The Marquess of Londonderry: Aristocracy, Power and Politics in Britain and Ireland

The decline and fall of the British aristocracy looked headlong and irreversible in the twentieth century yet many grandees tried to preserve their power, wealth and influence by every means - and with some success. There is no better example than the Seventh Marquess of Londonderry whose life from 1878 to 1949 spanned and mirrored the period. The Londonderrys had enjoyed immense wealth in land and minerals in Britain and Ireland for centuries, played leading roles in Parliament and the state, and in an earlier time the Seventh Marquess would have continued in the family tradition of patrician prominence. Drawing upon original state and family papers, N.C. Fleming places the Londonderrys in the context of the history and the political theory of aristocracy and shows the constant struggle - not without success - against marginalisation. The theme runs through Londonderry's career as Conservative MP, on the Irish Viceroy's Council, as a junior minister in Lloyd Geroge's coalition, at the Air Ministry with Trenchard - the 'father of the RAF' - and in the National Government. Perhaps an element of desperation entered in his private business ventures and with contacts with the far Right - all in sharp contrast to past family achievement.

'Incorrigibly Plural’: New Histories of Ulster and Northern Ireland’

Review article of Carson’s Army: The Ulster Volunteer Force, 1910–22. By Timothy Bowman. Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2007. 256 pp. ISBN 0719073715, £55. A History of the Northern Ireland Labour Party: Democratic Socialism and Sectarianism. By Aaron Edwards. Manchester University Press, Manchester, 2009. xiii + 240 pp. ISBN 0719078741, £60. Catholic Belfast and Nationalist Ireland in the Era of Joe Devlin 1871–1934. By A.C. Hepburn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008. xix +307 pp. ISBN 019929884X, £55. The Big House in the North of Ireland: Land, Power and Social Elites, 1878–1960. By Olwen Purdue. University College Dublin Press, Dublin, 2009. xv + 297 pp. ISBN 978-1-906359-25-6, £24.

The Falkland Islands War of 1982: a legal, diplomatic and strategic evaluation

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

The law of the sea: the United States, Canada and the deep seabed

The Falkland Islands War of 1982 was fought over competing claims to sovereignty over a group of islands off the east coast of South America. The dispute was between Argentina and the United Kingdom. Argentina claims the islands under rights to Spanish succession, the fact that they lie off the Argentine coast line and that in 1833 Great Britain took the islands illegally and by force. The United Kingdom claims the islands primarily through prescription--the fact that they have governed the islands in a peaceful, continuous and public manner since 1833. The British also hold that the population living on the islands, roughly eighteen hundred British descendants, should be able to decide their own future. The United Kingdom also lays claim to the islands through rights of discovery and settlement, although this claim has always been challenged by Spain who until 1811 governed the islands. Both claims have legal support, and the final decision if there will ever be one is difficult to predict. Sadly today the ultimate test of sovereignty does not come through international law but remains in the idea that "He is sovereign who can defend his sovereignty." The years preceding the Argentine invasion of 1982 witnessed many diplomatic exchanges between The United Kingdom and Argentina over the future of the islands. During this time the British sent signals to Argentina that ii implied a decline in British resolve to hold the islands and demonstrated that military action did more to further the talks along than did actual negotiations. The Argentine military junta read these signals and decided that they could take the islands in a quick military invasion and that the United Kingdom would consider the act as a fait accompli and would not protest the invasion. The British in response to this claimed that they never signaled to Argentina that a military solution was acceptable to them and launched a Royal Navy task force to liberate the islands. Both governments responded to an international crisis with means that were designed both to resolve the international crisis and increase the domestic popularity of the government. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was facing an all-time low in popularity for post-War Prime Ministers while Argentine President General Galtieri needed to gain mass popular support so he could remain a viable President after he was scheduled to lose command of the army and a seat on the military junta that ran the country. The military war for the Falklands is indicative of the nature of modern warfare between Third World countries. It shows that the gap in military capabilities between Third and First World countries is narrowing significantly. Modern warfare between a First and Third World country is no longer a 'walk over' for the First World country.

Letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, on the subject of the attack on the Chesapeake : the correspondence of Mr. Monroe with the British Government ; and also Mr. Madison's correspondence with Mr. Rose on the same subject. --

March 23, 1808. Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

Manuscript of James Cummings- August 28, 1860

Transcript (spelling and grammar retained): Chippawa [Chippewa] 28th August 1860 My Dear Sir I duly received your very kind letter of the 24th [June] asking me to communicate such facts of general interest connected with my career during the War with the United States. I have no objection to afford you such information as came under my own observation; nevertheless I do so, with the understanding, I have no desire to be my own trumpeter. With respect to your circular wherein you state you have been for several years collecting materials for a History of the late War between the United States & Great Britain, for which you are now gathering further materials to add to your collection, concerning the Second War for Independence. I am rather at a loss to know, what is meant by the second war; If you allude to the petty Rebellion, it could not be called a War, Those that caused the outbreak were very soon put down, by the Loyal people of the Province without the aid of Regular Troops being satisfied with the Independence they enjoyed. With respect to the several questions names in your circular: To the 1st I would say, this locality is made memorable by the battle of Chippawa [Chippewa] which took place about a mile above the village on the ground I pointed out to you, when I had the pleasure of seeing you a few days ago, with Mr Porter of the Niagara Falls, of which I believe you took sketches at the time. 2nd I have no historical documents of any value; so many years having gone past, the most of my old papers have either been lost or destroyed, I however came across two letters, one dated Queenston 9th July 1812 from Lt. Col. Nicholl Quarter Master General of Militia, the other from Lt. Col Myers Deputy Quarter Master General of the Regular Army date Fort George 23rd same month, directed to me in the hand writing of each of those officers as Deputy Quarter Master General of Militia, which letters I shall be obliged you would return at as early a day possible, as I wish to place them with tome others in the case, I have had made to hold the cocked hat & feather I wore during that eventful period, which I am sorry I did not exhibit when you was at my house; with reference to it I now enclose a letter from Lt. Col. Clark, residing at Port Dalhousie he was Captain & Adjutant of Militia in the War of 1812__ I send the letter in proof of the cock’d hat it is a lengthy one, but you may find time to turn over it, as I shall also place it in the hat case__ 3rd Where are [but] [for] traditionary [sic] witnesses residing in this vicinity – Col Clark above named Mr Merritt of St. Catharines, & Mr Kerby of Brantford are the only ones I now recollect, who could offord [sic] you any statistical information. 4th I have no pictorial sketches of any Military Movements or fortifications. As regards my own career, which you appear [ ? ] of knowing__ I was first a Lieutenant in a volunteer flank company stationed on the river side opposite [Navy] Island not far from the battle ground of Chippawa [Chippewa], I got promotion as Lieutenant of Cavalry before I got my Cavalry dress completed in three days more, I was called by General Brock to Fort George, was appointed Deputy Quarter Master General of Militia with the rank of Captain s the accompanying letters will show. I was at the battle of Stony Creek, several skirmishes at the Cross Roads, when the American army [ ? ] Fort George, at the taking of Col. Boerstler at the Beaver Dam, & had the honor of receiving Colonel Chapens sword at the surrender, who commanded a company of volunteer Horse Men was at the taking of 15 regulars & two officers at Fort Schlosser—was with Col. Bishop at the taking of Black Rock, near him when he fell, three men of the 8th Reg. more killed in the Boat I was in – I was at Chippawa battle, and the last, not the least in Lundy’s lane battle, which the Americans call the battle of Bridge [Waters]. I had forgot; there was another small affair at Corks Mill where I was. I could write a little history of events, but have not the time to do so. If what I have stated will be of any service for the purpose you require I shall feel happy. The history of the late War was published at Toronto in the Anglo American Magazine. Did you ever see it, I have the Books, there were however several errors which came under my notice, which I could have corrected. If my time would permit I could give you a more detailed statement of events. I trust however you may succeed with your publication , and I shall be most happy to hear from you at all times—I related many little occurances verbally to you when here, which I thought not necessary to repeat again as you would have a perfect recollection of them. Be pleased to return the letters for the purpose I require them. I am My Dear Sir Your respectful friend James Cummings

