We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save 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 saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
A great swathe of the rapidly expanding fields of critical animal geographies and vegan geographies (Hodge et al, 2022) are driven by a desire to better articulate, conceptualize and respond to a range of complex themes and questions rooted in multispecies justice (MSJ). In contrast, when considering broader (inter)disciplinary ‘critical’ geographies narratives of social justice, the appeal for multispecies accounts of justice to come to the fore is still seen to be a deeply contentious and ‘radical’ or extreme position to take. Yet, if there is one thing that the ongoing crises and injustice evident within our world(s) might teach us – from climate catastrophe, species extinction and zoonotic diseases, to the normalized (racist, casteist, colonial, classist, capitalist) geographies of the meat, egg and dairy industries – it is that anthropocentric narratives of justice ‘for us’ are not fit for purpose. In this sense we stand in complete agreement with Celermajer et al's arguments as to why a MSJ politics is so important now, more so than ever:
An account of MSJ is required to rectify false assumptions and longstanding misconceptions in justice theory. Principal amongst these is the fictitious idea of human beings as individual, isolated, unattached and unencumbered, and the correlative presumption that more- than- human nature is mere passive background. Beyond rejecting the belief that humans alone merit ethical or political consideration, multispecies justice rejects three related ideas central to human exceptionalism: a) that humans are physically separate or separable from other species and non- human nature, b) that humans are unique from all other species because they possess minds (or consciousness) and agency and c) that humans are therefore more important than other species. (Celermajer et al, 2021: 120)
While acknowledging and welcoming a multispecies praxes that is diverse, contingent and ephemeral in nature, this chapter considers what ‘justice for all’ means in the context of our experiences across a variety of settings and roles: as ‘scholars’, as ‘activists’, as ‘parents’ and so on. One of the common threads that link these experiences together is the question of ‘How can we more justly share [and help shape] space?’
We present radio observations of the galaxy cluster Abell S1136 at 888 MHz, using the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder radio telescope, as part of the Evolutionary Map of the Universe Early Science program. We compare these findings with data from the Murchison Widefield Array, XMM-Newton, the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, the Digitised Sky Survey, and the Australia Telescope Compact Array. Our analysis shows the X-ray and radio emission in Abell S1136 are closely aligned and centered on the Brightest Cluster Galaxy, while the X-ray temperature profile shows a relaxed cluster with no evidence of a cool core. We find that the diffuse radio emission in the centre of the cluster shows more structure than seen in previous low-resolution observations of this source, which appeared formerly as an amorphous radio blob, similar in appearance to a radio halo; our observations show the diffuse emission in the Abell S1136 galaxy cluster contains three narrow filamentary structures visible at 888 MHz, between $\sim$80 and 140 kpc in length; however, the properties of the diffuse emission do not fully match that of a radio (mini-)halo or (fossil) tailed radio source.
The personalised oncology paradigm remains challenging to deliver despite technological advances in genomics-based identification of actionable variants combined with the increasing focus of drug development on these specific targets. To ensure we continue to build concerted momentum to improve outcomes across all cancer types, financial, technological and operational barriers need to be addressed. For example, complete integration and certification of the ‘molecular tumour board’ into ‘standard of care’ ensures a unified clinical decision pathway that both counteracts fragmentation and is the cornerstone of evidence-based delivery inside and outside of a research setting. Generally, integrated delivery has been restricted to specific (common) cancer types either within major cancer centres or small regional networks. Here, we focus on solutions in real-world integration of genomics, pathology, surgery, oncological treatments, data from clinical source systems and analysis of whole-body imaging as digital data that can facilitate cost-effectiveness analysis, clinical trial recruitment, and outcome assessment. This urgent imperative for cancer also extends across the early diagnosis and adjuvant treatment interventions, individualised cancer vaccines, immune cell therapies, personalised synthetic lethal therapeutics and cancer screening and prevention. Oncology care systems worldwide require proactive step-changes in solutions that include inter-operative digital working that can solve patient centred challenges to ensure inclusive, quality, sustainable, fair and cost-effective adoption and efficient delivery. Here we highlight workforce, technical, clinical, regulatory and economic challenges that prevent the implementation of precision oncology at scale, and offer a systematic roadmap of integrated solutions for standard of care based on minimal essential digital tools. These include unified decision support tools, quality control, data flows within an ethical and legal data framework, training and certification, monitoring and feedback. Bridging the technical, operational, regulatory and economic gaps demands the joint actions from public and industry stakeholders across national and global boundaries.
