:: wikimiki.org ::

William Pitt

William Pitt

William Pitt could refer to:
- William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham; Prime Minister of Great Britain 1766-1768; often known as William Pitt the Elder
- William Pitt the Younger; his son; Prime Minister of Great Britain (1783-1801) and (1804-1806)
- William Pitt, Comptroller of the Household to King James I of England.
- William Rivers Pitt, left-wing American essayist
- William Pitt, Liberal victor of the Croydon North West by-election, 1981, normally known as Bill Pitt
- William Pitt, Australian 19th Century architect

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham

The Right Honourable William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (15 November 1708–11 May 1778) was a British Whig statesman who achieved his greatest fame as war minister during the Seven Years' War (aka French and Indian War) and who was later Prime Minister of Great Britain. He is often known as William Pitt the Elder to distinguish him from his son William Pitt the Younger who served as Prime Minister from 1783–1801 and from 1804 to his death in 1806.

Early life

Pitt was born at Westminster. He was the younger son of Robert Pitt of Boconnoc, Cornwall, and grandson of Thomas Pitt (1653–1726), governor of Madras, who was known as "Diamond" Pitt, from the fact of his having sold a diamond of extraordinary size to the Regent Orléans for around £135,000. It was mainly by this fortunate transaction that the governor was enabled to raise his family, which was one of old standing, to a position of wealth and political influence. The latter he acquired by purchasing the burgage tenures of Old Sarum. William Pitt was educated at Eton, and in January 1727 was entered as a gentleman commoner at Trinity College, Oxford. There is evidence that he was an extensively read, if not a minutely accurate classical scholar; and it is interesting to know that Demosthenes was his favourite author, and that he diligently cultivated the faculty of expression by the practice of translation and re-translation. An hereditary gout, from which he had suffered even during his school-days, compelled him to leave the university without taking his degree, in order to travel abroad. He spent some time in France and Italy; but the disease proved intractable, and he continued subject to attacks of growing intensity at frequent intervals till the close of his life. In 1727 his father had died, and on his return home it was necessary for him, as the younger son, to choose a profession. Having chosen the army, he obtained through the interest of his friends a cornet's commission in the dragoons. But his military career was destined to be short. His elder brother Thomas having been returned at the general election of 1734 both for Oakhampton and for Old Sarum, and having preferred to sit for the former, the family borough fell to the younger brother by the sort of natural right usually recognized in such cases. Accordingly, in February 1735, William Pitt entered parliament as member for Old Sarum. Attaching himself at once to the formidable band of discontented Whigs known as the Patriots, whom Walpole's love of exclusive power had forced into opposition under Pulteney; Pitt became in a very short time one of its most prominent members.

Politics in the Commons

His maiden speech was delivered in April 1736, in the debate on the congratulatory address to the king on the marriage of the Prince of Wales. The occasion was one of compliment, and there is nothing striking in the speech as reported; but it served to gain for him the attention of the house when he presented himself, as he soon afterwards did, in debates of a party character. So obnoxious did he become as a critic of the government, that Walpole thought fit to punish him by procuring his dismissal from the army. Some years later he had occasion vigorously to denounce the system of cashiering officers for political differences, but with characteristic loftiness of spirit he disdained to make any reference to his own case. The loss of his commission was soon made up to him. The heir to the throne, as was usually the case in the House of Hanover, if not in reigning families generally, was the patron of the opposition, and the ex-cornet became groom of the bed-chamber to the Prince of Wales. In this new position his hostility to the government did not, as may be supposed, in any degree relax. He had all the natural gifts an orator could desire - a commanding presence, a graceful though somewhat theatrical bearing, an eye of piercing brightness, and a voice of the utmost flexibility. His style, if occasionally somewhat turgid, was elevated and passionate, and it always bore the impress of that intensity of conviction which is the most powerful instrument a speaker can have to sway the convictions of an audience. It was natural, therefore, that in the series of stormy debates, protracted through several years, that ended in the downfall of Walpole, his eloquence should have been one of the strongest of the forces that combined to bring about the final result. Specially effective, according to contemporary testimony, were his speeches against the Hanoverian subsidies, against the Spanish convention in 1739, and in favour of the motion in 1742 for an investigation into the last ten years of Walpole's administration. It must be borne in mind that the reports of these speeches which have come down to us were made from hearsay, or at best from recollection, and are necessarily therefore most imperfect. The best-known specimen of Pitt's eloquence, his reply to the sneers of Horatio Walpole at his youth and declamatory manner, which has found a place in so many handbooks of elocution, is evidently, in form at least, the work, not of Pitt, but of Dr Johnson, who furnished the report to the Gentleman's Magazine. Probably Pitt did say something of the kind attributed to him, though even this is by no means certain in view of Johnson's repentant admission that he had often invented not merely the form, but the substance of entire debates. In 1742 Walpole was at last forced to succumb to the long-continued attacks of opposition, and was succeeded as Prime Minister by the Earl of Wilmington, though the real power in the new government was divided between Carteret and the Pelham brothers (Henry and Thomas, Duke of Newcastle). Pitt's conduct on the change of administration was open to grave censure. The relentless vindictiveness with which he insisted on the prosecution of Walpole, and supported the bill of indemnity to witnesses against the fallen minister, was in itself not magnanimous; but it appears positively unworthy when it is known that a short time before Pitt had offered, on certain conditions, to use all his influence in the other direction. Possibly he was embittered at the time by the fact that, owing to the strong personal dislike of the king, caused chiefly by the contemptuous tone in which he had spoken of Hanover, he did not by obtaining a place in the new ministry reap the fruits of the victory to which he had so largely contributed. The so-called "broad-bottom" administration formed by the Pelhams in 1744, after the dismissal of Carteret, though it included several of those with whom he had been accustomed to act, did not at first include Pitt himself even in a subordinate office. Before the obstacle to his admission was overcome, he had received a remarkable accession to his private fortune. The eccentric duchess of Marlborough, dying in 1744, at the age of ninety, left him a legacy of £10,000 as an "acknowledgment of the noble defence he had made for the support of the laws of England and to prevent the ruin of his country." As her hatred was known to be at least as strong as her love, the legacy was probably as much a mark of her detestation of Walpole as of her admiration of Pitt. It may be mentioned here, though it does not come in chronological order, that Pitt was a second time the object of a form of acknowledgment of public virtue which few statesmen have had the fortune to receive even once. About twenty years after the Marlborough legacy, Sir William Pynsent, a Somerset baronet to whom he was personally quite unknown, left him his entire estate, worth about three thousand a year, in testimony of approval of his political career.

