#1st Earl of Chatham

[famousborntoday]

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, was a British Whig statesman who served as Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1766 to 1768. Historians call him "Chatham" o...

Link: William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham

[alice-makes-things]

The library I work in used to be the village rectory, built in the 18th century. I've been doing some digging into local history books to try and put together a little display of the building's history. I've learned some cool stuff—including that one of the more eccentric Victorian rectors built a massive observatory extension to the rectory (sadly demolished when it became the library) and that Charles Darwin's children used to visit for Sunday school lessons.

(I also learned that the rector who commissioned the building has a name that sounds ridiculously similar to Lord Farquad, which is just plain funny.) But one story I found out today broke my heart. It's about a nine-year-old First Nations boy who died of smallpox in a tiny village in Kent, at least 3000 miles away from his homeland, as the slave of William Pitt the Elder. This is the story of John Panis.

Let me make it very clear: this boy was not named John Panis. We do not know his true name, or how it was stolen from him, or even for certain how he came to be in this tiny corner of England. While his gravestone describes him as "of the Tribe of Panis", "Panis" is not a Native American or First Nations term. It was an 18th-century French term used to describe slaves of First Nations descent in the colony of Canada, then part of New France. Most "Panis" were from the Pawnee Nation, but we don't know for sure that John was Pawnee. What we do know is that it is nearly certain that nine-year-old John was a slave, and it is nearly certain that William Pitt was his enslaver.

To be given a tombstone was a rarity in 18th-century villager life: only the wealthy could afford one. Only 10 grave markers of the 600 or so 18th-century burials recorded in the churchyard survive. So it's significant that, firstly, nine-year-old John had one, and, secondly, that it survived to this day. The wealthiest 18th-century local at the time? William Pitt the Elder, 1st Earl of Chatham.

Pitt supported the American position in the run-up to the American War of Independence. The text I read today suggested that little John was gifted to Pitt by an American to thank him for this, as a "playmate" or "pageboy" for his young children. But with no surviving contemporary records, we simply don't know how he came to be here.

Again, John was not a "playmate" or a "pageboy". He was nine years old. He was a child slave. His name was not John. We do not know his original tribe, name, or language.

I spent my lunch hour today thinking about John, sold into slavery at such a young age, torn from his family, and stripped of his name, language, and people. Sent across an ocean simply to entertain white children. Contracting smallpox, suffering, and dying in agony in a small village in Kent, without the comfort of a mother or father. He was likely put to rest by the very rector who commissioned the building I now work in. I went to find him in the churchyard. His resting place is only a few metres from the library.

I wonder if he is the ghost I sometimes speak to.

[if-you-fan-a-fire]

"Boy Bandit Uses Toy Gun," Border Cities Star. August 26 1933. Page 3. ---- 15-Year-Old Chatham Lad Robs Londoner On Highway Near Maidstone ---- Taken in Home City After Wild Ride in Car He Had Stolen --- Arrested after a thrilling chase from Maidstone to Chatham, a Chatham juvenile, 15 years old, is alleged by police to have admitted poking a toy revolver into the ribs of a London motorist who had given him a ride, and at the point of the cap pistol to have turned the owner out of the car and driven off with it at a dizzy rate of speed.

IS REMANDED The boy was taken to Sandwich this morning, and remanded in custody until Monday on a charge of robbery armed. He was not asked to elect trial or enter a plea.

The holdup occurred on No. 3 Highway near Maidstone. The arrest was made near the Chatham city limits at the corner of Merritt avenue and Richmond streets by Constables Earl Glover and William Donaldson of the Chatham police, yesterday afternoon Chasing the car practically all the way from Maidstone to Chatham at a rate of from 60 to 65 miles an hour was John O'Neil, Woodslee garage proprietor, who had given chase at the request of traffic officers.

According to Provincial Constable Frank Kelly, of Tilbury, who was in the hunt for the stolen car, and who later went to Chatham to interview the arrested boy, the train of events started at Blenheim when the motor 1st, Capt. Charles Wray, of the London fire department, driving toward Windsor on No. 3 Highway, was asked for a ride by the boy.

ORDERED TO STOP All went well until the motorist and his hitch hiking passenger approached Maidstone. Suddenly the youth is alleged to have pulled the gun. For a time, police say, the driver was instructed by the young bandit to drive on, but in a few minutes the order was given to stop and get out of the car. The youth then departed, leaving the motorist to walk to Maidstone, where police were notified. Before he went, the bay bandit took $4 from Capt. Wray.

