British Guiana champion Inter-territorial quadrangular cricket in 1956 - Shan Razack

     

British Guiana emerged champion in the first ever Inter-territorial quadrangular cricket final against Barbados at Bourda in 1956 

Cammie Smith is often referred to as Legall's "Bunny". Legall has taken the wicket of Cammie Smith on four of the six occasions that he played against him at Bourda 

BG were well on their way to another mammoth total when in 292 minutes at their disposal they took 283 runs off the Barbados bowling for the loss of four wickets as the first Inter-colonial quadrangular cricket final before an estimated 12,000 spectators including His Excellency, Sir Partick Renison K.C.M.G., Lady Renison and their daughter Elizabeth in brilliant weather at Bourda.
Rohan Kanhai while making sure of a place to tour England in (1957) was undefeated on 59 while his fellow Berbician Joe Solomon is sharing an unfinished fifth-wicket partnership of 68 runs with him has 28 to his credit. The outstanding feature of the day’s play was the magnificent knock of 41 in 47 minutes by Bruce Pairaudeau who is also looking for a place on the West Indies team. Pairaudeau treated medium pacer new comer Lionel Williams to the baptism of fire on his first appearance at Bourda collecting three blistering fours from his first over and then finding the boundary boards three times in the first over he received from Garfield Sobers. His sparkling knock included eight fours in all before he was unfortunately run out through a misunderstanding with fellow opener Glendon Gibbs to give the colony a good start at 54 runs for the first wicket.
Gibbs went on to register 80 valuable runs and sharing in a second-wicket partnership of 117 with his captain Clyde Walcott who made 64 in businesslike manner. Basil Butcher who had top scored in the semifinal match against Jamaica with an undefeated 154 failed to come off, being leg before to the second ball after tea from Eric Atkinson for four. The homesters were well ahead of the clock, Kanhai looks good for another century and so did Solomon who was middling the ball and displaying supreme confidence in his ability to stay there and make runs. BG ran up on the second day the almost impregnable score of 582 for the loss of nine wickets.

The day’s play was highlighted by the two century innings by the Berbicians Rohan Kanhai and Joe Solomon coming after their two hundreds in the semifinals match against Jamaica. Kanhai’s effort was a magnificent knock of 195 and further strengthened his claim for West Indies selection for the 1957 tour to England. He was run out from a beautiful throw in by Frank King who plugged the bowler’s end to end a stay that had lasted 378 minutes and had included 22 boundaries. He had been associated in a record fifth wicket partnership with Solomon that realized 251 runs and had sent the Bajans on a leather-hunting assignment for well over four hours. Solomon’s 108 in 243 minutes was compiled mainly by elegant late cuts, fluent cover drives and almost contemptuous leg glances. Gifted with a very good eye and a great deal of concentration Solomon has also put himself among the candidates for West Indian touring caps. The day’s play lasting the usual 300 minutes produced 299 runs as Kanhai and Solomon attacked the bowling from the word go and scored 107 runs in 90 minutes before the luncheon interval. Only two wickets fell in the first three and a half hours of play but after the tea interval the Barbadians broke through, and captured three wickets in the closing stages among which wicket-keeper Clifford McWatt made 41 with six fours. BG closed the day’s play at 581 for nine, Baijnauth 3, Legall 4 made in 592 minutes. Only 22 minutes of actual play were possible during which time BG lost her remaining wicket without addition to her weekend score of 581 for 9.
And the disaster befell the little island of Barbados when opening batsman Cammie Smith was caught by Baijnauth at second slip off the first ball he received from Pat Legall. Left with seven minutes batting before lunch, Barbados started disastrously as Pat Legal, the only recognized fast bowler in BG bowling with a very slight breeze sent down a medium paced out-swinger to opener Cammie Smith who casually went across, played at it and Baijnauth at second slip took a simple catch. Interestingly enough, Sonny “SugarBoy” Baijnauth, a 44-year-old veteran who last played for the colony some nine years ago was recalled to the side, and being one of five Berbicians who made the team that year.
When the rains came Barbados were 18 for one. Sobers 12, Eric Atkinson 1, needing 563 runs and nine wickets to fall. Barbados, rivals in the final game against the home team received a rude awakening when they were shot out for 211 runs in their innings, and following on 370 in arrears, lost another four wickets before the close for 67. In the 280 minutes of thrilling cricket, BG took the initiative early with the removal of Eric Atkinson and the Barbadians at 50. Then followed the best stand of the innings between Sobers and Weekes which added 93 runs for the third-wicket partnership. With the dismissal of Weekes a complete rout followed, the seven remaining batsmen adding 68 runs between them.