Rise into government

It was with no very good grace that the king at length consented to give Pitt a place in the government, although the latter did all he could to ingratiate himself at court, by changing his tone on the questions on which he had made himself offensive. To force the matter, the Pelhams had to resign expressly on the question whether he should be admitted or not, and it was only after all other arrangements had proved impracticable, that they were reinstated with the obnoxious politician as vice-treasurer of Ireland. This was in February 1746. In May of the same year he was promoted to the more important and lucrative office of paymaster-general, which gave him a place in the privy council, though not in the cabinet. Here he had an opportunity of displaying his public spirit and integrity in a way that deeply impressed both the king and the country. It had been the usual practice of previous paymasters to appropriate to themselves the interest of all money lying in their hands by way of advance, and also to accept a commission of 1/2% on all foreign subsidies. Although there was no strong public sentiment against the practice, Pitt altogether refused to profit by it. All advances were lodged by him in the Bank of England until required, and all subsidies were paid over without deduction, even though it was pressed upon him, so that he did not draw a shilling from his office beyond the salary legally attaching to it. Conduct like this, though obviously disinterested, did not go without immediate and ample reward, in the public confidence which it created, and which formed the mainspring of Pitt's power as a statesman. The administration formed in 1746 lasted without material change till 1754. It would appear from his published correspondence that Pitt had a greater influence in shaping its policy than his comparatively subordinate position would in itself have entitled him to. His conduct in supporting measures, such as the Spanish treaty and the continental subsidies, which he had violently denounced when in opposition, had been much criticized; but within certain limits, not indeed very well defined, inconsistency has never been counted a vice in an English statesman. The times change, and he is not blamed for changing with the times. Pitt in office, looking back on the commencement of his public life, might have used the plea "A good deal has happened since then," at least as justly as some others have done. Allowance must always be made for the restraints and responsibilities of office. In Pitt's case, too, it is to be borne in mind that the opposition with which he had acted gradually dwindled away, and that it ceased to have any organized existence after the death of the prince of Wales in 1751. Then in regard to the important question with Spain as to the right of search, Pitt has disarmed criticism by acknowledging that the course he followed during Walpole's administration was indefensible. All due weight being given to these various considerations, it must be admitted, nevertheless, that Pitt did overstep the limits within which inconsistency is usually regarded as venial. His one great object was first to gain office, and then to make his tenure of office secure by conciliating the favour of the king. The entire revolution which much of his policy underwent in order to effect this object bears too close a resemblance to the sudden and inexplicable changes of front habitual to placemen of the Tadpole stamp to be altogether pleasant to contemplate in a politician of pure aims and lofty ambition. Humiliating is not too strong a term to apply to a letter in which he expresses his desire to "efface the past by every action of his life," in order that he may stand well with the king. In 1754 Henry Pelham died, and was succeeded at the head of affairs by his brother, the duke of Newcastle. To Pitt the change brought no advancement, and he had thus an opportunity of testing the truth of the description of his chief given by Sir Robert Walpole, "His name is treason." But there was for a time no open breach. Pitt continued at his post; and at the general election which took place during the year he even accepted a nomination for the duke's pocket borough of Aldborough. He had sat for Seaford since 1747. When parliament met, however, he was not long in showing the state of his feelings. Ignoring Sir Thomas Robinson, the political nobody to whom Newcastle had entrusted the management of the Commons, he made frequent and vehement attacks on Newcastle himself, though still continuing to serve under him. In this strange state matters continued for about a year. At length, just after the meeting of parliament in November 1751, Pitt was dismissed from office, having on the debate on the address spoken at great length against a new system of continental subsidies, proposed by the government of which he was a member. Henry Fox, who had just before been appointed Secretary of State, retained his place, and though the two men continued to be of the same party, and afterwards served again in the same government, there was henceforward a rivalry between them, which makes the celebrated opposition of their illustrious sons seem like an inherited quarrel. Another year had scarcely passed when Pitt was again in power. The inherent weakness of the government, the vigour and eloquence of his opposition, and a series of military disasters abroad combined to rouse a public feeling of indignation which could not be withstood, and in December 1756 Pitt, who now sat for Okehampton, became Secretary of State for the Southern Department, and Leader of the House of Commons under the premiership of the Duke of Devonshire. He had made it a condition of his joining any administration that Newcastle should be excluded from it, thus showing a resentment which, though natural enough, proved fatal to the lengthened existence of his government. With the king unfriendly, and Newcastle, whose corrupt influence was still dominant in the Commons, estranged, it was impossible to carry on a government by the aid of public opinion alone, however emphatically that might have declared itself on his side. In April 1757, accordingly, he found himself again dismissed from office on account of his opposition to the king's favourite continental policy. But the power that was insufficient to keep him in office was strong enough to make any arrangement that excluded him impracticable. The public voice spoke in a way that was not to be mistaken. Probably no English minister ever received in so short a time so many proofs of the confidence and admiration of the public, the capital and all the chief towns voting him addresses and the freedom of their corporations. From the political deadlock that ensued relief could only be had by an arrangement between Newcastle and Pitt. After some weeks' negotiation, in the course of which the firmness and moderation of "the Great Commoner," as he had come to be called, contrasted favourably with the characteristic tortuosities of the crafty peer, matters were settled on such a basis that, while Newcastle was the nominal, Pitt was the virtual head of the government. On his acceptance of office he was chosen member for Bath.

The Newcastle and Pitt ministry

This celebrated administration was formed in June 1757, and continued in power until 1761. During the four years of its existence it has been usual to say that the biography of Pitt is the history of England, so thoroughly was he identified with the great events which make this period, in so far as the external relations of the country are concerned, one of the most glorious in her annals. A detailed account of these events belongs to history; all that is needed in a biography is to point out the extent to which Pitt's personal influence may really be traced in them. It is scarcely too much to say that, in the general opinion of his contemporaries, the whole glory of these years was due to his single genius; his alone was the mind that planned, and his the spirit that animated the brilliant achievements of the British arms in all the four quarters of the globe. Posterity, indeed, has been able to recognize more fully the independent genius of those who carried out his purposes. The heroism of Wolfe would have been irrepressible, Clive would have proved himself "a heaven-born general," and Frederick the Great would have written his name in history as one of the most skilful strategists the world has known, whoever had held the seals of office in England. But Pitt's relation to all three was such as to entitle him to a large share in the credit of their deeds. It was his discernment that selected Wolfe to lead the attack on Quebec, and gave him the opportunity of dying a victor on the heights of Abraham. He had personally less to do with the successes in India than with the other great enterprises that shed an undying lustre on his administration; but his generous praise in parliament stimulated the genius of Clive, and the forces that acted at the close of the struggle were animated by his indomitable spirit. Pitt, the first real Imperialist in modern English history, was the directing mind in the expansion of his country, and with him the beginning of empire is rightly associated. The Seven Years' War might well, moreover, have been another Thirty Years' War if Pitt had not furnished Frederick with an annual subsidy of £700,000, and in addition relieved him of the task of defending western Germany against France. Contemporary opinion was, of course, incompetent to estimate the permanent results gained for the country by the brilliant foreign policy of Pitt. It has long been generally agreed that by several of his most costly expeditions nothing was really won but glory. It has even been said that the only permanent acquisition that England owed directly to him was her Canadian dominion; and, strictly speaking, this is true, it being admitted that the campaign by which the Indian empire was virtually won was not planned by him, though brought to a successful issue during his ministry. But material aggrandisement, though the only tangible, is not the only real or lasting effect of a war policy. More may be gained by crushing a formidable rival than by conquering a province. The loss of her Canadian possessions was only one of a series of disasters suffered by France, which radically affected the future of Europe and the world. Deprived of her most valuable colonies both in the East and in the West, and thoroughly defeated on the continent, her humiliation was the beginning of a new epoch in history. The victorious policy of Pitt destroyed the military prestige which repeated experience has shown to be in France as in no other country the very life of monarchy, and thus was not the least considerable of the many influences that slowly brought about the French Revolution. It effectually deprived her of the lead in the councils of Europe which she had hitherto arrogated to herself, and so affected the whole course of continental politics. It is such far-reaching results as these, and not the mere acquisition of a single colony, however valuable, that constitute Pitt's claim to be considered as on the whole the most powerful minister that ever guided the foreign policy of England.

The dissolution of the ministry

The first and most important of a series of changes which ultimately led to the dissolution of the ministry was the death of George II on 25 October 1760, and the accession of his grandson, George III. The new king had, as was natural, new counsellors of his own, the chief of whom, Lord Bute, was at once admitted to the cabinet as a secretary of state. Between Bute and Pitt there speedily arose an occasion of serious difference. The existence of the so-called family compact by which the Bourbons of France and Spain bound themselves in an offensive alliance against England having been brought to light, Pitt urged that it should be met by an immediate declaration of war with Spain. To this course Bute would not consent, and as his refusal was endorsed by all his colleagues save Temple, Pitt had no choice but to leave a cabinet in which his advice on a vital question had been rejected. On his resignation, which took place in October 1761, the King urged him to accept some signal mark of royal favour in the form most agreeable to himself. Accordingly he obtained a pension of £3000 a year for three lives, and his wife, Lady Hester Grenville, whom he had married in 1754, was created Baroness Chatham in her own right. In connexion with the latter gracefully bestowed honour it may be mentioned that Pitt's domestic life was a singularly happy one. Pitt's spirit was too lofty to admit of his entering on any merely factious opposition to the government he had quitted. On the contrary, his conduct after his retirement was distinguished by a moderation and disinterestedness which, as Burke has remarked, "set a seal upon his character." The war with Spain, in which he had urged the cabinet to take the initiative, proved inevitable; but he scorned to use the occasion for "altercation and recrimination," and spoke in support of the government measures for carrying on the war. To the preliminaries of the peace concluded in February 1763 he offered an indignant resistance, considering the terms quite inadequate to the successes that had been gained by the country. When the treaty was discussed in parliament in December of the preceding year, though suffering from a severe attack of gout, he was carried down to the House, and in a speech of three hours' duration, interrupted more than once by paroxysms of pain, he strongly protested against its various conditions. The physical cause which rendered this effort so painful probably accounts for the infrequency of his appearances in parliament, as well as for much that is otherwise inexplicable in his subsequent conduct. In 1763 he spoke against the obnoxious tax on cider, imposed by his brother-in-law, George Grenville, and his opposition, though unsuccessful in the House, helped to keep alive his popularity with the country, which cordially hated the excise and all connected with it. When next year the question of general warrants was raised in connexion with the case of Wilkes, Pitt vigorously maintained their illegality, thus defending at once the privileges of Parliament and the freedom of the press. During 1765 he seems to have been totally incapacitated for public business. In the following year he supported with great power the proposal of the Rockingham administration for the repeal of the American Stamp Act, arguing that it was unconstitutional to impose taxes upon the colonies. He thus endorsed the contention of the colonists on the ground of principle, while the majority of those who acted with him contented themselves with resisting the disastrous taxation scheme on the ground of expediency. The Repeal Act, indeed, was only passed pari passu with another censuring the American assemblies, and declaring the authority of the British parliament over the colonies "in all cases whatsoever"; so that the House of Commons repudiated in the most formal manner the principle Pitt laid down. His language in approval of the resistance of the colonists was unusually bold, and perhaps no one but himself could have employed it with impunity at a time when the freedom of debate was only imperfectly conceded. Pitt had not been long out of office when he was solicited to return to it, and the solicitations were more than once renewed. Unsuccessful overtures were made to him in 1763, and twice in 1765, in May and June - the negotiator in May being the king's uncle, the Duke of Cumberland, who went down in person to Hayes, Pitt's seat in Kent. It is known that he had the opportunity of joining the Marquis of Rockingham's short-lived administration at any time on his own terms, and his conduct in declining an arrangement with that minister has been more generally condemned than any other step in his public life.

The second Pitt ministry

In July 1766 Rockingham was dismissed, and Pitt was entrusted by the King with the task of forming a government entirely on his own conditions. The result was a cabinet, strong much beyond the average in its individual members, but weak to powerlessness in the diversity of its composition. Burke, in a memorable passage of a memorable speech, has described this "chequered and speckled" administration with great humour, speaking of it as "indeed a very curious show, but utterly unsafe to touch and unsure to stand on." Pitt chose for himself the office of Lord Privy Seal, which necessitated his removal to the House of Lords; and in August he became Earl of Chatham and Viscount Pitt. By the acceptance of a peerage the great commoner lost at least as much and as suddenly in popularity as he gained in dignity. One significant indication of this may be mentioned. In view of his probable accession to power, preparations were made in the City of London for a banquet and a general illumination to celebrate the event. But the celebration was at once countermanded when it was known that he had become Earl of Chatham. The instantaneous revulsion of public feeling was somewhat unreasonable, for Pitt's health seems now to have been beyond doubt so shattered by his hereditary malady, that he was already in old age though only fifty-eight. It was natural, therefore, that he should choose a sinecure office, and the ease of the Lords. But a popular idol nearly always suffers by removal from immediate contact with the popular sympathy, be the motives for removal what they may. One of the earliest acts of the new ministry was to lay an embargo upon corn, which was thought necessary in order to prevent a dearth resulting from the unprecedentedly bad harvest of 1766. The measure was strongly opposed, and Lord Chatham delivered his first speech in the House of Lords in support of it. It proved to be almost the only measure introduced by his government in which he personally interested himself. His attention had been directed to the growing importance of the affairs of India, and there is evidence in his correspondence that he was meditating a comprehensive scheme for transferring much of the power of the East India Company to the crown, when he was withdrawn from public business in a manner that has always been regarded as somewhat mysterious. It may be questioned, indeed, whether even had his powers been unimpaired he could have carried out any decided policy on any question with a cabinet representing interests so various and conflicting; but, as it happened, he was incapacitated physically and mentally during nearly the whole period of his tenure of office. He scarcely ever saw any of his colleagues though they repeatedly and urgently pressed for interviews with him, and even an offer from the king to visit him in person was declined, though in the language of profound and almost abject respect which always marked his communications with the court. It has been insinuated both by contemporary and by later critics that being disappointed at his loss of popularity, and convinced of the impossibility of co-operating with his colleagues, he exaggerated his malady as a pretext for the inaction that was forced upon him by circumstances. But there is no sufficient reason to doubt that he was really, as his friends represented, in a state that utterly unfitted him for business. He seems to have been freed for a time from the pangs of gout only to be afflicted with a species of mental alienation bordering on insanity. This is the most satisfactory, as it is the most obvious, explanation of his utter indifference in presence of one of the most momentous problems that ever pressed for solution on an English statesman. Those who are able to read the history in the light of what occurred later may perhaps be convinced that no policy whatever initiated, after 1766 could have prevented or even materially delayed the declaration of American independence; but to the politicians of that time the coming event had not yet cast so dark a shadow before as to paralyse all action, and if any man could have allayed the growing discontent of the colonists and prevented the ultimate dismemberment of the empire, it would have been Lord Chatham. The fact that he not only did nothing to remove existing difficulties, but remained passive while his colleagues took the fatal step which led directly to separation, is in itself clear proof of his entire incapacity. The imposition of the import duty on tea and other commodities was the project of Charles Townshend, and was carried into effect in 1767 without consultation with Lord Chatham, if not in opposition to his wishes. It is probably the most singular thing in connexion with this singular administration, that its most pregnant measure should thus have been one directly opposed to the well-known principles of its head. For many months things remained in the curious position that he who was understood to be the head of the cabinet had as little share in the government of the country as an unenfranchised peasant. As the chief could not or would not lead, the subordinates naturally chose their own paths and not his. The lines of Chatham's policy were abandoned in other cases besides the imposition of the import duty; his opponents were taken into confidence; and friends, such as Amherst and Shelburne, were dismissed from their posts. When at length in October 1768 he tendered his resignation on the ground of shattered health, he did not fail to mention the dismissal of Amherst and Shelburne as a personal grievance.

