30 deg. 31' 39" and 35 deg.
N., and between 81 deg. and 85 deg. 53' 38" W. It is bounded N. by
Tennessee and North Carolina, E. by South Carolina and the Atlantic
Ocean, S. by Florida, and W. by Alabama. The total area of the state is
59,265 sq. m., of which 540 sq. m. are water surface.

  The surface of Georgia is divided into five physiographic zones. From
  the sea coast, which is skirted by fertile, semi-tropical islands, a
  plain of 35,000 sq. m., known as South Georgia, extends northward to
  the "fall-line" passing from Augusta, through Milledgeville and Macon,
  to Columbus. This is a part of the great Atlantic Coastal Plain. For
  20 m. from the coast its elevation is 10 ft., then it rises abruptly
  70 ft. higher, and 20 m. farther N. another elevation begins, which
  reaches 575 ft. at Milledgeville, the average elevation of the entire
  region being 250 ft. North of the line mentioned, and collectively
  known as North Georgia, are the four other regions, each with
  well-defined characteristics. The largest and southernmost, a broad
  belt extending from the "fall-line" to a line passing through
  Clarkesville, Habersham county, Cartersville, Bartow county and
  Buchanan, Haralson county (approximately), is known as the Piedmont
  Belt or Plateau, being a region of faint relief eroded on highly
  complicated crystalline rocks. The Blue Ridge escarpment, a striking
  topographic feature in Virginia and the Carolinas, extends into
  Georgia along the north-eastern border of this belt, but is less
  strongly developed here than elsewhere, dying out entirely towards the
  south-west. North of the Piedmont Belt lie the Appalachian Mountains
  Region and the Great Valley Region, the former to the east, the latter
  to the west of a dividing line from Cartersville northward. The former
  region consists of detached mountain masses of crystalline rocks, not
  yet eroded down to the level of the Piedmont Belt. In Towns county, in
  the Appalachian Region, is the highest point in the state, Brasstown
  Bald, also called Enota Mountain (4768 ft.). The Great Valley Region
  consists of folded sedimentary rocks, extensive erosion having removed
  the soft layers to form valleys, leaving the hard layers as ridges,
  both layers running in a N.E.-S.W. direction. In the extreme
  north-west corner of the state is a small part of the Cumberland
  Plateau, represented by Lookout and Sand Mts.

  On the Blue Ridge escarpment near the N.E. corner of the state is a
  water-parting separating the waters which find their way respectively
  N.W. to the Tennessee river, S.W. to the Gulf of Mexico and S.E. to
  the Atlantic Ocean; indeed, according to B.M. and M.R. Hall (_Water
  Resources of Georgia_, p. 2), "there are three springs in north-east
  Georgia within a stone's throw of each other that send out their
  waters to Savannah, Ga., to Apalachicola, Fla., and to New Orleans,
  La." The water-parting between the waters flowing into the Atlantic
  and those flowing into the Gulf extends from this point first S.E. for
  a few miles, then turns S.W. to Atlanta, and from there extends S.S.E.
  to the Florida line. West of where the escarpment dies out, the Great
  Valley Region and a considerable portion of the Appalachian Mountains
  Region are drained by the Coosa, the Tallapoosa and their tributaries,
  into Mobile Bay, but the Cumberland Plateau, like that part of the
  Appalachian Mountains Region which lies directly N. of the Blue Ridge
  escarpment, constitutes a part of the Tennessee Basin. The principal
  rivers of the state are the Chattahoochee and the Flint, which unite
  in the S.W. corner to form the Apalachicola; the Ocmulgee (whose
  western tributary, the Towaliga, falls 96 ft. in less than a quarter
  of a mile), and the Oconee, which unite in the S.E. to form the
  Altamaha; and the Savannah, which forms the boundary between Georgia
  and South Carolina. All of these rise in the upper part of the
  Piedmont Plateau, through which they pursue a rapid course over rocky
  beds, and are navigable only south of the "fall-line," at which and
  north of which they furnish an abundance of water-power. The upper
  Savannah river first flows S.W., then turns abruptly S.E., while the
  Chattahoochee river rises near this point and continues S.W. This is
  because the upper Savannah[1] was formerly part of the Chattahoochee,
  but was captured and turned S.E. by headward growth of the Savannah.
  As a result of the capture there is a deep gorge along the upper
  Savannah, especially along the branch called the Tallulah river; and
  the upper Tallulah, in a series of cascades, 2-2/3 m. long, falls 525
  ft. from the former higher level down to the main bed of the upper
  Savannah, at Tallulah Falls, a summer resort.

  The fauna and flora have no distinctive features. (See UNITED STATES.)

_Climate and Soils._--The climate of Georgia, though temperate, differs
considerably in different parts of the state. All the nine climate belts
in the United States, except that of southern Florida, are represented
within its borders. The lowest mean annual temperature, 40 deg. F. and
below, is that of some of the mountain tops of northern Georgia; from
the mountain-sides to the Piedmont Plateau this mean temperature varies
from 45 deg. to 60 deg.; on the Piedmont Plateau from 60 deg. to 65
deg.; and on the Coastal Plain from 60 deg. to 70 deg. The July isotherm
of 80 deg. crosses the state a little N. of Augusta and Macon, touching
the W. boundary at West Point, Troup county. The mean July temperature
for the whole state is 81.8 deg.; for the part S. of the 80 deg.
isotherm the average temperature for July is between 80 deg. and 85 deg.
The average rainfall for the state is 49.3 in.; the maximum is 71.7 in.,
at Rabun Gap in the extreme N.E. part of the state; the minimum is 39.4
at Swainsboro, Emanuel county, a little S.E. of the centre of the state.

