Charles Prestwich Scott, the son of Russell Scott, a successful businessman, was born in Bath in 1846. His grandfather, also called Russell Scott, had worked closely with Joseph Priestley to establish the Unitarian movement in Britain.
Charles was educated at Hove House, a Unitarian school in Brighton and Clapham Grammar School. After the passing of the 1854 University Act, Nonconformists were allowed to study at Oxford and Cambridge. Individual colleges could now devise their own entry rules. Scott was rejected by two colleges, Queen's and Christ Church, because he did not have a Church of England baptist certificate. However, he was accepted by Corpus Christi College and he started his studies in October 1865.
While at Oxford, Scott was approached by his cousin, John Taylor, to write for the Manchester Guardian. Taylor, the son of John Edward Taylor, the founder of the newspaper, ran the London office. In 1871 he decided that he needed an editor based in Manchester, and appointed the 25 year old C. Scott to the post. It was agreed that Scott should receive a salary of £400 a year and one-tenth of the profits.
In 1874 Scott married Rachel Cook, the daughter of the Professor of History at St Andrews University. Rachel was one of the first students to study at Girton College and was introduced to the Scott family by Barbara Bodichon. Over the next few years Rachel had four children: Madeline (1876), Laurence (1877), John Russell (1879) and Edward Taylor (1883).
Scott took a keen interest in further education and was a trustee of Owens College and a member of its council between 1890 and 1898. C. Scott was also an advocate of universal suffrage. His newspaper gave strong support to Jacob Bright's Bill for Women's Suffrage. Scott also joined Elizabeth Butler in her campaign against the Contagious Diseases Act.
John Taylor did not share C. Scott's views on parliamentary reform and ordered him not to use the Manchester Guardian to support the campaign. On 29th April, 1892, Taylor wrote to Scott again on this issue: "Your article yesterday for the Female Suffrage Bill was adroitly done, and your display of the cloven foot most discreetly managed; still it was quite visible. I must ask you not to advocate this measure whilst I live."
Although Scott was now receiving 25% of the profits of the Manchester Guardian, Taylor still controlled 75% of the company and had the power to over-rule his editor. Scott no longer received a salary but he did well from this agreement as the profits during this period ranged from £12,000 to £24,000 a year.
In the 1895 General Election, Scott stood as the Liberal Party candidate for North-East Manchester. He won with a majority of 667 and once in the House of Commons identified himself with the left-wing of the party. In Parliament C. Scott advocated women's suffrage and reform of the House of Lords.
In 1899 Scott strongly opposed the Boer War. This created a great deal of public hostility and both Scott's house and the Manchester Guardian building had to be given police protection. Sales of the newspaper also dropped during this period. However, despite holding unpopular views on the war, Scott managed to regain his seat in the 1900 General Election. With the help of his able lieutenants, C. E. Montague and L. T. Hobhouse, Scott continued to edit the newspaper during the period he sat in the House of Commons.
When John Taylor died in October 1905, he left instructions in his will that C. Scott could buy the Manchester Guardian for £10,000. The trustees were unwilling to obey these demands and eventually Scott had to raise £242,000 to buy the newspaper. This was a high price considering the newspaper only made a profit of £1,200 in 1905.
Scott was now in a position to use the newspaper to advocate women's suffrage. However, he was opposed to the tactics of the Women's Social & Political Union. In 1911 Scott held a meeting with David Lloyd George. He recorded in his diary: "We talked almost entirely of the Women's Suffrage movement and the damage done to it by the militant outrages. I urged that the militants should be ignored and the Suffrage campaign pressed on as though they didn't exist."
Scott initially opposed Britain's involvement in the First World War. Scott supported his friends, John Burns, John Morley and Charles Trevelyan, when they resigned from the government over this issue. However, he refused to join anti-war organizations such as the Union of Democratic Control (UDC). As he wrote at the time: "I am strongly of the opinion that the war ought not to have taken place and that we ought not to have become parties to it, but once in it the whole future of our nation is at stake and we have no choice but do the utmost we can to secure success."
Scott did oppose conscription introduced in 1916 and favoured the attempts made by Arthur Henderson to secure a negotiated peace in 1917. He recorded what David Lloyd George said about a meeting he had with the journalist, Philip Gibbs on the return from the Western Front: "I listened last night, at a dinner given to Philip Gibbs on his return from the front, to the most impressive and moving description from him of what the war (on the Western Front) really means, that I have heard. Even an audience of hardened politicians and journalists were strongly affected. If people really knew, the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don't know, and can't know. The correspondents don't write and the censorship wouldn't pass the truth. What they do send is not the war, but just a pretty picture of the war with everybody doing gallant deeds. The thing is horrible and beyond human nature to bear and I feel I can't go on with this bloody business."
Scott thought it unwise to impose harsh conditions on Germany after the war had come to an end in 1918. Although Scott was critical of the way David Lloyd George handled the peace negotiations at Versailles he supported him in his struggle with Herbert Asquith. After the Conservative victory in the 1922 General Election, Scott worked hard to unite the Liberal Party. However, his loyal support of Lloyd George made this an impossible task.
Kingsley Martin went to work for the Manchester Guardian in 1927: "C. Scott was a remarkable figure. At the age of eighty he was bent nearly double, blind in one eye, but more fierce in expression than any other man I have known. He still rode his bicycle through the muddy and dangerous streets of Manchester, swaying between the tramlines, with white hair and whiskers floating in the breeze, equally oblivious of rain and traffic. Unconsciously, I am sure, he thought that no one in Manchester would hurt him."