Garry Sobers, West Indies and Barbados opener in a concentrated knock in which was a mixture of exquisite stroke play as well as defense seemed to be the answer to the problem facing the West Indies selectors-a suitable opening pair. His 77 was untainted and came at a time when his team was in dire need for runs. Incidentally, he was top scorer for his side and is holding the fort in the second innings with 32 undefeated runs. Everton Weekes’ 63 unworthy of the master. He never looked confident and failed to produce the brilliance of which fans are accustomed. BG spin twins Ivan Madray and Lance Gibbs further enhanced their claims for invitation by the West Indies selectors to the Trinidad trials. Spinning accurately and always on the spot they broke the backbone of the Barbados batting thus paving the way for the dramatic collapse by tea for 211 runs. They shared four wickets each. Madray securing his at a personal cost of 61 runs, while Gibbs gave away 68 runs. BG supporters were jubilant and rightly so.

There was that air of expectancy as the Barbados openers-Smith and Sobers-came out for the second time. Unfortunately for the tourists it was Smith who received again from Legall. The first ball received was an inswinger which struck him high up as he missed his shot. He played the second ball uncertainly and was caught plumb in the middle of his wicket with the third ball. The confident appeal which followed found Umpire Ifill raising that deadly finger in agreement. Smith, his head lifted and then lowered in despair wended his way back to the pavilion. He had completed a pair of spectacles and Barbados as in the first innings had lost a wicket without a run being scored. It has been a very unhappy match for Smith who was dismissed first ball in the first innings and now after playing one ball and he second hitting him on the pads for a disallowed appeal, he was out for a duck again.When Smith was dismissed first ball in the first innings as memory could tell, it was the second time that a wicket had been taken with the first ball of an Inter-colonial innings. The first was when U.B. “Ric” McKenzie of BG was bowled by E.A.V. (Foffie) Williams of Barbados during the Goodwill series just after the war. Whenever this match is being discussed, Smith is often referred to as Legall’s “Bunny”. Weekes was run out for 4. An appeal twenty minutes before the close was upheld with the score at 67 for four. Sobers on 32 and Eric Atkinson 10. BG can hold their chin and face the other Caribbean cricketing territories square in their cricketing faces, because we have won, and won handsomely, and the Barbadians cannot say that were it not for the rain the outcome would have been different. A new era has been ushered in on the local cricketing scene.

Shan Razack

Alvin Kallicharran’s Test debut century

                                     Alvin Kallicharran’s Test debut century 

Shan Razack

 shanrazack@gmail.com 

Monday, December 14, 2009 at 1:41 AM 

New Zealand’s first tour of the Caribbean in 1972 produced an unenviable record-the first by an international team to end without a result in any of the first-class matches. It is true that, even with the inevitable frustration of drawn matches, there several days when the cricket was tense and interesting. On the whole, however, the tempo of cricket was slow.

New Zealand could only average 2.1 runs an over; the West Indies slightly under 2.8. No day yielded more than 300 runs. New Zealand seldom boasted it’s over rate at any time to more than 15 an over. In addition, the series was unfortunate to have been stricken by perhaps the worst Test match even seen in the Caribbean-the fourth Test in Georgetown.

Seldom has a more boring cricket match being played in the West Indies than the one, which produced the fourth draw of the series. A total of 993 runs were scored off 453 overs while only 10 wickets fell. There were several contributory factors. Both teams selected on the reputation of the Bourda pitch-can be bowlers’ worst nightmare- were pack with batsmen and devoid of bowlers, choices which begged a run-filled draw. The loss of three hours 20 minutes to a combination of rain and crowd interference on the first two days clearly convinced the cautions New Zealanders there was absolutely no chance of them winning and influence their completely negative batting approach. The pitch, always placid became slower and slower as the match progressed, offering the bowlers no assistance and yet eliminating the possibility of free stroke play by the batsmen.
Yet, for all these considerations, the main reason for what the headline writers aptly termed ‘Bourda Boredom’ was the attitude of the players themselves principally, Turner, Jarvis and Congdon. One could understand their desire to lay a sound foundation once the West Indies had declared at 365 for seven after an hour of the third day. Once this had been achieved subsequent tactics were completely inexcusable.