Georgia is also notable for the variety of its soils. In the Cumberland
Plateau and Great Valley Regions are a red or brown loam, rich in
decomposed limestone and calcareous shales, and sandy or gravelly loams.
In the Piedmont Plateau and Appalachian Mountains Regions the surface
soil is generally sandy, but in considerable areas the subsoil is a red
clay derived largely from the decomposition of hornblende. By far the
greatest variety of soils is found in the Coastal Plain Region. Here the
Central Cotton Belt, extending from the "fall-line" as far S. as a line
bisecting Early county in the W. and passing through Baker, Worth,
Dooly, Dodge, Laurens, Johnson, Jefferson and Burke counties, has three
distinct kinds of soil; a sand, forming what is known as the sand-hill
region; red clay derived from silicious rock in the red hills; and grey,
sandy soils with a subsoil of yellow loam. South of the Cotton Belt is
the Lime Sink Region, which includes Miller, Baker, Mitchell, Colquitt
and Worth counties, the northern portions of Decatur, Grady, Thomas,
Brooks and Lowndes, the eastern parts of Dooly and Lee, and the eastern
portions of Berrien, Irwin, Wilcox, Dodge, and some parts of Burke,
Screven and Bulloch. The soft limestone underlying this region is
covered, in the uplands, with grey, sandy soils, which have a subsoil of
loam; in the lowlands the surface soils are loams, the subsoils clays.
Adjoining this region are the pine barrens, which extend S. to a line
passing through the northern portions of Pierce, Wayne, Liberty, Bryan
and Effingham counties. Here the prevailing soils are grey and sandy
with a subsoil of loam, but they are less fertile than those of the Lime
Sink or Cotton Belts. The coast counties of the S.E. and generally those
on the Florida frontier are not suitable for cultivation, on account of
the numerous marshes and swamps, Okefinokee Swamp being 45 m. long and
approximately 30 m. wide; but the southern portions of Decatur, Grady,
Thomas and Brooks counties are sufficiently elevated for agriculture,
and the islands off the coast are exceedingly productive.

  _Minerals._--The mineral resources of Georgia are as varied as its
  climate and soils, a total of thirty-nine different mineral products
  being found within its borders. The most important is stone: in 1905
  the value of the granite quarried in the state was $971,207 (Georgia
  ranking fifth in the United States), of the marble $774,550 (Georgia
  ranking third in the United States, Vermont and New York being first
  and second); in 1908 the granite was valued at $970,832 (Georgia
  ranking fifth in the United States), and the marble at $916,281
  (Georgia ranking second in the United States, Vermont being first).
  Generally more than one-fourth of the granite is used for paving;
  curb, building and monument stone are next in importance in the order
  named. Stone Mountain (1686 ft.) in De Kalb county near Atlanta is a
  remarkable mass of light-coloured muscovite granite, having a
  circumference at its base of 7 m. Stone Mountain granite was first
  quarried about 1850; it is extensively used as building material in
  Georgia and other southern states. A laminated granite, otherwise like
  the Stone Mountain granite, is found in De Kalb, Rockdale and Gwinnett
  counties, and is used for curbing and building. Biotite granites,
  which take a good polish and are used for monuments and for
  decoration, are quarried in Oglethorpe and Elbert counties. Georgia
  marble was first quarried on a large scale in Pickens county in 1884;
  the pure white marble of this county had been worked for tombstones
  near Tate, the centre of the marble belt, in 1840; after its
  commercial exploitation it was used in the capitol buildings of
  Georgia, Rhode Island, Mississippi and Minnesota, in the Corcoran Art
  Gallery, Washington, D.C., and in St Luke's Hospital, New York City.
  It is sometimes used for the entire building, and sometimes only for
  decoration. Other colours than the snowy white are found in the main
  marble belt of the state, which runs from Canton, Cherokee county, 60
  m. generally N. to the northern boundary of the state. Other deposits,
  less well known, are the dark brown and light grey marbles of
  Whitfield county, which resemble the stone quarried in eastern
  Tennessee. Limestone and slate are quarried at Rock Mart, Polk county,
  and there are cement quarries at Cement, near Kingston, Bartow county.
  Iron deposits occur in Bartow, Polk and Floyd counties, where are the
  more important brown ores, and (red ores) in Walker and Chattooga
  counties. The quantity of iron ore mined in Georgia declined from 1890
  to 1900; it was 200,842 long tons in 1905 and 321,060 long tons in
  1908, when 319,812 tons were brown haematite and 1248 tons were red
  haematite. Before the discovery of gold in California the Georgia
  "placers" were very profitable, the earliest mining being in 1829 by
  placer miners from the fields of Burke county, North Carolina, who
  began work in what is now White county, and went thence to Habersham
  and Lumpkin counties. Dahlonega and Auraria, the latter named by John
  C. Calhoun, who owned a mine there, were the centres of this early
  gold mining. Work was summarily stopped by Federal troops enforcing
  the governor's proclamation in 1831, because of the disorder in the
  mining region; but it was soon renewed and a mint was established at
  Dahlonega in 1838. After the discovery of gold in California, mining
  in Georgia was not renewed on anything but the smallest scale until
  the early 'eighties. In 1908 the gold product was valued at $56,207
  (it was $96,910 in 1905) and the silver product at $106. Up to 1909
  the gold product of Georgia (see State Geol. Survey _Bulletin 19_) was
  about $17,500,000. Extensive clay deposits occur in all parts of the
  state, and are remarkable for their comparative freedom from
  impurities and for their high fusion point; the most valuable are
  sedimentary, and form a belt several miles wide across the middle of
  the state from Augusta to Columbus. In 1908 the clay products of the
  state were valued at $1,928,611. More asbestos has been found in
  Georgia than in any other state of the Union; it occurs in the
  amphibole form throughout the N. part of the state, and most of the
  country's domestic supply comes from the Sall Mountain mine in White
  county. Manganese ores, found in Bartow, Polk and Floyd counties, were
  formerly important; in 1896 4096 long tons were mined, in 1905 only
  150 tons, and in 1908 none. Bauxite was found in Georgia first of the
  United States, near Rome, in 1887; the output, principally from Floyd,
  Bartow and Polk counties, was the entire product of the United States
  until 1891, and in 1902 was more than half the country's product, but
  in 1908, even when combined with the Alabama output, was less than the
  amount mined in Arkansas. Coal is not extensively found, but the mine
  on Sand Mountain, in Walker county, was one of the first opened S. of
  the Ohio river; in 1908 the value of the coal mined in the state was
  $364,279 (264,822 short tons), the value of coke at the ovens was
  $137,524 (39,422 short tons), and the value of ammonium sulphate, coal
  tar, illuminating gas and gas coke was more than $800,000. Copper was
  mined in Fannin and Cherokee counties before the Civil War. In 1906
  the copper mined was valued at $5057. Corundum was discovered on
  Laurel Creek in Rabun county in 1871, and was worked there and at
  Trackrock, Union county, especially between 1880 and 1893, but in
  later years low prices closed most of the mines. The limestone
  formations furnished most of the lime for domestic use. Sandstone,
  ochre, slate, soapstone, graphite are also mined, and lead, zinc,
  barytes, gypsum and even diamonds have been discovered but not
  exploited.