The highway police at Maidstone telephoned police throughout the district, and themselves immediately took up the chase. Traffic Officer Gene Raymer told the Woodslee garage proprietor, and he rushed into the hunt.

Notification to be on the look-out was passed on to Chatham police by Provincial Constable Kelly from Tilbury. He was able to tell them the make and license of the car, and that the youth was believed to be armed. Constables Glover and Donaldson hurried to the point where No. 2 Highway enters the city to take up positions awaiting the escaping youth.

It didn't take long for him to ap pear, and not so far behind came Mr.O'Neil.

60 TO 65 MILES AN HOUR "O'Neil told me that he had to travel between 60 and 65 miles an hour to keep the boy in sight," said Constable Kelly.

From Maidstone the youth had driven to Tilbury, and from Tilbury, closely pursued by O'Neil, he had swung south through Stevenson. Thence he took the detour through Merlin and turned north from Merlin to Prairie Siding. He followed the River Road from Prairie Siding through Raleigh township toward Chatham, then cut over to No. 2 Highway to enter the city.

Chatham police, on searching the lad, found a rather ferocious looking hunting knife, but no gun. At that time it was not known that the gun supposed to have been used was not real. Later the boy is said to have admitted having the gun, but declared that it was only a toy. He stated that after the holdup he threw it away, according to police.

According to Chief Findlay Low, he is well known to Chatham police, and was wanted for the theft of $75 from his own father.

[dwellordream]

“...More than half the members of every British cabinet of the period sat in the House of Lords, and many of those who sat in the Commons were either sons of lords or would go on to be granted a peerage. Yet the obvious implication – that the aristocracy exercised a stranglehold over government – is misleading. Most of the titled men who governed Britain were first-, second- or at most third-generation peers, and they came from families that had risen recently through politics and acquired a title and an estate as a symbol of their success. 

…They became peers because they were politically powerful; they were not politically powerful because they were peers. Many politicians became wealthy. Lord Eldon’s fortune has already been mentioned, and the 1st Earl of Liverpool left an estate worth £200,000. On the other hand Lord Chatham, the son of one great Prime Minister and the brother of another, who was also a long-serving cabinet minister in his own right, was constantly harassed by financial demands throughout his life, and had little private means beyond the emoluments of office. 

And George Canning, who spent his life at the forefront of British politics, felt guilty that his career had greatly depleted the substantial fortune his wife had brought him, leaving her poorer as a widow than she had been as a bride. The great aristocratic families mostly supported the Whigs, not Pitt and his successors, and with a few brief exceptions the Whigs were out of office from the early 1780s until 1830. This does not mean that a great Whig magnate such as the Duke of Devonshire had no political power: he would usually still be the Lord Lieutenant of the county in which he was the principal landowner, and be able to access considerable patronage at both a local and national level. 

His recommendation would carry weight with the Prime Minister or Lord Chancellor in appointing a clergyman to a living in their gift; and he would not find it difficult to secure a commission in the army for a protégé, although his influence would be much greater if his friends were in power. Even being a simple Member of Parliament gave a man considerable social status and enabled him to oblige friends, family and others with letters of recommendation that might secure some of the commoner and less desirable fruit in the orchard of government patronage. 

It might also greatly assist the man in his own career, and many ambitious officers in the army and navy went into Parliament in the expectation that it would assist them in gaining their professional objectives. In 1813 Wellington told John Malcolm, his friend from India, that [a]lthough I had long been in habits of friendship with the public men of the day, and had some professional claims to public notice when  I returned to England, I believe I should have been but little known, and should not be what I am, if I had not gone into Parliament. I would, therefore, advise you to go into Parliament if you can afford it, if you look to high public employment.

Most younger sons never reached these illustrious heights. Birth and wealth remained very important in determining their place in society. It was a great recommendation for a young clergyman arriving in a distant part of the country if it was known that he belonged to a family of well-established gentry, and even better if he also had some connection to the aristocracy or the powerful. Still, if he was wise, he would play these cards discreetly, letting the information fall only when pressed, and alluding to it infrequently. A man who constantly proclaimed his connections, especially if he exaggerated their significance, was always liable to ridicule. 

Equally, wealth was most persuasive when it was neither secret nor proclaimed openly: friends, gossips and, if need be, servants could be relied upon to spread the word, and through such means the tale would often grow in the telling. Miss Augusta Hawkins, Mr Elton’s bride, ‘was in possession of an independent fortune, of so many thousands as would always be called ten; a point of some dignity, as well as some convenience’. Attendance at one of the great public schools did not confer as much prestige in this period as it would do later in the nineteenth century: too many young lords and gentlemen were privately educated and went to university while still very young. 

