Customer Reviews

William Pitt the Younger

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

From Which the World Should Note Something Particular. Shakespeare.

There was something astonishingly particular about William Pitt the Younger. The second son of the Earl of Chatham (Pitt the Elder) was a child prodigy. He was admitted to Cambridge at age 14, elected to Parliament at age 21 and appointed Prime Minister at age 24. Twenty-two years later, of which twenty were spent as Prime Minister, Pitt died at age 46.

William Hague was something of a prodigy himself. He gave his first major political address at a Conservative Party Conference in 1977 at age 16. Hague was elected to Parliament at age 28 and became the Conservative Party's leader at age 36, the youngest party leader in 200 years. Hague's rhetorical skills, like Pitt the Younger, are excellent. Some observers (not all of them Conservatives) believed that Hague regularly bested Labour P.M. Tony Blair in debates in the House of Commons. After a losing the 2001 general election and the leadership of his party Hague was asked to write his Memoirs. He indicated that an autobiography was approximately 40 years premature and sat down to write the biography of his idol Pitt the Younger instead.

Hague has done an excellent job here. Although meticulously researched this is a readable, popular biography. Hague's prose style is precise and flows very smoothly.

Hague quickly takes us through Pitts early years and the events surrounding his first election to Parliament. His impact on Parliament was soon felt and within two years King George III twice asked Pitt to form a new government. It was only when Pitt was certain that he could maintain control of a new government that Pitt accepted the King's offer when it was made for the third time.

The first nine years of Pitt's leadership were turbulent but peaceful and it was as a peacetime leader that Pitt demonstrated enormous administrative skills. Pitt virtually created the mechanism by which any government oversees its finances. By the end of that nine-year period Britain's financial position was better than it had ever been before. It was this financial strength that facilitated Britain's survival during the three crises that marked the remaining years of Pitt's time in office: the madness of King George III, the foreign and domestic trials created by the French Revolution and the even greater trials created in the wake of the rise to power of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Hague's narrative style is straight forward and informative as he discusses Pitt's response to these crises. The complexity of the parliamentary and political system of 18th century Britain was Byzantine to say the least. However, Hague, because of his experience in Parliament, was able to explain those complexities without detracting from his narrative. This is no small accomplishment.

One of the most important aspects of the book for me was the discussion of the relationship between Pitt and his major adversary during his entire premiership, Charles James Fox. Hague's discussion of that relationship made Fox quite appealing in many respects. As Pitt steered Britain from crisis to crisis he turned increasingly to repressive measures (squashing free speech, toughening sedition laws and limiting the right to free assembly) to ensure Britain's security from perceived external threats to its security. The largest threat of course was that of the anti-monarchical forces unleashed by the French Revolution. Throughout Fox's years as the leader of the opposition he fought Pitt's repressive legislation every step of the way. Fox stood squarely on the side of free speech and opposed to attempts to sacrifice his fellow citizens' freedoms on the mere declamation of a threat to security. He kept losing those battles but he did fight the good fight.

The battle over the balance between freedom and security is one that confronts us today. Hague's concluding analysis discusses this issue at some length. He is of course favorable to Pitt and defends him admirably. It takes nothing away from the quality of Hague's writing to note that I fell more squarely into the Fox camp.

Hague pays a good deal of attention to Pitt's personal life, particularly his drinking. He was reported to have downed three bottles of Port a day. There is little doubt that this undoubted alcoholism played a role in Pitt's early death. Hague also spends time discussing the lack of women in Pitt's life. He does not shy away from the issue and analyzes in some detail the close relationship he had with his male colleagues. I felt Hague's conclusions, that Pitt was one of those rare totally chaste people whose entire life was focused on one thing and one thing only, to be well founded if a bit speculative.

Hague has indicated that he intended and expected this book to be a popular history that could be enjoyed by any reader. This book lived up to Hague's expectations and also to mine. I recommend this book to anyone with any interest in British history. It is enjoyable and well worth reading.