_Agriculture._--The principal occupation in Georgia is agriculture,
which in 1900 engaged seven-tenths of the land surface of the state and
the labour of three-fifths of the population, ten years old and over,
who are employed in profitable occupations. The products are so
diversified that, with the exception of some tropical fruits of
California and Florida, almost everything cultivated in the United
States can be produced. The chief staple is cotton, of which a valuable
hybrid called the Floradora, a cross of long and short staple, has been
singularly successful. Cotton is raised in all counties of the state
except Rabun, Towns and Fannin in the extreme north, and about one-third
of the total cultivated land of the state was devoted to it in
1900-1907. In 1899-1904 the crop exceeded that of the other
cotton-producing states except Texas, and in 1899, 1900 and 1903
Mississippi, averaging 1,467,121 commercial bales per annum; the crop in
1904 was 1,991,719 bales, and in 1907-1908 the crop was 1,815,834 bales,
second only to the crop of Texas. The cause of this extensive
cultivation of cotton is not a high average yield per acre, but the fact
that before 1860 "Cotton was King," and that the market value of the
staple when the Civil War closed was so high that farmers began to
cultivate it to the exclusion of the cereals, whose production, Indian
corn excepted, showed a decline during each decade from 1879 to 1899.
But in the 'nineties the price of the cotton fell below the cost of
production, owing to the enormous supply, and this was accompanied by
economic depression. These conditions have caused some diversification
of crops, and successful experiments in cattle-raising, movements
encouraged by the Department of Agriculture and the leading newspapers.

The principal cereals cultivated are Indian corn (product, 53,750,000
bushels in 1908) and wheat; the cultivation of the latter, formerly
remunerative, declined on account of the competition of the Western
States, but revived after 1899, largely owing to the efforts of the
Georgia Wheat Growers' Association (organized in 1897), and in 1908 the
yield was 2,208,000 bushels. The sugar-cane crop declined in value after
1890, and each year more of it was made into syrup. In 1908 the tobacco
crop was 2,705,625 lb., and the average farm price was 35 cents, being
nearly as high as that of the Florida crop; Sumatra leaf for wrappers is
grown successfully. The acreage and product of tobacco and peanuts
increased from 1890 to 1900 respectively 188% and 319.2%, and 92.6% and
129.9%, and in the production of sweet potatoes Georgia was in 1899
surpassed only by North Carolina. Alfalfa and grasses grow well. Truck
farming and the cultivation of orchard and small fruits have long been
remunerative occupations; the acreage devoted to peaches doubled between
1890 and 1900. Pecan nuts are an increasingly important crop.

  Agriculture in Georgia was in a state of transition at the beginning
  of the 20th century. Owing to the abundance of land and to negro
  slavery, exploitative methods of cultivation were employed before the
  Civil War, and such methods, by which lands after being worked to
  exhaustion are deserted for new fields, had not yet been altogether
  abandoned. One reason for this was that, according to the census of
  1900, 36.9% of the farms were operated by negroes, of whom 86% were
  tenants who desired to secure the greatest possible product without
  regard to the care of the soil. Consequently there were large tracts
  of untilled "waste" land; but these rapidly responded to fertilization
  and rotation of crops, often yielding 800 to 1200 lb. of cotton per
  acre, and Georgia in 1899 used more fertilizers than any other state
  in the Union. Another feature of agriculture in Georgia was the great
  increase in the number of farms, the average size of plantations
  having declined from 440 acres in 1860 to 117.5 in 1900, or almost
  75%, while the area in cultivation increased only 15.6% between 1850
  and 1900. The tenantry system was also undergoing a change--the share
  system which developed in the years succeeding the Civil War being
  replaced by a system of cash rental.

[Illustration: Georgia.]

_Manufactures._--Although excelled by Alabama in the manufacture of
mineral products, and by North Carolina and South Carolina in the number
and output of cotton mills, in 1900 and in 1905 Georgia surpassed each
of those states in the total value of factory products, which was,
however, less than the value of the factory products of Louisiana and
Virginia among the southern states. The chief features of this
industrial activity are its early beginning and steady, constant
development. As far back as 1850 there were 1522 manufacturing
establishments (35 of which were cotton mills) in the state, whose total
product was valued at $7,082,075. Despite the Civil War, there was some
advance during each succeeding decade, the most prosperous relatively
being that from 1880 to 1890. In 1900 the number of establishments was
7504, an increase of 75.1% over the number in 1890; the capital invested
was $89,789,656, an increase of 57.7%, and the value of products
($106,654,527) was 54.8% more than in 1890. Of the 7504 establishments
in 1900, 3015 were conducted under the "factory system," and had a
capital of $79,303,316 and products valued at $94,532,368. In 1905 there
were 3219 factories, with a capital of $135,211,551 (an increase of
70.5% over 1900), and a gross product valued at $151,040,455 (59.8%
greater than the value of the factory product in 1900).

  The most important manufacturing industries are those that depend upon
  cotton for raw material, with a gross product in 1900 valued at
  $26,521,757. In that year[2] there were 67 mills engaged in the
  manufacture of cotton goods, with a capital of $24,158,159, and they
  yielded a gross product valued at $18,457,645; the increase between
  1900 and 1905 was actually much larger (and proportionately very much
  larger) than between 1890 and 1900; the number of factories in 1905
  was 103 (an increase of 53.7% over 1900); their capital was
  $42,349,618 (75.3% more than in 1900); and their gross product was
  valued at $35,174,248 (an increase of 90.6% since 1900). The rank of
  Georgia among the cotton manufacturing states was seventh in 1900 and
  fourth in 1905. Cotton-seed oil and cake factories increased in number
  from 17 to 43 from 1890 to 1900, and to 112 in 1905, and the value of
  their product increased from $1,670,196 to $8,064,112, or 382.8% in
  1890-1900, and to $13,539,899 in 1905, or an increase of 67.9% over
  1900, and in 1900 and in 1905 the state ranked second (to Texas) in
  this industry in the United States. This growth in cotton manufactures
  is due to various causes, among them being the proximity of raw
  material, convenient water-power, municipal exemption from taxation
  and the cheapness of labour. The relation between employer and
  employee is in the main far more personal and kindly than in the mills
  of the Northern States.

  The forests of Georgia, next to the fields, furnish the largest amount
  of raw material for manufactures. The yellow pines of the southern
  part of the state, which have a stand of approximately 13,778,000 ft.,
  yielded in 1900 rosin and turpentine valued at $8,110,468 (more than
  the product of any other state in the Union) and in 1905 valued at
  $7,705,643 (second only to the product of Florida). From the same
  source was derived most of the lumber product valued[3] in 1900 at
  $13,341,160 (more than double what it was in 1890) and in 1905 at
  $16,716,594. The other important woods are cypress, oak and poplar.