Healthy dietary patterns such as the Mediterranean diet (MeDi), Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) and the Mediterranean-DASH Intervention for Neurodegenerative Delay (MIND) have been evaluated for their potential association with health outcomes. However, the lack of standardisation in scoring methodologies can hinder reproducibility and meaningful cross-study comparisons. Here we provide a reproducible workflow for generating the MeDi, DASH and MIND dietary pattern scores from frequently used dietary assessment tools including the 24-h recall tool and two variations of FFQ. Subjective aspects of the scoring process are highlighted and have led to a recommended reporting checklist. This checklist enables standardised reporting with sufficient detail to enhance the reproducibility and comparability of their outcomes. In addition to these aims, valuable insights in the strengths and limitations of each assessment tool for scoring the MeDi, DASH and MIND diet can be utilised by researchers and clinicians to determine which dietary assessment tool best meets their needs.
Potato producers in Canada’s Atlantic provinces of Prince Edward Island (PE) and New Brunswick rely on photosystem II (PSII)-inhibiting herbicides to provide season-long weed control. Despite this fact, a high proportion of common lambsquarters populations in the region have been identified as resistant to this class of herbicides. Crop-topping is a late-season weed management practice that exploits the height differential between weeds and a developing crop canopy. Two field experiments were conducted in Harrington, PE, in 2020 and 2021, one each to evaluate the efficacy of a different crop-topping strategy, above-canopy mowing or wick-applied glyphosate, at two potato phenological stages, on common lambsquarters viable seed production and potato yield and quality. Mowing common lambsquarters postflowering decreased viable seed production (72% to 91%) in 2020 but increased seed production (78% to 278%) in 2021. Mowing had minimal impact on potato marketable yield across cultivars in both years. In contrast, treating common lambsquarters with wick-applied glyphosate had variable impacts on seed output in 2020 but dramatically reduced seed production (up to 95%) in 2021 when treatments were applied preflowering. Glyphosate damage to potato tubers was not influenced by timing and resulted in a 14% to 15% increase in culled tubers due to black spotting and rot. Our results highlight the importance of potato and common lambsquarters phenology when selecting a crop-topping strategy and demonstrate that above-canopy mowing and wick-applied glyphosate can be utilized for seedbank management of herbicide-resistant common lambsquarters in potato production systems.
To examine differences in noticing and use of nutrition information comparing jurisdictions with and without mandatory menu labelling policies and examine differences among sociodemographic groups.
Design:
Cross-sectional data from the International Food Policy Study (IFPS) online survey.
Setting:
IFPS participants from Australia, Canada, Mexico, United Kingdom and USA in 2019.
Participants:
Adults aged 18–99; n 19 393.
Results:
Participants in jurisdictions with mandatory policies were significantly more likely to notice and use nutrition information, order something different, eat less of their order and change restaurants compared to jurisdictions without policies. For noticed nutrition information, the differences between policy groups were greatest comparing older to younger age groups and comparing high education (difference of 10·7 %, 95 % CI 8·9, 12·6) to low education (difference of 4·1 %, 95 % CI 1·8, 6·3). For used nutrition information, differences were greatest comparing high education (difference of 4·9 %, 95 % CI 3·5, 6·4) to low education (difference of 1·8 %, 95 % CI 0·2, 3·5). Mandatory labelling was associated with an increase in ordering something different among the majority ethnicity group and a decrease among the minority ethnicity group. For changed restaurant visited, differences were greater for medium and high education compared to low education, and differences were greater for higher compared to lower income adequacy.
Conclusions:
Participants living in jurisdictions with mandatory nutrition information in restaurants were more likely to report noticing and using nutrition information, as well as greater efforts to modify their consumption. However, the magnitudes of these differences were relatively small.
Three volumes of detailed description of Bedfordshire parish churches, presented with text from five important nineteenth-century sources; Appendices and Index complete the set.
This is to be a series of three volumes covering Bedfordshire churches in the nineteenth century. The volumes will contain descriptions of churches “on the eve of restoration” together with contemporary illustrations –most of which will be published for the first time.
For each church, there will be extracts from original records amplified by a commentary and explanatory footnotes. The main source material consists of:
1. Extracts from church inventories – mainly 1822
2. Antiquarian notes on churches by Archdeacon Bonney, c.1840
4. Articles on churches by W.A. – John Martin, the librarian at Woburn Abbey - 1845-1854
5. Church descriptions by Sir Stephen Glynne 1830-1870
There is considerable value in having these key sources, with illustrations and commentary, in one place. The descriptions by Bonney and Glynne are purely factual, but John Martin’s articles, highlighting abuses and neglect, make colourful and at times controversial reading. Bonney’s visitation notes - and the supporting evidence from contemporary records such as churchwardens’ accounts – give a clear indication that church buildings were far from neglected in the opening decades of the nineteenth century. Together these sources document features that can still be seen today, and provide information on others that have been lost.
The aim has been to present the text of contemporary sources in their original state, to convey a feeling for the times as well as to provide information. It is recognised that most of the sources could have been condensed by editing - for instance the lists of registers in the glebe terriers and the quotations in the articles by W.A. – but the Editorial Group felt that they should nevertheless be published in extenso.
