How Did William Pitt Have A Coalition Government

Despite the initial success of William Pitt’s coalition—bolstered by his almost unanimous support—the 1760’s saw a change in fortune for Pitt’s government. William Pitt’s overwhelming popularity declined and so did the faith in his regime. A key reason for this came from newly crowned monarch George III. George III was crowned monarch in 1760, and arrived as a new, bold and strong willed king, who was restless and wanted political change. George III wanted to assert his political dominance immediately after becoming king. In order to do this he wanted to weaken the Whig oligarchy that had dominated British politics and stamp his own authority. Yet after the patriotic surge of 1759 that was not imminently possible, as the wartime victories

George III became very inspired by Bolingbroke's Idea of a Patriot King and sought to base his own image around it. This meant that Pitt, who had previously been considered a symbolic “Patriot King”—in that he was a great leader that could unite a coalition government and move above partisan politics—would lose this image. Instead George III would become the unbiased and strong patriotic leader of the British government, making Pitt's patriotic role redundant. This was coupled with the fact that the war was slowly coming to an end, meaning that the need for a patriotic united government that could put aside it's partisan politics to strengthen Britain’s role in the war effort, was no longer needed. By looking at the literature produced at the time, it is clear that George III benefited from this shift and that he became the new dominant muse of British patriotism. This is evidenced in Vicesimus Knox 1784 essay, “Idea of a Patriot”, in which he mediates upon British patriotism. Knox concludes that George III was a great figure of British patriotism in his

The 1760’s saw a backlash against William Pitt’s coalition government and his patriotic image, and this was lead by a highly critical and scathting attack from the political literature. William Pitt’s patriotic image was challenged by the political literature, who criticised him for using patriotism to achieve and further his goals. A lot of the literature framed Pitt as a patriotic “imposter” who was more of a schemer, than a true patriot. This is exhibited in the 1764 play “Patriotism a Farce”, in which William Pitt is portrayed as “Slyboots” a character who constantly schemes, and tries to use the war to further his own agenda. Ultimately the character comes of as a bit of a fool and the idea of a patriotic minister—such as Pitt—is satirised and made fun of. This play shows that the political public were becoming increasingly sceptical of politicians and their cry for patriotism, also the idea that they could be symbols of British patriotism was doubted. Additionally the political public started to lose more faith in the Pitt-Newcastle coalition government, and attention was put on the failure of William Pitt as a strong unifying individual who could lead such a coalition. This change in the political public's opinion can be evinced in much of the literature of the time. As is epitomised