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

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

    • 679 Words
    • 3 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
  • Powerful Essays

    Charles’s led the country without calling parliament for 11 years from 1629 – 1640. He initiated personal rule for many reasons. Firstly his close relationship with Buckingham alienated Parliament and caused resentment by Parliament. Secondly Charles had very strong believed in divine right and therefore saw no need for Parliament. Furthermore Charles religious policy’s led many to believe of a Catholic Conspiracy, which further distanced the King from Parliament. Lastly the King wasn’t getting substantial financial help from Parliament and decided that he would try and raise the finance without him.…

    • 1197 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Powerful 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
  • Good Essays

    William Pitt became Prime Minister in 1783 at just 24 years old. He came to power soon after the American War of Independence (1776-1783). Britain's status as a superpower had been undermined by this loss, and she was now isolated in Europe. The war had left Britain with huge national debt, and the dramatic fall in exports to America meant that her finances were also in an awful state. It was in this climate of political instability that Pitt became Prime Minister of Britain. He faced huge opposition in the House of Commons at the start of his rule. His was nicknamed the 'Mince Pie Administration' because people thought that it would be over by Christmas. Far from this, he went on to rule Britain for over ten years. It has since been keenly…

    • 1875 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    According to the introduction in William Pitts speech on the Stamp Act, although Pitt firmly believed that Parliament had the right to legislate for the colonies, they did not have the right to tax them.3 In his speech, Pitt fought that it was not reasonable for Parliament to levy taxes on the colonies without representation for the colonies within Parliament while making decisions that would affect the colonies. He argued that the “greater must rule the less; but so rule it, as not to contradict the fundamental principles that are common to both”4, meaning that Britain should rule the colonies, but they had the obligation to treat them fairly. Pitt goes on to make the point that the British could force the Americans to accept the Stamp Act, but it would still be unfair and unreasonable. Pitt does not come in front of the House with multiple examples of cases or laws that prove how and why the Stamp Act is unjust; he only comes with one example, Chester and Durham. Pitt uses the Chester and Durham case to show that “even under arbitrary reign, parliaments were ashamed of taxing people without their consent and allowed them representatives”5. He believes that the Americans are right for revolting against the Stamp Act because it takes away from the…

    • 608 Words
    • 3 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
  • 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

    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
  • 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
  • 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

    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