However, some of the boys who went to public schools made friendships and connections there that proved invaluable in later life. It was at Eton that Richard Wellesley became friends with William Grenville, and through him with Pitt the Younger, thus laying the foundations for his subsequent public career. But Arthur Wellesley’s three years at Eton were an almost complete waste of time: he did not thrive intellectually and made no friends of lasting consequence. The Rev. Sydney Smith was at Winchester with William Howley, the future Archbishop of Canterbury, but the only benefit he derived from the connection was a good quip in one of his essays many years later. 

Still, it was important that a young man appeared educated, that his speech  and language were not totally unpolished, and that his general knowledge was not obviously deficient: for example that he knew that Paris was in France, not France in Paris. The bar was not set particularly high, and too much learning, displayed ostentatiously, was as bad as too little. Equally significant was the choice of career and the level of success in it. A clergyman was always respectable, but a poor curate had a distinctly lower social position than the Rev. Henry Tilney, Rector of Woodston and son of General Tilney. 

A young country attorney might or might not be regarded as a gentleman: his profession opened the possibility but did not guarantee the result, although a barrister, while possibly poorer, had a rather higher status. Military and naval officers had clear claims to gentility, but those of a lieutenant of the marines or the militia were far less persuasive than a captain in a fashionable regiment of light dragoons, or a young post-captain in the navy. Sometimes, as Edward Ferrars found, it was easier to do nothing, to be a fashionable young man of leisure, but relatively few younger sons could afford this luxury. 

A final ingredient remained that could greatly elevate or depress the standing of a young man: his personal qualities, and particularly his appearance and manner. Did he look and behave like a gentleman? And, even if this was not in doubt, was his presence agreeable? Ideally a gentleman’s manners should be easy and free from embarrassment, but without any hint of vulgarity or overfamiliarity. To be agreeable he must not be cold or excessively reserved, or try too hard to please: Mr Collins’s elaborate compliments were not to his credit, and Mr John Knightley remarked of another clergyman, ‘ I never in my life saw a man more intent on being agreeable than Mr Elton. It is a downright labour to him where ladies are concerned. With men he can be rational and unaffected, but when he has ladies to please every feature works’. 

And Emma agreed that ‘Mr Elton’s manners are not perfect’, although she went on to argue that ‘where there is a wish to please, one ought to overlook, and one does overlook a great deal’. This remark may have been barbed, for Mr John Knightley was sometimes deficient in the wish to please, indeed we are told that ‘He was not an illtempered man, not so often unreasonably cross as to deserve such a reproach; but his temper was not his great perfection’.

Mr Collins, Mr Elton Mr John Knightley were all undoubtedly gentlemen, even if they were not all invariably agreeable. A man might be as foolish as Sir Walter Eliot, as offensive as young John Thorpe or as ridiculous as Sir William Lucas without raising doubts as to his gentility; indeed, if Jane Austen paints an accurate picture of society, England would have been remarkably short of gentlemen if such personal flaws resulted in disqualification. Robert Martin, the young farmer who, to Emma’s dismay, courted Harriet Smith, had no claims to being a gentleman, and Emma – who we understand is behaving very badly – points out the distinction with snobbish relish. 

‘He is very plain, undoubtedly – remarkably plain: – but that is nothing, compared to his entire want of gentility. I had no right to expect much; but I had no idea that he could be so very clownish, so totally without air. I had imagined him, I confess, a degree or two nearer gentility.’ She goes on to be a little more specific, criticizing ‘his awkward look and abrupt manner – and the uncouthness of a voice, which I heard to be wholly unmodulated as I stood here’. And she asks Harriet to compare him to Mr Weston or Mr Elton: ‘Compare their manner of carrying themselves; of walking; of speaking; of being silent. You must see the difference.’ 

These were the intangible markers of a gentleman that were sometimes given the misleading label of ‘good breeding’. And here too an excess was as dangerous as a shortfall, and risked the damning verdict that the offender had ‘the manners of a dancing master’. Emma’s criticism of Robert Martin was clearly unjust, as she half acknowledged to herself when she read his letter proposing to Harriet: She . . . was surprised. The style of the letter was much above her expectation. There were not merely no grammatical errors, but as a composition it would not have disgraced a gentleman; the language, though plain, was strong and unaffected, and the sentiments it conveyed very much to the credit of the writer. It was short, but expressed good sense, warm attachment, liberality, propriety, even delicacy of feeling.

