Talk:William Pitt the Younger

Untitled
Mintguy, why, do you feel, should "tasked" not be used? Andy Mabbett 12:06, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree, Pitt described himself as a 'Independant Whig' ie he was a Whig in the sense he upheld the settlement of 1688 but distanced from the leading Whig magnates such as Rockingham etc.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.252.171 (talk) 01:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Party
Random musings on a problem that I can't see a clear solution for:

I'm not sure that there isn't a better page to discuss this on, but do we want to accept the traditional party allocations for Pitt, and indeed most other Prime Ministers for the latter part of the 18th century, or address the matter better?

The main problem stems from a relative discontinuity between the eras of Queen Anne, George I and even George II when there's a clear Whig/Tory divide, and the early 19th century when a similar divide can be seen. But in the middle it's murkier and most groupings in the Commons are really based around either personalities or ex governments.

It's relatively clear that Pitt's followers became the Tory Party of the 19th century, and Fox's become the 19th century Whigs. But what is the thread that links any of Harley & Bolingbroke, Bute, North and Pitt?

Pitt himself was the son of a prominent Whig leader, initially aligned himself in Parliament to the followers of Shelburne (considered a Whig), opposed the government of Lord North consistently (considered Tory) and on many issues such as parliamentary reform and religious tolerance he would be considered to be ideologically a Whig. The 1784 election was a national campaign, a rare thing for the time, but was really the Pitt Ministry vs the Fox-North Coalition, not a "Tory vs Whig" contest (and what would that make North?). The first prominent politician to actually call himself a Tory was George Canning later on. Whilst calling Pitt himself a Whig is very confusing, is stating "Political Party: Tory" no less confusing? Timrollpickering 14:09, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps he could have an explanation of this, and add in a passage on the pittites.

--71.143.152.181


 * In the meantime, the designation in the infobox has been expanded to "Tory (scholar consensus)[1] / Independent Whig (self description)[2]". However the first link is to the the web site Britannia.com, which claims to be written by experts but cannot really be seen as a scholarly source. A strange reference for such a statement, I think. I am not at all an expert, but it is doubtful that there is really a consensus: for example, this article mentions a scholar, James Sack, who "does not see Pitt as a Tory" (probably he tells that things are more complex, see here for a synopsis of his book) and the Encyclopaedia Britannica is also ambivalent about this. Bever (talk) 00:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * scholars continue to debate this and putting both Tory and Whig in the infobox is no help to anyone; I tried this: ''A matter of scholarly debate. (ref) Rjensen (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sack summarises Ehrman's exhaustive three-volume biography of Pitt: "Thanks to the efforts of his modern biographer, John Ehrman, the outlines of Pitt's intellectual makeup are now as complete as we are likely to possess from evidence left by that undemonstrative statesman. Ehrman skillfully develops Pitt's Whig philosophy with its additions in theology and history as rooted in Cambridge and derived largely from Isaac Newton and John Locke rather than from Plato and Aristotle" (From Jacobite to Conservative (Cambridge University Press, 1993), p. 84). The Tories as a parliamentary faction/party ceased to exist in the 1750s (J. C. D. Clark, The Dynamics of Change (Cambridge University Press, 1982)) and thereafter it was an unfriendly term of abuse heaped by opposition Whigs to ministerial Whigs rather than an accurate portrayal of the political principles of the person attacked.--Britannicus (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The modern Tory Party traces its continuous history to the coalition which Pitt put together in 1794 (the Duke of Portland became Home Secretary and brought the Portland Whigs with him - this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article unless I've missed it), but my understanding is that the name revived somewhat later, and even then was regarded as somewhat derogatory and embarrassing (wasn't it Peel who said "I may be a Tory but ..." in a speech?).Paulturtle (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Arms
Someone has copied and added the arms of Pitt's father not his. He was a younger son so would (if he ever used arms at all) have born those arms with a mark for difference. Alci12 12:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment inserted in Line 58
An unregistered user inserted the following suggestion at Line 58: "There should be at this point a paragraph explaining how Pitt became Prime minister! Pete Stephens, 19/10/07"&mdash;HopsonRoad 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish?
It is said that Pitt studied Spanish. The 1911 edition of Britannica calims he didn't speak any living language but English, except a little French. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.72.45.107 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Never! Never! Never!
I am under the impression that the comment on the American revolution was made by Pitt the Elder, not Pitt the Younger. The date doesn't really fit the younger, wikiquote has it under the elder, etc. Also there are several copies of the "last words" quote here. 68.49.189.130 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Old vandalism
I removed the errors added in this revision.

