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 firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Why do hosts vary so much in parasite burden, how does this variation translate to variation in host demographic rates and parasite transmission, and how does varied transmission intensity impact selection upon immune defence of individuals? The theoretical foundations of disease ecology provide predictions for the answers to these questions, yet testing such predictions with empirical data poses many challenges. We show how the long-term ecological and genetic study of the unmanaged Soay sheep of St Kilda has addressed fundamental questions in disease ecology, with longitudinal data on parasite burden, immune defence, condition, survival, and fecundity of >10,000 individuals. The rich individual-scale data are complemented by >30 years of data on sheep population dynamics and genetic diversity as well as parasite dynamics and diversity. Population-scale work has documented the range of parasite species present and the contribution of the most prevalent and virulent parasites to regulating sheep dynamics. Individual-scale work has identified drivers of variation in parasite burden and tested hypotheses about costs and benefits of defence in a quest to determine how natural selection has shaped immune function of the sheep.
The preconception, pregnancy and immediate postpartum and newborn periods are times for mothers and their offspring when they are especially vulnerable to major stressors – those that are sudden and unexpected and those that are chronic. Their adverse effects can transcend generations. Stressors can include natural disasters or political stressors such as conflict and/or migration. Considerable evidence has accumulated demonstrating the adverse effects of natural disasters on pregnancy outcomes and developmental trajectories. However, beyond tracking outcomes, the time has arrived for gathering more information related to identifying mechanisms, predicting risk and developing stress-reducing and resilience-building interventions to improve outcomes. Further, we need to learn how to encapsulate both the quantitative and qualitative information available and share it with communities and authorities to mitigate the adverse developmental effects of future disasters, conflicts and migrations. This article briefly reviews prenatal maternal stress and identifies three contemporary situations (wildfire in Fort McMurray, Alberta, Canada; hurricane Harvey in Houston, USA and transgenerational and migrant stress in Pforzheim, Germany) where current studies are being established by Canadian investigators to test an intervention. The experiences from these efforts are related along with attempts to involve communities in the studies and share the new knowledge to plan for future disasters or tragedies.
Corruption pervaded all areas of law enforcement in early eighteenth-century Dublin. Peace officers (constables and watchmen), gaolers, revenue officers and justices of the peace were accused variously of robbery, kidnapping, assault, running brothels, extortion, smuggling, murder, ‘thief-making’, rioting and even devil worship. Dublin Corporation, which had primary responsibility for the maintenance of law and order in the city, was implicated in these scandals: aldermen were accused of taking bribes, and the corporation as a whole was condemned for its failure to regulate the many hundreds of abusive constables. Pressurised into taking action, the Irish parliament undertook investigations in 1729, 1736 and 1738, and introduced reforms to make civil law enforcement more efficient and officers more law-abiding. The 1729 measures, dubbed as the ‘general reformation of abuses’ by the Dublin Intelligence, were particularly important. They resulted in the dismissal of the vast majority of Dublin's constables, dozens of revenue officers and two justices of the peace, and caused the downfall of Dublin's best-known and most controversial law enforcer, the Newgate gaoler John Hawkins. In 1736 the lords justices made another attempt to regulate the behaviour of law officers by reducing the number of constables, and two years later sixteen constables accused by the lord mayor of committing ‘mal practices’ were suspended from duty.
This chapter examines the part played by factional gangs in challenging corruption of the law in Dublin and pressurising parliament to undertake investigations and introduce reforms of law enforcement. A study of these investigations casts light on the modus operandi of law officers, in particular the unrestrained use of violence, extortion and bribery practised by unscrupulous public figures such as Hawkins, and ethical concerns regarding the treatment of prisoners. The flagrant abuses of power, to which Dublin Corporation often turned a blind eye, and the desire to protect their own communities, provoked a violent response from factional gangs, who attacked the forces of order and the symbols of authority. In turn, these popular violent protests put pressure on the parliament to take action against institutionalised corruption, and reforms were eventually made despite the opposition from Dublin Corporation. The chapter concludes with an assessment of the impact of these measures on the behaviour of officers in subsequent years and on changes, if any, in popular attitudes towards law enforcement.