Mr Knightley on the other hand values Robert Martin’s good sense, describing him as ‘an excellent young man, both as a son and brother’, as and well as admiring his hard work and competence as one of his tenant farmers. Yet the social gulf still remains: at the end of the novel we know that Emma will visit Harriet after her marriage, and Mr Knightley will continue to discuss crops and stock with Robert, but the Martins will not be dining with them at Hartfield or Donwell. 

When Harriet first discusses Robert with Emma she is amazed that Emma does not know him by sight, only to have their relative social positions explained with brutal clarity: I may have seen him fifty times, but without having any idea of his name. A young farmer, whether on horseback or on foot, is the very last sort of person to raise my curiosity. The yeomanry are precisely the order of people with whom I feel I can have nothing to do. A degree or two lower, and a creditable appearance might interest me; I might hope to be useful to their families in some way or other. But a farmer can need none of my help, and is therefore in one sense as much above my notice as in every other he is below it.

If the tenant-farmers were beneath Emma’s notice there was another class in Highbury, and every other town in England, large and small, who were closer to gentility but whose place in society remained doubtful. Mr Perry, the Highbury apothecary, ‘was an intelligent, gentlemanlike man, whose frequent visits were one of the comforts of Mr Woodhouse’s life’. But these were professional visits and Mr Perry did not dine with the Woodhouses or mix with the top tier of Highbury society; or at least he did not do so yet, for there was talk of him getting a carriage and it was possible that he may have come to be accepted more fully if he continued to prosper. 

The Coles were a little further along this road: The Coles had been settled some years in Highbury, and were very good sort of people – friendly, liberal, and unpretending; but, on the other hand, they were of low origin, in trade, and only moderately genteel. On their first coming into the country, they had lived in proportion to their income, quietly, keeping little company, and that little unexpensively; but the last year or two had brought them a  considerable increase of means – the house in town had yielded greater profits, and fortune in general had smiled on them. 

With their wealth, their views increased; their want of a larger house, their inclination for more company. They added to their house, to their number of servants, to their expenses of every sort; and by this time were, in fortune and style of living, second only to the family at Hartfield. Their love of society, and their new dining-room, prepared every body for their keeping dinner-company; and a few parties, chiefly among the single men, had already taken place.

Emma has, at first, no intention of encouraging their pretensions, but when an invitation finally does arrive, it is conveyed with such attention and real thoughtfulness that she changes her mind, encouraged by the fact that all her friends already intend to go. Outside the bounds of fiction, society in many towns was dominated by the Perrys, the Coles and their kind. Sometimes they chafed against the condescension of long-established gentry families, and this irritation could have both a religious and political dimension, for they were often Nonconformists who resented the legal privileges and position of the Church of England, and they might be politically liberal. 

The protracted nationwide campaign against slavery and the intermittent campaigns for parliamentary reform both drew a great deal of support from such sources, and in return these campaigns instilled confidence and a willingness to challenge long-entrenched interests and established hierarchies. While some members of this newly emboldened professional and commercial class were narrow-minded and dogmatic, others displayed great intellectual curiosity, and they were one of the driving forces behind the rise of literary and philosophical societies in many towns in the last decades of the eighteenth century. 

Such activities were sometimes viewed with either disdain or distrust by the local gentry, but more often the leading families in the district gave their support, recognizing a welcome addition to their confined, limited and even tedious social round. Many young men from this sort of background – the sons of Mr Perry and Mr Cole – joined the gentlemanly professions. Here they competed with the younger sons of more established gentlemen, and hoped that the deficiencies of their background would be expunged by their success. And so it generally was, providing that they were successful, but in many professions the competition was fierce and success often proved elusive.”

- Rory Muir, “Society and Money.” in Gentlemen of Uncertain Fortune: How Younger Sons Made Their Way in Jane Austen's England

[uwmspeccoll]

Fore Edge Friday

Here are some nonpareil bindings, edges, and endpapers for some nonpareil (e.g., unparalleled) Historical Sketches of Statesmen Who Flourished in the Time of George III by Henry, Lord Brougham, the second edition printed in three volumes in London by William Clowes and Sons for Charles Knight & Co., 1839-43. The volumes are half-bound in gold-stamped and blind-tooled calf skin with cover papers, edges, and endpapers marbled in what the University of Washington’s site on Patterned Papers identifies as a Nonpareil pattern. We have described the process for making this pattern in a previous post.

The author, Henry Peter Brougham, 1st Baron Brougham and Vaux (1777-1868), was a prolific writer on science, philosophy, and history, and published this set after his stint as Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain (1830-34). The volumes are dedicated to his wife Mary Anne Eden, 1st Baroness Brougham and Vaux (1785–1865). 