  Fourth in value in 1905 (first, cotton goods; second, lumber and
  timber; third, cotton-seed oil and cake) were fertilizers, the value
  of which increased from $3,367,353 in 1900 to $9,461,415 in 1905, when
  the state ranked first of the United States in this industry; in 1900
  it had ranked sixth.

  _Communications._--Means of transportation for these products are
  furnished by the rivers, which are generally navigable as far north as
  the "fall line" passing through Augusta, Milledgeville, Macon and
  Columbus; by ocean steamship lines which have piers at St Mary's,
  Brunswick, Darien and Savannah; and by railways whose mileage in
  January 1909 was 6,871.8 m. The most important of the railways are the
  Central of Georgia, the Southern, the Atlantic Coast Line, the
  Seaboard Air Line, the Georgia and the Georgia Southern & Florida. In
  1878 a state railway commission was established which has mandatory
  power for the settlement of all traffic problems and makes annual
  reports.

_Population._--The population of Georgia in 1880 was 1,542,180; in 1890
1,837,353, an increase of 19.1%; in 1900 2,216,331, a further increase
of 20.6%[4]; in 1910, 2,609,121. Of the 1900 population, 53.3% were
whites and 46.7% were negroes,[5] the centre of the black population
being a little south of the "fall line." Here the negroes increased,
from 1890 to 1900, faster than the whites in eighteen counties, but in
northern Georgia, where the whites are in the majority, the negro
population declined in twelve counties. Also the percentage of negro
illiteracy is higher in northern Georgia than in other parts of the
state, the percentage of negro male illiterates of voting age being
38.3% in Atlanta in 1900, and in Savannah only 30.7%. The population of
Georgia has a very slight foreign-born element (.6% in 1900) and a small
percentage (1.7% in 1900) of people of foreign parentage. The urban
population (i.e. the population in places of 2500 inhabitants and over)
was 15.6% of the total in 1900, and the number of incorporated cities,
towns and villages was 372. Of these only forty had a population
exceeding 2000, and thirteen exceeding 5000. The largest city in 1900
was Atlanta, the capital since 1868 (Louisville, Jefferson county, was
the capital in 1795-1804, and Milledgeville in 1804-1868), with 89,872
inhabitants. Savannah ranked second with 54,244, and Augusta third with
39,441. In 1900 the other cities in the state with a population of more
than 5000 were: Macon (23,272), Columbus (17,614), Athens (10,245),
Brunswick (9081), Americus (7674), Rome (7291), Griffin (6857), Waycross
(5919), Valdosta (5613), and Thomasville (5322).

The total membership of the churches in 1906 was about 1,029,037, of
whom 596,319 were Baptists, 349,079 were Methodists, 24,040 were
Presbyterians, 19,273 were Roman Catholics, 12,703 were Disciples of
Christ, 9790 were Protestant Episcopalians, and 5581 were
Congregationalists.

_Government._--The present constitution, which was adopted in 1877,[6]
provides for a system of government similar in general to that of the
other states (see UNITED STATES). The executive officials are elected
for a term of two years, and the judges of the Supreme Court and of the
court of appeals for six years, while those of the superior court and of
the ordinaries and the justices of the peace are chosen every four
years. Before 1909 all male citizens of the United States at least
twenty-one years of age (except those mentioned below), who had lived in
the state for one year immediately preceding an election and in the
county six months, and had paid their taxes, were entitled to vote. From
the suffrage and the holding of office are excluded idiots and insane
persons and all those who have been convicted of treason, embezzlement,
malfeasance in office, bribery or larceny, or any crime involving moral
turpitude and punishable under the laws of the state by imprisonment in
the penitentiary--this last disqualification, however, is removable by a
pardon for the offence. Before 1909 there was no constitutional
discrimination aimed against the exercise of the suffrage by the negro,
but in fact the negro vote had in various ways been greatly reduced. By
a constitutional amendment adopted by a large majority at a special
election in October 1908, new requirements for suffrage, designed
primarily to exclude negroes, especially illiterate negroes, were
imposed (supplementary to the requirements mentioned above concerning
age, residence and the payment of taxes), the amendment coming into
effect on the 1st of January 1909: in brief this amendment requires that
the voter shall have served in land or naval forces of the United States
or of the Confederate States or of the state of Georgia in time of war,
or be lawfully descended from some one who did so serve; or that he be a
person of good character who proves to the satisfaction of the
registrars of elections that he understands the duties and obligations
of a citizen; or that he read correctly in English and (unless
physically disabled) write any paragraph of the Federal or state
constitution; or that he own 40 acres of land or property valued at $500
and assessed for taxation. After the 1st of January 1915 no one may
qualify as a voter under the first or second of these clauses (the
"grandfather" and "understanding" clauses); but those who shall have
registered under their requirements before the 1st of January 1915 thus
become voters for life.

The governor, who receives a salary of $5000, must be at least thirty
years old, must at the time of his election have been a citizen of the
United States for fifteen years and of the state for six years, and
"shall not be eligible to re-election after the expiration of a second
term, for the period of four years." In case of his "death, removal or
disability," the duties of his office devolve in the first instance upon
the president of the Senate, and in the second upon the speaker of the
House of Representatives. The governor's power of veto extends to
separate items in appropriation bills, but in every case his veto may be
overridden by a two-thirds vote of the legislature. An amendment to the
constitution may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of the legislature,
and comes into effect on receiving a majority of the popular vote.
Members of the Senate must be at least twenty-five years old, must be
citizens of the United States, and must, at the time of their election,
have been citizens of the state for four years, and of the senatorial
district for one year; representatives must be at least twenty-one years
old, and must, at the time of their election, have been citizens of the
state for two years. By law, in Georgia, lobbying is a felony.

Habitual intoxication, wilful desertion for three years, cruel
treatment, and conviction for an offence the commission of which
involved moral turpitude and for which the offender has been sentenced
to imprisonment for at least two years, are recognized as causes for
divorce. All petitions for divorce must be approved by two successive
juries, and a woman holds in her own name all property acquired before
and after marriage. Marriage between the members of the white and negro
races is prohibited by law.

As the result of the general campaign against child labour, an act was
passed in 1906 providing that no child under 10 shall be employed or
allowed to labour in or about any factory, under any circumstances;
after the 1st of January 1907 no child under 12 shall be so employed,
unless an orphan with no other means of support, or unless a widowed
mother or disabled or aged father is dependent on the child's labour, in
which case a certificate to the facts, holding good for one year only,
is required; after the 1st of January 1908 no child under 14 shall be
employed in a factory between the hours of 7 P.M. and 6 A.M.; after the
same date no child under 14 shall be employed in any factory without a
certificate of school attendance for 12 weeks (of which 6 weeks must be
consecutive) of the preceding year; no child shall be employed without
the filing of an affidavit as to age. Making a false affidavit as to age
or as to other facts required by the act, and the violation of the act
by any agent or representative of a factory or by any parent or guardian
of a child are misdemeanours.

