Preview

Why Was Pitt Able to Dominate Politics Between 1783 and 1793

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
2172 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Why Was Pitt Able to Dominate Politics Between 1783 and 1793
Why was Pitt able to dominate politics between 1783 and 1793?

In the late 18th century, William Pitt managed to turn what looked like an unstable political situation, the government being known as the “Mince-pie administration”, into a period of dominance for him and his supporters. So strong was his hold on politics at the time that he was able to pass an India Bill in 1784, just two years after Fox’s version of the bill had been rejected and forced the Fox-North coalition out of power. Pitt also had many successes financially, never having trouble in passing his budgets between 1783 and 1993. So how did Pitt manage to gain such a stronghold on British Politics in this key decade of British history? Even though by this decade the Monarchy did not have the feudal power it had held in the 16th century, King George III was crucial in creating Pitt’s dominance. For any government to be successful it needed the backing of the King. This had been shown by the failure of the Fox-North coalition due to the King refusing to use royal patronage during the period. Royal influence created and maintained much of Pitt’s support. In 1784 alone, the King created 119 new peerages. He tactically gave titles to men who had influence over men in the Commons. For example, he gave a peerage to the second son of the Duke of Northumberland, leading to six of the Duke’s seven loyalists becoming supporters of the new government. All this led to Pitt having an ever increasing majority in Parliament, making it easier and easier for him to carry out his plans. What was also a key to Pitt’s success was that the King bestowed a large amount of confidence and trust in Pitt. He let Pitt get on with the business of running the country without much interference. Even when Pitt brought up the topic of constitutional reform, something the King had been strongly opposed to, the King did not get involved. Their relationship was professional rather than friendly, but it worked well. The confidence

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    The end of the interregnum government heralded Charles II's return to the throne. The period known as the restoration can be argued to have been 'successful' for Charles. However, a successful reign can be distinguished in many ways. At the time one of the most important issues for Charles was trying to create a stable financial and stable settlement after the long period without a Monarch, and to an extent, 'success', can be defined to whether a stable settlement was established. Charles' triumphant, Anglican, State Church was arguably successful as it formed a stable religious settlement, yet on the other hand, it was not what Charles initially wanted. In this way it could be argued that 'success' can be measured to what extent Charles got what he wanted, and how much control he had over his Parliament. A successful reign can also be measured by assessing how well liked Charles was by his people at the time of financial difficulty following the grievances of the Civil War.…

    • 1214 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In March 1784 the British General Election consolidated William Pitt’s power in many different ways.…

    • 679 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The French revolution broke out in 1789, and while at first Britain was pleased and welcomed the changes that the revolution brought to France (i.e. the new constitutional monarchy mirrored Britain's political system in many ways.) Pitt and his government began to become worried when the revolution in France stepped up a gear and became more extreme, they obviously didn't want a repeat of the French experience in Britain. The outcome of the revolution was inevitable and in 1792 when France became a republic, it was also the start of a period of time (1793-1794) that became known as 'revolutionary terror'. Revolutionary terror is essentially force used or implemented against people or groups who are counter-revolutionary. This caused a great fear of revolution in Britain and contributed to Britain going to war with France In January 1793 after the execution of Louis XVI. This led to a fear of French invasion of Britain throughout the country and worried Pitt and his government greatly from 1793-1801. This fear was not unfounded as France tried to invade Britain twice, firstly, in 1797 a small group of French soldiers landed in the small welsh village of Fishguard . Even though this small band of troops were easily captured and dealt with, it still began to plant a very real threat of invasion into Britain's soils. In 1798, a larger French military force landed in Ireland and successfully assisted the Irish Rebels, which again showed and proved that the threat of invasion to Britain was now significant and there were now also British worried that France would begin to use Ireland as a 'stepping-stone' to invade Britain. After Pitt declared War on France in 1793, he had hoped to fight a traditional colonial war, but due to the state of the army, he had to focus Britain's army on the naval war and pay others to fight the colonial war for him. He paid for this by introducing income tax.…