The set is replete with with engravings of its subjects and each volume bears a frontispiece of a statesman. Shown here are the frontispiece portraits of William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (volume 1) engraved by William Holl the Younger after an engraving by Edward Fisher from a painting by Richard Brompton, and George Washington (volume 2) engraved by William Humphrys after a painting by Gilbert Stuart. Despite the prominence of Washington’s portrait as the frontispiece to volume 2, Brougham only spends five pages on him. Nevertheless, he calls Washington “the greatest man of our own or of any age. . . . It will be the duty of the Historian and the Sage in all ages to let no occasion pass of commemorating this illustrious man; and until time shall be no more will a test of the progress which our race has made in wisdom and in virtue be derived from the veneration paid to the immortal name of Washington!”

View our other Fore Edge Friday posts.

[ltwilliammowett]

HMS Ville de Paris, by Derek G.M. Gardner ( 1914-2007 )

HMS Ville de Paris was a 110-gun first rate ship of the line of the Royal Navy, launched on 17 July 1795 at Chatham Dockyard. She was designed by Sir John Henslow, and was the only ship built to her draught. She was named after the French ship of the line Ville de Paris, flagship of François Joseph Paul de Grasse during the American Revolutionary War. That ship had been captured by the Royal Navy at the Battle of the Saintes in April 1782, but on the voyage to England, as a prize, she sank in a hurricane in September 1782. She served as the flagship of John Jervis, 1st Earl of St Vincent with the Channel Fleet. Later, Admiral Collingwood died aboard her of cancer while on service in the Mediterranean, off Port Mahon, on 7 March 1810. Ville de Paris was placed on harbour service in 1824, and she was broken up in 1845

[deepjams4]

On the Seventh Anniversary of oath taking as PM of the country!

In 2014 Parliamentary elections, masses preferred a BJP led NDA, over Congress led UPA. Thus NDA won the elections with a majority of seats. BJP selected Mr. Narendra Modi as it’s leader in Lok Sabha and also their prime ministerial candidate. Other alliance partners, in NDA, too endorsed the decision of BJP and thus paved the way for Mr. Modi to get an elevation from being the Chief Minister of Gujarat, to be the Prime Minister of India. He took oath on 26th May 2014, to be the 15th Prime Minister of the country.

Due to his style of functioning, the decisions taken and the agenda which the BJP decided to pursue and implement in the country, Mr. Modi has become a very controversial personality in the political arena, to such an extent, that, the society, and more particularly, the intelligentsia of the country, has got sharply polarised. The media too couldn’t escape this polarisation.

The polarisation is not restricted against the party, Prime Minister or his government for their policies and decisions, or to the extent of ‘for or against’ but has gone far too ahead against a particular person in particular, who happens to be Mr. Narendra Modi, culminating into strong ‘Likes and Dislikes’, ‘Love and Hatred’, ‘Worshiping and Condemnation’, thus placing the person in ‘Higher pedestals or Utter Disdain’ and many categorising him as ‘the god or the demon’.

Those who like him, they see nothing wrong in him and those who hate him, see in him nothing worthwhile, and call his fans as ANDH BHAKTS, whereas the fans call themselves as NATIONALISTS, terming anti-Modi sections to the extent of calling them as ANTI-NATIONALS. The media, forgetting its roles and responsibilities, is also behaving irrational, one section calling the other names, as GODI MEDIA (media sitting in government’s lap or working for the government) or BIASED MEDIA playing into the hands of some vested interests or disgruntled elements. It has suffered its credibility in this setup. What his acts, works or decisions to the haters look to be the blunders, they are, for his worshipers, the classic acts or master strokes to safeguard the best interests of the country, as for them he can’t ever commit any mistakes or any errors of judgement.

Here I would like to add with a bit of caution that this worshiping is not limited to Mr. Modi or BJP only, it is rather spread everywhere, that is what I realised in the recent state assembly elections. In the recent Facebook post, when a friend questioned the decision of Kerala CM dropping one very popular and performing minister, daggers were drawn out by his admirers, who started getting aggressive, calling names, to the ones, who dared question, calling them names, terming them as ‘Blind describing the elephant’ or ‘a part of systematic misinformation campaign’ to defame the Chief Minister. They conveniently forgot, that for speaking against Mr. Modi, they were being labelled the same way and now for defending a chief Minister, they too can be labelled as ‘BHAKTS’

The saddest part is that, this polarisation has brought an animosity amongst the masses, thus affecting their personal relationships. The orientation of the people’s , likes and dislikes, for and against each other, in general, have got jaundiced, and now is based on their respective opinions about Mr. Modi.

