text:
Chris Baird

Christopher Patrick Baird (born 25 February 1982) is a Northern Irish former professional footballer who last played for Derby County and represented the Northern Ireland national football team from 2003 to 2016. His preferred position was right-back or centre-half, but he also played on occasion as a left-back, defensive midfielder and central midfielder. In addition to his three-year stint at Derby County, Baird previously played for Southampton, Fulham, Reading, Burnley and West Bromwich Albion.

Southampton
Baird started his career at Northern Irish club, Ballymena United, before moving to Southampton in 1998. Baird went on to make his progress through the Southampton's Academy and in 2001, Baird signed his first professional contract with the club, keeping him until 2002.

Baird made his debut for Southampton on 22 March 2003 as a late substitute for David Prutton in a 2–2 draw at home to Aston Villa. His second appearance came in a 6–1 defeat at Arsenal, when he came on after 26 minutes to replace Fabrice Fernandes, with Arsenal already 5–0 up. Baird's first start came on the final day of the 2002–03 League season, in a 1–0 win at Manchester City. A week later, he started for Southampton in the 2003 FA Cup final, also against Arsenal. Southampton lost the match 1–0, but Baird was voted as the Saints man of the match.

In the 2003–04 season, Baird struggled to make the first team and was loaned out to Walsall on a one–month deal. Baird made his Walsall debut on 27 September 2003, in a 2–1 win over Preston North End. Baird then provided an assist for one of the goals for Darren Wrack, in a 2–0 win over Wigan Athletic on 25 October 2003. Baird's regular playing time in the first team saw him extend his loan spell at Walsall for another month, leading manager Colin Lee to unsuccessfully try to sign him for £1 million. Baird was sent off in his last appearance for Walsall, when he received a second yellow card, in a 0–0 draw against Crystal Palace on 21 November 2003.

After his loan spell at Walsall came to an end, Baird made his first Southampton appearance of the 2003–04 season, in a 3–1 win over local rivals Portsmouth on 21 December 2003. With his first team opportunities limited, Baird joined Watford on a month loan. Baird made his Watford debut on 20 March 2004, in a 4–1 loss against Ipswich Town. On 16 April 2004, Baird's loan spell at Watford extended until the end of the season. After making eight appearances for Watford, Baird returned to his parent club and played the last game of the season. Baird made only four league appearances for Southampton.

Ahead of the 2004–05 season, Baird said he was considering leaving Southampton if he does not get a guarantee first team place under new manager Paul Sturrock. Nevertheless on 1 July 2004, Baird signed a two–year contract with the club. Despite guarantee of first team football under Sturrock, Baird, however, was left out the squad for Saints' pre-season tour of Sweden. As a result, Baird's lack of first opportunities frustrated him and was planned on re-joining Watford on loan, only to be blocked by Harry Redknapp. Baird never made an appearance for the club in the 2004–05 season, as the club were relegated to the Championship. Following Southampton's relegation from the Premiership, Baird was told by Redknapp that he was to be loaned out to get first experience, but this never happened. After Redknapp's departure to Portsmouth, Baird made his first Southampton appearance in two years in a 1–0 win over Luton Town on 11 December 2005. He started 16 league games in the 2005–06 season. Despite this, Baird signed a three–year contract with the club.

In the first game of the 2006–07 season, away to Derby County on 6 August 2006, he was drafted into the centre half position when Claus Lundekvam went off injured in the sixth minute. On 25 November 2006, in his 50th first-team game for Southampton, he scored his first professional goal in a 2–1 victory over Luton Town. Having established himself in the Southampton team, he was singled out for praise by Southampton manager George Burley. During the match in a 4–3 win over against Birmingham City on 29 November 2006, Baird find himself in alteration with goalkeeper Kelvin Davis after the pair shoved each other and the tension were so high that teammates got involved to calm the situation. However, this was played down by Burley. His second goal of the season came on 26 December 2006, in a 1–1 draw against Crystal Palace. Baird then scored his third goal of the same on 13 March 2007, in a 2–2 draw against Cardiff City. Despite missing out two matches, due to a groin injury, Baird spent most of the 2006–07 season in central defence, making forty–four appearances and at the end of the season he was the winner of the Saints Player of the Season award.