William Hague's biography of Pitt the Younger has excited much comment and interest in the UK because Hague was one of the youngest men ever to lead a major political party. As Leader of the Conservative Party in the UK he most certainly had his troubles but he did bring a breath of clean air by virtue of his freshness, commitment and youth. Therefore, it might be fair to say that his own perspective on Pitt would be of exceptional value.

However, he has succeeded in writing a very straightforward and excellently researched biography of Pitt without overlaying his own experiences and views. This is excellent because I wanted to read a biography, not a polemic.

Pitt was the son of one of the most famous politicians of the 18th or any century - William Pitt the Elder. As a young boy he was brought up in an environment saturated with politics and coloured by scholarship and academia. He became one of the most polished parliamentary debaters the world has ever seen and his success was down to a firm grounding in how to argue.

I am particularly interested in the period during which he served as prime minister: the 1780s to 1806. This was a time of great change in Britain: the industrial revolution, the end of the American wars, increased economic successes, the upheaval in France and the inevitable "world war" of Napoleon. Also, there were new liberal ideas coming forth: Catholic emanicipation, an Irish parliament, an end to slavery. Pitt's remarkable achievement was that his sound fiscal acumen allowed Britain to stay solvent, able to afford (just) the long, long Napoleonic wars, whilst at the same time keeping a lid on a fractious Parliament dominated by himself and the always fascinating Charles James Fox. True party politics were evolving into a format recognisable to us today.

Some reviewers on the UK amazon site have criticised the author for not drawing out Pitt's personality. However, I agree with Hague's conclusions that Pitt was, to some extent unknowable in that his entry into high office at 24 and very long tenure meant that essentially the same person at 46 that he was at 24; his dedication and deep sense of public service meant that his political life was akin to a vocation. His personal qualities of loyalty, discretion and tenacity are shown clearly in this book - a lack of histrionic character traits does not mean we do not learn about his personality: rather we learn by default of his robustness of character and his innate sense of service.

I enjoyed this very much. It's quite long but not at all difficult to read. I was particularly struck with the deep and abiding friendship Pitt had with William Wilberforce who encouraged Pitt to end the slave trade. Although the changes in the law did not occur until after Pitt's death, nonetheless it was something he was keen to do. Hague has commented in the British press that he is considering writing a biography of either Pitt the Elder or Wilberforce next; I am keeping my fingers crossed for Wilberforce - someone I'd like to learn more about.

An excellent first book about a man who was as open as a book and yet will always be something of a mystery to those of the modern and more self-seeking world of today because of those personal attributes that made him such a model of public service.

As a rule, I believe that Americans would be better off if they read and understood more about history. It is important to read widely enough, both in breadth of scope and time, to provide a rich and useful understanding of how things have become what they are. While we cannot read everything, let alone retain it all in our memory, there are certain times, events, and even single lives that can provide valuable structure to our understanding of the world.

In my view, knowing more about the history of Great Britain can help Americans understand more about our origins as a nation, provide a richer context for our founding, get a better fix on our own place in the world through time, and how we grew into a dominant power in the world. This particularly fine biography of William Pitt the Younger concerns itself with the time immediately after Britain's American Colonies became the United States up to Pitt's death in 1806 in the middle of the Napoleonic Wars.

This is an especially rich time in history because everything was in flux and so much was at risk. The French Revolution of 1789 soon became The Terror. Great Britain struggled to recover from the blow of losing her American Colonies and putting herself forward as a still relevant global power. The United States actually benefited in many ways from the Europeans being so absorbed in fighting each other in these decades. However, that is a story for another time.

William Pitt the Younger was the extraordinary second son of the also extraordinary William Pitt. The father dominated the House of Commons for many years including the time during the American Revolution. He was universally loved as The Great Commoner and retired as a Lord. William the Younger was endowed with certain intellectual gifts in fabulous abundance. He had a tremendous capacity for oratory. He trained himself by reading the Classics in Latin and Greek. He learned mathematics particularly as it related to finance. And of course he learned by observing his father's work in Parliament and in discussions with him. He focused his whole life and all his energies to service in the House of Commons with a view only on the position of greatest power.