Turner, who had scored 259 on the same ground the previous week in the territorial match against Guyana, simply refused to take the slightest risk. It was his fourth double-century of the tour but, for all his runs there, he will never be kindly remembered by the Guyanese. Turner’s four double-centuries equaled a record established in 1930 by England’s Patsy Hendren for a West Indian tour. Congdon at one stage, had consecutive centuries in four matches when he was finally lbw to the new off-spinner Tony Howard-now manager of the beleagued West Indies team, and a One Test wonder- aiming through mid-wicket, he batted 11 ¾ hours and faced 762 deliveries. Jarvis, it must be admitted, had not played an innings of any consequence on the tour before this one. He was slower than his partner (182 in nine hours off 551 balls) but, in many ways, less stodgy.
If the openers were playing for records, they certainly achieved their objective. Their partnership of 387 was the highest by a New Zealand pair of any wicket in first-class cricket and the highest in tests against the West Indies. It was the second best opening stand in Test history, falling only 26 runs short set by Vinoo Mankad (231) and Pankraj Roy (173) for India against how ironically, New Zealand at Madras in 1955-56.
Turner’s score was his best in first-class cricket, as was Jarvis’s. Turner’s was also a ground record for Tests, beating West Indies prolific batsman Clifford Roach’s 209 against England in 1930.
Congdon approached his innings with even less enterprise than the two openers had done. His undefeated 61 lasted four hours and included only two boundaries (against bowlers such as Greenidge, Kallicharran and Rowe). His declaration, one felt, was forced on him only because of the economical approach of Charlie Davis who, in couple of overs just after lunch on the final day, brought light relief to the small crowd by mimicking the bowling styles of Gibbs, Morgan, Howard and even his country man, Sonny Ramadhin! When Turner was eventually caught at cover off Holford late on the fourth afternoon, the match and all of us present had already lost interest. By then, surely, New Zealand was in no danger of defeat. As if to add to the suffering, Fredericks and Greenidge proceeded to play with the same careful approach as the New Zealanders for the rest of the day and added 86 off 40 overs.
New Zealand’s brilliant fielding lifted their game. Vivian, Burgess, Jarvis and Hastings were particularly brilliant in the outfield cutting off dozens of runs with their diving saves and sure hands- reminds one of Carl Furlong of Trinidad. Vivian’s throw from the deep compared with any ever seen in the West Indies. Observers rated the team alongside the 1952-53 Indians as the best combination to tour the West Indies since the war. And bottle throwing from a section of the crowd after the run out of Lloyd. Despite the big scores by Turner and Jarvis, the best innings was played by our own diminutive Alvin Kallicharran, the young Guyanese in his first Test match.
Kallicharran who had made 54 runs against New Zealand, playing for the President’s X1 and then followed-up with a superb 154 and 51 versus New Zealand at Bourda was one of the four newcomers in the West Indies team- Clive Lloyd coming in for the first time in the series, the off-spinner Tony Howard and the opening batsman Geoffrey Greenidge making their debuts. Kallicharran came to the wicket late on the first day after Lloyd’s run out. By the time, the West Indies had not fared as well as had been hoped, being 178 for four. Fredericks had been unusually restrained for 41 before edging a catch to first slip; Greenidge, forced into the unaccustomed role as stroke maker, flashed at a wide ball and paid the penalty after an  impressive half-century in his first Test innings; Rowe, never certain, was bowled. 
At the time of his dismissal, Lloyd (43) seemed to be moving from third to top gear. The lanky left-hander had been strangely omitted from the first three Tests and had proved the folly of their ways to the selectors and the Guyanese crowd by two tremendous centuries in the preceding territorial match. His home crowd was preparing itself for another exposure innings when he hit the ball from Howard hard to mid-off and set off for the run. Davis did not agree with Lloyd’s judgment, followed the course of the ball and was surprised to see his partner on him when he turned. Lloyd never bothered to try to regain his ground. Within 10 minutes, the crowd’s disappointment at the loss of a local hero was reflected in a bottle-throwing incident- the second at Bourda- principally from the north-east corner of the ground, which held up play for 20 minutes. The players had to leave the field, Lloyd came to the broadcasting box to appeal for calm and, after 20 minutes, played was resumed in a tense atmosphere. Fortunately, the incident did not develop into anything like the previous bottle-throwing disturbances in the Caribbean.
