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.
The thirteenth-century kingdom of England was a political, jurisdictional and administrative unit consisting of thirty-nine contiguous counties which the Norman and Angevin kings of England had in large part inherited from their Anglo-Saxon predecessors – although two of those counties (Cheshire and Durham) had by the thirteenth century come to enjoy an enhanced degree of autonomy, which for many, if not all, purposes placed them outside direct royal control. The kings of England also possessed a limited degree of control over the marcher lordships of Wales which had been conquered from native Welsh rulers by ‘English’ lords and constituted a barrier between England and the kingdoms of Wales. The rest of Wales remained under the control of native Welsh rulers until Edward I in successive campaigns in the 1270s and 1280s destroyed the last remaining native princes and their independence. He did not annex the conquered Welsh lands to the kingdom of England or dispossess all the conquered Welsh, but he established a separate principality of Wales in the north and west of Wales under English control and in 1301 the king’s eldest son became ‘prince’ of Wales. Edward also imposed a version of English law and of the English local administrative system on this area through the Statute of Wales of 1284.1
South Africa has embarked on major health policy reform to deliver universal health coverage through the establishment of National Health Insurance (NHI). The aim is to improve access, remove financial barriers to care, and enhance care quality. Health technology assessment (HTA) is explicitly identified in the proposed NHI legislation and will have a prominent role in informing decisions about adoption and access to health interventions and technologies. The specific arrangements and approach to HTA in support of this legislation are yet to be determined. Although there is currently no formal national HTA institution in South Africa, there are several processes in both the public and private healthcare sectors that use elements of HTA to varying extents to inform access and resource allocation decisions. Institutions performing HTAs or related activities in South Africa include the National and Provincial Departments of Health, National Treasury, National Health Laboratory Service, Council for Medical Schemes, medical scheme administrators, managed care organizations, academic or research institutions, clinical societies and associations, pharmaceutical and devices companies, private consultancies, and private sector hospital groups. Existing fragmented HTA processes should coordinate and conform to a standardized, fit-for-purpose process and structure that can usefully inform priority setting under NHI and for other decision makers. This transformation will require comprehensive and inclusive planning with dedicated funding and regulation, and provision of strong oversight mechanisms and leadership.
The core of the cluster R136 in the Large Magellanic Cloud hosts the most massive stars known. The high mass-loss rates of these stars strongly impact their surroundings, as well as the evolution of the stars themselves. To quantify this impact accurate mass-loss rates are needed, however, uncertainty about the degree of inhomogeneity of the winds (‘wind clumping’), makes mass-loss measurements uncertain. We combine optical and ultraviolet HST/STIS spectroscopy of 56 stars in the core of R136 in order to put constraints on the wind structure, improving the accuracy of the mass-loss rate measurements. We find that the winds are highly clumped, and use our measured mass-loss rates to test theoretical predictions. Furthermore we find, for the first time, tentative trends in the wind-structure parameters as a function of mass-loss rate, suggesting that the winds of stars with higher mass-loss rates are less clumped than those with lower mass-loss rates.
The thirteenth century saw major developments in England's administration, as the procedures and processes of government expanded rapidly, the principles enshrined in Magna Carta became embedded, knights and burgesses were summoned to Parliament for the first time, and nothing short of a political revolution took place. The essays here draw on material available for the first time via the completion of the project to calendar all the Fine Rolls of Henry III; these rolls comprise the last series of records of the English Chancery from that period to become readily available in a convenient form, thereby transforming access to several important fields of research, including financial, legal, political and social issues. The volume covers topics including the evidential value of the fine rolls themselves and their wider significance for the English polity, developments in legal and financial administration, the roles of women and the church, and the fascinating details of the development of the office of escheator. Related or parallel developments in Scotland, Wales and Ireland are also dealt with, giving a broader British dimension.
Louise J. Wilkinson is Professor of Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University; David Crook is Honorary Research Fellow at the National Archives and the University of Notthingham.
Contributors: Nick Barratt, Paul Brand, David Carpenter, David Crook, Paul Dryburgh, Beth Hartland, Philippa Hoskin, Charles Insley, Adrian Jobson, Tony Moore, Alice Taylor, Nicholas Vincent, Scott Waugh, Louise Wilkinson
The success of scaling out depends on a clear understanding of the factors that affect adoption of grain legumes and account for the dynamism of those factors across heterogeneous contexts of sub-Saharan Africa. We reviewed literature on adoption of grain legumes and other technologies in sub-Saharan Africa and other developing countries. Our review enabled us to define broad factors affecting different components of the scaling out programme of N2Africa and the scales at which those factors were important. We identified three strategies for managing those factors in the N2Africa scaling out programme: (i) testing different technologies and practices; (ii) evaluating the performance of different technologies in different contexts; and (iii) monitoring factors that are difficult to predict. We incorporated the review lessons in a design to appropriately target and evaluate technologies in multiple contexts across scales from that of the farm to whole countries. Our implementation of this design has only been partially successful because of competing reasons for selecting activity sites. Nevertheless, we observe that grain legume species have been successfully targeted for multiple biophysical environments across sub-Saharan Africa, and to social and economic contexts within countries. Rhizobium inoculant and legume specific fertiliser blends have also been targeted to specific contexts, although not in all countries. Relatively fewer input and output marketing models have been tested due to public–private partnerships, which are a key mechanism for dissemination in the N2Africa project.
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University
Legal historians are omnivorous animals. Almost every kind of official governmental record from thirteenth-century England is something which the legal historian can draw on. The fine rolls of Henry III's reign are no exception to this general rule. For most purposes, their evidence is only part of a wider palette of material on which the legal historian must draw in constructing his or her picture, and not something that can be used by itself. But the rolls do often provide important evidence which we would otherwise lack, and the legal historian can certainly not afford to neglect them.
One of the most important types of evidence that the Henry III fine rolls provide for the legal historian is that which Tony Moore discusses in this volume: for the payment of fines by individual litigants to ensure that cases which might otherwise have gone to county courts or other local courts went instead to the Common Bench or to King's Bench; and for the removal of cases out of the county court into the central courts, or rather primarily into the Common Bench, by writs of pone and also, probably, recordari. The phenomenon is an important one and shows how much the drawing of litigation into the central courts was litigant-driven. Another related, but lesser, phenomenon that the fine rolls illustrate well is of payments to ensure that cases from counties other than the county where an eyre was being held were heard at sessions of the general eyre (and always on particular return days). This was not something of which I had been aware till I looked at the fine rolls. In general, ‘foreign’ (out of county) pleas on the eyre plea rolls seem to be cases from a county where an eyre had just been held and which had not been determined before the justices left that county. Payments recorded on the fine rolls indicate that it was also possible for a relatively small sum of money (generally half a mark or 1 mark, and rarely as much as 20 shillings or 2 marks) to bring cases from counties other than that in which the eyre was sitting to be heard in a ‘foreign’ county.
Edited by
David Crook, Former Assistant Keeper of Public Records, The National Archives (retired). Honorary Research Fellow in History at the University of Nottingham,Louise J. Wilkinson, Professor in Medieval History, Canterbury Christ Church University