Britain was adrift when Pitt came to Parliament. Great things were expected of him and his early speeches confirmed his gifts. He sought front line leadership from the beginning and due to his gifts and unique circumstances he became First Lord of the Treasury (what later became Prime Minister) at twenty-four years old. He soon earned the favor of a strong majority and through his scrupulous dealings became known as Honest Billy. He was one of the first to use the rapidly growing newspaper industry as a tool to govern through the development of his image.

He put Britain's finances back in order, protected the monarchy during George the III's bouts of madness, and deftly handled all the governmental issues of the empire including issues involving India and the great trading companies. He completely dominated the Whigs and led the way to the founding of the modern Conservative (Tory) party. He finally resigned after 17 years in power. He did so for many reasons, but the issue that seemed to provoke it was Catholic Emancipation, which the King refused to even consider because he considered it a violation of his duty as King and Head of the Established Church.

Also, Pitt's health was beginning to fail. He had dedicated his whole life to the service of his country and the maintenance of his power and dominance in the House of Commons and the strain was beginning to tell. Pitt never married nor did he develop a new circle of friends or wider interests during his time in power, which was essentially his whole life from his early twenties until his death at forty-six. Hague has some keen observations on the way serving in high political office has the effect of freezing a person at that stage of life until they leave power. Pitt is one of the most extreme examples of this effect.

At the zenith of Pitt's power the French Revolution occurred and was soon followed by the calamity of the Napoleonic Wars. While he led Britain through the wars ably, his gifts for war were not as sure as his gifts for finance. Another issue that he confronted during his time in office was the issue of abolishing the slave trade. Neither the ending the wars nor, nor Catholic Emancipation, nor abolishing the slave trade was accomplished during his lifetime.

Pitt chose Addington as his successor. The response of others can be understood through a little couplet. "Pitt is to Addington as London is to Paddington". He returned to power within a few years, but died in office in less than two years.

As a biographer, William Hague is in many ways a perfect choice for William Pitt the Younger. Hague has an eloquence that is inviting and informs without bogging down. He also brings a special insight into some of the more obscure decisions Pitt made because Hague also served in the House of Commons and came to office in his twenties. Mr. Hague also became leader of the Conservative party (the descendent of the party that rose from Pitt's legacy) at thirty-six and despite losing to Tony Blair, he fully understands the massive demands of front line political leadership. Mr. Hague continues to serve as a Member of Parliament for Richmond, Yorkshire as well as being active in many other duties and activities.

I saw an interview with the author about this book. He said that he would also like to write biographies of Pitt the Elder and Pitt the Younger's friend, Wilberforce, who had so much to do with abolishing the slave trade. I want to encourage him to write both. His excellent writing conveys his passion for this period of history, and his analyses provide helpful and entertaining insights to the way politics worked then and how it works today.

William Pitt the Younger (or as he was described by some of his contemporaries Billy Pitt) is a book written by a politician about a politician (you may remember that William Hague was an ex-leader of the Tory party). He was indeed an extraordinary politician although a very limited man.

The story is on a grand scale, prime ministers, kings, wars, revolution, disasters, and the central figure, a larger-than-life classic hero.

He came from famous stock, his father, known as the Great Commoner, was an heroic figure who in his own time was the equivalent of the Prime Minister, then known as the First Lord of the Treasury although this particular position was held by the Duke of Newcastle who sat in the House Of Lords. William Pitt the Elder was the leader in the House of Commons. He took office at the age of 48 in 1756, some three years before William Pitt the Younger was born. He served as Secretary of State for the Southern Department, at that time there were two Secretaries of State, the Secretary of State for the Southern Department dealt with matters relating to southern European countries, including France and Spain, the Secretary of State for the Northern Department dealt with Northern European countries such as Russia.

His father came to be regarded as the saviour of the nation and was instrumental in defeating the traditional enemy of the English, the French. He was regarded as the saviour of the nation and was a great orator.