When the match did continue, Davis, against whom feelings were vented, did have to remain in his hotel for the night under management instructions. Kallicharran’s first few minutes in Test cricket, therefore, had to be played out in this type of situation.
On the following day, Kallicharran had the further frustration of waiting until 20 minutes after lunch before he could resume because of rain. Lightening, they day, does not strike twice, but in the case of ‘bottle throwing at Bourda’it certainly did. Over fifty years ago, in 1954, my dad took me to see my First Test match there I was fortunate to witness the first of the bottle-throwing in the West Indies-England match
Cliff McWatt of BG and J.K. Holt Jr. of Jamaica were leading a rearguard action for the West Indies in the third Test. Batting with determination and obviously intent in getting the West Indies back into the game, they had added 99 respectable runs for the eight-wicket when disaster struck. McWatt was unfortunately run out for 54 and “Badge” Menzies made no hesitation in raising his finger. There was no doubt McWatt was out, but his brave innings had inspired hope of a West Indies revival, so when “Badge” gave him marching orders, a section of the crowd reacted badly. One man threw a bottle unto the field, and then, as if by some given command, a rain of bottles littered the field, forcing the English team to run-off.
It was sometime before the field could be cleared and at the end of the day, “Badge” had to be escorted to the pavilion after some spectators’ hurled insult, at the hapless man afterwards. By tea, Kallicharran had lost Davis, caught behind cutting, and Sobers offering a casual shot and was easily caught off the same bowler, Taylor. At 244 for six, Kali had only Holford, Findlay and the bowlers remaining. Holford, however, was of great assistance in Kalli’s quest to reach three figures. Kallicharran immediately attacked the previously tight New Zealand bowling. His confidence grew as a result and the partnership added 61 in even time, before Holford was leg before playing defensively to Congdon. Going into the third day, Kallicharran had 59 to his credit, and there and then his class was most evident. Realizing he had only a limited time to bat, he added the 41 needed for his century in an hour with a succession of superb shots all around the wicket, before Sobers declared. Overall, he batted for four hours, 18 minutes and struck a lofty six over long on off Howard and seven fours. At that point the match had died a natural death.
There is one gentleman who is still around who witnessed the Test match.
Isardat Ramdehol, a former Port Mourant all-rounder and vice-captain and opening batsman of the first- ever Berbice schoolboy cricket team against Demerara was at Bourda in 1972, and saw every one of Kalli’s runs scored. This is how he described it: “My eyes filled …when he was at naughty, nervous 99 and then reached 100! I cannot forget the ease with which he lifted Howard, the left-arm New Zealand spinner over mid-wicket for a towering six. The world was looking at a player who was to bring grace and charm to batting as his fellow colleague from Port Mourant, Rohan Bholalall Kanhai brought music to it.”
The main interest among the public on the final day was whether Glen Turner could equal Sobers’s world-record Test score of 365 not out. As it turned out, he fell well short. Just before lunch, trying to work Howard’s straight ball off middle and leg to the on side, he was LBW. His 259 was exactly the same as he had made in his previous innings against Guyana, being his best first-class score. He batted for 113/4 hours, hit 22 fours and faced 762 deliveries. The rest of the play was of mere statistical interest. Howard picked up his second wicket by bowling Burgess between bat and pad and Congdon eventually declared at 543 for three. The total was the highest ever by New Zealand in Test cricket, and the highest ever made in a Test match at Bourda. 
Fredericks and Greenidge rounded off the match without changing its character in any way, their 86 coming off 40 overs. Yet, apart from the actual result, there was a great deal to make the outlook for the immediate future optimistic. Principally, the emergence of a number of outstanding young players was particularly heartening. Rowe, the Jamaican right-hander and Kallicharran, the Guyanese left-hander, made the most impressive debuts imaginable. The former became the first batsman ever to score a double and a single century in separate innings of his first Test; the latter immediately recorded two successive centuries after he gained his place in the fourth Test team. Both were in their early twenties and both batsmen were in the true West Indian mould, possessing all the strokes and able and willing to play them.