The other impact of this polarisation is that the SANE VOICES for CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM OR OPINION have been lost in the din now created, since either such voices will be labelled as ANTI NATIONAL or as A VOICE OF ANDH BHAKT. In the present scenario there is no other scope left.

Now such a situation has emerged, that either you are a friend or an enemy, like the quote of Ta Niel Rochel “If you are not my friend, then you are my enemy and if you are not my enemy then i don't know you.”

I read some beautiful Quotes from Jocelyn Soriano's blog “I Take off the Mask!” I felt like sharing here:

“Life is so much more than dividing people between being one’s friends and enemies!”

“Worship not a person for a good deed he has done for you.  Be grateful but don’t expect him to be perfect.On the other hand, curse not a person for a wrong he has done to hurt you.  He may not be perfect, but he still carries the imprint of God’s goodness upon his soul!”

Why in the pursuit of our personal liking and disliking, we have come this far that, we have put our personal relationships at a stake. I firmly believe such worship or hatred, likes or dislike are not that worth, to barter them with our personal friendships or relationships.

The masses of the country, may be in majority, are poor or illiterate and may not be seen as intelligent, but time and again, they have proved that they are wise and mature enough, to rise to the occasion, to bring a change of governments. They have, with their secret weapon, overthrown those who thought themselves to be the mightiest and taken the voters for granted. That weapon was given to them by the creator of Indian Constitution, Baba Saheb, who ensured that all the voters are equal irrespective of their backgrounds. It is another thing, that the politicians failed them, time and again, whom they trusted, and handed over the power to govern the country. But none can take them for a ride for long, in the name of religion, region, caste, colour or creed or using some sort of propaganda or try to hijack by playing with their emotions or sentiments through some jingoism.

Here I am reminded of a statement by Samuel Johnson, an English writer. Seeing the false use of the term "patriotism" by William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (the patriot minister) and his supporters, he said "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Johnson opposed "self-professed patriots" in general. So one has to be cautious of not getting trapped in the hype of patriotism, created to be used or exploited as a political tool and no political party can take it for granted to raise a bogey of it. Masses are smart enough to understand the design.

I am also reminded of what Abraham Lincoln said “You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

The masses will ultimately be the decision makers. Neither side can play with their judgment for too long. They can’t be carried away or get swayed for too long by any faction.

Only history will tell how it assessed Mr. Modi, as a person and as an administrator. Only time will tell, in which bracket, the history has kept him, whether in the company of liberals like Pt. Nehru and Mr. Vajpayee or as a hard liner tough administrator like Mrs Gandhi or altogether in a different category.

Today, when he has completed seven years in the office, and Mr. Modi enters eighth year in the office, I leave it to the individuals to make their own opinions, based on their rational judgements, about him and his government.

Let us join together to pray for the sake of our country and its citizens, for the stability in the country, healthy growth of democracy and progress in democratic institutions!

[venicepearl]

Hester Pitt, Countess of Chatham (née Grenville; 8 November 1720 – 9 April 1803) was the wife of William Pitt (the Elder), 1st Earl of Chatham, who was Prime Minister of Great Britain from 1766 to 1768.

The sister of George Grenville, who was Prime Minister from 1763 to 1765, she was also the mother of Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger and a niece of the noted Whig politician Richard Temple, 1st Viscount Cobham, who had served as her husband's mentor.

Chatham and Elizabeth Grenville, her sister-in-law, are the only two women in British history to have been both the wife of a Prime Minister and the mother of a Prime Minister.

[theamericanparlor]

The Patriotick Barber of New York, or “The Captain in the Suds”,  February 14, 1775                                 

In this satire, issued in London the year before the outbreak of the American Revolution, Captain John Crozer, commander of a British ship, has been recognized in the barbershop of Jacob Vredenburgh, a New York Son of Liberty who refuses to finish shaving him.

The subject demonstrates how New Yorkers refused to cooperate with British troops garrisoned in the city from the autumn of 1774. When the story reached England it inspired this print. The following verse is printed below the image: "Then Patriot grand, maintain thy Stand,/ And whilst thou sav'st Americ's Land,/ Preserve the Golden Rule;--/ Forbid the Captains there to roam,/ Half shave them first; then send 'em home,/ Objects of ridicule." Some of the figures are caricatured, others represented more realistically. The names of Sons of Liberty are inscribed on wig boxes throughout the composition. Famous defenders of civil liberties, William Pitt the Elder, 1st Earl of Chatham, and Charles, 1st Earl Camden are portrayed in prints that hang on the back wall.