William Pitt the Younger was raised in an intensely political family and learned a great deal from his father's capacity to achieve high office without money or patronage from the King. His father was the more extraordinary because he was, by the standards of the times, incorruptible. Unfortunately this was associated with accumulation of enormous debts, a habit followed by his son. He suffered from a wide range of ailments including gout, bowel problems and similar disorders. He married at the age of 46 and proceeded to have five children of whom only his two eldest survived into their 30s. After leaving office he was eventually persuaded back into office by George III and to reduce the burden on him emotionally and physically he accepted a title and became Earl of Chatham. This eventually proved to be his downfall and damaged his reputation. William Pitt the Younger lived through all these events before he was 10 years old! Even by that age he must have been aware that he belonged to a father and a family that stood apart from and were treated differently from everyone else.

He was educated at home and although uninhibited by peer pressure was required from the outset to meet adult standards. His tutor stated "William never seemed to learn but merely to recollect". His father took an active, usually daily, role in his education. As William Hague says "at no other time in British history has the head of one administration acted as a tutor of another".

His father taught him to speak in a clear and melodious voice by making him recite each day passages from the best English poets, particularly Shakespeare and Milton. As William Pitt the Younger later said " Lord Chatham had bid him take up any book in some foreign language with which he was well acquainted, in Latin, Greek, or French, for example. Lord Chatham then enjoined him to read out of this work into English, stopping when he was not sure of the word to be used in English, until the right word came to mind, and then proceed. At first, he had often to stop for a while before he could recollect the proper word, but he found the difficulties gradually disappear, until what was a toll him at first became at last an easy and familiar task. " It is perhaps, not surprising that he developed early on a highly unusual ability to speak clearly, structure an argument, and think on his feet. He was aided in this by a formidable memory.

He went to Cambridge University at the age of 14. He was a sickly adolescent and spent the summers in Cambridge and the winters with his family. He was intensely attached to his mother and his father and he idolised. There was intense political discussion between himself and his father. He made friends easily, despite his youth, and became part of a large social circle. He made many lifelong friendships. To insiders he was regarded as great fun but to the external world he showed a stern and aloof demeanour, even from an early age.

His father was deeply opposed to the policy of the government which led to the American Revolution. There was great opposition to Roman Catholics leading to the Gordon riots in 1780. It was a dramatic and exciting time. Unfortunately, his father died in 1778 deeply in debt and the family finances were only saved by a grant from Parliament of 20,000 pounds. Pitt trained as a lawyer and indeed practised as such briefly. This was a time of rotten boroughs, large cities with no representation and some electorates with only two voters. Corruption was rampant. The largest seats cost each candidate the equivalent of 5,000,000 pounds in today's terms on electoral expenses.

Over half the boroughs could be purchased in one way or another. However, hehad no money and depended on a patron. One was eventually found who fortunately was not very demanding and he entered Parliament in January 1781 at the age of 22. At that time one in six members were under the age of 30. He quickly established himself as a great orator. He entered a house containing some extraordinary characters including Fox, Sheridan, and William Wilberforce.

The Whigs, including Fox, threw out Lord North because of his disastrous loss of the American colonies and took office. Unfortunately they were violently opposed by George III. The King acted in an unconstitutional way so as to indicate that he had no confidence in his government. This was, even by the standards of the day, outrageous but led to Pitt being offered the position of "Prime Minister" and taking office in December 1783 at the age of 24.

He remained in office, apart from a break between December 1801 and April 1804 (having resigned office for complex reasons including the intransigent attitude of George III to the question of Catholic Emancipation) until his death at the age of 49 in January 1806.

It is astonishing to recognise that throughout much of that time he was Prime Minister with virtually no staff, he was also the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Leader of the House. The House of Commons was his arena of greatness. From a position of running a minority government he quickly gained the ascendancy to such a point that Fox did not attend parliament for some years.

During this time he dealt with the madness of King George. He attempted and then abandoned attempts to bring about parliamentary reform. He revolutionised the running of the government including bringing in the first income-tax. He dealt with the French Revolution and all its consequences and was the first to attempt to put the finances of Great Britain in order using a sinking fund to pay off debt. It is salutary to realise that five future prime ministers served in his Cabinet.

