Question

a) Explain two ways in which William Pitt the Younger dominated British politics from 1783 to 1793? (30 marks)

William Pitt dominated British politics from 1783 to 1793 because he was Prime Minister during this time. For the first few years of his time in office, Pitt didn't have much support in Parliament. He only had support from the King. He became Prime Minister in 1783 but was dominant in politics before that because he was Chancellor of the Exchequer under Lord North in 1782. Pitt always had the support of the King during these 10 years. This was a powerful position, especially as the King hated Fox and North who had a coalition and who opposed Pitt. The King helped maintain Pitt's dominance in politics during the 1780s. Fox and North created a coalition which became powerful in Parliament. When they won an election in 1784, the King used his influence in the House of Lords to get them to oppose Fox and North, then he dissolved Parliament and called another election. This gave Pitt the chance to collect support from independent MPs, so that he was able to win the next election and be Prime Minister. Pitt dominated politics because he had much support. He was a good speaker and clear thinker. During the 1780s, Pitt sorted out the economy completely. He reduced Britain's national debt and increased revenue. One of the ways in which he did this was to reduce smuggling. The government lost a lot of money every year because of it. Pitt reduced taxes on goods, particularly those on main goods which were frequently smuggled. He decreased tea duties from 119 per cent to just 10 per cent. This made smuggling, which was a risky business, much less profitable. Pitt's dominance was due to his support in Parliament. He had support because he sorted out the economy so well.

Another way he reduced smuggling was to reform the law which allowed authorities to search ships. He allowed ships to be searched seven leagues out to sea instead of three.

Pitt also placed taxes on luxury goods, so that the rich mostly paid taxes, which they could afford to do. Hackney carriages, ribbons and hats had taxes on them. This increased the government revenue and kept the poor happy. Pitt was a reformer at heart but was practical and kept support in Parliament by not reforming too radically.

The focus for this question is explanation. In this instance, the emphasis is on Pitt's domination of British politics in this period. Charlotte makes the point at the start and end of the answer that this is what she's seeking to answer. However, whilst stating her intent, there are real difficulties with the range of examples she deploys to make her case. Have a good look at what works and what doesn't with this answer. On the surface, she does seem to engage with the question, reflecting it back to the examiner. There's emphasis on Pitt's parliamentary support and dealings with the economy in this period. More by way of specifics would add to the answer though; she has a tendency to gloss over too much and then repeat what's been said. Remember, such repetition only detracts from the clarity of your answer!

What could be included for a top answer? More could be made of royal support and its practical effects from Pitt's appointment in 1783. The family name could also be referred to. Pitt's reforms are certainly alluded to, but Charlotte could be much more specific and look at the Sinking Fund, treasury commission of Audit, reform of government departments and contracts. Pitt's refusal to be drawn down the route of parliamentary reform should also be included, as to how he dominated this era. Whig divisions, the Jacobin threat with the onset of the more radical French Revolution could all be usefully brought in.

So, where would this answer be placed? It's into Band D, as it needs to be sharper in identifying two particular ways in which Pitt was dominant and using a range of appropriate examples to make the case.

b) Compare the importance of three major problems for Lord Liverpool's governments between 1812 and 1822. (60 marks)

Three major problems that faced Lord Liverpool between the years 1812 and 1822 were the difficulty of helping the country make the transition from a wartime situation to a peacetime one; saving the economy and trying to make it stable; and the rise of radicalism in Britain.

The three problems are closely linked, but I think that preventing the rise of radicalism was the most important problem he faced because it was the most controversial to deal with. Liverpool became Prime Minister in 1812 and the war economy was in a bad state; Britain had a national debt of over £200 million. Lifestyles had to adapt to peacetime situations. The agreement with France after the war caused trading between European countries to begin again. However, farmers were used to high food prices because they had no competition during the war; now they feared being undercut by cheap foreign grain imports. To help the farmers, Lord Liverpool passed the Corn Law in 1815 that prevented wheat imports into Britain. This was problematic: many people, especially the working class, thought that the government was just favouring the farmers because they made up a large percentage of support for them, so wanted them to be happy.

Another problem was the issue of income tax that is to do with the economy and the transition to peacetime ways. Pitt had introduced income tax at the start of war, promising that it would not be permanent; Britain just needed money for the war. So when the war ended, people wanted income tax to be abolished. However, the government was getting one fifth of its revenue from this tax at the time so money would be needed to fill this gap. The economy was in a bad state anyway, but to keep the people happy, Liverpool and his government abolished income tax in 1816 after Liverpool had tried in vain to keep it going. He lost the debate by 27 votes.

This action put the economy in a worse situation. To replace income tax, Liverpool created taxes on goods which were luxuries. To sort out the economy in general he aimed to reduce government expenditure. This he did by cutting office salaries by 10 per cent. At the same time, he raised import duties on goods. Eventually, by the 1820s, the budget became balanced.

The rise of radicalism came about because of the bad economic situation in Britain. There were food shortages in 1809 and 1812, there was economic distress and there was a high rate of unemployment because all the soldiers in the Army returned to Britain after the war, where there were few jobs. During the war, machinery had been increasingly used in manufacturing industries such as textiles. Due to the bad economic situation, employers were keeping wages low. Food was expensive because of the Corn Laws and shortages. All these problems caused the Luddite groups to rebel in 1816. They were a group that were against using machinery in factories because it was taking over the much-needed jobs of people. They smashed machinery in factories which cost the government lots of money. People became radical reformers because they wanted the government to change in the hope it would improve.

Liverpool's government faced many uprisings by radicals; the Spa Fields in 1816, Pentrich rising and March of the Blanketeers in 1817 and what became known as the Peterloo massacre of 1819. Their actions to repress the radicals were controversial. They introduced the Seditious Meetings act in 1818 and briefly suspended Habeas Corpus. In 1820 the Six Acts were introduced, which included censorship of the Press and the right of magistrates to confiscate weapons. Many people thought that these actions by the government were too repressive. Others thought that the government didn't have much choice in the matter.

Again, think through Charlotte's response to the question. Which factors does she identify and then how far does she pursue their analysis in the answer. This question requires good analysis and the putting of issues into a perspective which covers the whole of the period in the question (here 1812 to 1822).

Charlotte might have chosen from a number of factors for her answer, including the aftermath of the war, the consequences of the Industrial and Agricultural revolutions; the increased radical threat, the legacy of the French Revolution; Lord Liverpool's own perceived heavy-handed legislative response and the Queen Caroline Affair. See if you can identify what she chooses.

Charlotte manages to identify areas of difficulty as required in the question. She provided some evidence to back up her points, though some of the dates she cites for radical threats are rather out. Not a major problem; she's had a go at being specific, which is what examiners want! The answer does attempt to engage with the question and develop in a structured way. What it lacks is an overall conclusion and the interlined comparison of the different factors chosen. She also misses opportunities to develop on her opening statement and doesn't carry through ideas to a logical conclusion. This precludes it from a top Band mark.

As it stands, this is just worth a high Band D mark. She tries to develop a structured answer, though needs to build more the planning stage to take this higher.

Charlotte's answers are not untypical of student responses to the questions asked in the new exam. There's evidence that she knows detail quite well, but she needs to master the bigger picture in order to perform strongly in the exam. Whatever topic you're revising for these period studies, make sure you are clearly able to identify, explain and support with a range of examples the key issues which are set out in the specifications. If you learn these thoroughly and then think through your answer in the exam you should do well!