The introductory commentary for each church includes a summary of the history of the building, focusing especially on eighteenth and nineteenth century restoration and alterations. These introductory notes are generally brief, but may be longer where differences between present and past external appearance merit detailed discussion. Detailed footnotes explain and amplify features mentioned in the text of the original sources and so lead the reader to additional research material.
Bedfordshire churches on the eve of restoration are well documented in a number of sources. First, there are a great many pictures of churches by artists such as Thomas Fisher and George Shepherd dating from the early Cl9th. Secondly, there are the manuscript sources which describe the condition of church buildings and ornaments in the years leading up to “the age of restoration”.
These sources are described and discussed in detail below. In outline, however, they include the glebe terriers for 1822 which describe the plan of each church and list the ornaments and furnishings. As Archdeacon of Bedford from 1821 to 1844, Dr. Henry Kaye Bonney compiled two notebooks on the churches in his care. In the one, he made detailed architectural notes on each church and its fittings, and in the other he kept a record of the orders made at his archidiaconal visitations between 1823 and 1839. Another commentator was John Martin, the Librarian at Woburn Abbey, who using the signature W.A. wrote a series of pithy articles on Bedfordshire churches for the Northampton Mercury and Bedfordshire Times between 1845 and 1854. Lastly, there are the notebooks of Sir Stephen Glynne who visited over a third of the churches in the County between 1830 and 1870.
Together these sources provide a colourful image of the appearance, condition and atmosphere of Bedfordshire churches at a time when on the one hand they were nearer their mediaeval state than they are today but when on the other they were arguably in their greatest need of attention.
Glebe Terriers (extracts) 1822
After the Reformation, the ecclesiastical authorities became increasingly aware of the need to keep proper records of church possessions. The documents known as glebe terriers fulfil this purpose, and include terriers (recording property and endowments) and inventories (listing goods and chattels). The existence of such records helped to prevent the loss and misappropriation of church property.
Terriers had been compiled for purely parochial purposes in mediaeval times, but in compliance with an archiepiscopal order or canon of 1571 it became a requirement for copies of these documents to be lodged in diocesan registries for safe-keeping.
Although the present church dates chiefly from the Cl4th and Cl5th, the foundations of the Cl2th church were discovered during excavations in 1975. The later church has a chancel, nave with north and south aisles, south porch and west tower. It retains its Cl5th roof with angels and shields (though the painted decoration is modem) and there is a ceilure above the former rood.
In 1696 a private pew was constructed for Lord Ashbumham of Ampthill Park in the south aisle of the church. Sir Christopher Wren and his pupil Nicholas Hawksmoor were involved in the design, and the pew was built by Alexander Fort, the King’s joiner. There was a heated legal dispute between Lord Ashburnham and Lord Ailesbury of Houghton House about this pew, which was eventually removed in 1847. The entrance through the east wall of the south aisle is shown in Buckler’s drawing dated 1835 (Plate 2). Lord Ailesbury had his own pew in the church, and there are faculties and papers regarding other Cl8th pews. In 1827 Boissier described the church as “crowded with pews & galleries”. Between 1823 and 1839 Bonney ordered several improvements to the pews, and in 1845 W.A. was highly critical of the arrangement of the church interior.
A faculty was obtained in 1728 to replace the pulpit, take down the chancel screen, and alter various windows. It was probably at this date that the pulpit was placed centrally in the chancel arch where it remained until 1847. Other repairs and alterations in the Cl8th and early Cl9th are recorded in the churchwardens’ accounts from 1718, vestry minutes from 1767, and churchwardens bills from 1823 (listed individually by Andrew Underwood) in the parish records.
Restoration came in 1847-8 under James Tacy Wing of Bedford, who provided new seats and galleries in the nave (Plate 3) and renewed the east window, repaired the roof and stonework, and added a small vestry on the north side of the chancel. In 1851-2 the church was lit by gas.
The tracery of the windows in the south aisle was renewed in 1872-3. Further work followed in 1877 when the vestry on the north side of the chancel was enlarged under James Piers St. Aubyn, although not all the work authorised by the faculty was carried out.
The parish churches of England are among the most noble and conspicuous of the nation’s architectural monuments. Their survival, however, owes more to chance than to good stewardship. Neglect, decay, and deliberate destruction are as much a part of their history as the work of dedicated benefactors and parishioners who strove to make our churches worthy for Christian worship.
As the sources selected for inclusion in this series demonstrate all too clearly, many Bedfordshire churches were in a dilapidated state in the opening decades of the nineteenth century. Others, whilst structurally sound and decently furnished for the worship of the day, needed “restoration” – a term meaning much more than just repair. This was the situation facing the Victorians who – far from vandalising our heritage – sought to restore these precious buildings from years of neglect and adapt them to suit the new liturgical arrangements of the time.