    • 1198 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    -English Prime Minister William Pitt threw his nation's full military might into the American campaign.…

    • 518 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the beginning of Pitt’s rule, he governed a minority government. This was a great challenge for Pitt as he was young and inexperienced and facing the strong and experienced oppositions of Burke, Fox, North and Portland. However, we can see that with the King’s support, Pitt was able to gain more popularity amongst independent MPs. By 1784, the…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Upon Buckingham’s dispersal, many former enemies of the King had made peace with him and entered his service. The Dukes of Arundel and Bristol, who had been against Buckingham in the House of Lords had decided that Parliament had gone too far in imposing the King and took up positions at Court. The death of the Duke of Buckingham had deeply affected Charles and the King had become reluctant to never again depend on one minister.…

    • 1571 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Charles also did not believe in Parliament, which caused conflict when he sold titles, forced loans, and had imprisoned many commoners without trial. Parliament began to act against those immoral actions and forced a Petition of Rights to be signed in order to stop his wrong doing. Eventually Parliament had enough of Charles not obeying laws and petition causing the Civil War of 1642-1699, which is where Oliver Cromwell takes control of England and gives himself the title of “Lord Protector.” Cromwell was not an honorable man in the eyes of England, he had forced his way upon commoners and did not tolerate those who disapproved of his power. He showed them who held authority by threatening all of those who held doubt to accumulate power. He did not tolerate those who disapproved of his power or those who mocked his power, and showed them who held authority by threatening all of those who held doubt. Although Cromwell had denied the Crown to England it was a political strategy in order to gain supporters and not be deemed as a hypocrite. Thomas Hobbs, a writer during the English Revolution, describes the nature of man when in a disagreement, “First, competition; secondly, insecurity; thirdly, glory. The first, makes men invade for gain; second, for safety; and the third, for reputation.” Although Hobbs was talking about man in general this can be related to Oliver Cromwell and his power trip. Cromwell used his authority in the Civil War to gain political power over other competition as a personal gain to have what he thought was right casted upon commoners. He was self reliant and thought of him self as a glorious man, which can be seen by his title “Lord Protector.” However, Cromwell was guilty of many crimes, none of which being death, leading to “hell-fire,” as stated by Edward Hyde. Parliament finally took one last stand against authority, that attempted to overrule,…

    • 677 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Because of how hard life was in Tudor England, Poor Law was passed in 1601 to provide schools, hospitals, childcare and houses of correction. When the last of Tudor Monarchs died, the country became prosperous and progressive and you had to fight to gain respect. That meant that the rivalries between Parliament and monarchy were about to explode into open conflict. The Puritans refused to accept the systematic discrimination and the House of Commons became a Puritan stronghold from which opposition to the king was organized. When Charles was forced to reopen Parliament in 1640 to ask for taxes to finance a war in Scotland, Parliament refused to help him and insisted on having more say in the running of the country and they demanded control of the army and so the Civil War began. After 20 years of fighting, Restoration came along. William III’s army forced James to leave England and his victory became known as the Glorious Revolution. It was the first monarch to officially recognize the constitutional rights of Parliament. The Bill of Rights, signed in 1689, said that no law or tax could be passed without Parliament’s approval and the no armed forces could be kept within the kingdom without their…

    • 460 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Lotherington says, ‘No king could rule without the co-operation of the nobility, which was largely responsible for conducting the king’s business in the provinces’ and Pendrill supports this when he says that Henry VII’s prime aim was to restore a partnership in government, shifting the balance in his favour after the disruption of the Wars of the Roses. Policies to achieve this combined a mix of the ‘carrot and stick’ technique. The ‘stick’ approach combined military and financial restraints and a reduction in central and local power. Whereas the ‘carrot,’ approach saw Henry develop a reward system for service and encouraging loyalty from his peers. However the question remains, how did Henry do when meeting the nobles. Are we to believe Pendrill who claims, ‘Henry’s relationship with his nobility was, ultimately a failure.’ Or are we to follow Guy’s line who claims, ‘by means of bonds, Henry VII in effect disabled his nobility.’…