C. Montague, who was married to C. Scott's only daughter, Madeline, died in June, 1929, after working for the Manchester Guardian for thirty-five years. The following month, Scott, after fifty-seven years as editor, decided to retire. Scott had initially expected his eldest son, Laurence Scott, to succeed him as editor. However, while involved in charity work in the Ancoats slums, he caught tuberculosis and died. It was therefore, Edward Scott, the youngest son, who took over from his father. Although officially retired, Charles Prestwich Scott kept a close watch over the newspaper until his death on 1st January, 1932.
It its editorial that week, The New Statesman compared Scott to Lord Northcliffe: "Every newspaper lives by appealing to a particular public. It can only go ahead of its times if it carries its public with it. Success in journalism depends on understanding the public. But success is of two kinds. Northcliffe had a genius for understanding his public and he used it for making money, not for winning permanent influence.... Scott succeeded in a different way. He had just as much flair, just as acute an understanding of his public as Northcliffe. But his relationship to it was a professional, not a commercial relation. He taught his public to trust his integrity, to rely on the facts he told them, to respect his judgment, and to listen to his criticism. He offered his undivided services. I remember his saying that there was a definite moment in his life, the equivalent of a religious conversion, when he dedicated his life wholly to his paper and the causes it served."
On Sunday morning immediately after breakfast, I was summoned for the first time into the awful presence of the dean in his official capacity. He asked my name (being a great philosopher, whose lofty gaze does not usually descend as low as first year men) and desired to know why I had not been in Chapel. I pleaded temporary indisposition, and was dismissed with an injunction not to repeat my offence.
With the other people in the office I am on a very pleasant and friendly footing. Acton takes three leaders a week, Couper one, and there is an odd leader (we have two long ones on Wednesday) which may fall to the lot of any one of us. My hours are pretty much as follows - I get up at 7.30, breakfast, read the Guardian thoroughly and walk into town, arriving soon after ten o'clock. I work on all day and walk back for dinner about six o'clock. Read and write in the evening and go to bed soon after ten.
We talked almost entirely of the Women's Suffrage movement and the damage done to it by the militant outrages. I urged that the militants should be ignored and the Suffrage campaign pressed on as though they didn't exist. "That's all very well for us," said Lloyd George, "though it's difficult; I don't mind and it doesn't put me out much at meetings or irritate me. I'm used to the rough and tumble and have had to fight my way; so is Churchill, but it's different with Grey; he isn't accustomed to interruption. But what really matters is the effect on the audiences and the public."
We do not know whether the present House of Commons will be prepared to do justice to women. A few months ago there can be little doubt that it would, and nothing that has since happened supplies any adequate reason for a change of purpose. The follies and excesses of a small section of women, deeply resented and regretted by the vast majority of women, ought not to be allowed to weigh in the balance against a claim which has been admitted to be just.
I am strongly of the opinion that the war ought not to have taken place and that we ought not to have become parties to it, but once in it the whole future of our nation is at stake and we have no choice but do the utmost we can to secure success.
It would be expedient to hold back the pamphlet. The war is at present going badly against us and any day may bring more serious news. I suppose that as soon as the Germans have time to turn their attention to us we may expect to see their big guns mounted on the other side of the Channel and their Zeppelins flying over Dover and perhaps London. People will be wholly impatient of any sort of criticism of policy at such a time and I am afraid that premature action now might destroy any hope of usefulness for your organisation (Union of Democratic Control) later. I saw Angell and Ramsay MacDonald yesterday afternoon and found that they had come to the same conclusion.
He (Lloyd George), Beauchamp, Morley and Burns had all resigned from the Cabinet on the Saturday (1st August) before the declaration of war on the ground that they could not agree to Grey's pledge to Cambon (the French ambassador in London) to protect north coast of France against Germans, regarding this as equivalent to war with Germany. On urgent representations of Asquith he (Lloyd George) and Beauchamp agreed on Monday evening to remain in the Cabinet without in the smallest degree, as far as he was concerned, withdrawing his objection to the policy but solely in order to prevent the appearance of disruption in face of a grave national danger. That remains his position. He is, as it were, an unattached member of the Cabinet.
You know that I was honestly willing to accept compulsory military service, provided that the voluntary system had first been tried out, and had failed to supply the men needed and who could still be spared from industry, and were numerically worth troubling about. Those, I think, are not unreasonable conditions, and I thought that in the conversation I had with you last September you agreed with them. I cannot feel that they had been fulfilled, and I do feel very strongly that compulsion is now being forced upon us without proof shown of its necessity, and I resent this the more deeply because it seems to me in the nature of a breach of faith with those who, like myself - there are plenty of them - were prepared to make great sacrifices of feeling and conviction in order to maintain the national unity and secure every condition needed for winning the war.
I listened last night, at a dinner given to Philip Gibbs on his return from the front, to the most impressive and moving description from him of what the war (on the Western Front) really means, that I have heard. The thing is horrible and beyond human nature to bear and I feel I can't go on with this bloody business.
I feel very bitter about Lloyd George; his is the kind of character I mind most, because I feel his charm and recognize his genius; but he is full of emotion without heart, brilliant with intellect, and a gambler without foresight. He has reduced our prestige and stirred up resentment by his folly - in India, Egypt, Ireland, Poland, Russia, America, and France.
Will you kindly write us a signed review of this book about Northcliffe. He would be important if only because his rise is the rise of the vast popular press. The tragedy of his life seems to me to lie in the fact that though he knew how to create the instruments not only of profit but of power he had not the least idea what to do with his power when he got it.