In 1907 a state law was passed prohibiting after the 1st of January 1908
the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors; nine-tenths of the
counties of the state, under local option laws, were already "dry" at
the passage of this bill. The law permits druggists to keep for sale no
other form of alcoholic drink than pure alcohol; physicians prescribing
alcohol must fill out a blank, specifying the patient's ailment, and
certifying that alcohol is necessary; the prescription must be filled
the day it is dated, must be served directly to the physician or to the
patient, must not call for more than a pint, and may not be refilled.[7]

The state supports four benevolent institutions: a lunatic asylum for
the whites and a similar institution for the negroes, both at
Milledgeville, an institute for the deaf and dumb at Cave Spring, and an
academy for the blind at Macon. There are also a number of private
charitable institutions, the oldest being the Bethesda orphan asylum,
near Savannah, founded by George Whitefield in 1739. The Methodist,
Baptist, Roman Catholic and Protestant Episcopal Churches, and the
Hebrews of the state also support homes for orphans. A penitentiary was
established in 1817 at Milledgeville. In 1866 the lease system was
introduced, by which the convicts were leased for a term of years to
private individuals. In 1897 this was supplanted by the contract system,
by which a prison commission accepted contracts for convict labour, but
the prisoners were cared for by state officials. But the contract system
for convicts and the peonage system (under which immigrants were held in
practical slavery while they "worked out" advances made for
passage-money, &c.) were still sources of much injustice. State laws
made liable to prosecution for misdemeanour any contract labourer who,
having received advances, failed for any but good cause to fulfil the
contract; or any contract labourer who made a second contract without
giving notice to his second employer of a prior and unfulfilled
contract; or any employer of a labourer who had not completed the term
of a prior contract. In September 1908, after an investigation which
showed that many wardens had been in the pay of convict lessees and that
terrible cruelty had been practised in convict camps, an extra session
of the legislature practically put an end to the convict lease or
contract system; the act then passed provided that after the 31st of
March 1909, the date of expiration of leases in force, no convicts may
be leased for more than twelve months and none may be leased at all
unless there are enough convicts to supply all demands for convict
labour on roads made by counties, each county to receive its _pro rata_
share on a population basis, and to satisfy all demands made by
municipalities which thus secure labour for $100 per annum (per man)
paid into the state treasury, and all demands made by the state prison
farm and factory established by this law.

_Education._--Georgia's system of public instruction was not instituted
until 1870, but as early as 1817 the legislature provided a fund for the
education in the private schools of the state of children of indigent
parents. The constitution of 1868 authorized "a thorough system of
general education, to be for ever free to all children of the State,"
and in 1870 the first public school law was enacted. Education, however,
has never been made compulsory. The constitution, as amended in 1905,
provides that elections on the question of local school taxes for
counties or for school districts may be called upon a petition signed by
one-fourth of the qualified voters of the county, or district, in
question; under this provision several counties and a large number of
school districts are supplementing the general fund. But the principal
source of the annual school revenue is a state tax; the fund derived
from this tax, however, is not large enough. In 1908 the common school
fund approximated $3,786,830, of which amount the state paid $2,163,200
and about $1,010,680 was raised by local taxation. In 1908 69% of the
school population (79% of whites; 58% of negroes) were enrolled in the
schools; in 1902 it was estimated that the negroes, 52.3% of whom (10
years of age and over) were illiterates (i.e. could not write or could
neither read nor write) in 1900 (81.6% of them were illiterate in 1880),
received the benefit of only about a fifth of the school fund. Of the
total population, 10 years of age and over, 30.5% were illiterates in
1900--49.9% were illiterates in 1880--and as regards the whites of
native birth alone, Georgia ranked ninth in illiteracy, in 1900, among
the states and territories of the Union. Of the illiterates about
four-fifths were negroes in 1900. In addition to the public schools, the
state also supports the University of Georgia; and in 1906 $235,000 was
expended for the support of higher education. In 1906-1907 eleven
agricultural and mechanical arts colleges were established, one in each
congressional district of the state. Of the colleges of the university,
Franklin was the first state college chartered in America (1785); the
Medical College of Georgia, at Augusta, was opened in 1829; the State
College of Agriculture and Mechanic Arts was established at Athens in
1872; the North Georgia Agricultural College, at Dahlonega, was opened
in 1873; the Georgia School of Technology, at Atlanta, in 1888; the
Georgia Normal and Industrial College (for women), in Milledgeville, in
1899; the Georgia State Normal School, at Athens, in 1895; the Georgia
State Industrial College for Coloured Youth, near Savannah, in 1890; the
School of Pharmacy, at Athens, in 1903; and the School of Forestry, and
the Georgia State College of Agriculture, at Athens, in 1906. Affiliated
with the university, but not receiving state funds, are three
preparatory schools, the South Georgia Military and Agricultural College
at Thomasville, the Middle Georgia Military and Agricultural College at
Milledgeville, and the West Georgia Agricultural and Mechanical College
at Hamilton. Among the institutions generally grouped as denominational
are--Baptist: Mercer University, at Macon (Penfield, 1837; Macon, 1871),
Shorter College (1877) at Rome, Spelman Seminary (1881) in Atlanta for
negro women and girls, and Bessie Tift College, formerly Monroe College
(1849) for women, at Forsyth; Methodist Episcopal: Emory College (1836),
at Oxford, and Wesleyan Female College (1836) at Macon, both largely
endowed by George Ingraham Seney (1837-1893), and the latter one of the
earliest colleges for women in the country; Methodist Episcopal Church,
South: Young Harris College (1855) at Young Harris, Andrew Female
College (1854) at Cuthbert, and Dalton Female College (1872) at Dalton;
Presbyterian: Agnes Scott College at Decatur; and African Methodist
Episcopal: Morris Brown College (1885) at Atlanta. A famous school for
negroes is the non-sectarian Atlanta University (incorporated in 1867,
opened in 1869), which has trained many negroes for teaching and other
professions. Non-sectarian colleges for women are: Lucy Cobb Institute
(1858) at Athens, Cox College (1843) at College Park, near Atlanta, and
Brenau College Conservatory (1878) at Gainesville.