Dove t. (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Orginization of the Titles
could we move the titles (under the portrit) so that they are cronological, that would really help, thanks Klimintine (talk) 01:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Still prime minister?
Is this true? "He became the youngest Prime Minister in British History in 1783 at 24, and still is to date" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.189.217.40 (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! Well it's true he still holds the record and probably always will. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's a "meteoric rise" in the modern British government to be a junior minister in your early 30's, I think it's safe to say that this record will probably never be broken. It's actually fairly typical of the 18th century(if you were born in the right family); look at the ages of both commanders at the battle of Culloden Moor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.90.83 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, but 'both commanders at the battle of Culloden Moor' were royalty - Prince Charles Edward Stuart son of 'pretender' king and Duke of Cumberland son of then reigning king of Great Britain (George II).Cloptonson (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Titles
Is there a reason that William Pitt did not recieve any honorary awards, such as knighthood or peerage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manicwhale (talk • contribs) 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It is often customary, but not a golden rule, that politicians do not receive honours until they fully retire - and Pitt died while he was still prime minister. If he had lived longer he would probably have been made Duke of Bromley eventuallyLord Cornwallis (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Pitt was also extremely concerned about his reputation. He was determined to be a politican uncorrupted by power or time in office, and thus refused a lot of honorary awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.166.10 (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Financer of the French Revolution
I am removing the bit in the intro claiming Pitt was the financer of the French revolution in revenge for the French King's support for the American rebels in the American War of Independence - as this doesn't sound likely - a) Pitt was sympathetic to the American cause, and like his father opposed British intervention to regain the colonies so would be unlikely to seek revenge b) Pitt took Britain to war with revolutionary France after they executed the King, an unlikely move if he had supported the revolution. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Duel
There is no mention of his duel with Tierney, but the "See also" section consists of "List of famous duels". This seems anomalous. I propose deleting the whole "See also" section. Maproom (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Photo of statue in Edinburgh
I have uploaded an image of his statue in Edinburgh in case it may be of relevance. --Delta-NC (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Places named for Pitt
Pittsylvania County, Virginia, was formed in 1767, eight years after Pitt the Younger was born. It is unlikely that it was named for him, and the Pittsylvania page states it was named for his father. Consequently, I am removing this sentence from the section Places Named for Pitt in this article: Pittsylvania County, Virginia which has its county seat named Chatham. Janeky (talk) 06:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Timepiece licence (clock tax)
Apparently Pitt instituted a tax on anyone who owned a clock or watch – something like the current British and Irish television licence. The act was unpopular, put a lot of watchmakers out of business, and was repealed within a year. I have this information from the Antiques Roadshow... but it's interesting for the article, if anyone has any sources for it. -- Evertype·✆ 17:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See the stub Act of Parliament clock -- Evertype·✆ 17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The tax was enacted in the Duties on Clocks and Watches Act 1797 (37 Geo. III, c. 108). It was repealed by 38 Geo. III, c. 40:

"'The clock and watch tax formed, in the following year, part of the basis of the Triple Assessment, but was soon acknowledged to be a total failure. The yield fell far short of the estimate ; while the operation of the tax was such as nearly to ruin the manufacturers. The demand for clocks and watches decreased to such an extent, that in less than a year the general manufacture of these articles in the kingdom and the various branches of trade connected therewith had diminished by half, and thousands of persons were deprived of employment and had been induced to emigrate. In these circumstances no time was lost in repealing the tax. This was effected in April, 1798.'&mdash;Stephen Dowell, A History of Taxation and Taxes in England from the Earliest Times to the Year 1885. Volume III. Direct Taxes and Stamp Duties (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1888), pp. 274-5."--Britannicus (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool! -- Evertype·✆ 21:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Prime Minister
The lead states that "at this period the term Prime Minister was not used". So how was the position called at that time? Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article? Laurent (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its position called First Lord of the Treasury. Gz deleted (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Unclear bit in Rise to power
"In most popular constituencies..." - ?