The first organised national militia force, comprised of ‘citizen soldiers’, was formed by Lord Lieutenant James Butler, duke of Ormond, in 1666 in order to enhance the potency of the regular army and help counter internal or external threats. In the later seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries the militia was haphazardly controlled and, unlike the regular army, appeared to have very little central control. However, after the Jacobite revolt in Scotland in 1715 the Irish parliament introduced regulations to ‘make the militia of the kingdom more useful’ by establishing it as a military reserve. The militia act of 1716 required all Protestant males between sixteen and sixty years of age to serve, and fines were imposed on anyone who refused. Catholics were prevented from joining the force but still obliged to provide the militia with funds (double the amount Protestants had to give), and supply horses to militiamen at times of emergency. The act also barred Dissenters from joining, despite claims from some supporters that Presbyterians had shown ‘zeal and steadiness’ in the face of previous threatened invasions and revolts.
The militia was especially important to Protestants since many in the middling and lower social orders were discouraged from joining the regular army by the British government, who were worried that the unrestricted recruitment of Protestants into the army would significantly reduce their number in Ireland. Exceptions to this rule were the sons of established ‘military’ families in Ireland, who were well represented as cavalry officers. Consequently, at least some of the men who joined the militia did so willingly, as it was an opportunity for Irish Protestants to take up arms in peacetime as part of an organised military force.
Militias had a distinctive local character and, as such, helped to cement together the social relations between Protestant landowners and the Protestant men working on their lands. Gentlemen raised regiments from their tenants and farmers, employed adjutants to recruit men from the major towns, issued commissions to friends and relations, and paid for some of the financial costs. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, Protestant interest in the militia was at its highest when there were ‘national’ emergencies. During the invasion scare of 1708, for example, it was reported from County Clare to Lord Inchiquin that eight troops of militiamen under the command of their captains had served the queen with ‘zeal and ambition’.
The civil authorities had primary responsibility for enforcing laws in Ireland. But given that the leaders of law enforcement were recruited mainly from the landed gentry, church and legal profession, they often lacked the competence and organisational know-how to confront large-scale violence. Authorities could call on additional means to enforce laws more effectively, including militias or scattered bands of ‘irregular’ law enforcers, but the most potent force was the army, which was composed of troops recruited mainly in Great Britain and paid for with revenue collected in Ireland.
This chapter examines how the regular army was used by Irish authorities to enforce laws, in particular to counter large-scale disorder in parts of the country where the level of violence was intolerable. Consideration is given initially to how a barrack-building programme in Ireland, which itself was a significant innovation in the late seventeenth century, was implemented by the Irish government in part so that troops could be used as a police force. By 1704 there were over one hundred stations constructed, either as residential buildings or redoubts, ‘in such convenient and necessary parts’ of Ireland as were deemed ‘most proper’ for the purpose. Thereafter the chapter examines the role played by the army in three periods of disorder: the ‘tory wars’ in Munster in the 1690s and early 1700s, the agrarian and penal law protests in Connacht in the early 1710s, and taxation protest in Ireland in the period between 1720 and 1760. It explores the complex and often incongruous relationship that existed between the army and local gentry. In the west of Ireland, where Protestants felt isolated and vulnerable to attack by tories and rapparees, the landed gentry usually considered the army to be the mainstay of its security. Yet, at times, the gentry felt oppressed by the presence of soldiers on their lands and apprehensive about the negative impact that troops had on relations between Catholics and Protestants. The chapter then considers the difficulties faced by local authorities in maintaining order in Connacht in the early 1710s, following an outbreak of agrarian disorder there and the subsequent decision of the Irish government to enforce more strictly the penal laws.
In December 1729, members of a well-known criminal gang in Dublin were arrested and sent to the Castle-Marshalsea prison following an investigation by MPs. Judging by the number of newspaper reports in the following weeks, there was a considerable amount of interest in the gang's activities from the general public in Dublin and London. Most of that attention was given to the leader of the gang, John Hawkins, a well-known figure in Dublin life in the 1710s and 1720s, and his wife, known only as ‘Madam Prue’. People debated what sort of charges should be utilised when, as they expected, the suspects were sent to trial. It was rumoured, for instance, that Hawkins had committed several murders, as well as fraud and theft, and that he even indulged in devil worship. This was not the first time the arrest of Hawkins produced ‘much chat’ among people in Dublin. When he was convicted in a court in Chester nine years earlier, and expected to be hanged there, it was reported that ‘several hundred of the inhabitants of this city [Dublin] would to go thither to see the execution’.
However, the interest in John Hawkins, and his associates, was generated not only from his long-standing reputation as a notorious criminal but also from his being employed by Dublin Corporation as its principal law enforcer. For over eight years prior to his arrest Hawkins controlled a criminal ring from inside the Sheriff-Marshalsea prison (commonly known as the ‘Black Dog’), where he was employed as a sheriff's marshal. He was also the keeper of Newgate prison (then Ireland's largest prison) and was directly involved in general policing duties, including the execution of arrest warrants and the suppression of riots. Various lord mayors of Dublin, who authorised gaolers to work in the city, repeatedly stated that Hawkins had been a highly effective and well-respected servant of the law. Consequently, in the 1720s Hawkins was the best known, and most feared, ‘law enforcer’ in Dublin.