  _Finance._--The assessed value of taxable property in 1910 was about
  $735,000,000. A general property tax, which furnishes about
  four-fifths of the public revenue, worked so inequitably that a Board
  of Equalization was appointed in 1901. By the Constitution the tax
  rate is limited to $5 on the thousand, and, as the rate of taxation
  has increased faster than the taxable property, the state has been
  forced to contract several temporary loans since 1901, none of which
  has exceeded $200,000, the limit for each year set by the
  Constitution. On the 1st of January 1910 the bonded debt was
  $6,944,000, mainly incurred by the extravagance of the Reconstruction
  administration (see _History_, below). Each year $100,000 of this debt
  is paid off, and there are annual appropriations for the payment of
  interest (about $303,260 in 1910). The state owns the Western &
  Atlantic railway (137 m. long) from Chattanooga, Tennessee, to
  Atlanta, which has valuable terminal facilities in both cities, and
  which in 1910 was estimated to be worth $8,400,240 (more than the
  amount of the bonded debt); this railway the state built in 1841-1850,
  and in 1890 leased for 29 years, at an annual rental of $420,012, to
  the Nashville, Chattanooga & St Louis railway.

  Banking in Georgia is in a prosperous condition. The largest class of
  depositors are the farmers, who more and more look to the banks for
  credit, instead of to the merchants and cotton speculators. Hence the
  number of banks in agricultural districts is increasing. The state
  treasurer is the bank examiner, and to him all banks must make a
  quarterly statement and submit their books for examination twice a
  year. The legal rate of interest is 7%, but by contract it may be 8%.

_History._--Georgia derives its name from King George II. of Great
Britain. It was the last to be established of the English colonies in
America. Its formation was due to a desire of the British government to
protect South Carolina from invasion by the Spaniards from Florida and
by the French from Louisiana, as well as to the desire of James Edward
Oglethorpe (q.v.) to found a refuge for the persecuted Protestant sects
and the unfortunate but worthy indigent classes of Europe. A charter was
granted in 1732 to "the Trustees for establishing the colony of Georgia
in America," and parliament gave L10,000 to the enterprise. The first
settlement was made at Savannah in 1733 under the personal supervision
of Oglethorpe. The early colonists were German Lutherans (Salzburgers),
Piedmontese, Scottish Highlanders, Swiss, Portuguese Jews and
Englishmen; but the main tide of immigration, from Virginia and the
Carolinas, did not set in until 1752. As a bulwark against the Spanish,
the colony was successful, but as an economic experiment it was a
failure. The trustees desired that there should be grown in the colony
wine grapes, hemp, silk and medical plants (barilla, kali, cubeb, caper,
madder, &c.) for which England was dependent upon foreign countries;
they required the settlers to plant mulberry trees, and forbade the sale
of rum, the chief commercial staple of the colonies. They also forbade
the introduction of negro slaves. Land was leased by military tenure,
and until 1739 grants were made only in male tail and alienations were
forbidden. The industries planned for the colony did not thrive, and as
sufficient labour could not be obtained, the importation of slaves was
permitted under certain conditions in 1749. About the same time the
House of Commons directed the trustees to remove the prohibition on the
sale of rum. In 1753 the charter of the trustees expired and Georgia
became a royal province.

Under the new regime the colony was so prosperous that Sir James Wright
(1716-1785), the last of the royal governors, declared Georgia to be
"the most flourishing colony on the continent." The people were led to
revolt against the mother country through sympathy with the other
colonies rather than through any grievance of their own. The centre of
revolutionary ideas was St John's Parish, settled by New Englanders
(chiefly from Dorchester, Massachusetts). The Loyalist sentiment was so
strong that only five of the twelve parishes sent representatives to the
First Provincial Congress, which met on the 18th of January 1775, and
its delegates to the Continental Congress therefore did not claim seats
in that assembly. But six months later all the parishes sent
representatives to another Provincial Congress which met on the 4th of
July 1775. Soon afterward the royal government collapsed and the
administration of the colony was assumed by a council of safety.

The war that followed was really a severe civil conflict, the Loyalist
and Revolutionary parties being almost equal in numbers. In 1778 the
British seized Savannah, which they held until 1782, meanwhile reviving
the British civil administration, and in 1779 they captured Augusta and
Sunbury; but after 1780 the Revolutionary forces were generally
successful. Civil affairs also fell into confusion. In 1777 a state
constitution was adopted, but two factions soon appeared in the
government, led by the governor and the executive council respectively,
and harmony was not secured until 1781.

Georgia's policy in the formation of the United States government was
strongly national. In the constitutional convention of 1787 its
delegates almost invariably gave their support to measures designed to
strengthen the central government. Georgia was the fourth state to
ratify (January 2, 1788), and one of the three that ratified
unanimously, the Federal Constitution. But a series of conflicts between
the Federal government and the state government caused a decline of this
national sentiment and the growth of States Rights theories.

First of these was the friction involved in the case, before the Supreme
Court of the United States, of _Chisolm_ v. _Georgia_, by which the
plaintiff, one Alexander Chisolm, a citizen of South Carolina, secured
judgment in 1793 against the state of Georgia (see 2 Dallas Reports
419). In protest, the Georgia House of Representatives, holding that the
United States Supreme Court had no constitutional power to try suits
against a sovereign state, resolved that any Federal marshal who should
attempt to execute the court's decision would be "guilty of felony, and
shall suffer death, without benefit of clergy, by being hanged." No
effort was made to execute the decision, and in 1798 the Eleventh
Amendment to the Federal Constitution was adopted, taking from Federal
courts all jurisdiction over any suit brought "against one of the United
States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any
foreign state."

The position of Congress and of the Supreme Court with reference to
Georgia's policy in the Yazoo Frauds also aroused distrust of the
Federal government. In 1795 the legislature granted for $500,000 the
territory extending from the Alabama and Coosa rivers to the Mississippi
river and between 35 deg. and 31 deg. N. lat. (almost all of the present
state of Mississippi and more than half of the present state of Alabama)
to four land companies, but in the following year a new legislature
rescinded the contracts on the ground that they had been fraudulently
and corruptly made, as was probably the case, and the rescindment was
embodied in the Constitution of 1798., In the meantime the United States
Senate had appointed a committee to inquire into Georgia's claim to the
land in question, and as this committee pronounced that claim invalid,
Congress in 1800 established a Territorial government over the region.
The legislature of Georgia remonstrated but expressed a willingness to
cede the land to the United States, and in 1802 the cession was
ratified, it being stipulated among other things that the United States
should pay to the state $1,250,000, and should extinguish "at their own
expense, for the use of Georgia, as soon as the same can be peaceably
obtained on reasonable terms," the Indian title to all lands within the
state of Georgia. Eight years later the Supreme Court of the United
States decided in the case of _Fletcher_ v. _Peck_ (6 Cranch 87) that
such a rescindment as that in the new state constitution was illegal, on
the ground that a state cannot pass a law impairing the obligation of
contracts; and at an expense of more than four millions of dollars the
Federal government ultimately extinguished all claims to the lands.