Later life

1768 Soon after his resignation a renewed attack of gout freed Chatham from the mental disease under which he had so long suffered. He had been nearly two years and a half in seclusion when, in July 1769, he again appeared in public at a royal levee. It was not, however, until 1770 that he resumed his seat in the House of Lords. He had now almost no personal following, mainly owing to the grave mistake he had made in not forming an alliance with the Rockingham party. But his eloquence was as powerful as ever, and all its power was directed against the government policy in the contest with America, which had become the question of all-absorbing interest. His last appearance in the House of Lords was on 7 April 1778, on the occasion of the duke of Richmond's motion for an address praying the king to conclude peace with America on any terms. In view of the hostile demonstrations of France the various parties had come generally to see the necessity of such a measure. But Chatham could not brook the thought of a step which implied submission to the "natural enemy" whom it had been the main object of his life to humble, and he declaimed for a considerable time, though with sadly diminished vigour, against the motion. After the duke of Richmond had replied, he rose again excitedly as if to speak, pressed his hand upon his breast, and fell down in a fit. He was removed to his seat at Hayes, where he died on 11 May. With graceful unanimity all parties combined to show their sense of the national loss. The Commons presented an address to the king praying that the deceased statesman might be buried with the honours of a public funeral, and voted a sum for a public monument which was erected over his grave in Westminster Abbey. Soon after the funeral a bill was passed bestowing a pension of £4000 a year on his successors in the earldom, He had a family of three sons and two daughters, of whom the second son, William, was destined to add fresh lustre to a name which is one of the greatest in the history of England. Dr Johnson is reported to have said that "Walpole was a minister given by the king to the people, but Pitt was a minister given by the people to the king," and the remark correctly indicates Chatham's distinctive place among English statesmen. He was the first minister whose main strength lay in the support of the nation at large as distinct from its representatives in the Commons, where his personal following was always small. He was the first to discern that public opinion, though generally slow to form and slow to act, is in the end the paramount power in the state; and he was the first to use it not in an emergency merely, but throughout a whole political career. He marks the commencement of that vast change in the movement of English politics by which it has come about that the sentiment of the great mass of the people now tells effectively on the action of the government from day to day–almost from hour to hour. He was well fitted to secure the sympathy and admiration of his countrymen, for his virtues and his failings were alike English. He was often inconsistent, he was generally intractable and overbearing, and he was always pompous and affected to a degree which, Macaulay has remarked, seems scarcely compatible with true greatness. Of the last quality evidence is furnished in the stilted style of his letters, and in the fact recorded by Seward that he never permitted his under-secretaries to sit in his presence. Burke speaks of "some significant, pompous, creeping, explanatory, ambiguous matter, in the true Chathamic style." But these defects were known only to the inner circle of his associates. To the outside public he was endeared as a statesman who could do or suffer "nothing base," and who had the rare power of transfusing his own indomitable energy and courage into all who served under him. "A spirited foreign policy" has always been popular in England, and Pitt was the most popular of English ministers, because he was the most successful exponent of such a policy. In domestic affairs his influence was small and almost entirely indirect. He himself confessed his unfitness for dealing with questions of finance. The commercial prosperity that was produced by his war policy was in a great part delusive, as prosperity so produced must always be, though it had permanent effects of the highest moment in the rise of such centres of industry as Glasgow. This, however, was a remote result which he could have neither intended nor foreseen.

References

The correspondence of Lord Chatham, in four volumes, was published in 1838–1840; and a volume of his letters to Lord Camelford in 1804. The Rev. Francis Thackeray's History of the Rt. Hon. William Pitt, Earl of Chatham (2 vols., 1827), is a ponderous and shapeless work. Frederic Harrison's Chatham, in the "Twelve English Statesmen" series (1905), though skilfully executed, takes a rather academic and modern Liberal view. A German work, William Pitt, Graf von Chatham, by Albert von Ruville (3 vols., 1905; English trans. 1907), is the best and most thorough account of Chatham, his period, and his policy, which has appeared. See also the separate article on William Pitt, and the authorities referred to, especially the Rev. William Hunt's appendix i. to his vol. x. of The Political History of England (1905). Barney Gumble and American baseball player, Wade Boggs discuss England's greatest Prime Ministers in The Simpsons episode, 'Homer at the Bat.' In their heated discussion, Wade Boggs promotes Pitt the Elder and Barney Gumble promotes Lord Palmerston. The scene ends with Barney punching out both Wade Boggs and Moe the Bartender, whom he mistakingly believes also promotes Pitt the Elder.

External links

- [http://classicpersuasion.org/cbo/chatham/chat02.htm Pitt's speech to the Commons regarding the 1739 Spanish Convention] Chatham, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Pitt, William Chatham, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Category:Old Etonians Chatham, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Category:Secretaries of State for the Southern Department

1766

1766 was a common year starting on Wednesday (see link for calendar).

Events

- January 1 - Bonnie Prince Charlie becomes the new Stuart claimant to the throne of Great Britain as King Charles III and figurehead for Jacobitism.
- March 5 - Antonio de Ulloa, the first Spanish governor of Louisiana, arrives in New Orleans.
- March 18 - American Revolution: The British Parliament repeals the Stamp Act which was very unpopular in the British colonies. The persuasion of Benjamin Franklin is considered partly responsible. The Declaratory Act asserts the right of Britain to bind the colonies in all other respects.
- November 10 - The last Colonial governor of New Jersey, William Franklin, signs the charter of Queen's College (later renamed Rutgers University).
- Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart returns to Salzburg after touring Paris and London with his father
- Christian VII becomes King of Denmark
- Lorraine becomes French again on the death of Stanislaus I Leszczyński, King of Poland
- The Burmese begin to invade the Thai kingdom of Ayutthaya.
- What is now England's oldest surviving Georgian theatre constructed in Stockton-on-Tees.

Births

- February 14 - Thomas Malthus, English demographer and economist (d. 1834)
- April 22 - Anne Louise Germaine de Stael, French author (d. 1817)
- July 8 - Dominique Jean Larrey, French surgeon (d. 1842)
- August 6 William Hyde Wollaston, English chemist (d. 1828)
- September 6 - John Dalton, English chemist and physicist (d. 1844)
- October 23 - Emmanuel, marquis de Grouchy, French marshal (d. 1847)
- November 2 - Joseph Radetzky von Radetz, Austrian field marshal (d. 1858)
- December 3 - Barbara Fritchie, U.S. patriot in Civil War (d. 1862)

Deaths

- January 1 - James Francis Edward Stuart, "The Old Pretender" (b. 1688)
- January 9 - Thomas Birch, English historian (b. 1705)
- January 13 - King Frederick V of Denmark (b. 1723)
- January 19 - Jean-Nicolas Servan, French architect and painter (b. 1695)
- January 21 - James Quin, English actor (b. 1693)
- February 5 - Leopold Josef Graf Daun, Austrian field marshal (b. 1705)
- February 23 - Stanislaus I Leszczyński, King of Poland (b. 1677)
- April 4 - John Taylor, English classical scholar (b. 1704)
- April 7 - Tiberius Hemsterhuis, Dutch philologist and critic (b. 1685)
- May 5 - Jean Astruc, French physician and scholar
- May 8 - Samuel Chandler, English non-conformist minister (b. 1693)
- June 24 - Adrien-Maurice, 3rd duc de Noailles, French soldier (b. 1678)
- July 9 - Jonathan Mayhew, American minister and patriot (b. 1720)
- July 11 - Elizabeth Farnese, queen of Philip V of Spain (b. 1692)
- July 14 - František Maxmilián Kaňka, Czech architect (b. 1674)
- September 3 - Archibald Bower, Scottish historian (b. 1686)
- September 13 - Benjamin Heath, English classical scholar (b. 1704)
- November 9 - Unico Wilhelm van Wassenaer, Dutch composer (b. 1692)
- December 12 - Johann Christoph Gottsched, German writer (b. 1700) Category:1766 ko:1766년 ms:1766 simple:1766

1768

1768 was a leap year starting on Friday (see link for calendar).