Throughout much of this time he retained his aloof demeanour, he had little contact and no obvious interest in women apart from on one occasion and, if anything, appeared to be an asexual ascetic, except that he enjoyed his booze. He routinely drank three bottles of port per night. William Hague makes the point that bottles of port in those days were about half the size of the standard bottle today. Nevertheless that is a considerable intake and is thought to have contributed to his early death.

He had been made Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports which provided an income of 3000 pounds but his own finances were a terrible mess, in part because of his lack of interest, his lack of time, and because of his refusal to accept any sinecures.

He was the dominating the political figure of his times but was not a popular figure in the House of Commons, he did not socialise with other members most of whom he treated with disdain. There is a telling story of him, in his 40s, playing with two old friends and his niece, who was living with him. They were attempting to blacken his face with burnt cork in a vigorous indoor wrestling match. Two grandees arrived to see Mr Pitt. One of the participants in the struggle saw him straighten himself, put on his public mask as the two grandees approached him bowing, hesitant, and concerned about his response. He treated them with some contempt, scarcely looking at them, dismissed them after answering a query and then quickly returned to the frolic.

Although Sir Robert Walpole is recognised as the first Prime Minister and indeed was longer in office than Pitt nevertheless Pitt first articulated the concept of a prime minister. He also brought great efficiencies to the running of the country and for a number of years before the onslaught of the French revolutionary wars the country was running at a significant surplus. Whilst incorruptible himself he used patronage with great political sensitivity to achieve his aims.

It is extraordinary that he accomplished so much and was dead by the age of 49.

William Hague's biography is the best sort of biography, it is fascinating to read with telling stories about Pitt and his contemporaries and allows us to see Pitt in the context of his times. Hague repeatedly dwells on the sheer volume of work that Pitt was able to get through, his mastery of detail, especially financial detail. He was known for his extraordinary grasp of the classics and his capacity to produce the apt quote at the right time. He was known for giving speeches off-the-cuff lasting up to three hours which were models of clarity, reasoned argument leading to inexorable conclusions without any apparent preparation.

Hague is also fascinated by his ability to manipulate the King, the Prince of Wales, and other influential figures. He made great enemies but had enduring and loyal friends. With the passage of time, Hague makes it clear that anyone in office for any length of time is gradually brought down by the burden of accumulated mistakes, problems, enemies, and the eventual boredom of the populace.

By the way Hague quotes from a letter written by Pitt in which he uses the word " se'nnight". I leave it to you to work out what it means.

This one volume biography provides a fascinating introduction both to politics but also to the history behind such events as the Battle of Trafalgar and the English view of the various phases of the French Revolution. It made me want to read more about Fox, Grenville, George III and other larger-than-life figures. I commend it to you.

Michael Epstein

William Hague has a pleasant, straightforward and limpid style in which he can convey not only complex political situations, but a warmth of feeling towards his subject and a sensitive and empathic interpretation of behaviour and background.

He begins with Pitt's extremely precocious childhood. He was tutored at home, in large part by his father (whose loving nature may also be something of a revelation to readers). From earliest childhood young Pitt breathed in politics. Hague speculates that he learnt not only from his father's successes (his oratory, his foreign policy), but also from his failures (going to the Lords in 1766, or leaving the post of First Lord of the Treasury to someone else).

There are exciting accounts of several key episodes in his life: his rise to becoming Prime Minister at the age of 24; the Regency Crisis of 1788/9; his resignation over his disagreement with George III over Catholic Emancipation in 1801 (beautifully analyzed), and his promise, after the King's recovery from his recurring malady, never to raise the matter again; the drifting apart between Pitt and his old friend and nominee Addington during the latter's interregnum.

No minister except Walpole has for so long and so completely dominated the House of Commons. Pitt was universally acclaimed as a great orator, though only a very few passages quoted in this book - foremost among them his speech in 1792 advocating the abolition of the slave trade - make for stirring reading these days. Part of the appeal of his speeches is said to have been the cogency of their logical structure and his mastery of detail, which is not so easily conveyed in a book. He was a brilliant manager of the nation's finances - but his own were often in a ruinous state. He could not be bothered to pay much attention to them, and refused to take sinecure offices (except, at the King's insistence, the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports) or a large donation offered by the merchants of the City of London. He was hugely in debt at the time of his resignation in 1801, but he refused all offers of help, from the King, from Parliament, from his successor Addington in the form of sinecure offices, or from the City. Only through help from a handful of his closest friends was the pressure of debt slightly eased.

