To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
The Whole Class Ensemble Tuition (WCET) is a model of teaching and learning music which takes place in many English primary schools. It is a relative newcomer to music pedagogy in the primary school. In the groundbreaking study reported in this paper, two new models of teaching and learning music are proposed. These are (a) Music education starts with the instrument and (b) Music education takes place via the instrument. Conceptualised descriptions of classroom music pedagogies are not commonplace, and so this paper makes a significant contribution to the music education research literature by delineating, describing and labelling two of these with reference to the WCET programme. These distinctions are of international significance and are useful to describe differences between programmes, which constitutes a major contribution to music curricula discussions. The paper concludes that clarity on the purposes of teaching and learning is fundamental to effective musical pedagogy and that this is a matter that education systems worldwide should be considering.
I explore the construction of women as the secret for the ‘successful’ prosecution of war in Afghanistan. To do so, I take up the mobilization of gender in the US counterinsurgency doctrine as deployed in Afghanistan. I draw on the 2006 Counterinsurgency Field Manual, human rights and humanitarian reports, and scholarly works to identify and analyze this mobilization, paying attention to the colonial histories upon which COIN explicitly and implicitly relies. By critically integrating these sources and the paradigmatic moments that exemplify COIN, I demonstrate the constitutive relationship of gender and COIN. The valence of the secret – of women as concealing, revealing, being, and bearing the secret – is still a lesser explored element in the analysis of the gendering of COIN and of its ‘military orientalism’. Even as scholars have powerfully shown how, in the case of Afghanistan and elsewhere, the veil functions as an overdetermined and ‘multilayered signifier’ in its own right, symbolizing the ‘tension between disclosure and concealment that defines the dominant conception of the secret’, less subject to detailed analysis in case of Afghanistan is the ways in which Afghan women are constituted through COIN in polysemous relation to the notion of the secret.
In this article, we focus on the subset of evolutionary theorising self-identified as Feminist Evolutionary Analytic (FEA) within security studies and International Relations. We offer this accounting in four sections. First, we provide a brief overview of the argument that reproductive interests are the ‘origins’ of international violence. Second, we break down the definitions of gender, sex, and sexuality used in evolutionary work in security studies generally and in FEA specifically, demonstrating a lack of complexity in FEA’s accounts of the potential relations among the three and critiquing their essentialist heteronormative assumptions. Third, we argue that FEA’s failure to reflect on the history and context of evolutionary theorising, much less contemporary feminist critiques, facilitates its forwarding of the state and institutions as primarily neutral and corrective bulwarks against male violence. Fourth, we conclude by outlining what is at stake if we fail to correct for this direction in feminist, IR, and security research. We argue that FEA work misrepresents and narrows the potential for understanding and responding to violence, facilitating the continued instrumentalisation of women’s rights, increased government regulation of sexuality, and a more expansive form of militarism.
The articles of Galway and Limerick were considerably more complex than the surrenders previously negotiated and, owing to the number of Catholics expected to claim their benefit, were much more important to the Williamite settlement in Ireland. As a consequence both sets of articles – particularly the articles of Limerick – were subjected to intense scrutiny by the Irish and English administrations. Moreover, the greater number of claimants to the articles of Limerick allowed the articlemen to fund and direct a lobbying effort more concentrated in nature than that of the minor articlemen. Throughout the 1690s, the interpretation and implementation of the articles of Galway and Limerick provoked controversy. This chapter examines the articles of Limerick, with a particular focus on their early interpretation by the Irish and English governments. The articles of Limerick were viewed with deep suspicion and hostility by Irish Protestants, who feared a repeat of the Catholic resurgence of the 1680s. The Irish government came under intense pressure, both from the articlemen and the Protestant polity, to interpret the articles in different ways. Protestants argued for as narrow an interpretation as possible, while the articlemen naturally pressed the opposite case.
Section II identifies the leading Catholic lobbyists in London and analyses the inconsistent attitude adopted by the Irish government to the implementation of the articles. The king's official attitude to the articles of surrender during the 1690s was that they should be interpreted with ‘justice but not favour’. Justice was, however, a fluid concept and the Irish and English administrations sought ways to exploit the weaknesses of the articles. The potential for instability in Ireland was enormous, and the Williamite authorities were mindful that to revoke the articles entirely was potentially catastrophic. They were required to tread a fine line between pandering to Protestant hostility to the articles, and appearing overly sympathetic to the recently defeated Jacobite rebels. Section III addresses attempts in 1692 to give legislative protection to the articles of Limerick through a proposed bill of indemnity, while Section IV provides an overview of continued hostility to the articles among Protestant politicians, up to the passing of the act confirming an abridged version of the articles of Limerick in 1697 and the opening of the third and final court of claims.