The Columbian Newspaper vol. IV no. 1105- June 12, 1813

The "Columbian" was established by Mr. Holt in 1808 as an "organ of the Clintonians" (Journalism in the United States, from 1690-1872 By Frederic Hudson) and a replacement to the "Citizen". It was a passionate Democratic paper that supported both Jefferson and Madison. Holt later sold the "Columbian" to Alden Spooner, who published the Long Island "Star". The Columbian ceased in 1821. This issue includes the following War of 1812 topics: Page 2: copies of letters from U.S. Gen. H. Dearborn describing the U.S. attack on Ft. George 27 May 1813; letter from Gen. H. Dearborn describing U.S. pursuit of British troops at Beaver Dams and the U.S. capture of Fort Erie; list of U.S. killed and wounded in Commodore Isaac Chauncey's squadron in attack on York 27 April, 1813; list of killed and wounded in Commodore Isaac Chauncey's squadron in attack on Ft. George 27 May 1813; abstract of the cartel for the exchange of prisoners of war between Great Britain and the United States; mention of troop movements through New York on their way to the battle front; list of persons killed or lost on the privateer Saratoga; Page 3: account of the loss of the U.S. war ships the Growler and Eagle to the British; news from Quebec and Kingston of troop movements; U.S. ship Syren unsuccessfully pursues British ship Herald; account of a U.S. cargo ship being captured by a British military ship; account of U.S. ship Siro capturing British ship Loyal Sam; report from Halifax of recent British troop and ship movements; list of recent troop enrollments in various states; report of British troop build up in Kingston;

Letter from the Secretary of State to Mr. Monroe, on the subject of the attack on the Chesapeake : the correspondence of Mr. Monroe with the British Government; and also Mr. Madison's correspondence with Mr. Rose on the same subject

March 23, 1808. Printed by order of the House of Representatives.

Orderly book, Second Regiment of U.S. Dragoons, New York, 1812-1813

The Second U.S. Regiment of Light Dragoons was formed in January 1812. In March of 1814, it merged with the First U.S. Regiment of Light Dragoons to form the Regiment of Light Dragoons.

Orderly book, Second Regiment of U.S. Dragoons, New York, 1812-1813

An orderly book of the Second Regiment of U.S. Dragoons, New York, dated August 14, 1812-July 29, 1813. The book contains orders pertaining to day-to-day military matters, such as punishments for disobedience, court-martial proceedings, camp rules and regulations, and guidelines for interacting with civilians in the vicinity of the camp. The Regiment was stationed at various locations in upstate New York and Canada, including Greenbush, Albany, Sackets Harbor, Utica, Geneva, Fort Niagara and Fort George. General Henry Dearborn originally commanded the Regiment at Greenbush. Names noted in this book include:E. Beebe, Deputy Adjt. General; William King, Capt. 15th; John Chandler, General ;W. Gamewood, Major ;James Burns, Colonel;John Woodford, Major; Andrew McDowell, Capt.; Abm. Gustis, Major; C.W. Hunter, Brigade Major; Selden, Captain; Holland, Captain; Harris, Captain; Clarkson, Lieutenant; Johnson, Lieutenant; Robert Craig, Adjt.; R.G. Hith, A.A. General. Also included with the orderly book are a monthly return form, a contract for medical services, and a bonus pay voucher for Thomas Blunt. The monthly return form is partially completed and dated January 1813 at Greenbush, New York. It is signed by Captain Jonas Holland. The contract is dated May 20, 1812, between John Dodge, physician and surgeon, and Jonas Holland. The contract describes the services required of the physician and the salary to be paid. The bonus pay voucher is dated April 25, 1813, for $8.00 paid to Thomas Blunt by Captain Jonas Holland for 'enlisting into the army of the United States for five years'.

