How much was Pitt Responsible for the National Revival?

Marco Pastor Mayo L6 MED

Whether or not Pitt was responsible for the national revival of Britain in the late 18 Century is still a matter of dispute. On the one hand, the financial situation of Britain improved since Pitt the Younger took office as First Minister, and the political instability that preceded Pitt (there were 5 First Ministers from 1782-83) came to an end. On the other hand, there is still little evidence to prove that there was a revival at a full national scale, especially in small towns and inland where international trading did not affect the population to a significant extent.. Thus taking into account this discrepancy the question of how important Pitt was in the national revival becomes relevant.
th

Following this logic, the causes of the national revival could be divided into two: circumstantial and reformatory. Circumstantial causes are related to external forces with low credit for Pitt. For example, there are some reasons to believe that the country was in a predisposition to have a revival because of the situation of the country by the mid1780s. In contrast, reformatory causes are related to the changes made by the Pitts administration which led to a substantial improvement of the country. In what follows, I would argue that there are several reasons to believe that Pitt does deserve the significant credit for his role in the national revival of Britain in the late 18th Century. First, Pitts original reforms on the government spending cuts increased the meritocracy. Second, Pitt changed the taxations system that increased revenue. Third, Pitt introduced the Sinking Fund which reduced the national debt. Forth, Pitt tackled the problem of smuggling by the Hovering Act. Firth, Pitt successfully implemented the reduction of trading barriers, especially with United States and France. Finally, Pitt had several attempts at unifying British colonies by centralizing them to London. First, one of Pitts original reforms was the government spending cuts which he proposed. Pitt attempted to lower pensions, sinecures, cost of army and, most important of all: inefficient offices held. In 1789, Pitt abolished 765 revenue offices and another 196 in 1798 and he also introduced stationary offices. This quickly made the government not only more efficient, but it turned it closer into a meritocracy, increasing the faith that the public had for their government. For the success of these Second, one of the biggest parts of the revival of the British government that occurred during Pitts First Ministership from 1783 was financial. Pitt introduced to the taxations system many changes such as increasing taxes on many luxuries (window tax, taxes on hats, female finery, bricks, candles, coal, paper, riding horses). This altogether brought a 1 million increase revenue (out of 4-6 million) to the government up to 1792. This proves as quite a success, even though not all taxes were generally accepted very well (the coal tax and the 2 trading tax, for example). However, Pitt does have full credit for establishing a pragmatic administration which removed those taxes which

were not suitable. For these reforms, Pitt had the advice of George Rose and followed principles from Adam Smith. Third, in 1786, Pitt introduced the Sinking Fund, which took 1 million of government surplus and invested it on the government stock, mostly to reduce the national debt. The Sinking Fund did succeed at this, reducing the national debt by 11 million by 1793, which had been of 242.9 million in 1784. This also brought a sense of confidence in British businesses and by investing money in the government stock, the value of bonds got higher, which was beneficial to the national economy. The idea of the Sinking Fund was not originally Pitts; it had been used by Walpole in 1712 and by Richard Price in 1772. Nonetheless, the fact that Pitt did not originally come up with the idea does not mean that he saw a good opportunity to apply it, making an improvement to the British economy. This does give support to think that Pitt did lead the revival, at least financially. Fourth, an issue that Britain was confronting at the time was the crippling amount of smuggling that took place at her coasts. A large proportion of imported goods were smuggled into Britain: 25% of tobacco was smuggled, 50% of imported tea and a total of 20% of imports. Pitt tackled this problem by the Hovering Act, which allowed patrols to search ships 12 miles into the sea. He also lowered duties (on tea, for example, from 119-25%), making smuggling simply less profitable than legal imports. The increase of yields from import taxes surprised Pitt, since not even he expected them: all yields increased 29-63% with a 50% increase in the total yield revenue by 1792. Imports on food and raw materials increased from 13 million to 27 million between the mid-1780s and mid-1790s. This constituted half of the 4-6 million revenue increase. Pitts financial endeavour and his advisors (Richard Frewin in this case) are undisputedly responsible for increasing the revenue of yields. Fifth, other financial reforms, such as the reduction of trading barriers was not a new idea to the government, however, Pitt was in fact the person who managed to accomplish this better, especially with the United States and France. In fact, the loss of the American colonies did bring a boost to the British economy by the elimination of the cost that holding a colony had. This was a circumstantial cause for the national revival, which could suggest that Pitt was in a favourable position for a national revival that was bound to happen regardless. On the other side, France was a very good trading opportunity that Pitt sieged with the Eden-Vergennes Treaty in 1786. This treaty enabled free navigation between Britain and France without passport and significantly reduced tariffs. This was actually more beneficial for Britain than for France, since the industrial revolution of England had given Britain the opportunity to trade many more and better quality goods and silks were brought in from France. For these newly strengthened trading routes, Pitt was responsible with an increased trade, which again, presented itself in the form of an opportunity which could have been taken by some other political leader, but Pitt was the only one who did manage to make it, which makes him deserving of the credit for these national improvements.

Finally, in a more colonist point of view, Pitt had several attempts at unifying British colonies, centralising them to London through different acts and also to gain a maximum profit from them. The unification of Britains colonies brought much revival, not so much nationally, but colonially, and these reforms managed to bring the British Empire closer. The Indian Act which Pitt passed had been proposed by Fox previously, but the king used his influence to have it voted off. Pitt did, however, modify it, letting the EIC keep autonomy in some areas. His proposal of a board of control which that control the EICs actions, and not get involved in any internal politics in India. Of course, the Indian Act had to be passed one way or another (or at least that was the view of most of the political reformers at the time) and Pitt was no difference. However, unlike Fox, Pitt did manage to gain the support needed from both the Parliament and the monarch in order to pass the bill, whether or not it was originally Pitts idea (therefore being irrelevant). So, Id say that this did make him responsible for the improvements that the Indian Act brought. Pitt Canadian division amongst British and French Canadians had started to cause issues by 1790 and Pitts Canada Act passed in 1791 divided Canada into two provinces (Upper and Lower Canada) one mostly British and the other predominantly French. This improved the governance of Canada and the tensions between its inhabitants were reduced. In 1785, Pitt had proposed freer trade with Ireland, but the complexity and Irish conditions didnt make it plausible. Pitt took almost full responsibility for these proposals, which proved very effective in Canada but he didnt have enough support for an Irish trade reform. Taken together, these reforms portrait a picture of Pitt as an innovative and original man with a pragmatic moderation in his actions. Pitt proposed many reforms and he had the moderation to implement them in a suitable way. For these reasons, I believe that Pitt was indeed a key factor of the national revival of Britain, which contrasted with the French monarchical failure to improve their economy, in the 1780s. I think that he deserves the credit.