Coming so soon after the defeat at Aughrim, the surrender of Galway in July 1691 was a crushing blow to the Jacobite army. Galway was long recognised as a weak point in Jacobite resistance and several of the town's inhabitants, including the Jacobite judge, Denis Daly, had maintained contact with the Williamite forces from late 1690. Others, such as Sir John Kirwan (a former mayor), Arthur French (mayor in 1691) and Oliver Martin were instrumental in convincing Ginkel to approach the town in July 1691 without waiting for his artillery. Their motivation was the retention of their estates in return for the surrender of the town without a siege. The articles of Galway were significantly more comprehensive than previous terms of surrender, indicating the importance of Galway to the Jacobite war effort, the pressure on Ginkel to conclude the war that year and the presence of skilled lawyers on the Irish side. The agreed terms related only to the residents and officials of Galway and the soldiers garrisoned there. Throughout the 1690s the Galway articlemen doggedly pursued the rights promised them by the articles. On several occasions their efforts led to the creation of an informal lobby group or committee, which met with qualified success. Concurrently, individual claimants petitioned for their rights under the articles. Their efforts were concentrated on the four principal articles: 8, 9, 12 and 13.
The articlemen of Galway, no less than those of Limerick, lobbied throughout the decade to ensure that the terms signed in July 1691 were honoured. Two separate bills were drafted by the Irish government in 1692 in an attempt to implement in part the articles of Galway. Of these, the indemnity bill has already been discussed in chapter 4. Section I of this chapter discusses the second bill, which related to the right of lawyers claiming the articles of Galway to continue practising after the war, alongside the reaction of the Galway articlemen to article 13 of Limerick. Several other issues arose in the 1690s that required the close attention of the Irish and English governments. Three men played prominent roles as lobbyists and advocates for the articles of Galway: Arthur French, Denis Daly and John Bourke, Baron Bophin and future earl of Clanricarde. French and Daly were instrumental in the negotiation of the articles, while article 13 of Galway was designed with Lord Bophin in mind.
Articles given in this appendix are those that have clauses relating to the property and livelihoods of the beneficiaries. Article 17 of the less well known military articles of Limerick, discussed above (p. 137), is also included. Articles that were purely military in nature, such as those signed at Cork (28 September 1690), have not been included.
Articles of Drogheda (3 July 1690)
The officers and soldiers of the garrison, as also the Roman Catholic clergy, and all others that shall desire it shall have leave to march to Mallow, taking with them their own proper arms, but to leave behind them all public stores of canon, ammunition or other habiliments of war without embezzlement.
They shall take with them sufficient provisions for their journey and shall have a safe convoy thither with baggage and horses.
The Roman Catholic dwellers of the town shall not be molested in their properties.
All sick officers and soldiers shall have leave to stay in town till recovered, and then shall be conducted to the next garrison.
[Four further articles included, giving various assurances regarding safe passage with baggage.]
Articles of Waterford (25 July 1690)
[The articles of Waterford were identical to those of Drogheda. The only difference was the substitution of the word ‘city’ for ‘town’ in article 3.]
Articles of Galway (21 July 1691)
William and Mary, by the grace of God,
To all whom these presents shall come, greeting. Whereas certain articles bearing date 21 July last past were made and agreed upon by our trusty and well beloved Robert [sic], Baron de Ginkel, Lieutenant General and Commander in Chief of our forces in our kingdom of Ireland, and the constable and Governor of our town of Galway in our said Kingdom, whereby our said General promises that we should ratify these capitulations within the space of three months from the date thereof or sooner, the tenor of which said articles is as follows:
That the town and fort of Galway shall be given up to his Excellency or such officer as he shall appoint on Sunday morning next by six of the clock, together with all the stores of ammunition and provision and magazines of all forts without embezzlement, and that immediately upon the signing these articles such person as the general shall appoint have leave to inspect them.
To all the people of our kingdom of Ireland, whom it may concern William R.