Their showing vindicated the West Indian selector’s decision not to recall the veteran Rohan Kanhai for the series, although it could not excuse the way in which it was done without so much of a thank-you to Rohan Bholalall Kanhai for his long and distinguished service to the West Indies. 

West Indies 1973

 

Do Siblings Have the Same DNA?

 Do Siblings Have the Same DNA? 
Mercedes Brons
The answer is no, siblings do not have identical DNA, even if they share both parents in common.  The only exception to this is in the case of identical siblings, since their DNA is exactly alike. Siblings share some DNA with each other, but at least half of their DNA will be different.  How can this be?
Siblings don’t have the same DNA, 
Siblings inherit different DNA from their parents.
If all of your siblings take a DNA test and upload their DNA data to Gedmatch, you can do really cool things like create a Lazarus kit, which is basically a recreation of your parents’ DNA using the DNA of you and your siblings. You and your siblings have collectively inherited a majority of your parents’ DNA, and the Lazarus kit splices the data together into a DNA kit for each of your parents.
Some people believe that if one of their siblings has done an Ancestry DNA test, there is nothing new to learn from other siblings doing the test, too. You’ll find out below why this isn’t true at all!In this post, you’ll learn:
Whether siblings have the same DNA
How much DNA full siblings and half-siblings share
What you can learn from having a sibling – or all of your siblings – do a DNA test, too
Let’s get started!
So, Do Siblings Have the Same DNA?
The answer is no, siblings do not have identical DNA, even if they share both parents in common.  The only exception to this is in the case of identical siblings, since their DNA is exactly alike. Siblings share some DNA with each other, but at least half of their DNA will be different.  How can this be? 
Why don’t full siblings have the same DNA?
You inherit 50% of your DNA from each parent, but that equals only half of each of your parent’s DNA. In other words, you got half of your mother’s DNA and half of your father’s.
This means that there was 50% of each parent’s DNA that you didn’t inherit.  The portion of DNA that you did and didn’t inherit was selected in an entirely random way.
Your sibling inherited DNA in a similar way, meaning that they also got a random 50% selection of your mom and dad’s DNA. 
Since the process is random, at least as far as scientists can tell. What we know about random selection and statistics leads us to the fact that there is no way that each of you randomly inherited the exact same 50% of each parent’s DNA.
Some will be the same, while other portions of the DNA that you both got from your shared parents will be different.
The process of DNA inheritance is complicated, and many people are really overwhelmed when they realize how much they will have to learn about it in order to really make sense of their DNA results. 
The jellybean example
While I am over-the-moon in love with DNA testing, there is some pretty crazy science involved behind the scenes. That’s why I love the jellybean analogy.
Imagine that you are sitting in front of two giant jugs of jellybeans.  Each jug has 7,000 jellybeans, and each jug represents DNA from each of your parents.  You are instructed to pour half of each container into a new jug, which represents your own DNA.
You then put them back.
Your sister or brother comes along, and is instructed to do the same thing (let’s pretend, in our story, that the jellybeans magically were poured back into the right jug for mom or dad).  Your sibling pours jellybeans from each container into their own jug.
How many matching jellybeans do you think you each got? Chances are that about 50% of your jellybeans were the same, and about 50% of them were different.  This is a very simplified example of the way that DNA inheritance works. 
When your parents conceived you, the DNA that you randomly inherited from each parent was already programmed into the sperm and the egg.  A statistician could probably give us the exact odds, but all we really need to know is that probability favors about half of your randomly chosen jellybeans matching the ones that your sibling selected.
(There is a more detailed explanation below for those who want to learn even more about this)
In this image below, I illustrate overlapping shared DNA between siblings, and what is not shared:
Do Siblings Have the Same DNA