Events

- January 9 - Philip Astley stages the first modern circus (London)
- May 10 - John Wilkes is imprisoned for writing an article for the North Briton severely criticizing King George III. This action provokes rioting in London
- Secretary of State for colonies appointed in Britain
- Massachusetts Assembly dissolved for refusing to assist collection of taxes.
- Boston citizens refuse to quarter British troops
- France buys Corsica from Genoa
- Gurkhas conquer Nepal
- First of the weekly numbers of the Encyclopædia Britannica are published; 100 are planned

Births

- January 7 - Joseph Bonaparte, King of Naples and Spain (d. 1844)
- January 28 - King Frederick VI of Denmark (d. 1839)
- February 12 - Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor (d. 1835)
- February 13 - Édouard Adolphe Casimir Joseph Mortier, French marshal (d. 1835)
- March 21 - Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier, French mathematician and physicist (d. 1830)
- March 22 - Melesina Trench, Irish born writer and socialite (d. 1827)
- May 17 - Caroline of Brunswick, queen of George IV of the United Kingdom (d. 1821)
- May 17 - Henry Paget, 1st Marquess of Anglesey, English general (d. 1854)
- May 20 - Dolley Madison, First Lady of the United States (d. 1849)
- June 9 - Samuel Slater, American industrialist (d. 1835)
- July 27 - Charlotte Corday. French murderess of Jean-Paul Marat (d. 1793)
- August 6 - Jean-Baptiste Bessières, French marshal (d. 1813)
- September 4 - François-René de Chateaubriand, French writer and diplomat (d. 1848)
- October 2 - William Carr Beresford, 1st Viscount Beresford, British general and politician (d. 1854)
- November 18 - Zacharias Werner, German religious poet (d. 1823)
- November 21 - Friedrich Schleiermacher, German theologian (d. 1834)

Deaths

- February 1 - Sir Robert Rich, 4th Baronet, British cavalry officer (b. 1685)
- February 2 - Robert Smith, English mathematician (b. 1689)
- February 8 - George Dance the Elder, English architect (b. 1695)
- February 17 - Arthur Onslow, English politician (b. 1691)
- March 1 - Hermann Samuel Reimarus, German philosopher and writer (b. 1694)
- March 3 - Nicola Porpora, Italian composer (b. 1686)
- March 18 - Laurence Sterne, Irish writer (b. 1713)
- April 10 - Canaletto, Italian artist (b. 1697)
- April 29 - Georg Brandt, Swedish chemist and minerologist (b. 1694)
- June 8 - Johann Joachim Winckelmann, German classical scholar and archaeologist (b. 1717)
- June 15 - James Short, Scottish mathematician and optician (b. 1710)
- June 19 - Benjamin Tasker, Provincial Governor of Maryland (b. 1690)
- July 6 - Conrad Beissel, German-born religious leader
- July 24 - Nathanial Lardner, English theologian (b. 1684)
- August 17 (N. S.) - Vasily Kirillovich Trediakovsky, Russian poet (b. 1703)
- September 2 - Antoine Deparcieux, French mathematician (b. 1703)
- October 1 - Robert Simson, Scottish mathematician (b. 1687)
- October 28 - Michel Blavet, French flutist (b. 1700)
- October 31 - Francesco Maria Veracini, Italian composer (b. 1690)
- November 17 - Thomas Pelham-Holles, 1st Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, English statesman (b. 1693)
- December 8 - Jean Denis Attiret, French Jesuit missionary and painter (b. 1702)
- December 20 - Carlo Innocenzio Maria Frugoni, Italian poet (b. 1692)
- Thomas Secker, Archbishop of Canterbury (b. 1693) Category:1768 ko:1768년 ms:1768

Prime Minister of Great Britain

In the United Kingdom, the Prime Minister is the head of government, exercising many of the executive functions nominally vested in the Sovereign, who is head of state. According to custom, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet (which he or she heads) are responsible for their actions to Parliament, of which they are members by (modern) convention. The current Prime Minister is Tony Blair (of the Labour Party), who has been in office since 1997. For the complete list of British Prime Ministers, see List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. As the title suggests, the Prime Minister is the monarch's principal advisor. Historically, the monarch's chief minister (if, as was not always the case, any one person could be singled out as such) might have held any of a number of offices: Lord Chancellor, Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord High Steward, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Privy Seal, or Secretary of State among others. With the emergence, in the eighteenth century, of government by a cabinet of these ministers, its head came in time to be called the "Prime Minister" (sometimes also "Premier" or "First Minister"); to this day the Prime Minister always also holds one of the more specific ministerial positions (usually that of First Lord of the Treasury), if only in a nominal sense. Sir Robert Walpole is generally regarded as the first Prime Minister in the modern sense. The Prime Minister is appointed by the Sovereign, who is bound by constitutional convention to choose the individual most likely to command the support of the House of Commons (normally, the leader of the party with a majority in that body). Should the Prime Minister lose the confidence of the House of Commons (indicated, for example, by the passage of a no confidence motion), he or she is morally obliged by similar conventions either to resign (in which case the Sovereign can try to find another Prime Minister who has the House's confidence) or to request the monarch to call a general election. Since the premiership is in some small sense still a de facto position, the office's powers are mainly a matter of custom rather than law, deriving from the incumbent's ability to appoint (through the Sovereign) his or her Cabinet colleagues, as well as from certain uses of the royal prerogative which may be exercised directly by the Prime Minister, or by the Monarch on the Prime Minister's advice. Some commentators have pointed out that, in practice, the powers of the office are subject to very few checks, especially in an era when Parliament and the Cabinet are seen as unwilling to challenge dominant Prime Ministers whose attention is increasingly turned not toward Parliament but toward the news media.