As it hath pleased almighty God to bless our arms in this kingdom, with a late victory over our enemies at the Boyne, and with the possession of our capital city of Dublin, and with a general dispersion of all that did oppose us: we are now in so happy a prospect of our affairs, and of extinguishing the rebellion of this kingdom: that we hold it reasonable to think of mercy, and to have compassion upon those whom we judged to have been seduced. Wherefore we do hereby declare, we shall take into our royal protection all poor labourers, common soldiers, country farmers, ploughmen and cottiers whatsoever, as also all citizens, townsmen, tradesmen, and artificers who either remained at home, or having fled from their dwellings, shall by the first day of August next repair to their usual places of abode; surrendering up what arms they have, to such justices of the peace as are, or shall be appointed by us, not only to receive the same, but also to register the appearance of such of the said persons as shall come and submit unto our authority. For our royal intention is, and we do hereby declare, that we will not only pardon all those poor seduced people as to their lives and liberties, who shall come in by the time aforesaid, for all violences they have done or committed by the command of their leaders during the war; but we do also promise to secure them in their goods, their stocks of cattle, and all their chattels personal whatsoever; willing and requiring them to coming in, and where they were tenants, there to preserve the harvest of grass and corn for the supply of winter.
From September 1698 until his death in 1711, the bulk of John Browne's time was occupied by the sale of his estate and the process of clearing his debts. A second act of parliament to regulate the sale of the Browne estate was found to be necessary as early as 1697. The first two sections of this chapter examine several attempts to have this second act passed by the Irish parliament in 1698 and again during the session of 1703–4, before eventual success in 1705. Even that was not the final word on the matter, with a third act sought in 1709. The efforts of 1698 were important as they marked the first time that Browne was not actively involved in seeking the acts, which threatened to take away whatever control he still retained of his affairs. Browne fought hard against such a scenario, occasionally making a personal appearance in Dublin, though more usually relying on his eldest son, Peter, and various agents to protect his interests in Dublin and in London. Section III traces the sale of the Browne estate between 1698 and 1708, and payments made to creditors in the same period. By the time the process had concluded, almost nothing of Browne's once vast estate remained in his possession. Peter Browne became increasingly important in this process as the seventeenth century drew to a close. Peter's ambitions in life were subordinated to his family obligations as heir to the estate – or what little would remain once his father's debts were paid. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing Peter was the daunting prospect of rebuilding his family's landed interest and fortune. That work was undertaken as the sale of the estate progressed. Several purchasers of the estate clearly acted in concert with the Brownes, allowing Peter to immediately take out favourable leases as he sought to resurrect his family's fortunes.
A combination of factors had prevented Browne and his creditors securing a second act for the sale of the estate in 1697. For his creditors, a second act was desirable to speed up the sale process, which had not begun by the end of the year. For Browne, a second act was imperative to renew his freedom from arrest for debt, which expired on 1 November 1697.
Traditional accounts of early modern Ireland have traced the seemingly inevitable decline of the Catholic landed interest following the Cromwellian and Williamite wars of the seventeenth century, portraying the Irish Catholic community as leaderless and politically moribund in the decades after the surrender of Limerick in 1691. This book demonstrates, however, that the picture was considerably more complex. By taking advantage of the upheavals in Irish landownership of the 1650s, many Catholics not only survived, but thrived. Having emerged as leaders of the Irish Catholic interest during the 1680s, these landowners refused to go into exile following the surrender of the Jacobites. They do not fit neatly into the archetype of the dispossessed and discontented Irish Catholic, offering instead an alternative perspective on Irish Jacobitism. Using the career of Colonel John Browne of Westport House as a focal point, this book casts new light on a wide range of subjects, including Catholic opposition to the repeal of the Restoration land settlement, the Irish Jacobite civil and military administration, estate management in late seventeenth-century Ireland, and the creation of lobbying networks in Dublin and London by Irish Catholics. The book also provides a detailed examination of the Williamite peace settlement in Ireland, and highlights the deeply interconnected nature of Irish society in the late seventeenth century. EOIN KINSELLA completed his doctorate at University College Dublin
John Browne of Westport, County Mayo, was the quintessential representative of the Catholic ‘new interest’. Called to the Irish bar in 1669, he was a self-made man. As one of the greatest beneficiaries of the upheaval caused by the Restoration land settlement, between 1666 and 1685 Browne accrued an enormous estate in Galway and Mayo of more than 155,000 acres (with over 39,000 acres classed as profitable), as well as property in Counties Sligo, Roscommon, Clare and Dublin. He was an ambitious man who used family connections to great advantage. Married to a daughter of the 3rd Viscount Mayo, Browne was also linked by his siblings’ marriages to several prominent families, both Catholic and Protestant, including the Dillons of Roscommon, the Malones of Westmeath, the Binghams of Mayo and the Talbots of Dublin. At least one of his nephews, George Browne, was commissioned in the regiment John raised for James II in 1689. Two other nephews were prominent lawyers: Garrett Dillon in the reign of James II, and Edmund Malone from the 1680s until the 1720s. Both were intimately acquainted with Browne's financial affairs – Dillon became a business partner with his uncle in the 1680s, while Malone proved an important lobbyist for Browne and others in Dublin and London during the 1690s and beyond.