How much DNA do siblings share with each other?
As you see from the above graphic, full siblings should share about 50% of their DNA with each other.  This amount varies naturally, however, from about 32-54%.
The numbers for half-siblings varies, too.  Half-siblings share between 18-32% of their DNA.
Measured in centimorgans, which is the typical unit of measurement that is used to describe the length of DNA segments shared between relatives:
Full siblings: 2300-3900 centimorgans
Half-siblings: 1300-2300 centimorgans
Siblings share lots of DNA segments
I have a confession.   There is a pretty big flaw in my jelly bean example. 
Do you remember about centimorgans being the unit of measurement for shared DNA?  The jellybean example can give the impression that each centimorgan is inherited separately, like in an individual piece. 
In reality, this is not how it works at all.  Yes, you do inherit many centimorgans, but most of them are actually “stuck together” in what are called “DNA segments”. 
The centimorgans are not thrown into a big jug and mixed up, like my example could lead you to believe.
Siblings will share DNA segments on each chromosome
You have 22 numbered chromosomes that are relevant to our discussion here.  If you remember from school that you actually have 23 chromosomes, you are right – the 23rd one is a chromosome that determines whether you are biologically male or female. 
The inheritance patterns for the 23rd chromosome is very different than it is for the autosomal DNA, which is found in the 22 numbered chromosomes.
On each numbered chromosome, you will inherit some DNA from each parent.  The genetic material will be passed down in long segments that will vary in length.
These segments are made up of our individual jellybeans, if you will. 
If we imagine that your mother has a red, purple, blue, black, and white jellybean on her 2nd chromosome, you might have inherited the red, black, and white one, and it’s possible that they all show up right there in a row on your 2nd chromosome.
Your sibling will have received DNA in long segments, too.  If you have a sister, she might have inherited the red, purple, and black jellybeans. 
It’s possible that the red and purple ones are in one segment on the 2nd chromosome, and the black one is a segment by itself on the same chromosome. 
If this were the case, you would have two identical DNA segments on that chromosome.
Siblings share segments on each chromosome
On each chromosome, you will have DNA segments that you share with your sibling.  If your sibling is a full sibling, you should share lots of very long segments, and the total of those segments should add up to a number that falls within the range mentioned here in this article. 
Half-siblings will share lots of segments, too, but they will be shorter and the total number will probably (but not definitely) add up to a number higher than those shared between siblings.
The result of all of this is that while some of your DNA is identical to that of your sibling, there is much that won’t match.  Additionally, if you have lots of siblings, you can even share more or less DNA with them than your other siblings do.
Note:  Remember the red, purple, blue, black, and white jellybeans from chromosome 2?  Did you notice that neither sibling inherited the red one?  This is important to note for the next section.
What you can learn from having a sibling do a DNA test
So let’s talk about that red jellybean.  You didn’t inherit it, and if your sister didn’t do a DNA test, you don’t even know about it.  That red jellybean might contain a trace ethnicity that didn’t show up on your report, or it might match a third cousin that doesn’t match you – since 10% of our third cousins don’t share DNA with us. 
And that third cousin might have the key to breaking down the brick wall in your family tree.
If your mother did a DNA test, then you don’t have to worry.  The red jellybean was tested and the information contained within it will show up on her test results.  However, sometimes our parents can’t test, won’t test, or are no longer with us. 

This is why it’s good to have as many siblings test as possible, when the parents are not available for whatever reason.
If both parents have tested, there is no additional information that can be learned about family history, since all of the DNA inherited by the siblings started out as DNA from the parents. 
The only reason to test siblings if parents have already tested is if the siblings are curious to see what they inherited, or if they would just like to verify their relationships as full siblings.
If all of your siblings take a DNA test and upload their DNA data to Gedmatch, you can do really cool things like create a Lazarus kit, which is basically a recreation of your parents’ DNA using the DNA of you and your siblings. You and your siblings have collectively inherited a majority of your parents’ DNA, and the Lazarus kit splices the data together into a DNA kit for each of your parents.
Conclusion
I hope that you learned a little about how and why our DNA is not identical to that of our siblings.  I am looking forward to hearing from you in the comments.
Thanks for stopping by!

Share the knowledge!

Haiti - the first black Republic

The reason why the US the French. The British., the Spanish.. and the Europeans despise the first black Republic. Haiti. they never forgive  - Don Salmon 

Most family feuds are respecting property

  Bless up   
The accounts as I understand them are based on inheritance denied Rachael (Campbell) Sancho and Charles Campbell by their brother Donald Friday Campbell.
Most family feuds are respecting property - inheritance disallowed - fake wills.  There are too numerous accounts in Sancho heritage and other folks in my adopted ancestral homelands not to be accurate. 
I am not sure whether James Campbell disinherited his big daughter. I am aware he was not pleased with her impending marriage to Allick Sancho. I recalled being told James Campbell hurried himself by his horse and carriage to the church in Victoria to stop the wedding. Most narrators claim James Campbell discontinued his donations to the church.  Are you aware of James Campbell repairing St. Mary's Scots Church at Jonestown, Mahaica? I am told my ancestor Walter Young built the church. Also James Campbell may have built a church at Victoria. I suppose the one where my grandparents were married. I understand only the bell was a reminder by the mid-1950s.
Also it was said James Campbell donated the land upon which the leprosy Hospital was constructed. However, I have not managed to access any information on the ownership of Lancaster in the print media of the colonial authorities. 
Allick Sancho did not measure up to his expectations as a son-in-law.  I never heard of James Campbell visiting his daughter's residence at Sandy Street in Golden Grove and/or his son Charles at Nabaclis. Yet it appears James Campbell was extremely close to his grandchildren. My mother, Muriel Sancho was absolutely fond of her grandfather, James Campbell. Also my aunts gushed about their grandfather. Perhaps they visited with him at Mahaica. Yet, they were fond of Donald Friday Campbell. It appears whenever Muriel Sancho visited her Uncle; it was an emergency and/or to bond with Mama Deli Campbell.  They all loved Deli (Elias) Campbell.
My feeling is the feuding is no more. All the respective parties have departed. The ill-feelings are long gone with them. The land is now possessions of East Indians. I won't be for rehashing accounts that cannot be proven.  I am concerned and committed to acquiring knowledge of the genealogy of Campbell/Solomon/Friday/Kissoon and be them Ramotar and/or Mootoo and whoever else are our relatives.
I know the 1942 Daily Chronicle has accounts of the transitions of three Campbell people who are likely of interest to my Campbell heritage. I would to access same soonest. Copies of the papers are not readily available at the NYPL 
I believe let the feuding remain with who came and left before us. I have move on from that climate, a long time ago. I don't think any of my first cousins are into that past relationships. Perhaps Dr. James Campbell is a bit resentful. I detected he was not too enthusiastic talking about Donald Friday Campbell.  As per myself I regret not visiting Donald and Deli Campbell when I was into my twenties. I thought they passed on. I was surprised when I was enlightened Deli and Donald transitioned in November 1977 and April 1981, respectively. While I was in the GDF 1974-1977, I used to regularly run from Nabaclis to Mahaica Bridge and back. Had I known I would have visited my grand Uncle and Aunt? Why not?