History

Historically, the bulk of the power over the Government of the Kingdom was vested in the Sovereign, acting on the advice of bodies such as Parliament and the Privy Council. Over several years, the Cabinet evolved from the Privy Council, as the monarch began the practice of consulting a few confidential advisors rather than the Council at large. These bodies, however, bore little resemblance to modern Cabinets; they were often not led by a single figure such as a Prime Minister, they often failed to act in unison, and they were appointed and dismissed entirely at the whim of the monarch, with little parliamentary control. The history of the British Prime Ministers owes much more to speculation of historians, rather than to legal acts. The origin of the term prime minister and the question to whom the designation should first be applied have long been issues of scholarly and political debate. The first mention of "Prime Minister" in an official government document occurred during the Premiership of Benjamin Disraeli. The title was used since then in documents, letters and conversation (and in conversation at least may have been used before then). In 1905 the title "Prime Minister" was noted in a royal warrant that placed the Prime Minister, mentioned as such, in the order of precedence in Britain immediately after the Archbishop of York. By this time legal recognition of the title seems to have occurred and it was later mentioned in the Chequers Estate Act of 1917, and the Ministers of the Crown Act of 1937. There are numerous categorical testimonies deep into the 19th century decrying the notion of a First or Prime Minister, credibly declaring the concept alien to the Constitution, and the term actually emerges as a creature of historians, not lawyers or Parliament - indeed the contrary is best documented. In 1741 it was declared in the Commons that "According to our Constitution we can have no sole and prime minister... every... officer has his own proper department; and no officer ought to meddle in the affairs belonging to the department of another." In the same year the Lords agreed that "We are persuaded that a sole, or even a first minister, is an officer unknown to the law of Britain, inconsistent with the Constitution of the country and destructive of liberty in any Government whatsoever." On the other hand, in an interview by Lord Melville with William Pitt in 1803, the latter argued that "this person generally called the first minister" was an absolute necessity for a government to function, and expressed his belief that this person should be the minister in charge of the finances. In 1806 it was asserted in the Commons that "the Constitution abhors the idea of a prime minister", and as late as 1829 the Commons again asserted that "nothing could be more mischievous or unconstitutional than to recognize by act of parliament the existence of such an office." Beatson's Political Index of 1786 gives the list of Prime Ministers and Favourites from the Accession of Henry VIII to the Present Time. Since 1714 Beatson could only find one Sole Minister, and that was Sir Robert Walpole. At all subsequent periods he felt that he had to bracket two, three, or even four people as joint or co-equal ministers whose advice the King took and who therefore controlled the governance of the country. The first Act of Parliament to mention the office of Prime Minister was the Chequers Estate Act, which received the Royal Assent on December 20 1917. It dealt with the gift to the Crown of the Chequers Estate by Sir Arthur and Lady Lee, for use as a country home for future Prime Ministers. Finally, the Ministers of the Crown Act, which received the Royal Assent on July 1 1937, gave an official recognition to the position of Prime Minister and made provision for paying "the First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister" - the two offices that since the 18th century, have usually been held by the Prime Minister: To give statutory recognition to the existence of the position of Prime Minister, and to the historic link between the Premiership and the office of First Lord of the Treasury, by providing in respect to that position and office a salary of... The Act made a certain distinction between "position" (Prime Minister) and "office" (First Lord of the Treasury) emphasizing the unique character of the position and recognized the existence of the Cabinet. Nevertheless, in spite of this recognition, the brass plate outside the Prime Minister's front door still bears the title of First Lord of the Treasury. The lack of official recognition for the position of Prime Minister causes problems when trying to positively identify prime ministers in the British history. Thus, every list of British Prime ministers may omit certain politicians depending on the criteria selected by a researcher. For instance, unsuccessful attempts to form ministries, such as that of Lord Granville in 1746, or the summons of the sovereign to ministers who refused to form a ministry are often ignored. The origins of the modern term Prime Minister date back to the time after the Glorious Revolution (1688), when Parliament's power began to steadily grow at the expense of that of the monarch. It was under William III and his successor, Anne, that the Cabinet began to take its modern shape. Individuals such as Sidney Godolphin, 1st Earl of Godolphin and Robert Harley were recognised as the leaders of their respective ministries, but they cannot be considered Prime Ministers in the modern sense, given that they exercised little control over their colleagues. Similarly, the Cabinets of Anne's successor, George I, were led by individuals such as Charles Townshend, 2nd Viscount Townshend, James Stanhope, 1st Earl Stanhope, and Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland, but these individuals were not truly Prime Ministers. Charles Spencer, 3rd Earl of Sunderland Lord Stanhope and Lord Sunderland, who were joint leaders of their Cabinet, were succeeded in 1721 by Sir Robert Walpole, who held the influential office of First Lord of the Treasury. Previous holders of the post had often been important figures in government, but not to such a degree as Walpole. His influence grew even stronger because the King, George I, was not active in English politics, preferring to concentrate on his native Hanover. Walpole is generally regarded as the first Prime Minister, not just because of his influence in Government, but because he could force his colleagues in the Cabinet to act in a harmonious and unified fashion, instead of intriguing against each other for more power. Walpole's office, First Lord of the Treasury, became strongly associated with the leadership of the Government; it became the position which the Prime Minister almost always held. Though Walpole was the nation's first "Prime Minister," these words were used as a term of reproach toward him. His tenure was not as important in terms of constitutional development as some have imagined. His term and power were primarily based on the favour of the Crown, rather than the support of the House of Commons. His immediate successors were not nearly as powerful as he; the influence of the Crown continued to remain paramount. Still, the powers of the monarch were slowly diminished, and those of the Prime Minister gradually increased, over the course of the following years. Indeed, during the last years of George II's life, policy was chiefly directed by Ministers such as William Pitt the Elder. The reign of George III, which began in 1760 upon the death of George II, is particularly notable for developments in the office of Prime Minister. Over the course of his reign, the King was sometimes forced by parliamentary pressure to appoint Prime Ministers and Ministers whom he did not personally favour. Control over the composition of the Cabinet had not, however, been completely lost by the King; in some cases, George was able to prevent the appointment of politicians whom he detested (for instance, Charles James Fox). The influence of the monarch nevertheless continued to gradually dwindle; this trend became clearly noticeable during the reign of William IV, the last King to appoint a Prime Minister against the wishes of Parliament. William attempted to impose his personal will in 1834, when he dismissed William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne (whose Whig administration he disliked) and replaced him with a Tory, Sir Robert Peel. Peel, however, found it impossible to govern without the support of the Whig House of Commons, and was forced to resign from his position. Since Peel's administration, the Sovereign has had very little discretion in appointing Prime Ministers; no monarch since William IV has attempted to appoint a Prime Minister against the wishes of Parliament. As the royal influence over ministerial appointments disappeared, the power of the House of Commons began to rise, its political superiority over the House of Lords being established by the Parliament Act 1911. During the early twentieth century, the convention that the Prime Minister should be responsible not to the Lords, but to the Commons, was formed. The associated convention that the Prime Minister should be a member of the Lower House was developed. The last Prime Minister to lead his whole administration from the Lords was Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, from 1895 to 1902. Mention, however, must be made of the appointment of Alec Douglas-Home, 14th Earl of Home in 1963. Lord Home was the last Prime Minister who was a peer, but, within days of attaining office, he disclaimed his peerage, mindful of the convention that the Prime Minister should sit in the House of Commons. A junior member of his Conservative Party who had been selected as candidate in a by-election in a staunch Conservative seat stood aside, allowing Douglas-Home to contest the by-election and procure a seat in the lower House.

The Office

Although in recent years it has never hindered any premier in the exercise of his or her office, the official status of the Prime Minister remains somewhat ambiguous. A Prime Minister has virtually no statutory authority in his or her own right; all the actual business of running the country and spending the budget is (in theory) carried out by the holders of more explicitly defined Cabinet offices, who are empowered to do so by various Acts of Parliament. The Prime Minister holds at least one of these more tangible ministerial offices himself—normally First Lord of the Treasury—and indeed receives his or her salary and public accommodation only by virtue of that office. The title "Prime Minister", however, is not altogether a matter of convention, as in 1905 it was in a sense given official recognition when the "Prime Minister" was named in the "order of precedence," outranked, among non-royals, only by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York and by the Lord Chancellor. The first prime minister in this sense is therefore considered by some to have been Henry Campbell-Bannerman, although the term Prime Minister first appeared on official documents during the premiership of Benjamin Disraeli and was used informally before then. Furthermore, the office is not entirely without statutory justification, since it has in fact been explicitly named a number of times in emergency wartime legislation. All sorts of official pronouncements are issued from Downing Street in the name of the "Prime Minister" without further circumlocution. By convention, the Prime Minister also holds the office of First Lord of the Treasury. The only Prime Ministers who have not also served as First Lord for a significant part of their administrations are William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (who was Lord Privy Seal) and, for most of his three premierships, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (who was either Foreign Secretary or Lord Privy Seal except for the first few months of his second premiership when he was First Lord). Since Lord Salisbury's retirement in 1902, every Prime Minister has also been First Lord of the Treasury. Some have held yet more offices; for example, Tony Blair is both First Lord and Minister for the Civil Service. There is also the associated post of Deputy Prime Minister. An officer with such a title need not always exist; rather, the existence of the post is dependent on the form of Cabinet organisation preferred by the Prime Minister and his or her party. The office's title, however, may be considered something of a misnomer; the Deputy Prime Minister does not automatically succeed when a vacancy in the premiership is suddenly created, nor does he or she assume any additional powers when the Prime Minister is outside the country. He may, however, be expected to stand in for the Prime Minister on occasion, for example by taking the dispatch box at Prime Minister's Question Time when the Prime Minister is unable to attend. This occurs with varying frequency—usually only important international negotiations prevent the Prime Minister from taking Questions when the House is in session. The position has often been used honorifically. Under the Blair Government, a separate department called the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in 2002. The present Deputy Prime Minister is John Prescott, who was previously Secretary of State for Transport, Environment and the Regions. The previous holder of the post was Michael Heseltine, who was appointed in the John Major government after the post had briefly fallen into desuetude. In the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the position which corresponds with that of Prime Minister is First Minister. (See First Minister of Scotland, First Minister of Wales, and First Minister of Northern Ireland.)