    • 1899 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    In this essay I will be explaining what the Royal Prerogative is and if it is the most important source of the constitution. The Royal Prerogative is traditional powers and privileges of monarchs, such as to make war and peace, and to act as the head of the executive in the country. Furthermore some more examples of the powers and privileges given were to command armies and appoint generals to fight with the monarch, to appoint ministers, to raise money to pay soldiers and to appoint judges to maintain law and order. The reason why the Royal Prerogative is still the most important part of the constitution is because the Queen who is formal head of state gives her powers to the Prime Minister, however if there was ever a dictator in power the Queen would not pass a law.…

    • 1029 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    He refused to be a king but in the other hand he accepted to be the Lord Protector. After being the Lord Protector they renewed the title to Protector. He conquered Ireland and Scotland while being the Protector. He ruled during England’s only Republic and he was an effectively leader of the government from 1651 onwards. He had a troubled relationship with Parliament and, on April 20th 1653, he dismissed the Rump Parliament by armed force, setting up an assembly known as Barebones Parliament.…

    • 570 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    War of the Roses

    • 474 Words
    • 2 Pages

    During Henry VI reign he lost the Hundred Year's War and all of England's French territories. When Henry became mentally ill the duke of York, Richard, took charge. After Henry recovered, he and Richard were unable to see eye to eye on who was to continue ruling England. This lead to the Wars of the Roses and to the capture and killing of Henry by Richard son Edward IV. (Gormely para:2) Henry was married to Margaret of Anjou. Margaret was a strong woman and was a very impressive leader to the Lancaster army. She had the courage to lead the army into dangerous battles and had the intellect to direct key strategies (Gormley para:4) After the dethronement of Henry VI, the House of York took control over England for about 24 years until finally Henry VII became king establishing the first Tudor dynasty.…

    • 474 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Tudor governments can be considered to have dealt poorly with rebellion on account of repeated noble support for rebellions throughout the period. The support of the nobility was crucial to maintaining control of the localities and additionally, noble support of a rebellion could increase the risk of a rebellion overthrowing the monarch. This was due to the likely contribution of funds to bolster supplies and troops with the involvement of retainers and experienced foreign mercenaries. Lack of noble co-operation with the government could also increase the threat of rebellion. This can be seen in the Cornish rebellion of…

    • 2557 Words
    • 11 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    loyal to the king and to friends, brave to face consequences in front of the King…

    • 434 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The stability of Parliament was a key issue throughout the reign of Oliver Cromwell as Protector. From the opening of the first Procterate in 1654 Cromwell faced continual struggles in parliament. Cromwell faced strong opposition, which can be most clearly seen by attacks upon the whole Procterate edifice hoping to destroy the system and the head of state by Republicans and other opponents of the state. Historian Gaunt attributes this dissatisfaction to ‘a failure of Parliament to act as Cromwell had hoped’ much needed reforms had been lost and other ill-thought-out measures were pushed through. He attributed this failure to both the ‘strength of the opposition to the existing system within the house itself’ and also claims that Cromwell also might share the responsibility as the Protector had failed to ‘guide and to control the session’. The latter of these points seems to be the most significant; as there is evidence that Cromwell had misjudged the mood of parliament and overall there was a theme of bad planning. Cromwell sought to deal with this trouble initially by using troops to temporarily close the house after the Republicans attacked. He then tried to quell the opposition within parliament by trying to prove his legitimacy as leader, firstly by seeking to show that his elevation had not come through personal ambition. Secondly, he attempted to demonstrate that a large number of individuals and institutions had already given ‘explicit’ or ‘implicit’ consent to the regime in general and his office in particular. In order to do this he took the drastic action of dissolving parliament and made all the MP’s wishing to return to the house sign a ‘Recognition’ of his constitution. Only eighty of the four hundred and sixty Mp’s refused to sign this, a clear majority signed, so in effect Cromwell had proved his legitimacy.…

    • 1169 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays