Famine and land in Ireland and India 1845-1880: James Caird and the political economy of hunger

The perception of Ireland and India as ‘zones of famine’ led many nineteenth-century observers to draw analogies between these two troublesome parts of the British empire. This article investigates this parallel through the career of James Caird (1816–92), and specifically his interventions in the latter stages of both the Great Irish Famine of 1845–50, and the Indian famines of 1876–9. Caird is best remembered as the joint author of the controversial dissenting minute in the Indian famine commission report of 1880; this article locates the roots of his stance in his previous engagements with Irish policy. Caird's interventions are used to track the trajectory of an evolving ‘Peelite’ position on famine relief, agricultural reconstruction, and land reform between the 1840s and 1880s. Despite some divergences, strong continuities exist between the two interventions – not least concern for the promotion of agricultural entrepreneurship, for actively assisting economic development in ‘backward’ economies, and an acknowledgement of state responsibility for preserving life as an end in itself. Above all in both cases it involved a critique of a laissez-faire dogmatism – whether manifest in the ‘Trevelyanism’ of 1846–50 or the Lytton–Temple system of 1876–9.

Famine and land, 1845-80

While historians once tended to displace the Famine from a pivotal position in modern Irish history, more recent research emphasizes its centrality, and focuses upon the controversial issue of state responsibility. Mortality levels from the Famine place it, proportionately, as one of the most devastating recorded human catastrophes. Official British policy towards Ireland spanned two governments, those of Robert Peel and John Russell, with historians taking a more emollient view of the former: in fact there were significant continuities between the two. The legacy of the Famine was uneven, with commercial and technological advance and the consolidation of both the farming interest and landlordism. On the other hand, recent research emphasizes evidence of continuing economic uncertainty, particularly in the West, together with ongoing landlord-tenant tensions. Rural insecurities, crystallized by the poor harvests of 185964, underlay the post-Famine years, and fed into the politicization of the later 1870s.

Quiescent and flaring X-ray emission from the nearby M/T dwarf binary SCR 1845-6357

Aims: X-ray emission is an important diagnostics to study magnetic activity in very low mass stars that are presumably fully convective and have an effectively neutral photosphere. Methods: We investigate an XMM-Newton observation of SCR 1845-6357, a nearby, ultracool M 8.5 / T 5.5 dwarf binary. The binary is unresolved in the XMM detectors, but the X-ray emission is very likely from the M 8.5 dwarf. We compare its flaring emission to those of similar very low mass stars and additionally present an XMM observation of the M 8 dwarf VB 10. Results: We detect quasi-quiescent X-ray emission from SCR 1845-6357 at soft X-ray energies in the 0.2-2.0 keV band, as well as a strong flare with a count rate increase of a factor of 30 and a duration of only 10 min. The quasi-quiescent X-ray luminosity of log LX = 26.2 erg/s and the corresponding activity level of log LX/Lbol = -3.8 point to a fairly active star. Coronal temperatures of up to 5 MK and frequent minor variability support this picture. During the flare, which is accompanied by a significant brightening in the near-UV, plasma temperatures of 25-30 MK are observed and an X-ray luminosity of LX = 8 × 1027 erg/s is reached. Conclusions: The source SCR 1845-6357 is a nearby, very low mass star that emits X-rays at detectable levels in quasi-quiescence, implying the existence of a corona. The high activity level, coronal temperatures and the observed large flare point to a rather active star, despite its estimated age of a few Gyr.

What is the Point of Copyright History?:Reflections on Copyright at Common law in 1774 by H. Tomás Gómez-Arostegui

Copyright history has long been a subject of intense and contested enquiry. Historical narratives about the early development of copyright were first prominently mobilised in eighteenth century British legal discourse, during the so-called Battle of the Booksellers between Scottish and London publishers. The two landmark copyright decisions of that time – Millar v. Taylor (1769) and Donaldson v. Becket (1774) – continue to provoke debate today. The orthodox reading of Millar and Donaldson presents copyright as a natural proprietary right at common law inherent in authors. Revisionist accounts dispute that traditional analysis. These conflicting perspectives have, once again, become the subject of critical scrutiny with the publication of Copyright at Common Law in 1774 by Prof Tomas Gomez-Arostegui in 2014, in the Connecticut Law Review ((2014) 47 Conn. L. Rev. 1) and as a CREATe Working Paper (No. 2014/16, 3 November 2014).

Taking Prof Gomez-Arostegui’s extraordinary work in this area as a point of departure, Dr Elena Cooper and Professor Ronan Deazley (then both academics at CREATe) organised an event, held at the University of Glasgow on 26th and 27th March 2015, to consider the interplay between copyright history and contemporary copyright policy. Is Donaldson still relevant, and, if so, why? What justificatory goals are served by historical investigation, and what might be learned from the history of the history of copyright? Does the study of copyright history still have any currency within an evidence-based policy context that is increasingly preoccupied with economic impact analysis?

This paper provides a lasting record of these discussions, including an editorial introduction, written comments by each of the panelists and Prof. Gomez-Arostegui and an edited transcript of the Symposium debate.