This decision greatly irritated the political leaders of Georgia, and
the question of extinguishing the Indian titles, on which there had long
been a disagreement, caused further and even more serious friction
between the Federal and state authorities. The National government,
until the administration of President Jackson, regarded the Indian
tribes as sovereign nations with whom it alone had the power to treat,
while Georgia held that the tribes were dependent communities with no
other right to the soil than that of tenants at will. In 1785 Georgia
made treaties with the Creeks by which those Indians ceded to the state
their lands S. and W. of the Altamaha river and E. of the Oconee river,
but after a remonstrance of one of their half-breed chiefs Congress
decided that the cessions were invalid, and the National government
negotiated, in 1790, a new treaty which ceded only the lands E. of the
Oconee. The state appealed to the National government to endeavour to
secure further cessions, but none had been made when, in 1802, the
United States assumed its obligation to extinguish all Indian titles
within the state. Several cessions were made between 1802 and 1824, but
the state in the latter year remonstrated in vigorous terms against the
dilatory manner in which the National government was discharging its
obligation, and the effect of this was that in 1825 a treaty was
negotiated at Indian Springs by which nearly all the Lower Creeks agreed
to exchange their remaining lands in Georgia for equal territory beyond
the Mississippi. But President J.Q. Adams, learning that this treaty was
not approved by the entire Creek nation, authorized a new one, signed at
Washington in 1826, by which the treaty of 1825 was abrogated and the
Creeks kept certain lands W. of the Chattahoochee. The Georgia
government, under the leadership of Governor George M. Troup
(1780-1856), had proceeded to execute the first treaty, and the
legislature declared the second treaty illegal and unconstitutional. In
reply to a communication of President Adams early in 1827 that the
United States would take strong measures to enforce its policy, Governor
Troup declared that he felt it his duty to resist to the utmost any
military attack which the government of the United States should think
proper to make, and ordered the military companies to prepare to resist
"any hostile invasion of the territory of this state." But the strain
produced by these conditions was relieved by information that new
negotiations had been begun for the cession of all Creek lands in
Georgia. These negotiations were completed late in the year.

There was similar conflict in the relation of the United States and
Georgia with the Cherokees. In 1785 the Cherokees of Georgia placed
themselves under the protection of the Federal government, and in 1823
their chiefs, who were mostly half-breeds, declared: "It is the fixed
and unalterable determination of this nation never again to cede one
foot more of land," and that they could not "recognize the sovereignty
of any state within the limits of their territory"; in 1827 they framed
a constitution and organized a representative government. President
Monroe and President J.Q. Adams treated the Cherokees with the courtesy
due to a sovereign nation, and held that the United States had done all
that was required to meet the obligation assumed in 1802. The Georgia
legislature, however, contended that the United States had not acted in
good faith, declared that all land within the boundaries of the state
belonged to Georgia, and in 1828 extended the jurisdiction of Georgia
law to the Cherokee lands. Then President Jackson, holding that Georgia
was in the right on the Indian question, informed the Cherokees that
their only alternative to submission to Georgia was emigration.
Thereupon the chiefs resorted to the United States Supreme Court, which
in 1832 declared that the Cherokees formed a distinct community "in
which the laws of Georgia have no force," and annulled the decision of a
Georgia court that had extended its jurisdiction into the Cherokee
country (_Worcester_ v. _Georgia_). But the governor of Georgia declared
that the decision was an attempt at usurpation which would meet with
determined resistance, and President Jackson refused to enforce the
decree. The President did, however, work for the removal of the Indians,
which was effected in 1838.

On account of these conflicts a majority of Georgians adopted the
principles of the Democratic-Republican party, and early in the 19th
century the people were virtually unanimous in their political ideas.
Local partisanship centred in two factions: one, led by George M. Troup,
which represented the interests of the aristocratic and slave-holding
communities; the other, formed by John Clarke (1766-1832) and his
brother Elijah, found support among the non-slave-holders and the
frontiersmen. The cleavage of these factions was at first purely
personal; but by 1832 it had become one of principle. Then the Troup
faction under the name of States Rights party, endorsed the
nullification policy of South Carolina, while the Clarke faction,
calling itself a Union party, opposed South Carolina's conduct, but on
the grounds of expediency rather than of principle. On account, however,
of its opposition to President Jackson's attitude toward nullification,
the States Rights party affiliated with the new Whig party, which
represented the national feeling in the South, while the Union party was
merged into the Democratic party, which emphasized the sovereignty of
the states.

