This thesis is an examination of the use Edward III made of various resources at his disposal in order to patronize a number of individuals destined for the parliamentary peerage or beyond. Primarily through a judicious use of escheats, forfeitures and expectancies, though also through his control over the marriages of his tenants-in-chief, Edward managed to endow a considerable number of new men with properties both suitable to their existing estates and commensurate with their new ranks. Edward's use of these sources, along with temporary forms of patronage such as wardships, annuities, offices and smaller token forms of favour, unsurprisingly sparked a considerable amount of contemporary reaction. However, unlike previous favourites, though Edward's new men did have to contend with a substantial amount of opposition at an individual level - especially in the law courts - popular reaction in general was surprisingly mute. Though there were instances when these men were singled out for criticism, for the most part landed society as a whole, and the established nobility in particular, received them with a degree of toleration rarely exhibited to parvenus. In part due to Edward's use of propaganda, but also to the terms on which he granted out a large portion of the patronage, Edward's new creations were seen as complementing rather than threatening the existing order. Indeed, it was Edward himself who may be said to have limited the powers of his 'new nobility' not only by making them dependent on his goodwill, but also by not allowing for much of the patronage granted out to remain out indefinitely. In the end, then, this thesis is about the first coherent realization by an English monarch of the importance of controlling the composition of the parliamentary peerage at a time when its membership was becoming increasingly predetermined.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

This thesis is essentially concerned with analyzing William Gilpin's criticism and relating it to the critical ideas of his age. Gilpin was a man of taste who lived during a significant transitional period in the history of criticism. His criticism is rooted in the classical tradition and centered around classical principles. But many of his ideas, values, and tastes are radically different in emphasis from, or directly opposite to, those of classical theory. Gilpin, in his criticism of literature, subscribes to the theories that literature imitates nature, that it imitates the ideal rather than the actual, and that it must appeal to the reason. He stresses the objective aspects of literature and asserts the importance of such classical principles as decorum, unity, simplicity and clarity. But his interest in the sensational aspects of literary pictorialism, his non-humanistic concern with landscape poetry, his interest in intuitionalism, his defence of sublime obscurity, his occasional delight in emotions for their own sake, all reveal a turning away from classical values. Gilpin makes little effort to reconcile the inconsistencies and self-contradictions in his literary criticism. In his criticism of painting Gilpin is strongly influenced by the classicism of contemporary British painting. Again he advocates the imitation of ideal reality. He believes that the image is all important in painting and that it must be a generalized representation of the ideal central form of an object. He also believes that painting must appeal to the reason, and he usually treats the perceptive imagination as an essentially rational faculty. Occasionally he acknowledges painting's ability to cause emotional transport. Of the painter Gilpin requires knowledge of objects and of the rules of art. The painter's knowledge and technical skill are, however, useful only if they are directed by genius. Gilpin judges paintings by the principles established by the Roman school—design (decorum), composition, harmony, simplicity, exactness—and discusses these principles in an essentially classical manner. But he uses them to praise the Venetians, the Baroque masters, and landscape paintings. His criticism of painting has many inherent contradictions but is superficially fairly coherent. Sculpture is treated only briefly by Gilpin. He believes in idealization and praises simplicity, grace, proportion. But he opposes the rigid neo-classicists of his day by praising animation and even recommending strong action and emotion in sculptured figures and groups. Gilpin has high praise for the classical tradition in English architecture, especially for Burlington-Palladianism. And his criteria of architectural judgement— symmetry, proportion, simplicity—are essentially those of the classical tradition. He is concerned with formal rather than associative architectural values, and he is insistent that architecture be intellectually satisfactory and not only visually effective. He defends the Gothic, especially late Gothic, by attempting to prove its conformity to classical principles. The defence is not very successful, but his appreciation of the Gothic is obviously sincere. He discusses in terms of picturesque or associative values only such minor architectural forms as cottages and ruins. Gilpin defends and evaluates the natural garden in terms of essentially classical principles. The garden is nature methodized, and the method is selection and arrangement according to the rules of art. But Gilpin's acceptance of irregularity, his concern for purely visual values, and his praise of wild nature are in conflict with his basic critical attitude to the garden. Gilpin, in his criticism of the fine arts, attempts to reconcile various conflicting critical attitudes and principles. He is not always successful, but his attempt is an interesting example of late-eighteenth-century eclectic criticism. / Arts, Faculty of / English, Department of / Graduate

The attitudes toward the empire of a small group of Labour Party spokesmen are compared in this thesis. Considered collectively these attitudes suggest that the Labour Party had developed a distinctive form of imperialism which was derived from a reasoned evaluation of the needs and aspirations of the dependent peoples. The historiography of the Labour Party indicates some Labour interest in the peoples of the empire, but it has not, as yet, systematically examined the collective views of key Labour leaders. It would seem that historians have assumed generally that, except for the Fabian Society, the Labour Party was decidedly anti-imperialistic. Through an examination of the writings of the spokesmen, and by demonstrating to what extent their views were reflected in party policy, the present study attempts to establish that Labour had developed its own form of imperialism. After an analysis of historiography in the introduction, this thesis explains that Labour imperial attitudes originated in a stream of nineteenth century liberal radicalism rather than in any form of doctrinaire socialism. Chapter three introduces the spokesmen and demonstrates that they were imperialists in that they were willing to retain the empire until certain objectives were achieved. Underlying religious motivations are then discussed. These show a strong desire among Labour leaders to regard the empire as an opportunity to exercise a missionary zeal to elevate humanity intellectually and morally. Trusteeship notions, the heart of Labour imperialism, are then examined. Finally, before concluding, the Labour philosophy of trusteeship is related to the question of free trade. Labour imperialism was benevolent, seeking to realize the advantages of empire through a policy of trusteeship which was designed to prepare colonial peoples to engage in a willing partnership. It involved a selection of colonial service personnel, a promotion of race and culture blending, and a development of colonial material resources with minimal disturbance of native social institutions. It was also based on a belief in an extension of domestic social legislation to the colonies. This economically and socially developing empire was to serve as a temporary substitute, and to a large extent, as a model for an ideal world federation to be eventually achieved. This study shows that Labour leaders were not opposed to empire per se, but against certain contemporary imperial activities which they regarded as indicating the mismanagement of empire. They were paternalistic in their proposed form of dominance, but willing, far more than representatives of other parties, to prepare colonial peoples to develop their abilities to survive independently. In this sense they were democratic idealists. They regarded mutual trust as the only way through which the long-range advantages of empire might be preserved. This study substantiates that influential party leaders largely agreed upon an imperial philosophy that was consistent and continuous since 1900, the year in which the party began as the Labour Representative Committee. / Arts, Faculty of / History, Department of / Graduate

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.