C. Unconsciously, I am sure, he thought that no one in Manchester would hurt him.
For fifty-seven years you have been responsible for the conduct of a great newspaper, and his Majesty, while regretting your resignation, congratulates you on an achievement which must surely be unique in the annals of journalism.
When C. Scott died, the innumerable tributes to him all emphasized his courage and integrity, his humanitarianism and his championship of unpopular causes. They omitted comment on his remarkable astuteness, his diplomatic gift, his caution, his capacity for compromise, his knowledge of when to strike and when to forebear.
He could claim, above all, that he had been right - right about the Boer War, right about Home Rule, right about Women's Suffrage, right about the Versailles Peace Treaty, right about a host of other smaller causes which we have forgotten because they have been won. The influence of the Manchester Guardian was due to the fact that the causes it took up were never run as stunts, taken up in the hot mood and dropped in the cold; they were clearly imagined lines of policy, consistently and moderately pursued year after year, boldly urged in season, persuasively advocated out of season, but never abandoned until victory was achieved.
Every newspaper lives by appealing to a particular public. Northcliffe had a genius for understanding his public and he used it for making money, not for winning permanent influence. He became a millionaire because he was his own most appreciative reader; he instinctively appealed in the most profitable way to the millions of men and women whose tastes and prejudices were the same as his own. He lived by flattering. He did not educate or change his public in any essential; he merely induced it to buy newspapers.
C. I remember his saying that there was a definite moment in his life, the equivalent of a religious conversion, when he dedicated his life wholly to his paper and the causes it served.
A hundred years is a long time it is a long time even in the life of a newspaper, and to look back on it is to take in not only a vast development in the thing itself, but a great slice in the life of the nation, in the progress and adjustment of the world. In the general development the newspaper, as an institution, has played its part, and no small part, and the particular newspaper with which I personally am concerned has also played its part, it is to be hoped, not without some usefulness. I have had my share in it for a little more than fifty years I have been its responsible editor for only a few months short of its last half-century I remember vividly its fiftieth birthday I now have the happiness to share in the celebration of its hundredth. I can therefore speak of it with a certain intimacy of acquaintance. I have myself been part of it and entered into its inner courts. That is perhaps a reason why, on this occasion, I should write in my own name, as in some sort a spectator, rather than in the name of the paper as a member of its working staff.
In all living things there must be a certain unity, a principle of vitality and growth. It is so with a newspaper, and the more complete and clear this unity the more vigorous and fruitful the growth. I ask myself what the paper stood for when first I knew it, what it has stood for since and stands for now. A newspaper has two sides to it. It is a business, like any other, and has to pay in the material sense in order to live. But it is much more than a business it is an institution it reflects and it influences the life of a whole community it may affect even wider destinies. It is, in its way, an instrument of government. It plays on the minds and consciences of men. It may educate, stimulate, assist, or it may do the opposite. It has, therefore, a moral as well as a material existence, and its character and influence are in the main determined by the balance of these two forces. It may make profit or power its first object, or it may conceive itself as fulfilling a higher and more exacting function.
I think I may honestly say that, from the day of its foundation, there has not been much doubt as to which way the balance tipped so far as regards the conduct of the paper whose fine tradition I inherited and which I have had the honour to serve through all my working life. Had it not been so, personally I could not have served it. Character is a subtle affair, and has many shades and sides to it. It is not a thing to be much talked about, but rather to be felt. It is the slow deposit of past actions and ideals. It is for each man his most precious possession, and so it is for that latest growth of time the newspaper. Fundamentally it implies honesty, cleanness, courage, fairness, a sense of duty to the reader and the community. A newspaper is of necessity something of a monopoly, and its first duty is to shun the temptations of monopoly. Its primary office is the gathering of news. At the peril of its soul it must see that the supply is not tainted. Neither in what it gives, nor in what it does not give, nor in the mode of presentation must the unclouded face of truth suffer wrong. Comment is free, but facts are sacred. “Propaganda”, so called, by this means is hateful. The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard. Comment also is justly subject to a self-imposed restraint. It is well to be frank it is even better to be fair. This is an ideal. Achievement in such matters is hardly given to man. Perhaps none of us can attain to it in the desirable measure. We can but try, ask pardon for shortcomings, and there leave the matter.
But, granted a sufficiency of grace, to what further conquests may we look, what purpose serve, what tasks envisage? It is a large question, and cannot be fully answered. We are faced with a new and enormous power and a growing one. Whither is the young giant tending? What gifts does he bring? How will he exercise his privilege and powers? What influence will he exercise on the minds of men and on our public life? It cannot be pretended that an assured and entirely satisfactory answer can be given to such questions. Experience is in some respects disquieting. The development has not been all in the direction which we should most desire.
One of the virtues, perhaps almost the chief virtue, of a newspaper is its independence. Whatever its position or character, at least it should have a soul of its own. But the tendency of newspapers, as of other businesses, in these days is towards amalgamation. In proportion as the function of a newspaper has developed and its organisation expanded, so have its costs increased. The smaller newspapers have had a hard struggle many of them have disappeared. In their place we have great organisations controlling a whole series of publications of various kinds and even of differing or opposing politics. The process may be inevitable, but clearly there are drawbacks. As organisation grows personality may tend to disappear. It is much to control one newspaper well it is perhaps beyond the reach of any man, or any body of men, to control half a dozen with equal success. It is possible to exaggerate the danger, for the public is not undiscerning. It recognises the authentic voices of conscience and conviction when it finds them, and it has a shrewd intuition of what to accept and what to discount. This is a matter which in the end must settle itself, and those who cherish the older ideal of a newspaper need not be dismayed. They have only to make their papers good enough in order to win, as well as to merit, success, and the resources of a newspaper are not wholly measured in pounds, shillings, and pence. Of course the thing can only be done by competence all round and by that spirit of cooperation right through the working staff which only a common ideal can inspire.