Term

The office of Prime Minister is governed not by codified laws, but by unwritten and to some extent fluid customs known as constitutional conventions, which have developed over years of British history. These conventions are for the most part founded on the underlying principle that the Prime Minister and his fellow Ministers must maintain the support of the democratically elected component of Parliament, the House of Commons. The Sovereign, as a constitutional monarch, always acts in accordance with such conventions, as do Prime Ministers themselves. Whenever the office of Prime Minister falls vacant, the Sovereign is responsible for appointing the new incumbent; the appointment is formalised at a ceremony known as Kissing Hands. In accordance with unwritten constitutional conventions, the Sovereign must appoint the individual most likely to maintain the support of the House of Commons: usually, the leader of the party which has a majority in that House. If no party has a majority (an unlikely occurrence given the United Kingdom's First Past the Post electoral system), two or more groups may form a coalition, whose agreed leader is then appointed Prime Minister. The majority party becomes "Her Majesty's Government," and the next largest party becomes "Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition." The head of the largest Opposition party becomes the Leader of the Opposition. Leader of the Opposition The term of a Prime Minister is linked to the term of Members of the House of Commons. Parliament has a maximum term of five years; in practice, however, it is usually "dissolved" sooner by the Sovereign, acting on a request from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister normally chooses the moment most advantageous to his or her party for the dissolution. In some circumstances, however, the Prime Minister may be compelled to dissolve Parliament (or, if he or she prefers, to resign) by the House of Commons. The House may attempt to force the dissolution by passing a Motion of No Confidence or by rejecting a Motion of Confidence. The same effect is achieved if the House of Commons rejects the Budget ("withdraws Supply"), or if it rejects some other important component of the Government's agenda. Such defeats for the Government, however, are rare; there have only been three defeats on confidence issues since the nineteenth century: twice in 1924, and once in 1979. The first in 1924 took place immediately after an inconclusive election result and led to an immediate change of government, but in the other two cases a general election was called (and in both the incumbent government was defeated). Whatever the reason—the expiry of Parliament's five year term, the choice of the Prime Minister, or a Government defeat in the House of Commons—the dissolution is followed by general elections. If his or her party has lost a majority in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister is compelled to resign (or request a dissolution, but the Sovereign is not compelled to accept such a request). The leader of the party or coalition now in the majority is then appointed Prime Minister by the Sovereign. The custom that requires the Prime Minister to resign immediately after an electoral loss was last broken by Edward Heath after the general election of February 1974, which did not produce an absolute majority for any party. Heath opted not to resign immediately, instead negotiating with a third party (the Liberal Party) to form a coalition. Heath did eventually resign when the negotiations failed. Lastly, defeats in general elections are not the only events which end Prime Ministerial terms. For example, Margaret Thatcher left office because she no longer retained the support of her own party. Prime Ministers are also free to resign for personal reasons (such as health concerns). The last Prime Minister to die in office was Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston (in 1865). The only Prime Minister to be assassinated was Spencer Perceval (in 1812).

Powers and restraints

The Prime Minister's chief duty is to "form a Government"—that is to say, to create a Cabinet or Ministry which will sustain the support of the House of Commons—when commissioned by the Sovereign. He or she generally co-ordinates the policies and activities of the Cabinet and the various Government departments, acting as the "face" of Her Majesty's Government. The Sovereign exercises much of his or her royal prerogative on the Prime Minister's advice. (For the prerogative of dissolving Parliament, see "Term" above.) The Prime Minister also has a wide range of powers of appointment. In most cases, the actual appointments are made by the Sovereign, but the selection and recommendation is made by the Prime Minister. Ministers, Privy Counsellors, Ambassadors and High Commissioners, senior civil servants, senior military officers, members of important committees and commissions, and several other officials are selected, and in some cases may be removed, by the Prime Minister. Furthermore, peerages, knighthoods, and other honours are bestowed by the Sovereign only on the advice of the Prime Minister. He also formally advises the Sovereign on the appointment of Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, but his discretion is limited by the existence of the Crown Nominations Commission. The appointment of senior judges, while on the advice of the Prime Minister for constitutional reasons, is now on the basis of recommendations from independent bodies. The only important British honours over which the Prime Minister does not have control are the Orders of the Garter, Thistle, and Merit, and the Royal Victorian Order, which are all within the "personal gift" of the Sovereign. The extent of the Sovereign's ability to influence the nature of the Prime Ministerial advice is unknown, but probably varies depending upon the personal relationship between the Sovereign and the Prime Minister of the day. Royal Victorian Order There exist several limits on the powers of the Prime Minister. Firstly, he or she is (theoretically at least) only a first among equals in the Cabinet. The extent of a Prime Minister's power over the Cabinet may vary. In some cases, the Prime Minister may be a mere figurehead, with actual power being wielded by one or more other individuals. Weak or titular Prime Ministers were more common prior to the twentieth century; examples include William Cavendish, 4th Duke of Devonshire and William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland. At the opposite extreme, however, Prime Ministers may dominate the Cabinet so much that they become "Semi-Presidents." Examples of dominant Prime Ministers (more common during the late nineteenth and the twentieth centuries) include William Ewart Gladstone, David Lloyd George, Neville Chamberlain, Sir Winston Churchill, Margaret Thatcher (who was powerful enough as to be able to organise her cabinet without regard to Parliamentary conventions), and Tony Blair. Some Prime Ministers go from one position to the other: Ramsay MacDonald, for example, was dominant in his Labour governments, but during his National Government his powers diminished so that by his final years in Downing Street he was merely the figurehead of the government. In modern times, Prime Ministers are never merely titular; dominant or somewhat dominant personalities are the norm. The Prime Minister's powers are also limited by the House of Commons, whose support the Government is obliged to maintain. The House of Commons checks the powers of the Prime Minister through committee hearings and through Question Time, a weekly occurrence in which the Prime Minister is obliged to respond to the questions of the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the House. In practice, however, a Government with a strong majority need rarely fear "backbench rebellions." Members of Parliament may hold ministerial offices (by convention up to 90 offices, or varying levels of seniority, exist), and may fear removal for failing to support the Prime Minister. Party discipline, furthermore, is very strong; a Member of Parliament may be expelled from his or her party for failing to support the Government on important issues, and although this will not mean he or she must resign as an MP, it would make re-election difficult for most. Restraints imposed by the House of Commons grow even weaker when the Government's party enjoys a large majority in that House. In general, the Prime Minister and his or her colleagues may secure the House's support for almost any bill. The House of Lords is less restrictive of the Prime Minister's power. Under the Salisbury Convention, the House of Lords normally does not seek to oppose any measure promised by the Government in its election manifesto. When the House of Lords does oppose the Prime Minister, it is generally ineffectual in defeating entire Bills (though almost all Bills are successfully modified by the Upper House during their passage through Parliament). Peers (members of the House of Lords) are created by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister; by obtaining the creation of several new peers, the Prime Minister may flood the House of Lords with individuals supportive of his position. The threat of such a tactic was used in 1911 to ensure the passage of the Parliament Act 1911, which, together with the Parliament Act 1949, reduces the House of Lords's powers and establishes the supremacy of the Commons (in particular, the House of Lords can only delay, but not reject, most bills on which the Commons insist). The 1949 Parliament Act is, however, the subject of a current legal challenge as to its efficacy. The role and power of the Prime Minister have been subject to much change in the last fifty years. There has gradually been a change from Cabinet decision making and deliberation to the dominance of the Prime Minister. As early as 1965, in a new introduction to Walter Bagehot's classic work The English Constitution, Richard Crossman identified a new era of "Prime Ministerial" government. Some commentators, such as the political scientist Michael Foley have argued there is a de facto "British Presidency". In Tony Blair's government many sources such as former ministers have suggested that decision making is centered around him and Gordon Brown, and Cabinet is not longer used for decision making . Former ministers such as Clare Short and Chris Smith have talked of the total lack of decision making in cabinet. On her resignation, Short denounced "the centralisation of power into the hands of the Prime Minister and an increasingly small number of advisers". The Butler Review of 2004 condemned Blair's style of "sofa government". Ultimately, however, the Prime Minister may be held responsible for the consequences of legislation or of general government policy. Margaret Thatcher's party forced her from power after the introduction of the poll tax; Sir Anthony Eden fell from power following the Suez Crisis; Neville Chamberlain resigned after being criticised for his handling of negotiations with Germany prior to the outbreak of World War II.