The coming of the ecclesiological movement in the 1840s brought a new concern for the ceremonial aspects of worship – the ministry of the sacraments instead of the ministry of the word. This entailed a change in the arrangement of church buildings, the old “preaching boxes” of the Cl8th giving way to churches in which all attention focused on the chancel and the holy table in the sanctuary. The reformers often exaggerated the poor state of church buildings as a means of drawing attention to the need for change, and the Victorians were invariably critical of alterations and repairs carried out in previous centuries when utility had been regarded as more important than sanctity.
Between about 1840 and 1914 virtually every parish church in England was in some measure restored, and vast sums of money were spent on what was seen to be one of the most worthy causes of the Victorian era. Many churches were rescued from the brink of collapse and given a new lease of life. Some were restored to their former glory. Others were mutilated beyond recognition or wholly rebuilt. Churches viewed by the Victorians as “tainted by classical alterations” were gothicised. Sound buildings were “improved” to suit the needs of a new religious age.
Churches remaining “unrestored” in appearance are to be seen at Chaigrave, Dean, Knotting, Odell, Shelton and Wymington (to name a few of the more rewarding examples in the County), but sadly the phrase “over restored” is all too common in the Bedfordshire volume of Dr. Nikolaus Pevsner’s Buildings of England series.
A brief general survey of post-Reformation church work in the County will be useful as an introduction to the subject. It seems sensible to frame the review round the work of architects - the designers of buildings and of furnishing schemes - who worked at different periods and in different styles. In this way, it is possible to view the changes in ecclesiastical taste in the County in their broader national context.
Post-Reformation church building to 1800
In general terms, church building activity came to an abrupt end at the time of the Reformation. There are, however, exceptions and recent studies in the neighbouring county of Huntingdonshire have demonstrated the extent of building work and improvements to churches into the seventeenth century. This may be untypical of the general picture, and Bedfordshire lacks any particularly distinguished examples of churches dating from the period between 1550 and 1800. Those mentioned below are all relatively minor when compared with the treasures in neighbouring counties, such as:
In Bedfordshire, Hulcote church was rebuilt by the Chemocke family in the late sixteenth century. It is gothic in form, but with a distinctly Renaissance feel. The tower at Blunham was rebuilt in 1583. At Odell there is a fine screen and ringing gallery of 1637 in the tower arch. At Campton, the north aisle dates from 1649. Whipsnade church was rebuilt in 1719. Melchboume has a seventeenthcentury porch brought, it is said, from Woodford in Northamptonshire. The body of the church was rebuilt in the classical style in about 1770. Shillington tower, destroyed in a storm in 1701, was rebuilt in brick in 1750. The 1783 black basalt Wedgwood font at Cardington - another formerly existed at Melchboume - is a particularly memorable example of eighteenth-century church furnishing. In every one of these cases the identity of the architect is unknown.
Having lived and worked in Bedfordshire for the past sixteen years, I have visited every church in the County in the course of my work. While on the staff of the Bedfordshire County Record Office I have been responsible for surveying and listing all the church records, and I am fortunate that this has enabled me to develop an intimate knowledge of the churches and their history.
It is my hope that in preparing these volumes I may be able to pass on some of this knowledge for the benefit of people interested either in specific churches or in the subject generally. I should like to thank the Society for publishing this book. I also wish to thank Gordon Vowles, the General Editor, and my colleagues on the Editorial Group for their constructive comments and suggestions throughout its gestation period.
Formal acknowledgment is due to the authorities and owners who have allowed the publication of their material. The 1822 glebe terriers are published here by kind permission of Lincoln Diocesan Record Office. Archdeacon Bonney’s church notes were among the manuscripts transferred to the County Record Office from the old Bedford Library, while Bonney’s visitation notes appear by kind permission of the present Archdeacon of Bedford, the Ven. Malcolm Lesiter. Sir Stephen Glynne’s Bedfordshire church notes are published by kind permission of Sir William Gladstone. Thanks are also due to Geoffrey Veysey, the Clwyd County Archivist, for providing information on the notes and for allowing me to quote from his article about Sir Stephen Glynne. The sources of illustrations are acknowledged separately.
Material for this volume has been gathered from several record repositories and institutions. My first debt of gratitude is to my colleagues in the Bedfordshire County Record Office, but I must also thank the staff at the British Library, the British Newspaper Library, the library of the Society of Antiquaries of London, the Bedfordshire County Library Service, Lambeth Palace Library, Cambridge University Library, Lincolnshire Archives, and the Hertfordshire County Record Office for their help and advice.
Thanks are also due to all those who have typed parts of the text including Deborah Blake and Ellen Collier, but especially to Pauline Newbery on whom the main body of the work has fallen.