William Pitt the Younger’s political success revolved around an effective working relationship with King George III, without which Pitt never could have maintained the support needed for his economically revolutionary reform policies such as Income Tax. Lacking the selfish eloquence to thrive among Lords, Pitt’s support depended upon those who were tryiing to please the king. The more feble minded were content with Pitt’s success at the progess he made towards financial recovery kept the public from questioning the rise of the aloof lifestyles of the Lords and furthermore the king.
Pitt’s dependency on the king should not be cause to question his strength as rime minister but highights a house without intention to prioritise a discipline on organisations amongst the cabinet. The Regency Crisis of 1788 is a pefect example of his reliance on the king, moreover the concept of George having confidence in Pitt’s abilities can be lessened by the King’s despisition of Charles James Fox, nd his selfish social nature. The French Revolution had shown that this typica aristocratic behaviour could have catastrophic results, and so caused fear for the monarchy despite the heavy loyalism in Britain.
The crisis showed the weakness of Pitt’s position, as with the King no longer in the political equation, Pitt’s grasp on his position rapidly declined. It was essential for Pitt that he held the kings support. Had the Kings sudden incapability been permanent then a regency, headed by the Prince of Wales would have gone ahead and either Fox himself, or a Foxite would have been instated in Pitt’s position. It was Fox’s intention to restrict the monarchys influence, as this was the easiest solution to overcome Pitt.
Pitt was unable to tsand y himself as an ‘independent whig,’ without the general support given to Pitt for having the Kings backing, the few supporters Pitt could trust and rely on would have been unable to uphold Pitt’s rational ideas. Fox’s popularity with the Prince of Wales, and the Pince’s dislike for Pitt wouldve meant that had the King not recovered, Pitt would not have held his position at all. Though the fact that Fox was desperate for the support of the Prince of Wales it shows that it was not possile at all to hold a position of power ithout Royal support. Pitt’s exaggrated form success were only consideed political genius years after they were passed, at the time Pitt’s reforms were uneven, with a distinct air of inefficiency and cowardice to them. The removal of departments generally only happened in cases where the Head of a Department died, and then cautious Pitt would refrain appointing a successor, hoping what was left would diminish without complications. Pitt’s active refusal to controversy was most ‘unlord’like to the disdain of other politicians.
Hisreform era applied at the peak of the King’s faith, who’s power had considerably waned. To the King his only nws was of successful reform and revenue. Had the King been active in political affairs, he wouldve mos likely lost confidence in Pitt’s weak cautiousness. Pitt’s consistent caution to execute policies does not detract fro the financial common sense they showed, which impressed even the opposing North, who supported an alliance to drive the policies. Still, Pitt’s inefficien time wasting system would not have held him in his position in government without the King’s favour.
To suggest that Pitt’s reforms teetered solely on the backing of the King is laughable. Pitt’s government was ideally for the people, yet it was answerale to the King. Pitt’s reformation of taxes and finance were dsigned with a conviction to break national debt, ut ultimately to fund the king. During a period of national disappointment with the monarchy after the loss of the American War of Independence and the oss of vast swathes of the Empire; Pitt’s financial management made sheer sense while his known favouritism from the king was almost a liability.
Unlike the Foxites nature to play into the hands of power, Pitt’s reformation of trade would benefit the people not the King. Higher tariffs would argualy increase revenue but higher tariffs were generally a Foxite belief. Pitt’s wasgeared towards free tade, this would ceate wealthier opportunities and lay a foundation for British stability. Th long term free trade solution did no reap substantial rewards in the short term, yet it is a great example of common sense driving the reforms not royal support.
Pitt’s acts in parliament were only passed by George III on the grounds that this did not relinquish any of the monarchys power. Despite Pitt’s inspired insight into the socioeconomic climate of Britain post war, he lacked the social etiquette required to uphold his policies in House. Without the confidence of the King his absence of charismatic strength would have rendered him unnoticed. His slow reforms and cowardly approach to his policies wouldve rendered them useless without royal support, no matter how brilliant they were. PItt simply did not have enough support by his own back to execute any of his policies.
Overall it came down to royal support, as seen in the reflection of the catholic emancipation, however had the king chosen to veto these acts pulic distress and the recent french revolution would have caused massive anti-monarchial idealism nationwide. Even with loyalism, a kingdom in financial crisis woud have soon diminished monachial support, especially when a great many debts came from the King recent war failurs. Pitt was appointed by King George III to protect the monarchy; without support Pitt would of never reached the great height of prime minister and his ‘idependent whig,’ approach wouldve been his downfall.