Page:EB1911 - Volume 22.djvu/252

Rh potential circuits, and hence the difficulties just considered are for the most part peculiar to American systems.

Distances of Transmission.—The ultimate determining factor in the distance to which power can be commercially transmitted is the economic side of the transmission, the maximum distance being the maximum distance at which the transmission will pay. As a mere engineering feat the transmission of power to a distance of many hundred miles is perfectly feasible, and, judging from the data available, the phenomena encountered in increasing the length of lines have not been of such character as to cause any hesitation in going still farther, provided the increase is commercially feasible. In American practice, it is within the truth to say that nearly all transmissions of reasonable size (say a few hundred kilowatts) to distances of twenty miles, or less, are pretty certain to pay. At distances up to fifty miles, in a large proportion of cases power can be delivered at prices which will enable it to compete with power locally generated by steam. From fifty to one hundred miles (on a large scale-several thousand kilowatts) the chances for commercial success are still good. The larger the amount of ower transmitted, the better on the whole is the commercial outllbok. The longest one yet operated has already been noted, and may be regarded as a commercial success. In certain localities where the cost of fuel is extremely high, transmissions of several hundred miles may prove successful from a commercial as well as an engineering standpoint, but the growth of industry, which indicates the necessity for such a transmission, may go on until, through improved facilities of transport, the cost of fuel may be greatly lowered and the economic conditions entirely changed. Such a modification of the conditions sometimes takes place much more quickly than would be anticipated at first sight, so that when very long distance transmissions are under consideration, the permanence of the conditions which will render them profitable should be a very serious subject of consideration.

 POWIS, EARLS AND MARQUESSES OF. Before the Norman Conquest the Welsh principality of Powis, comprising the county of Montgomery and part of the counties of Brecknock, Radnor, Shropshire, Merioneth and Denbigh, was subject to the princes of North Wales. Early in the 12th century it was divided into upper and lower Powis. In 1283 Owen ap Griffin, prince of upper Powis, formally resigned his princely title (nomen et circulum principatus) and his lands to the English king Edward I. at Shrewsbury, and received the lands again as an English barony. (See Montgomeryshire Collections, 1868, vol. i.). This barony of Powis passed through female inheritance to the family of Cherleton and in 1421 to that of Grey. It fell into abeyance in 1551.

In 1587 Sir Edward Herbert (d. 1594), a younger son of William Herbert, earl of Pembroke, purchased some of the lands of the barony, including Red castle, afterwards Powis castle, near Welshpool, and in 1629 his son William (c. 1573-1656) was created Baron Powis. William's grandson, William, the 3rd baron (c. 162Q~I6Q6), was created earl of Powis in 1674 and Viscount Montgomery and marquess of Powis in 1687. The recognized head of the Roman Catholic aristocracy in England, Powis was suspected of complicity in some of the popish plots and was imprisoned in the Tower of London from 1678 to 1684. He followed James II. into exile and was created duke of Powis by the dethroned king. The English government deprived him of his estates, but these were restored to his son William, the 2nd marquess, in 1722. William, who had a somewhat chequered career as a jacobite, died in October 1745, and when his son William, the 3rd marquess, died in 1748 the titles became extinct. .

In 1748 Henry Arthur Herbert (d. 1772), who had been made Baron Herbert of Chirbury in 1743, was created Baron Powis and earl of Powis. He allied himself with the earlier holders of these titles, with which family he was distantly connected, by marrying Barbara, a niece of the 3rd marquess. The titles became extinct a second time when his son George Edward died in January 1801. George's sister and heiress, Henrietta Antonia (1758-1830), married Edward Clive (1754-1829), son and heir of the great Lord Clive. In 1794 he was made Baron Clive of Walcot, and in 1804, after serving as governor of Madras from 1798 to 1803, he was created Baron Powis and earl of Powis. His son Edward, .the 2nd earl (1785-1848), took the name of Herbert in 1807 in lieu of that of Clive. He was a member of parliament from 1806 to 1839, and was elected in opposition to the Prince Consort, as chancellor of the university of Cambridge- in 1847. His second son was Lieut.-General Sir Percy Egerton Herbert (1822-1876), who distinguished himself in the Crimean War, and Sir Percy's son, George Charles (b. 1862), became the 4th earl in 1891.

POWNALL, THOMAS (1722-1805), British colonial statesman and soldier, was born at Saltfleetby, Lincolnshire, England, in 1722. He was educated at Lincoln and at Trinity College, Cambridge, where he graduated in 1743. He entered the office of the lords commissioners of trade and plantations, of which his brother John was then secretary; and in 1753 he went to America as private secretary to Sir Danvers Osborn, just appointed governor of New York. Osborn committed suicide soon after reaching New York (Oct. 6), but Pownall remained in America, devoting himself to studying the condition of the American colonies. At the Albany Congress, in 1754, he met Benjamin Franklin, and a life-long friendship between the two resulted. In 1756 he returned to England, and presented to Pitt a plan for a campaign against the French in Canada, to begin with the investment of Quebec. In 1757 Pitt appointed him governor of Massachusetts, in which office he heartily supported Pitt's policy during the Seven Years War, and in 1758 encouraged the equipment of a force of 7000 men, to be recruited and armed in New England; but the French power in America once broken, Pownall came more directly under the influence of the lords of trade, and his unwillingness to carry out the repressive policies of that body caused his transfer to the governorship of South Carolina in February 1760. This office he held nominally for about a year; but he never went to South Carolina, and in June 1760 he returned to England. In 1762-1763 he was Commissary-general of the British troops in Germany. As member of parliament for Tregony in 1768-1774 and for Minehead in 1774-1780, he at first sided with the Whigs in opposing all plans to tax the American colonists, but he supported North's administration after the outbreak of the War of Independence. He died at Bath on the 25th of February 1805. In 1764 he published (at first anonymously) his famous Administration of the Colonies (other editions appeared in 1765, 1766, 1768 and 1774), in which he advocated a union of all British possessions upon the basis of community of commercial interests.

For an extended account of Pownall's career and a bibliography of his publications see Thomas Pownall, M.P., F.R.S. (London, 1908), by Charles A. W. Pownall, a distant kinsman, who attempts to prove that Pownall was the “ author behind the scenes ” of the “ Letters of junius " and “ that Francis was his subordinate."

POYET, GUILLAUME (1473-1548), French magistrate, was born at Angers. After practising successfully as a barrister at Angers and Paris, he was instructed by Louise of Savoy, mother of the king, Francis I., to uphold her rights against the constable de Bourbon in 1521. This was the beginning of his fortunes. Through the influence of the queen-mother he obtained the posts of advocate-general (1530) and president of the parlement of Paris (1534), and became chancellor of France in 1538. He was responsible for the legal reform contained in the ordinance of Villers-Cotterets (1539), the object of which was to shorten procedure. This ordered the keeping of registers of baptisms and deaths, and enjoined the exclusive use of the French language in legal procedure. With the constable de Montmorency he organized an intrigue to ruin Admiral Chabot, and procured his condemnation in 1541; but after the admiral was pardoned, Poyet was himself thrown into prison, deprived of his offices, and sentenced to a fine of 100,000 livres. He recovered his liberty in 1545, and died in April 1548.

See C. Porée, Guillaume Poyet (Angers, 1898).

POYNINGS, SIR EDWARD (1459-1521), 'lord deputy of Ireland, was the only son of Robert Poynings, second son of the 5th Baron Poynings. His mother was a daughter of Sir William Paston, and some of her correspondence is to be found in the