Talk:William Pitt the Younger
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the William Pitt the Younger article.|
|William Pitt the Younger has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Political Party
- 3 Arms
- 4 Comment inserted in Line 58
- 5 Spanish?
- 6 Never! Never! Never!
- 7 Old vandalism
- 8 Orginization of the Titles
- 9 Still prime minister?
- 10 Titles
- 11 Financer of the French Revolution
- 12 Duel
- 13 Photo of statue in Edinburgh
- 14 Places named for Pitt
- 15 Timepiece licence (clock tax)
- 16 Prime Minister
- 17 Unclear bit in Rise to power
- 18 Christopher Potter
- 19 Pitt the Younger--Australia
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..
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.
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"—HopsonRoad 21:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
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 126.96.36.199 (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. 188.8.131.52 01:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the errors added in this revision.
Orginization of the Titles
Still prime minister?
- 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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2012 (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 220.127.116.11 (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)
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
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."—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.
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)
Unclear bit in Rise to power
"In most popular constituencies..." - ?
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 18.104.22.168 (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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)