Attributed to Philip Dawe  British    

[bantarleton]

Red John of the Battles

Field Marshal John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll, 1st Duke of Greenwich, KG, KT, styled Lord Lorne from 1680 to 1703, was a Scottish nobleman and senior commander in the British Army. He served on the continent in the Nine Years' War and fought at the Battle of Kaiserwerth during the War of the Spanish Succession. He went on to serve as a brigade commander during the later battles of the War of the Spanish Succession. Next he was given command of all British forces in Spain at the instigation of the Harley Ministry; after conducting a successful evacuation of the troops from Spain, he became Commander-in-Chief, Scotland. During the 1715 Jacobite Rebellion, he led the government army against the Jacobites led by the Earl of Mar at the Battle of Sheriffmuir. He went on to serve as Lord Steward and then Master-General of the Ordnance under the Walpole–Townshend Ministry.

Born at Ham House, he was the son of Archibald Campbell, 1st Duke of Argyll and Elizabeth Campbell (née Tollemache, daughter of Sir Lionel Tollemache, 3rd Baronet). His mother was a stepdaughter of John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale, a dominant figure in Scotland during Charles II's reign. Five years after his birth, Campbell's grandfather Archibald Campbell, 9th Earl of Argyll led Argyll's Rising against the rule of James II of England and VII of Scotland. Campbell was privately tutored first by Walter Campbell of Dunloskin, then by John Anderson of Dumbarton and, finally, by Alexander Cunningham.

He was commissioned, after his father gave William III some encouragement, as colonel of Lord Lorne's Regiment of Foot, a regiment entirely raised by the Argyll family, on 7 April 1694. Campbell served briefly on the continent in the Nine Years' War before the regiment was disbanded in 1698. He also served under the Duke of Marlborough at the Battle of Kaiserwerth in April 1702 during the War of the Spanish Succession. He was appointed a Knight of the Order of the Thistle later that year.

Campbell succeeded his father as Duke of Argyll and Chief of Clan Campbell and also became colonel of the 4th Troop of Horse Guards in 1703. For the help he gave the King persuading the Parliament of Scotland to support the Act of Union, he was created Earl of Greenwich and Baron Chatham in 1705. He then returned to the continent and, having been promoted to major-general early in 1706, served as a brigade commander under Marlborough at the Battle of Ramillies in May 1706 and at the Siege of Ostend in June 1706. After being appointed colonel of Prince George of Denmark's Regiment in 1707, he went on to command a brigade at the Battle of Oudenarde in July 1708 and at the Siege of Lille in Autumn 1708. Promoted to lieutenant general in April 1709, he also took part in the Siege of Tournai in June 1709 and the Battle of Malplaquet in September 1709.

Appointed a Knight of the Order of the Garter in December 1710, Campbell was promoted to full general and given command of all British forces in Spain at the instigation of the Harley Ministry in January 1711. After conducting a successful evacuation of the troops from Spain, he became Commander-in-Chief, Scotland in 1712. By 1713, however, Campbell had become critical of the ministry, and he joined the Whig opposition in making speeches against the government's policy on the Malt Tax. In July 1714, during Queen Anne's last illness, Campbell gave his full support to the Hanoverian succession. He was rewarded with the colonelcy of the Royal Horse Guards in June 1715.

During the Jacobite Rebellion, Campbell led the government army against the Jacobites led by the Earl of Mar at the Battle of Sheriffmuir in November 1715. The battle was indecisive but favoured the government strategically. He led the advance against the Jacobite capital of Perth, capturing it in December, but was then replaced as commander by William Cadogan.

He was rewarded by being created Duke of Greenwich in 1719. He went on to become Lord Steward in 1721 and then Master-General of the Ordnance in June 1725 under the Walpole–Townshend Ministry. He also became colonel of the Queen's Regiment of Horse in August 1726 and, having been appointed Governor of Portsmouth in November 1730, he was restored to the colonelcy of the Royal Horse Guards in August 1733.

Promoted to field marshal on 31 January 1735, Campbell was stripped of his post as Master-General of the Ordnance and the colonelcy of the Royal Horse Guards for opposing the Government in 1740. However he was restored to his post as Master-General of the Ordnance in February 1741 and restored to his colonelcy a few days later.

Campbell died at Sudbrook Park, Petersham on 4 October 1743 and was buried in Westminster Abbey; his grave is marked by a small lozenge stone to the north east of Henry VII's tomb. A large monument, designed by the French sculptor, Louis-François Roubiliac, was erected for him in the south transept and unveiled in 1749.