CP Scott’s A Hundred Years. Photograph: Sarah Lee/The Guardian
There are people who think you can run a newspaper about as easily as you can poke a fire, and that knowledge, training, and aptitude are superfluous endowments. There have even been experiments on this assumption, and they have not met with success. There must be competence, to start with, on the business side, just as there must be in any large undertaking, but it is a mistake to suppose that the business side of a paper should dominate, as sometimes happens, not without distressing consequences. A newspaper to be of value should be a unity, and every part of it should equally understand and respond to the purposes and ideals which animate it. Between its two sides there should be a happy marriage, and editor and business manager should march hand in hand, the first, be it well understood, just an inch or two in advance. Of the staff much the same thing may be said. They should be a friendly company. They need not, of course, agree on every point, but they should share in the general purpose and inheritance. A paper is built up upon their common and successive labours, and their work should never be task work, never merely dictated. They should be like a racing boat’s crew, pulling well together, each man doing his best because he likes it, and with a common and glorious goal.
That is the path of self-respect and pleasure it is also the path of success. And what a work it is how multiform, how responsive to every need and every incident of life! What illimitable possibilities of achievement and of excellence! People talk of “journalese” as though a journalist were of necessity a pretentious and sloppy writer he may be, on the contrary, and very often is, one of the best in the world. At least he should not be content to be much less. And then the developments. Every year, almost every day, may see growth and fresh accomplishment, and with a paper that is really alive, it not only may, but does. Let anyone take a file of this paper, or for that matter any one of half a dozen other papers, and compare its whole make-up and leading features today with what they were five years ago, ten years ago, twenty years ago, and he will realise how large has been the growth, how considerable the achievement. And this is what makes the work of a newspaper worthy and interesting. It has so many sides, it touches life at so many points, at every one there is such possibility of improvement and excellence. To the man, whatever his place on the paper, whether on the editorial, or business, or even what may be regarded as the mechanical side – this also vitally important in its place – nothing should satisfy short of the best, and the best must always seem a little ahead of the actual. It is here that ability counts and that character counts, and it is on these that a newspaper, like every great undertaking, if it is to be worthy of its power and duty, must rely.
History of the Guardian
The Manchester Guardian was founded by John Edward Taylor in 1821 and first published on 5 May of that year. The paper was intended to promote the liberal interest in the aftermath of the Peterloo Massacre, in the context of the growing anti-Corn Laws campaign flourishing in Manchester during this period.
It was published weekly on Saturdays until 1836, when a Wednesday edition was added. In 1855 the abolition of Stamp Duty on newspapers finally made it possible to publish the paper daily, at a reduced cover price of 2d.
The Guardian achieved national and international recognition under the editorship of CP Scott, who held the post for 57 years from 1872. Scott bought the paper in 1907 following the death of Taylor’s son, and pledged that the principles laid down in the founder’s will would be upheld by retaining the independence of the newspaper. CP Scott outlined those principles in a much-quoted article written to celebrate the centenary of the paper: “Comment is free, but facts are sacred. The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard.”
After retiring from an active role in managing and editing the paper, Scott passed control to his two sons, John Russell Scott as manager and Edward Taylor Scott as editor. Realising that the future independence of the paper would be jeopardised in the event of the death of one or the other, the two sons made an agreement that in the event of either’s death, one would buy the other’s share.
CP Scott died in 1932 and was followed only four months later by Edward, so sole ownership fell to JR Scott. Faced with the potential of crippling death duties and the predatory interest of competitors, Scott contemplated a radical move to ensure the future of both the Guardian and the highly profitable Manchester Evening News. He concluded that the only solution was to give away his inheritance, a far-reaching solution which provoked close advisor (and future Lord Chancellor) Gavin Simonds to conclude: “you are trying to do something which is very repugnant to the law of England. You are trying to divest yourself of a property right”.
Editorial, Financial and Wire Room staff members of the Manchester Guardian photographed in 1921. Back row: Messrs. F. Marshall, J.M. Denvir, R. Nelson, F.W. Long, J.H. Foxcroft, I. Brown, E.N. Smith, F. Perrot, A. Percival Middle row: Mrs. Avis, Mr. H. Rose Front row: Mr. H. Gravett, Miss E. Isitt, Messrs. O.R. Hobson, J. Bone, H. Dore, J. Drysdale, A.H. Boyd, H. Williams Photograph: Walter Doughty/The Guardian
In June 1936, JR Scott formally passed ownership of the paper to the trustees of the Scott Trust. As well as pledging to ensure the radical editorial tradition of the paper (that the newspaper “shall be conducted in the future on the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore”, in the words of the founder’s legacy), the Scott Trust also has the duty to maintain a secure financial footing for the business: “. to devote the whole of the surplus profits of the Company which would otherwise have been available for dividends. towards building up the reserves of the Company and increasing the circulation of and expanding and improving the newspapers.” These principles remain the only instructions given to an incoming editor of the Guardian, though the Scott family retained an interest in the running of the company until 1984, when, aged 70, Richard F Scott retired from the chairmanship of the Trust.
As the influence of the Manchester Guardian grew beyond its Northern hinterland, a new challenge faced the paper under the editorship of AP Wadsworth, who took over the post in 1944. The limited number of pages in the paper, poor quality of the printing and sometimes peculiar news agenda were once perceived as part of the regional charm of the paper. In comparison to the other papers on Fleet Street, however, the Guardian’s eccentric virtues often seemed to be outweighed by its peculiar idiosyncrasies: the absence of horse racing, high-handed moral posturing and woolly leaders.
Alongside the Daily Telegraph and the Times, the Guardian lacked resources (despite costing 1d more a day), and an approach to commercial activity that could be charitably described as naive did not help matters. On the first day of the Chatterley trial, the Guardian carried a front page advertisement for the Telegraph ‘the paper you can trust’, which ‘provides all you can want in a newspaper’ - and at a cheaper cover price too.
The editor of the paper moved to London in 1964, committing the Guardian to an uncertain future in the national market, and shortly afterwards financial problems came to a head. The paper relied heavily on the Manchester Evening News for financial support, and in the mid-60s the threat to the paper’s future grew severe enough for the chairman of the company, Laurence Scott, to approach the Times to discuss the possibility of a merger. The Times was in a similarly perilous financial situation, and many were of the opinion that there was only room for one competitor to the Telegraph. Eventually the talks came to nothing, but not before a serious examination of the logistics involved had been considered on both sides. Alastair Hetherington, the editor at this time, remained a staunch advocate of the Guardian’s independence, and the modern paper owes much to his leadership and vision during this period.
Investment in printing and the completion of a move to improved offices in London in 1976 helped consolidate the Guardian’s position, aided by an expansion programme that included the revamping of the Guardian Weekly to include content from both the Washington Post and Le Monde. In the increasingly polarised political climate of the late 70s and early 80s the Guardian’s position as the voice of the left was unchallenged. The opinion pages were the birthplace of the SDP, and the letters page was where the battle for the future direction of the Labour Party was played out, while the coverage of industrial disputes including the 1984-1985 Miners’ Strike defined the paper’s position.
The status quo among the quality press was irrevocably altered by the launch of the Independent in 1986. Capturing the centre ground between the Guardian on the left and the Times and Telegraph on the right, the Independent attracted big name writers and readers with a modern design and distribution network that made the most of the post-union market. Within a few years the circulation of the Independent rose to within touching distance of both the Times and the Guardian, and the previously stagnant market was provoked into a frenzy of defensive activity to retain readers.
In 1988 the Guardian made a bold and innovative attempt to reassert its position on Fleet Street, with a major redesign that began the modern period of success in the history of the paper.
In 1993 the intensely competitive broadsheet market was again thrown into confusion by the reduction of the cover price of the Times, firstly from 45p to 30p, then again in June 1994 from 30p to 20p. As the Times attracted readers, first the Daily Telegraph and then the Independent followed suit, running at substantial losses as they battled to survive. Throughout this period the Guardian remained at full price, investing resources in journalism and distancing itself from the price war through distinctive and innovative marketing, product development and consistently breaking big stories.
During these years the paper increased its circulation, remained commercially successful and achieved critical acclaim for both the quality of its journalism and its innovation.
The Guardian was at the forefront of the sleaze revelations that contributed to the downfall of the Conservative government in 1997, with a series of investigations into the affairs of Tory MPs, including Jonathan Aitken and Neil Hamilton. This reputation was cemented by the collapse of the libel case brought against the paper by former Minister Jonathan Aitken. Aitken was convicted of perjury and jailed in June 1999, and the investigations won the Guardian critical acclaim from all sides - including the prestigious Newspaper of the Year Award in both 1997 and 1998.
In 1997 the Guardian became the first national newspaper to appoint a readers’ editor (producer of the daily Corrections and Clarifications column).
In 1994-95 the Guardian began developing online publication. The paper’s technology section OnLine was launched in late 1995, and sites for jobs, certain sports, and news events followed through 1996-1998. The Guardian Unlimited network of websites was launched as a unified whole in January 1999 (in 2008 it was to become guardian.co.uk and in 2013 theguardian.com). By March 2001 GU had over 2.4 million unique users, making it the most popular UK newspaper website.
On September 12 2005 the new Berliner Guardian launched, with a ground-breaking design in a mid-size format. The Guardian became the UK’s first full-colour national newspaper, and the first UK national newspaper ever to adopt this size.
December 2008 marked a significant point in the history of the Guardian when the paper moved to a brand new building in King’s Cross after 32 years in its Farringdon headquarters.
In 2011 the Guardian’s groundbreaking journalism and innovation were recognised at the Press Awards where it was named Newspaper of the Year for its partnership with WikiLeaks, which produced the leaked US embassy cables. In the same year the Guardian not only wrote headlines but made headlines with its globally acclaimed investigation into phone hacking.
In recent years the Guardian has significantly developed and expanded its digital operations. Between 2009-2010 the Guardian launched a range of new digital products and services, including apps for iPhone and iPod Touch, Open Platform and Datablog, the first national data journalism site. In June 2011 Guardian News & Media announced plans to become a digital-first organisation, placing open journalism on the web at the heart of its strategy. Since the launch of the strategy the Guardian has continued its digital expansion with the launch of new applications and platforms, including Kindle and iPad editions, Android and Blackberry apps, Facebook app, GuardianWitness and new digital editions in the US and Australia. For more information on the history of the Guardian’s digital developments see the timeline of key moments in the Guardian’s history.