The activity of Georgia in the slavery controversy was important. As
early as 1835 the legislature adopted a resolution which asserted the
legality of slavery in the Territories, a principle adopted by Congress
in the Kansas Bill in 1854, and in 1847 ex-Governor Wilson Lumpkin
(1783-1870) advocated the organization of the Southern states to resist
the aggression of the North. Popular opinion at first opposed the
Compromise of 1850, and some politicians demanded immediate secession
from the Union; and the legislature had approved the Alabama Platform of
1848. But Congressmen Robert Toombs, Alexander H. Stephens, Whigs, and
Howell Cobb, a Democrat, upon their return from Washington, contended
that the Compromise was a great victory for the South, and in a campaign
on this issue secured the election of such delegates to the state
convention (at Milledgeville) of 1850 that that body adopted on the 10th
of December, by a vote of 237 to 19, a series of conciliatory
resolutions, since known as the "Georgia Platform," which declared in
substance: (1) that, although the state did not wholly approve of the
Compromise, it would "abide by it as a permanent adjustment of this
sectional controversy," to preserve the Union, as the thirteen original
colonies had found compromise necessary for its formation; (2) that the
state "will and ought to resist, even (as a last resort) to the
disruption of every tie that binds her to the Union," any attempt to
prohibit slavery in the Territories or a refusal to admit a slave state.
The adoption of this platform was accompanied by a party reorganization,
those who approved it organizing the Constitutional Union party, and
those who disapproved, mostly Democrats, organizing the Southern Rights
party; the approval in other states of the Georgia Platform in
preference to the Alabama Platform (see ALABAMA) caused a reaction in
the South against secession. The reaction was followed for a short
interval by a return to approximately the former party alignment, but in
1854 the rank and file of the Whigs joined the American or Know-Nothing
party while most of the Whig leaders went over to the Democrats. The
Know-Nothing party was nearly destroyed by its crushing defeat in 1856
and in the next year the Democrats by a large majority elected for
governor Joseph Emerson Brown (1821-1894) who by three successive
re-elections was continued in that office until the close of the Civil
War. Although Governor Brown represented the poorer class of white
citizens he had taken a course in law at Yale College, had practised
law, and at the time of his election was judge of a superior court;
although he had never held slaves he believed that the abolition of
slavery would soon result in the ruin of the South, and he was a man of
strong convictions. The Kansas question and the attitude of the North
toward the decision in the Dred Scott case were arousing the South when
he was inaugurated the first time, and in his inaugural address he
clearly indicated that he would favour secession in the event of any
further encroachment on the part of the North. In July 1859 Senator
Alfred Iverson (1798-1874) declared that in the event of the election of
a Free-Soil resident in 1860 he would favour the establishment of an
independent confederacy; later in the same year Governor Brown expressed
himself to a similar effect and urged the improvement of the military
service. On the 7th of November following the election of President
Lincoln the governor, in a special message to the legislature,
recommended the calling of a convention to decide the question of
secession, and Alexander H. Stephens was about the only prominent
political leader who contended that Lincoln's election was insufficient
ground for such action. On the 17th of November the legislature passed
an act directing the governor to order an election of delegates on the
2nd of January 1861 and their meeting in a convention on the 16th. On
the 19th this body passed an ordinance of secession by a vote of 208 to
89. Already the first regiment of Georgia Volunteers, under Colonel
Alexander Lawton (1818-1896) had seized Fort Pulaski at the mouth of the
Savannah river and now Governor Brown proceeded to Augusta and seized
the Federal arsenal there. Toward the close of the same year, however,
Federal warships blockaded Georgia's ports, and early in 1862 Federal
forces captured Tybee Island, Fort Pulaski, St Mary's, Brunswick and St
Simon Island. Georgia had responded freely to the call for volunteers,
but when the Confederate Congress had passed, in April 1862, the
Conscript Law which required all white men (except those legally
exempted from service) between the ages of 18 and 35 to enter the
Confederate service, Governor Brown, in a correspondence with President
Davis which was continued for several months, offered serious
objections, his leading contentions being that the measure was
unnecessary as to Georgia, unconstitutional, subversive of the state's
sovereignty, and therefore "at war with the principles for the support
of which Georgia entered into this revolution."

In 1863 north-west Georgia was involved in the Chattanooga campaign. In
the following spring Georgia was invaded from Tennessee by a Federal
army under General William T. Sherman; the resistance of General Joseph
E. Johnston and General J.B. Hood proved ineffectual; and on the 1st of
September Atlanta was taken. Then Sherman began his famous "march to the
sea," from Atlanta to Savannah, which revealed the weakness of the
Confederacy. In the spring of 1865, General J.H. Wilson with a body of
cavalry entered the state from Alabama, seized Columbus and West Point
on the 16th of April, and on the 10th of May captured Jefferson Davis,
president of the Confederacy, at Irwinville in Irwin county.

In accord with President Andrew Johnson's plan for reorganizing the
Southern States, a provisional governor, James Johnson, was appointed on
the 17th of June 1865, and a state convention reformed the constitution
to meet the new conditions, rescinding the ordinance of secession,
abolishing slavery and formally repudiating the state debt incurred in
the prosecution of the war. A governor and legislature were elected in
November 1865, the legislature ratified the Thirteenth Amendment on the
9th of December and five days later the governor-elect was inaugurated.
But both the convention and legislature incurred the suspicion and
ill-will of Congress; the convention had congratulated the president on
his policy, memorialized him on behalf of Jefferson Davis, and provided
pensions for disabled Confederate soldiers and the widows of those who
had lost their lives during the war, while the legislature passed
apprenticeship, labour and vagrancy laws to protect and regulate the
negroes, and rejected the Fourteenth Amendment. Although the civil
rights were conferred upon the freedmen, Congress would not tolerate the
political incapacity and social inferiority which the legislature had
assigned to them, and therefore Georgia was placed under military
government, as part of the third military district, by the
Reconstruction Act of the 2nd of March 1867. Under the auspices of the
military authorities registration of electors for a new state convention
was begun and 95,168 negroes and 96,333 whites were registered. The
acceptance of the proposition to call the convention and the election of
many conscientious and intelligent delegates were largely due to the
influence of ex-Governor Brown, who was strongly convinced that the
wisest course for the South was to accept quickly what Congress had
offered. The convention met in Atlanta on the 9th of December 1867 and
by March 1868 had revised the constitution to meet the requirements of
the Reconstruction Acts. The constitution was duly adopted by popular
vote, and elections were held for the choice of a governor and
legislature. Rufus Brown Bullock (b. 1834), Republican, was chosen
governor, the Senate had a majority of Republicans, but in the House of
Representatives a tie vote was cast for the election of a speaker. On
the 21st of July the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, and a section of
the state constitution (which denied the power of state courts to
entertain against any resident of the state suits founded on contracts
existing on the 15th of June 1865) was repealed by the legislature in
pursuance of the congressional "Omnibus Bill" of the 25th of June 1868,
and as evidence of the restoration of Georgia to the Union the
congressmen were seated on the 25th of July in that year.

But in September of the same year the Democrats in the state
legislature, being assisted by some of the white Republicans, expelled
the 27 negro members and seated their defeated white contestants,
relying upon the legal theory that the right to hold office belonged
only to those citizens designated by statute, the common law or custom.
In retaliation the 41st Congress excluded the state's representatives on
a technicality, and, on the theory that the government of Georgia was a
provisional organization, passed an act requiring the ratification of
the Fifteenth Amendment before the admission of Georgia's senators and
representatives. The war department now concluded that the state was
still subject to military authority, and placed General A.H. Terry in
command. With his aid, and that of Congressional requirements that all
members of the legislature must take the Test Oath and none be excluded
on account of colour, a Republican majority was secured for both houses,
and the Fifteenth Amendment was ratified. Georgia was now finally
admitted to the Union by Act of Congress, on the 15th of July 1870.

The Reconstruction period in Georgia is remarkable for its comparative
moderation. Although there was great political excitement, there was not
as much extravagance in public administration as there was in other
Southern States, the state debt increasing approximately from $6,600,000
to $16,000,000. The explanation lies in the fact that there were

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/37523