Precedence and privileges

World War IIThe Prime Minister had no special precedence until the order of precedence first recognized the office in 1905. Throughout the United Kingdom, he outranks all others except the Royal Family, the Lord Chancellor, and senior ecclesiastical functionaries (in England and Wales, the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York; in Scotland, the Lord High Commissioner and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland; in Northern Ireland, the Anglican and Roman Catholic Archbishops of Armagh and Dublin and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church). The Prime Minister draws his or her salary not as Prime Minister, but as First Lord of the Treasury. At present, he or she receives £121,437, in addition to his or her salary as a Member of Parliament (£57,485). Although the Prime Minister is undoubtedly the most powerful figure in British government, his or her compensation is not the highest amongst ministers: that distinction goes to the Lord Chancellor. The Prime Minister traditionally resides at 10 Downing Street in London, which George II offered to Sir Robert Walpole as a personal gift. Walpole, however, only accepted it as the official home of the First Lord, taking up his residence there in 1735. One may note that the Prime Minister only resides in 10 Downing Street in his or her capacity as First Lord; the few nineteenth century Prime Ministers who were not First Lords were forced to live elsewhere. Though most First Lords have lived in 10 Downing Street, some have preferred to reside in their private residences. Furthermore, some such as Harold Macmillan and John Major have lived in Admiralty House whilst 10 Downing Street was undergoing renovations or repairs. Adjacent to Downing Street is 11 Downing Street, the home of the Second Lord of the Treasury (who, in modern times, has also filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer). After he became Prime Minister in 1997, Tony Blair found 10 Downing Street too meagre for his large family, and he swapped residences with the Chancellor and Second Lord, Gordon Brown. However, the Prime Ministerial offices are still maintained in Number 10. 12 Downing Street is the residence of the Chief Whip, and these are the only three residences remaining in the road. The Prime Minister is also entitled to use the country house of Chequers in Buckinghamshire. The Prime Minister, like other Cabinet Ministers and senior Members of Parliament, is customarily a member of the Privy Council; thus, he or she becomes entitled to prefix "The Right Honourable" to his or her name. Membership of the Council is retained for life (unless the individual resigns it, or is expelled—both rare phenomena). It is a constitutional convention that only a Privy Counsellor can be appointed Prime Minister, but invariably all potential candidates have already attained this status. The only occasion when a non-Privy Councillor was the natural appointment was Ramsay MacDonald in 1924, but the issue was resolved by appointing him to the Council immediately prior to his appointment as Prime Minister.

Retirement honours

1924 It is customary for the Sovereign to grant a Prime Minister some honour or dignity when that individual retires from politics. The honour commonly, but not invariably, bestowed on Prime Ministers is membership of the United Kingdom's most senior order of chivalry, the Order of the Garter. The practice of creating retired Prime Ministers Knights of the Garter has been fairly prevalent since the middle-nineteenth century. It has also been common for Prime Ministers to be granted peerages upon their retirement from the premiership. (The grant of a peerage, which elevates the individual to the House of Lords, may be delayed if the Prime Minister wishes to stay in the House of Commons for some more time.) Formerly, the peerage bestowed was usually an earldom (which was always hereditary). However, since the 1960s, hereditary peerages have generally been eschewed, and life peerages have been preferred. The granting of hereditary peerages was briefly renewed during the 1980s, when former Prime Minister Harold Macmillan was created Earl of Stockton, but has not since been continued (neither Margaret Thatcher nor John Major accepted hereditary peerages, although Margaret Thatcher holds the non-hereditary title of Baroness Thatcher). Of the eighteen Prime Ministers since 1902 (excluding the current holder of the office), eight have been created both peers and Knights of the Garter; three have only been created peers; three have only become Knights of the Garter; and four have not been granted either honour—in two cases due to their death while still active in politics, in two others out of a wish to die a commoner. The retired Prime Ministers who are still living are:
- The Rt Hon. The Baroness Thatcher LG OM PC
- The Rt Hon. Sir John Major KG CH In November 2004, the polling company MORI in association with the University of Leeds questioned 258 political science academics in the United Kingdom (139 of whom replied) on the perceived success of twentieth century Prime Ministers. The [http://www.mori.com/polls/2004/leeds.shtml results] showed that Clement Attlee was rated as most successful, followed by Churchill and Lloyd George. Anthony Eden was rated as the least successful.

List of Prime Ministers

Anthony Eden For the complete list of British Prime Ministers, see List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Looking back at the eighteenth century, it is often unclear who should be considered the Prime Minister, with holders of the offices of First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Privy Seal, and Secretary of State all at one time or another acting as the principal minister in various governments. For instance, John Carteret, 2nd Baron Carteret Secretary of State for the Northern Department from 1742 to 1744 and William Pitt the Elder as Secretary of State for the Southern Department from 1756 to 1757 and again from 1757 to 1761 had many of the powers of a Prime Ministers, although other men held the principal office of First Lord of the Treasury. This list follows conventional practice in not listing such figures as Prime Ministers. There are, however, two exceptions to this generalisation. Firstly, in 1766, William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham (previously William Pitt the Elder) was asked by the King to form a ministry, but chose to take the office of Lord Privy Seal instead of the position of First Lord. Nevertheless, he is generally considered to have served as Prime Minister, for the King had asked him to form a Government. Similarly, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury, was asked to form ministries thrice, though he only served as First Lord for a short part of his second term. Lord Salisbury is also listed as a Prime Minister, though he was not First Lord, again because the Queen had asked him to form the ministry. Such considerations make the earlier part of the list somewhat less authoritative in its determination of who, exactly, was Prime Minister at such times.

References

- [http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp 10 Downing Street. (2004). Official Website.]
- Farnborough, Thomas Erskine, 1st Baron. (1896). Constitutional History of England since the Accession of George the Third, 11th ed. London: Longmans, Green and Co.
- [http://www.parliament.uk/ Parliament of the United Kingdom. (2004). Official Website.]
- [http://www.archontology.org/nations/england/bpm/ Principal Ministers of the Crown: 1730-2005]
- Chapter 12 Blair's Cabinet: Monarchy Returns, British Government in Crisis, Christopher Foster, Hart Publishing, 2005
- [http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12948497&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=SHORT%20ATTACKS%20'OBSESSED'%20BLAIR] Category:Government of the United Kingdom Category:History of the United Kingdom ja:イギリスの首相

1801

.]] 1801 was a common year starting on Thursday (see link for calendar).

Events

- January 1 - Legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland completed under the Act of Union 1800, bringing about the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
- January 1 - Giuseppe Piazzi discovers the first (and largest) asteroid Ceres.
- January 20 - John Marshall is appointed Chief Justice of the United States.
- February 3 - William Pitt the Younger resigns as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.
- February 9 - The Treaty of Lunéville ends the war (Second Coalition) between France and Austria.
- February 17 - An electoral tie between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr is resolved when Jefferson is elected President of the United States and Burr Vice President by the United States House of Representatives.
- February 27 - Washington, DC is placed under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress.
- March 4 - Thomas Jefferson succeeds John Adams as the President of the United States of America.
- March 21 - Second Battle of Abukir: a British army under Ralph Abercromby defeats the French troops.
- March 23 - The Russian Tsar Paul I is murdered. He is succeeded by his son Alexander I of Russia.
- April 2 - First Battle of Copenhagen - The British fleet under Admiral Hyde Parker, along with Admiral Horatio Nelson, attack Copenhagen. Armed Neutrality of the North dissolved.
- May - The pascha of Tripoli declares war on United States by having the flagpole on the consulate chopped down.
- June 27 - Cairo falls to British troops.
- July 6 - Battle of Algeciras: The French fleet beats the British fleet.
- July 18 - Napoleon signs the Concordat of 1801 with the pope.
- November 16 - First edition of New York Evening Post
- Aachen is officially annexed by France.
- A census in London revealed it to have 860,035 residents
- First census in France
- Joseph-Marie Jacquard developed a loom where the pattern being woven was controlled by punch cards.
- The ultraviolet radiation is discovered by Johann Wilhelm Ritter

Ongoing events

- French Revolutionary Wars (1792-1802)-Second Coalition/Egyptian Campaign
- Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815)-Second Coalition/Egyptian Campaign

Births

- January 3 - Gijsbert Haan, Dutch-American religious leader (d. 1874)
- February 1 - Thomas Cole, American artist (d. 1848)
- February 21 - John Henry Newman, English Roman Catholic Cardinal (d. 1890)
- May 11 - Henri Labrouste, French architect (d. 1875)
- June 1 - Brigham Young, American religious leader and colonizer (d. 1877)
- June 4 -