Again bless up let's continue the communications. Shall we?

Norman Eustace Cameron writing about Thomas R. F. Elliott.

 EMANCIPATION CHORUS.

By T. R. F. Elliott.

 Forward! Sons of Africa;

March in Progress’ Train!

Now in far America

Yoked no more in chain.

“Forward!” let your watchword be,

Forward, Brethren! You are free;

Forward! ’Tis your jubilee;

Rise and wisdom gain!

Chorus.

Forward! Sons of Africa;

Though far o’er the sea;

Yet in far America

Chant your jubilee.

 Forward! Freedom, onward move!

Brethren of mankind!

Forward! Onward, strive to improve!

Elevate your mind.

Be not deaf to Progress’ call;

Forward, Brethren! March on, all!

You can rise, both great and small.

None should flag behind.

 Forward! Onward, upward rise!

Grasp a nobler fate;

Cultivate the gift that lies

Dormant and innate!

You no more in serfdom kept;

Fifty summers have not slept,

Have not mourned and have not wept

’Neath the tyrants’ weight.

 Forward! Try to imitate

Other who have striven

Hard to gain a nobler state,

Which at last is given,

Join the Ethiopic hand

In one vast, colossal band –

In one unity, so grand,

As that in heaven.

 

 

 

THANKSGIVING

 by T. R.  F. Elliott.

 God, Creator, Father dear!

Bend us low Thy gracious ear;

From Thy heav’nly home above,

List in mercy and in love

To this feeble psalm of praise

We, now freeborn, meekly raise

Joyfully, dear God, to Thee

In this year of Jubilee!

 God, Redeemer, Brother kind,

Holy, lowly, meek in mind;

Who on Calvary suffered death,

So to gain us ceaseless breath,

Hear from heav’n, Thy high abode,

This thanksgiving prayer and ode

Which we freeborn chant to Thee

In this year of Jubilee!

 God, our Comforter and Friend,

Be with us till time shall end;

Grant us grace, and strong faith give,

So that here on earth we live,

Perfect, upright, good and true,

While our heav’nly course pursue;

Hear our prayer we pour to Thee

In this year of Jubilee!

 Now, upraise your voices all!

On your knees each freeborn fall,

Praise Jehovah, King and God,

Bow submissive to His rod,

And His great bless’d name adore

Henceforth and for evermore!

Praise Him, O ye people free,

On this Freedom’s Jubilee!

 

REJOICE! ’TIS FREEDOM’S JUBILEE.

 Rejoice! rejoice! rejoice!

All hearts of true-born free!

Shout forth in grateful melody –

“Rejoice! rejoice! rejoice!

’Tis Freedom’s Jubilee!”

No more the tyrant’s yoke to bear,

No more his cruel anger fear,

No more this flesh with lashes tear,

No more the mark of woe we wear;

But free are we to-day,

Hence all should chant this lay,

In strains of sweetest harmony –

“Rejoice! rejoice! rejoice!

’Tis Freedom’s Jubilee!”

 “Rejoice! rejoice! rejoice!