For Pitt rightly prided himself on his personal probity. He would accept nothing that might be construed as putting him under an obligation; but, though he was personally bored with appeals for his patronage, he did not scruple to allow his lieutenants to manage patronage and bribery on a massive scale, especially at critical moments of his rule. (Hague mentions only in passing his massive inflation of the peerage.)

His finances and his speeches made him a great war leader, but he was less so in the actual conduct of the wars. He underestimated France in the early days and overestimated Britain's military (as distinct from naval) resources. He made miscalculations of the kind that Chatham probably would not have made (though Chatham, of course, had faced a far less dynamic France). He twice (1796, 1797) sought for peace with France because of the immense drain on Britain's financial resources, but, encouraged by a string of French setbacks in 1798 and 1799, turned down the peace overtures Napoleon made immediately after seizing power in France in 1799. In this latter refusal he was strongly backed by his cousin, the hawkish foreign minister William Grenville.

Hague brings out the importance of Grenville throughout Pitt's career. A staunch ally until Pitt's resignation, he became so impatient with Pitt's early forbearance with regard to Addington that he joined Fox in opposition - which George III could not forgive. So when Pitt returned to office in 1804, he could not give a post to Grenville, who then practically became a Foxite Whig. As a result, Pitt no longer had the mastery of the Commons or even of the Cabinet that he had had before, and it added to the strain in those years of Ulm and Austerlitz. By that time Pitt was a shadow of his former self, increasingly exhausted and in dreadful health.

It is on the human side that Hague excels, and there is not always scope for that in the story. Much of Pitt's work in government - finance, trade, administrative reform, the shuffling of seats around the cabinet table - gives little scope to more than the thoroughly workmanlike treatment it receives here. Even the account of the wars with France are no more than that. For me, the best parts of the book deal with Pitt's character. He has generally been considered cold; but he had many close friends in whose company he was witty and amusing. A fine chapter discusses this contrast and shows Pitt, when Prime Minister, as relaxed and warm with family and real friends. There is a long and moving letter he wrote to Wilberforce when the latter announced his religious conversion in 1785. There is an astonishing scene a couple of years before his death when at one moment he was larking around with his intimates whom he allowed to blacken his face with burnt cork, and a moment later, quickly cleaned up, stiffly received political visitors. Between Pitt and his mother there was great warmth and affection. In his letters to her he always made light of difficulties or his poor health, not just because he was by nature optimistic, but because he wanted to spare her worries.

It is astonishing that Hague should have researched and written this book of 592 pages inside two years. The masterly ten-page summing up at the end is not only balanced in its judgments, but tells us a good deal about Hague himself. It is clear that he not only admires Pitt, but feels a great affection for him; and he will make many readers feel the same.

Pitt the younger led his nation through the Napoleonic wars, the first stages of the industrial revolution, and a transformation of Britian, yet all the book seems to talk about is his health, his speaches and where he traveled.

I am sorry, but I selected this book while in Heathrow Airport waiting for a flight back to the US. I knew about Pitt the younger and the times in which he lived. I had hoped for a book that talked about a man in the center of his times. Instead I got an introspective work focused on the triangle between Pitt, Fox and George III. Based on Hague's work they were the only three people who mattered in the world.

I guess I am not the anglophile I thought I was as I found this work admirably written, well researched and understandably proud of Britian's first modern Prime Minister and global leader.

Unforuntaley it was not very interesting -- I am not sure if that is due to Hague's account (I kind of doubt) or Pitt's interior and financially centered life.

It probably has more to do with me being an american and wanting to know more about the man -- the person. The US is after all pretty much a show and tell kind of culture without the reserve for status and class as the UK.