Regards to all, Notreallydavid (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Potter
The recent addition of information about Pitt's relationship with Christopher Potter looks promising, but needs a lot of fixing up. I decided not to remove it altogether, but (1) the grammar makes it nearly impossible to understand what is being said (2) I wasn't able to find the book which was given as a reference. Also, I looked for "Christopher Potter" elsewhere in Wikipedia, and only found an empty link to Christopher Potter (died 1817) as a possibility. This addition has led me to believe that there is a real project to be done, more than I have the energy to pursue. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The Potter article now exists, and an interwiki to the French version, which explains where this is coming from. There is nothing about Potter in the massive Pitt biography by John Ehrman, which is reason enough to be cautious. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Pitt the Younger--Australia
As is so very often there is no reference to Pitts sanctioning of the foundation of Australia; not a mention of Australia it is high time people woke up. Most of the people mentioned in the Pitt Write up were Subscribers to Gov. Phillips book and were Whaling investors. Whalers being in Botany Bay before the First Fleet was thought of. Keith R. Dawson, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.148.69.78 (talk) 03:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree - it is appalling that this article makes no mention of the invasion and white settlement of Australia. Pitt presided over the establishment of one of the largest colonies to ever exist and one of the largest land thefts in history (the denial of sovereignty and land rights of Indigenous Australians). Pitt's sanctioning of the disgraceful treatment of both the convicts and the Indigenous peoples of Australia is an important and interesting hypocrisy in the man's history, actions and character and deserving of proper consideration by this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.110.132 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please be bold and add what is missing, including references.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, it's hard to imagine that "the denial of sovereignty and land rights of Indigenous Australians" were much of an issue in British politics at the time.Paulturtle (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Note Australia the continent was not yet thoroughly colonised at time of his death, there were swathes of the land still unconquered where aboriginal peoples were living independently. Also Australia got claimed by Napoleonic France which was far from got out of the way at Pitt's death. Matthew Flinders had some bitter dealings with the French navy Down Under.Cloptonson (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy title?
As Pitt the Younger was a younger son of a father who had become 1st Earl of Chatham, would he not have been entitled to be addressed as "The Honourable William Pitt" from the date of his father's elevation to the peerage?Cloptonson (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct 62.232.245.90 (talk) 15:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not really a Wikipedia contributor, so I don't want to edit the article but I am 100% certain that the courtesy titles in this article are entirely wrong. Mr. Pitt was never titled 'Lord William Pitt', which is a style only used by the younger sons of dukes and marquesses and his father was an earl. He would have been entitled to the style 'Honourable' from his father's elevation until he was himself sworn of the Privy Council, at which point he became 'Right Honourable'. He was certainly never known as 'Viscount Pitt'. Even as heir presumptive to his elder brother, the 2nd Earl of Chatham, he would not have used that courtesy title, as at any time his brother could notionally have had a son. Courtesy titles are only ever used by the direct heir apparent to a peerage. 84.65.97.40 (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, I have removed the claims about courtesy titles. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Combination Acts
The text referring to the Combination Acts says that they "restricted the formation of societies or organisations that favoured political reforms". I think this is getting confused with the Seditious Meetings Act. The Combination Act of 1799 and the amending Act of 1800 were about collective bargaining and labour relations. I think the Combination Acts would be better left out here. Andrew Montford (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Finances section
It's out of a place as Pitt was long dead by then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dona Deda (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

NPOV
A lot of people would argue that Pitt was also a disgusting elitist and committed many crimes against the working class peoples of England. Some William Cobbet should be read to inform this article. Statements like

"He raised taxes to pay for the great war against France and cracked down on radicalism. To meet the threat of Irish support for France, he engineered the Acts of Union 1800 and tried (but failed) to get Catholic Emancipation as part of the Union."

make this article seem biased in his favour, painting him as a hero. If it is to be completely unbiased then his only criticism cannot be his personality; that he was solitary! He was highly controversial in his day! Please include the less socially friendly aspects of his career, such as the huge increae in Enclosure Acts (stealing land from the common people and assigning it to the rich because they could afford lawyers to 'prove' they deserved it), the Poor Laws (nuff said), the Corn Laws (taxing cheaper imported wheat and grain when people were starving) and expand on the violence used in the trials of Thomas Hardy, John Thelwall and Jonh Horne Took. There is an article linked, yes, but consider, it was under Pitt's order's that Hardy's home was ransacked. Consequently his wife died in childbirth because of the shock.

Using another's opinions in reverence of him is the same as being the agent of that opinion. More balanced quotes should be included.

" "For personal purity, disinterestedness and love of this country, I have never known his equal."[1] Historian Charles Petrie concludes that he was one of the greatest prime ministers "if on no other ground than that he enabled the country to pass from the old order to the new without any violent upheaval....He understood the new Britain."[2] For this he is ranked highly amongst British Prime Ministers."

This is not acceptable. It's almost as though the current Tory government has even got its hands on Wikipedia. Wouldn't that be shocking. Probably not. Amazing how Pitt essentially got the economy bck with heavy austerity and Cameron does the same thing..

Claudia Carroll90.192.184.113 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Confusing Infobox layout
In the Infobox, the organisation of his terms of office (as PM), with two terms under one heading without an ordinal number, and one term under another heading with an ordinal number, is confusing. There is no reason obvious to the ordinary reader why it is done like that. I also do not agree that the terms should be in reverse chronological order. Chronological order is what one would expect here. 217.44.215.195 (talk) 11:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Pitt the Younger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807175552/http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page161.asp to http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page161.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.number10.gov.uk/past-prime-ministers/william-pitt/William

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:06, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Pitt the Younger. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412183802/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRpitt.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/PRpitt.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Pitt Was NOT a Tory
As this is even acknowledged in the text here I fail to see why it is still listed wrongly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.245.90 (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)