On 15 January 2018, the newspaper was relaunched in a new tabloid format. On the same day, a redesigned Guardian went live for online readers globally, across the mobile, apps and desktop editions of the website. A fuller redesign of the Guardian Weekly as a news magazine followed on 11 October 2018.
On 1 May 2019 The Guardian announced that it had successfully completed its three-year turnaround strategy by breaking even for the first time in recent history.
Chief Justice Roger Taney
Roger Taney was born into the southern aristocracy and became the fifth Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Taney became best known for writing the final majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which said that all people of African descent, free or enslaved, were not United States citizens and therefore had no right to sue in federal court. In addition, he wrote that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because enslaved workers were their legal property.
The decision also argued that the Missouri Compromise legislation — passed to balance the power between slave and non-slave states — was unconstitutional. In effect, this meant that Congress had no power to prevent the spread of slavery.
Despite Taney’s long tenure as a Supreme Court justice, people vilified him for his role in the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. In an ironic historical footnote, Taney would later swear in Abraham Lincoln, the "Great Emancipator," as president of the United States in 1861.
The forerunner of A&P was founded in the 1850s as Gilman & Company by George Gilman (1826–1901) to continue his father's leather tanning business.
Great American Tea Company
Great American Tea Company
Gilman turned over the tanning business to his brother Winthrop George moved his tea business to 129 Front Street. Initially, Gilman & Company was a wholesaler. In early 1863 the firm became a retailer, Great American Tea Company.
In 1951, John Hartford died in the Chrysler Building after returning from a meeting of the automaker's board of directors. George remained as A&P's chairman and treasurer, appointing the corporation's longtime secretary Ralph Burger as its new president.
In February 1975, A&P considered a plan by Booz Allen Hamilton to close 36% of its 3,468 stores. Kane agreed to resign and was replaced by Jonathan Scott, the 44-year-old president of Albertsons.
Final years as a supermarket chain
Final years as a supermarket chain
Nationwide, Walmart gained a dominant position in the grocery industry, forcing much of the competition to downsize, though in A&P's core Northeast region, Walmart still had not become a major grocery competitor.
A&P briefly returned to modest profitability by cutting costs in its remaining stores.
11th Cavalry Regiment
Left the State: May. 5, 1862
Mustered out: September 30, 1865
The following is taken from New York in the War of the Rebellion, 3rd ed. Frederick Phisterer. Albany: J. B. Lyon Company, 1912.
Colonel James B. Swain received, October I, 1861, authority from the War Department to recruit this regiment. It was organized on Staten Island and the first ten companies were there mustered in the service of the United States for three years between December, 1861, and May, 1862 Companies L and M were mustered in in August and September, 1862, and joined the regiment in October, 1862, completing its organization. October 25, 1862, the War Department turned the regiment over to the State, and February 20, 1864, it received its numerical State designation.
The companies were recruited principally: A at New York city, Tarrytown and Tomp-kinsville B at New York city C at New York city, Utica, Tompkinsville and Binghamton, and at Blairstown and in Warren county, N. J. D at Canton, Colton, Pitcairn, Potsdam and Ogdensburg E at New York city, Southampton, Bridgehampton, Quogue, Tompkinsville and Coram F at New York city, Fulton, Lisle and Brooklyn G at New York city, Troy, Lisle and Williamsburg, and at Newark, N. J. H at New York city, Brooklyn, Champlain and Watertown I at New York city, in Essex and St. Lawrence counties K at New York city, Auburn, Union Springs, Springport, Ausable Forks, Jay and Seneca Falls L at New York city, Buffalo, Canton, Lewis and Westport and M at Buffalo, Canton, Fowler and Gouverneur.
The regiment left the State May 5, 1862, and served in the Military District of Washington and 22d Corps, and a detachment of it in the 8th Corps, Middle Department, from May, 1862 in the Department of the Gulf from March 14, 1864 at La Fourche, La., from May, 1864 at Baton Rouge, La., from June, 1864 in 2d Brigade, Cavalry, Department of the Gulf, from August, 1864 in the Department of the Cumberland from March, 1865.
July 21, 1865, those entitled thereto having been discharged, the regiment was consolidated into a battalion of four companies, A, B, C and D Company A being formed of Companies A, F, G and K B of B, E, L and M C of C, H and I and D of D and H, and some of the members of Company B. This battalion, commanded by Maj. Geo. W. Smith, was mustered out and honorably discharged September 30, 1865, at Memphis, Tenn.
The regiment, during its service, lost by death, killed in action, 10 enlisted men of wounds received in action, 1 officer, 14 enlisted men of disease and other causes, 3 officers, 319 enlisted men, total, 4 officers, 341 enlisted men aggregate, 345 of whom 8 enlisted men died in the hands of the enemy. The large number reported drowned is due principally to the foundering of the steamer North America off the coast of Florida, December 22, 1864.
The following is taken from The Union army: a history of military affairs in the loyal states, 1861-65 -- records of the regiments in the Union army -- cyclopedia of battles -- memoirs of commanders and soldiers, Volume II: New York, Maryland, West Virginia and Ohio. Madison, WI: Federal Pub. Co., 1908.