Either way, if you are a strong Anglophile who knows much about the times -- then this is a well crafted detailed account. If you are a part time reader of biographies and history, then you may want to give this one a pass.

No offense intended to our friends in Britian -- Pitt is surely one of the few men who have make the UK great.

This is the sort of book that becomes your friend. Such is Hague's comprehensive mastery of the details and the easy flow of his prose that we are drawn into the world of our hero, his friends and enemies and all the swirl of the political dramas. There are plenty. Probably best of all, superbly told by Hague, is right at the start when Pitt becomes the King's minister on his own terms and then uses all the crown's patronage to turn around a very hostile Commons. It's gripping stuff. As is the drama of the King's madness. Will the dissolute Fox and his prince sweep out the hard working Pitt from Number Ten. We all know the answer, but we still keep on turning the pages.

Hague gives space to Pitt's private life - his concern for his mother, his loyalty to his friends (so his refusal to abandon Melville when he is accused of financial irregularity), the lack of romance in his life, his debts - but we are never far from the dispatch boxes and the politics, because Pitt wasn't. The pressure is relentless. The French Revolution, the ensuing war, Catholic Emancipation, riots, and slowly but surely you sense that Pitt has something heroic about him. He gets the big questions right - inflexible opposition to Jacobinism, security before freedom - and works himself to an early grave for his country. But there is also a touch of Shakespearean tragedy about it all too. When he died many of the causes dear to his heart were flickering in the wind. Napoleon was the undisputed master of Europe after Austerlitz, so there was no end in sight of the war Pitt had vowed to win; this meant more public debt, something he had vowed to reduce; Catholics were still restricted from entering public office, so endangering Ireland, something he had once resigned over; the slave trade which he loathed was still legal; and his command in the Commons was seriously threatened. It would seem events had swept away all that Pitt had stood for. But then our narrator comes onto the stage and shows us the future and we see he had not died in vain. For at least a quarter of a century Pitt's friends ruled Britain and all his causes eventually saw victory. The war was won at Waterloo; Catholics were freed; slavery was abolished; and Pitt's rigorous system in the Treasury became the foundation for Britain's great expansion in the 19th C. His legacy most certainly lived on, even today, as for Hague it is not Peel who is the founder of the Conservative party, but William Pitt The Younger.

As someone who has just got into politics, I've found it difficult to find books on Audio CD written by politicians. Margaret Thatcher's works have yet to be put on CD and George Bush has yet to release anything about his time in the klieg lights. And so there is this and what a book it is too.

Written just after Hague had given up the unenviable job of being leader of a Tory opposition, it is simply written (with lots of explanatory material) and appears to have been thoroughly researched. Though I haven't read the unabridged version, this audio CD seems to cover all areas of Pitt's life in adequate detail.

And, as a bonus, this is one of those rare examples where the author reads his own book AND does a good job of it. Hague clearly has a passion for the subject and his voice is lively and intriguing, which keeps the narrative compelling.

There is little to say in criticism, other than it is a pity that it is not a longer version. 5 CD's though seems enough to give the subject sufficient length, without getting boring.

So, if you're a political aficionado (like me) and you want something entertaining for long car-trips to work, then this seems to be the best on the market. The only thing comparable I can think of is Churchill by Roy Jenkins, but in terms of modern day works by politicians, the market appears surprisingly sparse.
I hope I am wrong, and I welcome comments to enlighten me & others on the subject...

The younger William Pitt lived a life that is not widely known or appreciated in the USA and this well-written and entertaining biography should help to remedy that. It is so unusual for a super-genius to have the opportunity, interest and special aptitude for politics Pitt had that the example deserves much study. We are fortunate that William Hague, the author, did not become Prime Minister himself in 2001 so that he was free to stay in Yorkshire and complete this work.

I'm trying to think what I knew about the politics of late 18th century Britain before I read William Hague's well written biography of William Pitt the Younger, imaginatively named just that. Not much. I knew about Edmund Burke and his opposition to the French Revolution. I knew a few military leaders from reading about the American Revolution. I've seen the brilliant film about King George the Third's madness, and I vaguely knew that there were two William Pitts, father and son, who dominated British Political life during that era, and that Pitt the younger was amazingly young when he got elected Prime Minister.