Le regard de l'allié britannique sur la France et son armée durant la guerre de Crimée

Ce mémoire est une étude d’un cas de rapprochement entre deux pays. Pendant la guerre de Crimée, la Grande-Bretagne s’allia à la France du Second Empire. Ennemie traditionnelle, la France est toujours considérée comme une menace. La coopération forcée entre les deux pays, résultat des circonstances, est à la base de la présente recherche. Des milliers de militaires et de civils des deux pays travaillèrent ensemble pendant deux ans. Les correspondances britanniques révèlent une fraternisation plus importante que ce qui est relevé dans l’historiographie. D’après les théories de Gordon Allport sur la diminution des préjugés, toutes les conditions nécessaires à un rapprochement se retrouvaient en Crimée. Les étapes, définies par Allport, qui mènent à cette fraternisation se perçoivent aussi dans les lettres personnelles. Ce rapprochement eut des conséquences sous-estimées : les Britanniques se comparèrent aux Français et leur fierté céda la place à une importante autocritique. Cela déclencha des controverses dans l’armée et dans les journaux dès le début de la guerre, longtemps avant les scandales de l’hiver 1854-1855.

Delimitation of the Right to Life by Healthcare Professionals: Up to what point should the right to life be protected?

This article explores the medical care standard required by law for terminally illpatients and the possibility of limiting therapeutic efforts while respecting the duediligence expected from doctors. To this end, circumstances are identified in whichthe doctor is forced to choose between two possible actions: to guarantee the right tolife by continuing treatment, or to limit the right to healthcare by limiting therapeuticefforts. Two cases taken from English Common Law were reviewed that decided onthe factual problem at hand. In our country, the Constitutional Court established aline of jurisprudence on the role of the doctor in deciding whether or not to continuetreatment for a terminally ill person. Lastly, jurisprudence precedents are presentedalong with a comparative analysis of the solutions given in Great Britain andin Colombia.

La dimensión transnacional del movimiento feminista marroquí: génesis, desarrollo e impacto social (1980-2008)

Esta monografía busca explicar cómo han incidido el contexto internacional y las relaciones transnacionales en el movimiento feminista de Marruecos. De este modo, este estudio defiende que las Conferencias Mundiales sobre la Mujer de la ONU crearon una estructura de oportunidad política que favoreció el surgimiento y el desarrollo de este movimiento. Asimismo, dicho contexto construyó un espacio para que las activistas feministas marroquíes crearan y se insertaran en Redes de Defensa Transnacional, las cuales contribuyeron a cambiar la condición de la mujer en Marruecos, a través de reformas a los Códigos de Familia y Nacionalidad y el levantamiento de las reservas a la CEDAW. Para esto se hará un estudio interdisciplinario haciendo uso de la teoría de los movimientos sociales y del activismo transnacional. Igualmente, se utilizará una metodología cualitativa, principalmente a través de las herramientas del análisis de contenido y el trabajo de campo de la autora.

Prizes for modernity in the provinces: The Arts Council’s 1950-1951 regional playwriting competition

As part of its contribution to the 1951 Festival of Britain, the Arts Council ran what can be seen in retrospect to be an important playwriting competition. Disregarding the London stage entirely, it invited regional theatres throughout the UK to put forward nominations for new plays within their repertoire for 1950-1951. Each of the five winning plays would receive, what was then, the substantial sum of £100. Originality and innovation featured highly amongst the selection criteria, with 40 per cent of the judges’ marks being awarded for “interest of subject matter and inventiveness of treatment”. This article will assess some of the surprising outcomes of the competition and argue that it served as an important nexus point in British theatrical historiography between two key moments in post-war Britain: the first being the inauguration of the Festival of Britain in 1951, the other being the debut of John Osborne’s Look Back in Anger in May 1956. The article will also argue that the Arts Council’s play competition was significant for two other reasons. By circumventing the London stage, it provides a useful tool by which to reassess the state of new writing in regional theatre at the beginning of the 1950s and to question how far received views of parochialism and conservatism held true. The paper will also put forward a case for the competition significantly anticipating the work of George Devine at the English Stage Company, which during its early years established a reputation for itself by heavily exploiting the repertoire of new plays originally commissioned by regional theatres. This article forms part of a five year funded Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) project, ‘Giving Voice to the Nation: The Arts Council of Great Britain and the Development of Theatre and Performance in Britain 1945-1994’. Details of the Arts Council’s archvie, which is housed at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London can be found at http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/wid/ead/acgb/acgbf.html Keywords: Arts Council of Great Britain, regional theatre, playwriting, Festival of Britain, English Stage Company (Royal Court) , Yvonne Mitchell