Eleventh Cavalry.&mdashCols., James B. Swain, John P. Sherburne, Samuel H. Wilkeson Lieut.-Cols., L. P. Di Cesnola, William W. Bennett, Samuel H. Wilkeson, Michael A. McCallum Majs., William W. Bennett, Seth P. Remington, Horace D. Ellsworth, George W. Richardson, Wilbur F. Raymond, Joseph C. Kenyon, Thomas F. Gamble, George W. Smith, Augustus Pruyn. The nth cavalry, "Scott's 900," recruited from the state at large, was organized at New York city, where the first ten companies were mustered into the U. S. service between Dec, 1861, and May, 1862, for three years. Cos. L and M were mustered in Aug. and Sept., 1862, and joined the regiment in October. On the expiration of their term of service the original members, except veterans, were mustered out and the veterans and recruits were consolidated on July 21, 1865, into a battalion of four companies, which remained in service until Sept. 30, 1865. when it was mustered out at Memphis, Tenn. The regiment left the state on Maj^ 5, 1862. and served in the Military district of Washington, 22nd corps, a part of it being detached for service in the 8th corps. Middle Department, until March, 1864, when it was transferred to the Department of the Gulf. During this period it was active in engagements at the Blue ridge, Va. Poolesville, Md., where it lost 4 wounded and 16 missing, among the latter being Lieut. William Smith Fairfax Court House, Va., where a large part of a squadron under Maj. Remington was overcome by superior numbers and captured after a heroic resistance, the losses being 3 killed, 15 wounded and 55 captured, though Maj. Remington succeeded in cutting his way out with 18 men. It was also engaged at Bolivar Heights, Harper's Ferry, Halltown, Edwards' ferry, Leesburg and Rockville, but with slight casualties. While in the Department of the Gulf it was engaged at New river, Manning's plantation, Doyal's plantation, where it sustained a loss of 2 wounded and 98 captured. Bayou Sara, Jackson and Clinton, La., and at Brookhaven, Liberty. Franklin and Ocean Springs, Miss. Early in 1865, it was transferred to the Department of the Cumberland and was engaged near Memphis. Tenn., in March, with a loss of 32 wounded, and at Germantown, Miss., in April, with a loss of 42 killed, wounded and missing. The regiment lost altogether I officer and 22 men killed in action and died of wounds 2 officers and 319 enlisted men died of disease, accidents, in prison, etc. total deaths, 344. It also lost a number of men by drowning, due to the foundering of the steamer North America off the coast of Florida on Dec. 22, 1864.
11th Regiment Cavalry, NY Volunteers | Standard | Civil War
The New York State Battle Flag Collection includes one flag attributed to the 11th Regiment Cavalry, New York Volunteers. The silk standard seen here…
Date your gun
Webley volume production revolvers started to appear around 1853 as the Webley Longspur. From then on Webley revolvers developed and evolved to meet market requirements. Often many different models in many different calibres were produced at the same time. Because of this complex numbers of guns it is difficult to date revolvers, as the production records are no longer in our possession.
However some manufacturing dates and information are available for a fee from: www.armsresearch.co.uk To date a gun they will need the serial number. Webley are unable to give valuations. For further information we suggest the book Webley Revolvers by Gordon Bruce and Christian Reinhart
Webley started producing Air Pistols in 1924 and today still produce Air Pistols to the same design principle (see below the Tempest) The early Air Pistols were marked with serial numbers up to the beginning of World War 2. Later Pistols were the marked with usually a threedigit batch number. This was to identify parts that were fitted to specific guns has they were processed round the factory. No Air Pistols were produced 1940-1945. Guns with BIRMINGHAM 4 on the side of the cylinder were made up to 1958 after which the 4 was Removed. Below are some approximate production dates that will help you date your Webley Air Pistol.
- Webley Mark 1 (Straight grip) 1924-1935
- Webley Mark 1 (Slanted grip) 1935-1964
- Webley Mark 11 (Target model) 1925-1930
- Webley Senior (Straight grip) 1930-1935
- Webley Senior (Slanted grip) 1935-1964
- Webley Premier 1964-1975
- Webley Premier Mk.11 1975-1977
- Webley Hurricane 1977-2005
- Webley Typhoon 1977-1982
- Webley Tempest 1979-2005
- Webley Junior (Wood/Tin grips) 1929-1939
- Webley Junior (Bakerlite grips) 1946-1973
- Webley Junior Mark 11 1973-1976
- Webley Single Stroke Pneumatic Air Pistols
- Webley Nemesis 1994-2005
- Webley Alecto 2008-2015
- Webley Tempest 2011-2019
- Webley VMX Pistol
- Webley Typhoon break barrel Air Pistol
- Webley Nemesis
- Webley Eclipse
- Webley MKIV
- Webley Alecto MKV
Webley started producing Air Rifle in 1926. And currently produce a fine range of air rifles and air pistols that are available worldwide. Webley experimented with pneumatic air rifles in the 1960’s. Production air rifles became available in the late 1990’s The factory production information is not available. Below are some approximate production dates that will help you date your Webley Air Rile.
- Webley Axsor Air Rifle 1997-2000
- Webley Raider, Venom Viper Air Rifle 1999-2010
- Webley Raider 10 Air Rifle 2005-2010
- Webley Verminator, Venom Mamba Air Rifle 2004-2005
- Webley FX2000 Air Rifle 1999-2005
- Webley Spectre Air Rifle 2004-2005
- Webley Raider I & 2 shot PCP Air Rifle 2000-2008
- Webley Raider 10 PCP Air Rifle 2005-2019
- Webley Raider Classic Air Rifle
- Webley Mastiff
- Webley Eclipse Compact PCP Air Rifle
- Webley VMX Classic
- Webley VMX Cub
In 1897 P Webley & Son amalgamated with W & C Scott & Sons , forming The Webley & Scott Revolver & Arms Company of Birmingham and 78 Shaftesbury Avenue, London. Up until the mid 1920’s guns were produced as either Webley & Scott or W & C Scott models. Production of Webley & Scott Shotguns continued up until 1978 at which time a seperate company, W&C Scott( Gunmakers) Limited was formed and in 1985 was bought by Holland and Holland.
