Yet, like most averages, the figure

Yet, like most averages, the figures conceal discrepancies. The 18th century picture was distorted by the two long premierships of Walpole and the Younger Pitt at either end, standing like two firm posts, holding up a fairly soggy clothesline of interme­ diate laundry. Walpole and Pitt were seen as skilful financiers, combining the Chancellorship of the Exchequer with the pre­ miership. Walpole looked much more to his own finances, as wel l as those of the country, than did Pitt, and left in Houghton one of the most sumptuously accoutred mansions in East Anglia. Pitt left debts, but his name resonated down the 19th century. Both Peel and Gladstone were in the habit of referring with great respect to the principles and policies of “Mr. Pitt”, making him almost a contemporary.
Nonetheless, I find it difficult to make sensible comparison between the 18th century Prime Ministers and their more recent successors. Their powers, their relationship with their Sovereigns, the style of parliamentary oratory, and indeed Parliament itself, were so different, I think it better to begin the game of ranking Prime Ministers from the Great Reform Bill. It is a game long played (with Presidents) in the US, but only recently seeping across the Atlantic, and like all games more a pastime for the participants than a source ofjudgments of Jehovah-likevalue.

Results (English) 1:

Yet, like most averages, the figures conceal discrepancies. The 18th century picture was distorted by the two long premierships of Walpole and the Younger Pitt at either end, standing like two firm posts, holding up a fairly soggy clothesline of interme diate laundry. Walpole and Pitt were seen as skilful financiers, combining the Chancellorship of the Exchequer with the pre miership. Walpole looked much more to his own finances, as wel l as those of the country, than did Pitt, and left in Houghton, one of the most sumptuously accoutred mansions in East Anglia. Pitt left 1.debts, but his name resonated down the 19th century. Both Peel and Gladstone were in the habit of referring with great respect to the principles and policies of "Mr. Pitt", making him almost a contemporary.Nonetheless, I find it difficult to make sensible comparison between the 18th century Prime Ministers and their more recent successors. Their powers, their relationship with their Sovereigns, the parliamentary style of oratory, and indeed Parliament itself, were so different, I think it better to begin the game of ranking Prime Ministers from the Great Reform Bill. It is a long game played (with Presidents) in the US, but only recently seeping across the Atlantic, and like all games more a pastime for the participants than a source ofjudgments of Jehovah-likevalue.

Results (English) 2:

Yet, like most averages, the figures conceal discrepancies. The 18th century picture was distorted by the two long premierships of Walpole and the Younger Pitt at either end, standing like two firm posts, holding up a fairly soggy clothesline of interme diate laundry. Walpole and Pitt were seen as skilful financiers , combining the Chancellorship of the Exchequer with the pre miership. Walpole looked much more to his own finances , as wel l as those of the country, than did Pitt, and left in Houghton one of the most sumptuously accoutred mansions in East Anglia. Pitt left debts, but his name resonated down the 19th century. Both Peel and Gladstone were in the habit of referring with great respect to the principles and policies of "Mr. The Pitt ", by Almost a HIM-making of contemporary.
Nonetheless, I of the find IT Difficult to the make sensible comparison Between the 18Th century of Prime MINISTERS and Their more recent successors. Their powers, their relationship with their Sovereigns , the style of parliamentary oratory, and indeed Parliament itself, were so different, I think it better to begin the game of ranking Prime Ministers from the Great Reform Bill. It is a game long played (with Presidents) in the US, but only recently seeping across the Atlantic, and like all games more a pastime for the participants than a source ofjudgments of Jehovah-likevalue.