uadron and in private life a dissenting minister. "Dissolute"
certainly was on the face of things inappropriate, but then it was
no fault of mine that the merriest of English monarchs should have
appeared at the moment when I was filling up the papers of a minister
of religion.

The light that my wooden monarchs throw on history is both interesting
and, to a modern, precious. For instance, the designation of the first
Angevin king as "patriotic" will surprise many readers of the late
Bishop STUBBS. "Patriotic" is a wide term and may be applied to almost
anything from after-dinner flag-wagging to successful juggling with
Colonial stocks and shares; yet there are few who would have described
it as the besetting virtue of HENRY I. But it was; his little block
says so.

JOHN, again, was "mean." I am sorry, for, though in some respects
blameworthy, he had many agreeable traits. His views on the honesty of
his baronage are most entertaining. He was something of a wit, a good
judge of food and wine, and would have made an excellent Fellow of an
Oxford college. It is much to be regretted that he was mean.

Poor HENRY VI. is "silly." This is a hard judgment on the pioneer of
the movement against low backs in evening frocks, but doubtless he was
silly in other things.

Some of my monarchs had the most excellent characters. EDWARD I. was
"just," GEORGE IV. "courteous," OLIVER CROMWELL "noble"--a sad blow
for the White Rose Club. Our younger monarchs were particularly
attractive persons, and it is a pity that they did not live long
enough to display their qualities. EDWARD VI. was "amiable," while
EDWARD V., like all with expectations from their uncle, was "hopeful."
Poor child! he had need to be.

I am pained however that CHARLES II. was "dissolute." It was what
HENRY VIII. dissolved the monasteries for being--the impertinent old
polygamist! For my part I love CHARLES for the affection that he bore
little dogs, for the chance saying on Sussex hills that this England
was a country well worth fighting for. Alas! that he should have been
dissolute.

Best of all my friends is GEORGE III. He is portrayed with a jolly red
nose and a mouth that positively yawns for pudding. His character,
which is his chief glory, is "benevolent." Who would not rejoice to
have been the object of his regal philanthropy? SAMUEL JOHNSON himself
did not hesitate to accept the bounty of this kindly monarch, though,
while his predecessor reigned, the g