[thingsmk1120sayz]

#Pittsburgh was named after William Pitt, the Earl of Chatham but did you know that he was the Prime Minister of Great Britain – twice!?

Did you ever wonder how the streets of our City got their name? What’s a ‘Bigelow’? Who was Mr. Beltzhoover?

Was Oakland named after the “land of oaks” or was that someone’s last name (hint – it was German). Is it true that Grant Street was not named after Ulysses S. Grant?

In this episode of the #PittsburghOddcast, we dive deep into the meaning behind the names of ‘Diondega’, I mean, Pittsburgh.

The local names were never meant to just be arbitrary sounds, devoid of any meaning. Each one tells us a record of the past and a story that was not meant to be forgotten.

From Allentown to Zelienople and everything in between, we are bringing you the 1st in an ongoing series on the origin of Pittsburgh names.

[tatemclegs]

24 SEVEN Chicago 2018 / Teen Solo Results!

10th

Savannah Santos (Young Dance Academy)

Gabriella Wright (Extensions Dance Company)

Amelia Koren (Encore Dance Company)

9th

Avery Earle (Viva Dance Co.)

Avril Beesley (Dance Arts Center)

Eliza Farr (Evolve Dance Complex)

8th

Tess Bebar (Encore Dance Company)

Kjerstin Bartell (Young Dance Academy)

Alex Rechichi (Premiere Dance Inc)

7th

Alicia Gan (Just Off Broadway)

6th

Bennet Espinda-Banick (Larkin Dance Studio)

5th

Elle Tosh (Studio One Dance Company)

Zach Knuteson (Center Stage Dance Academy)

Mercedes Lorentz (Larkin Dance Studio)

4th

Sasha Meaney (Larkin Dance Studio)

3rd

Diarra Chatham (Larkin Dance Studio) STOP THE CLOCK!!

2nd

Ying Lei Pham (Just Off Broadway) STOP THE CLOCK!!

Kate Constantini (Jamie’s Dance Force) STOP THE CLOCK!!

Britton Johnson (Viva Dance Co.) STOP THE CLOCK!!

Maris LaPointe (Larkin Dance Studio) STOP THE CLOCK!!

1st

Sophie Tosh (Studio One Dance Company) STOP THE CLOCK!!

Jordin Suwalski (SNF Productions) STOP THE CLOCK!!

[fearandloathinginohio]

Where laws end, tyranny begins.

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham

[the-firebird69]

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham - Wikipedia

John William Hester

Ester

But it correlates to the cortex burns William.

Jolie Williams

Thor

[georgiansuggestion]

AN EXHAUSTIVE RANKING OF EACH PRIME MINISTER OF OUR TIME, ON THE GROUNDS OF HIS BEARING AND PERSONAGE:

21. William Petty, 1st Marquess of Lansdowne 20. The Right Honourable George Canning 19. Frederick North, 2nd Earl of Guilford 18. The Right Honourable George Grenville 17. William Pitt, “the Elder”, 1st Earl of Chatham 16. The Right Honourable Henry Pelham 15. The Right Honourable Spencer Perceval 14. Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle upon Tyne and 1st Duke of Newcastle-under-Lyme 13. Spencer Compton, 1st Earl of Wilmington 12. Frederick John Robinson, 1st Earl of Ripon 11. William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire 10. John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute  9. Robert Banks Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool  8. William Henry Cavendish Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland 7. William Wyndham Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville 6. The Right Honourable  William Pitt, “the Younger” 5. Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham 4. Augustus Henry FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton 3. Field Marshal Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington 2. Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth 1. Robert Walpole, 1st Earl of Orford

Dispute at your Leisure, and your Peril.

[biblioncollection]

United Kingdom House of Lords Speeches Collection | Various | *Non-fiction, History, Political Science | Audiobook full unabridged | English | 1/2 Content of the video and Sections beginning time (clickable) - Chapters of the audiobook: please see First comments under this video. This collection comprises recordings of seven historic speeches given to the UK House of Lords between 1641 and 1945. Readings are of speeches origninally given by the 1st Earl of Strafford (Thomas Wentworth), the 1st Earl of Chatham (William Pitt the Elder), the 6th Baron Byron (the poet Lord Byron), the 1st Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley), the 3rd Earl of Lucan (George Lord Bingham) and the 3rd Earl Russell (the philosopher Bertrand Russell). (Summary by Carl Manchester) This is a Librivox recording. If you want to volunteer please visit https://librivox.org/ by Priceless Audiobooks