All hearts of true-born free!

In tuneful voices join this glee –

“Rejoice! rejoice! rejoice!

’Tis Freedom’s Jubilee!”

Bless God that we have not been born

Poor wretched slaves, in bond forlorn ;

Our souls with ignorance adorn,

By toil and pain and grief out worn ;

No, free are we to-day,

Hence all should chant this lay,

In strains of sweetest harmony –

“Rejoice! rejoice! rejoice!

’Tis Freedom’s Jubilee!”

 “Rejoice! rejoice! rejoice!

All hearts of true-born free!

Sing forth this theme quite merrily –

“Rejoice! rejoice! rejoice!

’Tis Freedom’s Jubilee!”

Full fifty years have passed away

Since Slavery lost its ruling away,

And we, this first of August day,

Our psalm of thanks to God do pray ;

For free  we are to-day,

Hence all should chant this lay,

In strains of sweetest harmony –

“Rejoice! rejoice! rejoice!

’Tis Freedom’s Jubilee!”

 

JUBILEE CAROL

A merry Jubilee to all,

May choicest blessings on you fall

From those storehouses up above,

Teeming with peace, and joy and love,

May every heart be light and gay ;

In joy this day be passed away ;

May every voice in rapture call,

“A merry, merry, Jubilee to all!”

Chorus.

Merrily let us pass away,

 This happy merry Freedom Day;

This day the source of Freedom’s joyful birth,

Then all with eager hearts combine

To hail the Lord of Lords Divine

Oh, make ye no delay,

Come hail the Lord of Lords Divine

This merry, merry, Freedom Day.

 

The Earth within her circling bound,

Unchecked, hath fifty times gone round

Since freedom was restored to those

Who erewhile suffered bitter woes ;

Their hearts made glad, their faces bright

Their souls unshroud to wisdom’s light?

This day to celebrate we meet

And “Merry Jubilee to all” we greet.

 

Chorus: Merrily let us pass away, etc.

 

A happy freedom to old age!

May youth enjoy long life and sage!

A happy freedom to the sad!

Oh, may their hearts again be  glad;

A merry freedom to the poor –

May God replenish their spent store!

To weak and strong, to great and small,

A merry, merry freedom to all!

 

Chorus: Merrily let us pass away, etc.

 

T. R. F. Elliott., 1888

It is very easy to understand how religion and emancipation had such a prominent place in the poetical writings of the earlier negroes. They naturally saw emancipation as the greatest event in their history and felt its inspiring influence, hence much of their poetry centered in this theme.

There is yet another feature, namely, that in the earliest productions, the thanks for emancipation are distributed between God, Queen Victoria, and the politicians. In later productions the poet gave his thanks to God principally, while in years to come the value of the right hand of the slaves in battle in hastening emancipation will be recognized by our poets. We may compare Oliver’s poem “oh! Ye first of August” with the following anonymous song, written in a more martial and rugged spirit:-

“ Liberty, boys forever, boys hurrah

Oh, liberty, boys forever, boys hurrah, boys hurrah

Oh, we rally round the bounty blue flag

We rally once again

Shouting in the battle cry Freedom.

 “ Victoria gave us freedom, boys hurrah,

Oh, Victoria gave us freedom, boys hurrah, boys hurrah

Oh, we rally round the bounty blue flag

We rally once again

Shouting in the battle cry Freedom.”

 

The “rally round the bounty blue flag” becomes clear when one bears in mind that the mediaeval Africans were accustomed to fight with flags and standards, and that the slaves would sometimes hoist a flag in their rebellions.

Fifty years later Thomas Elliott conceived the idea of celebrating the Jubilee of emancipation in fine style. He spared no pains to make it a success, and so filled was he with enthusiasm over the event that it is not surprising that his own  songs best reflected the spirit of the occasion. All the songs and hymns song were of local creation, and so was the music, the choir  of 150 voices being under Sandiford Blades, one of the outstanding musicians and composers of the time. All the contributors, Elliott, Blades, Leo, G. W. Rockcliffe, S. E. Wills seemed to recognize that God himself was behind the great emancipation. Elliott was also a prose writer. He actually wrote some account of the history of the Negroes from1838 to 1888, but I do not know what became of it.

 

Source:

Cameron, Norman Eustace (1931) Guianese poetry, covering the hundred years' period, 1831-1931. Selected and edited by Norman Eustace Cameron, Georgetown , British Guiana , Printed by "The Argosy" Company, Limited, 1931.