Now I know quite a bit more. For one thing, Pitt was not technically "Prime Minister". Rather, he had been "First Lord of the Treasury" which was the most senior position in His Majesty's government. He had served for some twenty years, and has been a member of the House of Commons for most of his life. He has, indeed, been chosen to lead the British government at age 24.

How does so young a man become first Minister to the British crown? The answer is, one is picked by the King. George the Third's alliance with William Pitt was one of convenience - he had loathed the other potential political leaders (Primarily Pitt's arch nemesis Charles James Fox). Pitt was the only member of the House of Commons who had credibility enough to form a government, and whom the King felt he could support.

That is not to say that Pitt's talents had nothing to do with with his meteoric rise - far from it. Pitt, a great orator, became a leading presence in the House of Commons. With brilliant tactics (and shameless use of patronage), he formed his own party, and later split the opposition Whig party (with the help of the French Revolution) to rule the house with a huge majority. He had also been one of the first British politicians to care about the views of the majority of Britons not represented in Parliament.

It has been Pitt's very success that made him vulnerable; by 1801, the opposition more or less ceased to exist, and the King felt much less reliant on Mr. Pitt. When the First Lord of the Chancellery clashed with the Monarch on the issue of Catholic Emancipation (giving Catholics the right to vote and be elected), the King felt confident enough to flatly refuse Pitt. Pitt resigned rather then serve without full powers.

In 1804, as the Napoleonic Wars got worse, Pitt returned to office. This time his coalition was shakier, and he probably wouldn't have lasted long as Prime Minister had he not died in January 1806, at the age of 46.

William Hague, a one time would be Tory PM, who had been compared to Pitt the younger by none other then Margaret Thatcher, offer a very readable and compelling biography. His book is not particularly analytical, but it is very well written and researched. I wish Hague would have put Pitt more in context, both of British and International Politics (we get no mention of America after the Revolution, no word of the remaining colonies, and very little about the internal politics of any other country save France), and the industrial revolution. Nonetheless, as someone who doesn't read many biographies, I thoroughly enjoyed this one. Whatever the merits of Hague as a politician, he has a future as a historian.

(By the way, my copy of the book contains a recommendation by British Tory PM John Major "If you only buy one political biography this year, make it this one". Talk about damning with faint praise. I guess it could have been worse "If you only buy one biography of an 18th century British politician named Pitt in December...")

Speaking of Merits, how should we assess the statesmanship of William Pitt the younger? Ultimately, I think Pitt was a very competent, but not great, Prime Minister. In his first decade as prime minister, Britain enjoyed Peace, and Pitt managed to survive as Prime Minister, expand his coalition somewhat, rationalize the tax system, and begin to balance the government's deficit. The reduction of the deficit, with view for its ultimate extinction, was Pitt's greatest achievement, albeit one that was aided greatly by the fast growing economy in the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and that all but disappeared when the wars of the French Revolution started.

Other then economically, Pitt managed to achieve few if any of the reforms he had supported. He failed to reform the electorate, abolish the slave trade, or (later) achieve Catholic emancipation.

As War leader, Pitt commanded over a mostly unsuccessful war effort, which saw the rise of three coalitions against the armies of the French Revolution, and later Napoleon. French forces defeated all in term, and Pitt died just days after receiving word of Napoleon's greatest Victory in the Battle of Austerlitz.

This is not to say that Pitt was a failure. He had been a strong supporter of the navy, and British control of the Seas became an unalterable fact under his watch, and due to his effort and leadership. Pitt had secured the Unification of the British and Irish Parliament. Both achievements would last for over a century. Politically, Pitt planted the roots of the Tory party, and managed to survive various crises, including the insanity of his patron, George III. If nothing else, Pitt has led his nation through some of the most difficult transformations of its age, internal and external. And while there had still been a long road ahead, by the time Pitt passed away, Britain has surely reached, in Churchill's terms, "The End of the Beginning".