In 2006 under new ownership re-introduced a new range of shotguns manufactured throughout the
world using blending fine craftsmanship and the latest technology to give quality guns at a good value price
Webley & Scott no longer have the full records of guns produced prior to 2006
The complete production records are now held by:
Dr Colin P. Summerhayes BSc, MSc, DIC, PhD, DSc, CGeol
Dr. Colin Summerhayes is a marine geologist and oceanographer with expertise in the role of climate in forming marine sediments of different types, especially seabed resources of phosphate and oil and gas, and in interpreting the history of climate from sedimentary records. He was educated at University and Imperial Colleges, London, at Oxford, and at Victoria University, Wellington, NZ, then worked at the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute, at Imperial College London, at the University of Cape Town and at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. He then spent 12 years as a researcher in the oil and gas business, working first for Exxon and then for BP on new techniques for analysing basins and prospecting for oil rich source rocks, covering most of the world's oil and gas basins from northern Norway to the Falklands Plateau. From 1986-88 he was a Branch Manager in the Exploration Division of the BP Research Centre, Sunbury-on-Thames, responsible for specialist research staff in Aberdeen, Houston, Holland and the UK. Leaving the oil business, from 1988-95 he was Director of the Natural Environment Research Council's Institute of Oceanographic Sciences Deacon Laboratory, in Wormley, Surrey, managing some of the UK's major research programmes on the role of the oceans in climate change. Having steered the institute through a major restructuring, he moved it to become the core of the new Southampton (now National) Oceanography Centre, of which he became Deputy Director. Leaving the UK in 1997 he served UNESCO's Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, in Paris, as Director of the Global Ocean Observing System (or GOOS), which provides the ocean component of the UN's Global Climate Observing System (GCOS), which detects changes and trends in global climate and provides advice to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Dr Summerhayes was a member of the GCOS Steering Committee. From 2004 - 2010 he was Executive Director of the International Council for Science's Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR), based at the Scott Polar Research Institute of Cambridge University, where he is now an Emeritus Associate (from April 1, 2010). There he coauthored several reviews of Antarctic climate and its role in the global climate system. He is co-editor of "Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment" (2009), and of "Understanding Earth's Polar Challenges: International Polar Year 2007-2008" (2011). In 2012 he published with Conny Luedecke a history of the 3rd German Antarctic Expedition "The Third Reich in Antarctica". And in 2015 he published a textbook on climate change from the geological perspective - "Earth's Climate Evolution". The 2nd edition, "Palaeoclimatology - from Snowball Earth to the Anthropocene" was published in August 2020.
As a member of SCAR's Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (ACCE) Advisory Group, he helps to provide annual reports on climate change to the meetings of the Parties to the Antarctic Treaty. He also represented SCAR on the organising committee for the 4th International Polar Year 2007 -2008, organising its first conference, jointly with the International Arctic Science Committee, in St Petersburg, Russia, in July 2008, and assisting with the organisation of the two follow up IPY conferences in Oslo in 2010 and in Montreal in 2012. He has provided advice on management to the Korea Polar Research Institute (KOPRI) (2010-2012), lectured on climate change on Antarctic cruise ships (2010, 2012, 2014 (twice) and 2017), and worked in a voluntary capacity for professional societies (Vice President of the Geological Society of London 2010-2013, President of the Society for Underwater Technology (2009-2011), Editor of the Journal of Operational Oceanography for the Institute for Marine Science and Technology (2008-2012), and a member of the editorial board of Geoscientist (2018-present) . Most recently he has been a Member of the UK Committee for the Scientific Committee for Oceanic Resarch (SCOR)(2013-2016), Chairman of the International Advisory Board of the International Arctic Science Committee (2015-2016), and Erskine Fellow of the University of Canterbury, NZ, in support of their Postgraduate Certificate in Antarctic Studies (2015-2016). He is currently a Member of the Anthropocene Working Group of the International Commission on Stratigraphy (2014 - ), and in 2019 published with colleagues "The Anthropocene as a Geological Time Unit".
C. Waldo Scott Center for H.O.P.E.
Our Anti-Smoking Poster Contest is Live! Vote for your favorite poster until June 30th!
Show your support for the Scott Center and celebrate the life and legacy of Dr. Charles Waldo Scott.
The deadline has been extended to June 25th for the 2021 Vocational Scholarship application
The mission of the C. Waldo Scott Center for H.O.P.E (Helping Our People Emerge) is to provide HOPE to families, while developing the WHOLE CHILD. This is achieved by providing comprehensive services to educate and foster the growth and development of youth and families.
The C. Waldo Scott Center is a special place for children and families in Newport News to receive comprehensive services, which are developed to meet the needs of the community. Bringing together educators, health care professionals, social workers, recreation specialist, and community members to provide the education, training, and support needed for young people and their families to develop the skills necessary to take charge of their lives, enhancing positive life skills, health, and employability.
- The copyright is in the public domain because it has expired
- The copyright was injected into the public domain for other reasons, such as failure to adhere to required formalities or conditions
- The institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control or
- The institution has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions.
Please add additional copyright tags to this image if more specific information about copyright status can be determined. See Commons:Licensing for more information.List of site sources >>>