During the Williamite war Browne established himself as one of the most important Irish Jacobites and acted as a negotiator and signatory of the articles of Limerick. He used this position to secure a controversial article, which ensured that liability for his personal debts – at least £30,000, incurred before the outbreak of the war and owed mostly to Irish Protestants – was not to be borne by him alone, but shared with all Catholics who retained their land under the various articles of surrender. Nonetheless, the settlement of these debts eventually stripped Browne of almost his entire estate, a process that took more than two decades and was still not complete at the time of his death.
This chapter surveys Browne's rise to prominence as a landowner and lawyer, and his attempts to establish himself as an ironmaster. As with many of his ‘new interest’ contemporaries, Browne's training at the inns of court in London equipped him to explore opportunities for investment in land.
The trajectory of John Browne's career, between the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 and the death of William III in 1702, mirrored that of the wider Catholic ‘new interest’. None of his contemporaries were, however, able to match Browne's extreme levels of success and failure. Between 1666 and 1680 Browne created an enormous estate in the west of Ireland, consisting of more than 155,000 acres. Not content with this accomplishment, he also set out to establish himself as an ironmaster, rapidly accumulating debts as he sought to build a profitable business. This was to prove his undoing. Heavily indebted by the mid-1680s, Browne never again enjoyed a period of financial stability. Given time he may have been able to recover his position, but James II's reign introduced a period of instability in the three kingdoms that culminated with William of Orange's invasion of England in November 1688. Browne's subsequent support for the Jacobite cause was as wholehearted as any, though the underlying motive is clear. In the event of a Jacobite victory, James II would have written off at least a portion of those debts in payment for Browne's services. Trusting in this eventuality, and on the acquisition of a new estate from forfeited Protestant lands, Browne did not join with other prominent ‘new interest’ landowners who actively assisted the Williamites during the war. His loyalty ensured a place at the negotiating table in 1691 as a representative of the Jacobites, and offered an opportunity that Browne gladly took. The resulting articles of surrender set the course of the remainder of his life.
Article 13 of Limerick ensured that Browne was unique among the articlemen. The article itself was exceptional in that the legislative and executive branches of government made repeated attempts to ensure its implementation and to secure parliamentary ratification, beginning with the very first parliament of the post-war era. On their side too, the motive is clear – the vast majority of the beneficiaries of article 13 were Protestant and many were members of parliament or officeholders. Beyond the confines of his immediate family, it is difficult to know how Browne was regarded by Catholics in Connacht, or indeed the rest of Ireland. His sons-in-law clearly looked to him for advice and counsel, even if relations with both were occasionally strained.
It is difficult to gauge the overall effect of article 13 of Limerick, and the prolonged sale of the estate, on John Browne's family and on the wider Connacht community. From 1698 Browne's eldest son Peter became increasingly involved in the management of the family's debts. Browne's four other children (Valentine, Bridget, Elizabeth and Mary) were largely peripheral figures in this business, though the marriages of two of his three daughters and their consequent dowries placed him under further financial burdens and brought Browne into conflict with their husbands. As Browne's most important legal representative in the 1690s and 1700s, Edmund Malone played a prominent role in the management of his affairs, including disputes with Lord Athenry and Viscount Mayo, Browne's sons-in-law. In Dublin, Luke Hussey's diligence was important to the management of Browne's business. This chapter examines the impact of John Browne's debts on the lives of his children, as well as the agency of his nephew Edmund Malone on behalf of several Catholic and Protestant families in Counties Galway and Mayo. The first section analyses Malone's work in London as he managed the affairs of the Brownes of the Neale, the Blakes of Moyne, County Galway, and the Veseys of County Galway, as well as Malone's occasionally tense relationship with his uncle. The lives of Browne's children are discussed in section II, through the prism of their relationship with their father. Though Peter Browne's correspondence is relatively well preserved among the Westport papers, the same cannot be said of Valentine Browne and his three sisters. Section III examines the conversion to Protestantism of two of John Browne's grandsons: Francis Bermingham, future Baron Athenry, and Peter Browne's son, John Browne, future earl of Altamont. Francis Bermingham's conversion in particular allows an insight into the pressure brought to bear on the Catholic gentry of Ireland by the penal laws.
The main branch of the Browne family remained at the Neale after the death of Colonel John Browne's father in 1670, with the estate inherited by George Browne, the eldest son. Like his father and several of his direct descendants, George Browne never assumed the baronetcy bestowed on the family in 1636 – that title was not assumed until 1762, by George Browne's great–grandson (also named George) whose brother John was in turn elevated to the peerage as Baron Kilmaine (second creation) in 1789.