In the absence of a full-time, professionalised police force, justices of the peace enforced laws by utilising gaolers, constables, watchmen, troops and bands of men sometimes known as thief-takers.
Historians of eighteenth-century Ireland have interpreted large-scale violence involving government forces and the general populace in two, contradictory, ways. Broadly speaking, on one side of the debate are historians like Thomas Bartlett, S. J. Connolly, Neal Garnham, James Kelly and M. J. Powell, who have emphasised harmony rather than conflict in social relations, at least until the 1790s. According to S. J. Connolly, Ireland in the early eighteenth century was in many respects a typical pre-industrial society in ancien régime Europe,
ruled over by a mainly landed élite, in which vertical ties of patronage and clientship were more important than horizontal bonds of shared economic or social position, and in which even popular protest was conducted within the assumptions that underlay the existing social order.
Also it was a ‘confessional state’, in which religion was a central aspect of personal and political motivation and in which differences in religious devotion were a fundamental cause of conflict. However, the outlook of the ruling elite with regard to an unreconciled Catholic population and its allies in Europe was ‘a wary confidence in the face of a real, but containable, threat’. This confidence arose in part because the people who joined in localised outbreaks of agrarian violence and urban protest often were controlled and disciplined. According to Neal Garnham, ‘popular protest … tended to be restrained, conservative, even deferential’. Also, the civil authorities deterred people from breaking laws by occasionally handing down harsh punishments in courts such as to hang convicted offenders and display parts of their dismembered bodies in public places. However, they did not practise judicial torture as was commonplace in some other European countries, and there were no ‘forests of corpses’.
Critics of this analysis, who include Vincent Morley, Breandán Ó Buachalla, Éamonn Ó Ciardha and Kevin Whelan, have interpreted violence in late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Ireland in entirely different ways. Kevin Whelan has argued that Ireland is better understood as a colony of England, as opposed to a representative ancien régime society, in which the descendants of the old proprietors of land, who had ‘mutated into an underground gentry’, waited for the opportunity to reclaim their rightful place at the head of Irish society.
• 3 Geo. II c. 14 (1730): An act to prevent unlawful combinations of workmen, artificers, and labourers employed in the several trades and manufactures of this kingdom, and for the better payment of their wages; as also, to prevent abuses in making of bricks, and to ascertain their dimensions.*[This was the first general combination act to deal with industrial relations. Before it came into force, and after most Irish Combination Acts were repealed by the Westminster parliament in 1824/5, a person could be indicted and convicted of belonging to a combination by means of the common law]
• 5 Geo. II c. 4 (1732): An act for the further explaining and amending the several laws for preventing frauds committed by tenants; and for the more easy renewal of leases; and for the further amendment of the law in certain cases therein mentioned. [Section XI, 3 Geo. II c. 14 (1730) was amended, thereby making the punishments stricter for people convicted of assault. An offending journeyman could be fined 40s.]
• 17 Geo. II c. 8 (1744): An act for continuing several statutes now near expiring, and for amending other statutes, and for other purposes therein mentioned.*[Section III, 3 Geo. II c. 14 (1730) was amended, making it illegal to belong to an ‘unincorporated’ assembly comprising three or more people, to give charitable donations (‘box club’) to unemployed journeymen, and to let private houses be used for journeymen's meetings]
• 19 & 20 Geo. III c. 19 (1780): An act to prevent combinations, and for the further encouragement of trade.*[The activities associated with belonging to a combination are described in detail. 31 Geo. II c. 10, Sect. 13 and 33 Geo. II c. 5, Sect. IV were extended to cover other manufactures. Also, journeymen were forbidden from preventing ‘foreigners’ and women working in certain trades]
• 4 Anne c. 8 (1705): An act to regulate the taking and exacting tolls throughout this kingdom; and to prevent engrossing coals in the city of Dublin. [To tackle ‘fraudulent practices’ and ‘combinations’ in the coal trade, carried on by ship owners, masters and merchants. Also see: 6 Geo. I c. 2 (1719); 1 Geo. II c. 21 (1728); 31 Geo. II c. 15 (1758); 1 Geo. III c. 10 (1762); 11 Geo. III c. 5 (1771)]