At the end of the 2006–07 season, Baird found himself in a transfer move when Fulham made an initial £2.5m bid for him, which was rejected by Southampton. In response, Baird informed the club that he wanted to leave by handing in a transfer request. Despite being confident of keeping Baird, Burley, stated that he would sell Baird at the right price. In response to Burley's comment, Fulham increased their bid to sign Baird. Baird, himself, later stated it wasn't an easy decision to leave Southampton.

Fulham
Baird left Southampton on 12 July 2007 to move to Premier League club Fulham for £3.025 million, where he linked up with manager Lawrie Sanchez. Baird was also linked with a move to Sunderland, but was in favour in joining Fulham.

Baird made his Fulham debut, in the opening game of the season, in a 2–1 loss against Arsenal. Weeks later on 25 August 2007, Baird was sent–off after receiving a second bookable offence, in a 2–1 loss against Aston Villa and served a suspension in the second round in the League Cup against Shrewsbury Town. However, Baird struggled to make a first team breakthrough, due to injuries and was fell out favour for the remainder of the season, under Manager Roy Hodgson. Despite this, Baird made eighteen appearances in his first season at Fulham. Due to lack of first team opportunity, Baird was linked with a move to Scottish Premier League side Rangers.

Having initially worn the number 34 shirt, he changed to the number 6 for the 2009–10 season. Although typically a centre-back, and often surplus to requirements behind the rarely injured pairing of Aaron Hughes and Brede Hangeland, manager Roy Hodgson brought out a versatility in Baird which made him indispensable for long periods at Fulham, where first he filled in very successfully at right-back when John Paintsil was injured, and then due to the injuries to Dickson Etuhu and Danny Murphy he was often used in a central midfield role during the 2009–10 season, returning to right-back when they regained fitness. His success at right-back also earned him a start in the UEFA Europa League against Atlético Madrid ahead of the fit-again Paintsil. The season saw Baird redeem himself at Fulham, where he made thirty–two appearances for the club.

In the 2010–11 season, Baird remained on the substitute for the first three matches, with Panstil regaining his first team place as a right–back, under new manager Mark Hughes. It wasn't until on 11 September 2010 when Baird made his first appearance of the season, in a 2 – 1 win over Wolves. On 14 September 2010 Baird signed a new contract with Fulham, keeping him at Craven Cottage until at least the summer of 2013, and on 28 December 2010 he scored his first and second goals for Fulham against Stoke City at the Britannia Stadium in a 2–0 victory. This was voted the second Fulham "Goal of the Season" by the Fulham fans, just behind his teammate Mousa Dembélé. Both were long-range strikes, earning him the nickname "Bairdinho" amongst Fulham fans. Baird was charged with abusive and insulting gestures towards a match official during a match against Liverpool on 9 May 2011, after he played the full 90 minutes and picked up a yellow card by referee Lee Mason in the 5–2 defeat at Craven Cottage. He then subsequently missed the last two games of the season against Birmingham City and Arsenal and was replaced by Philippe Senderos. Despite this, Baird made twenty–nine appearances for the club in the 2010–11 season.

The 2011–12 season was a less successful one for Baird. With the arrival of Martin Jol as manager he found it difficult to get games, having to rely mostly on injuries to in-form right-back Stephen Kelly, but his proven versatility meant that he was almost always on the bench, and was the go-to substitute for central midfield, right-back and sometimes centre-back as well. Despite making nineteen appearances for the club in the 2011–12 season, Baird dismissed claims he heading for an exit and expressed desire to fight for his first team place.

With Kelly falling out of favour in the early part of the 2012–13 season, and injuries to players like Mahamadou Diarra, plus the departures of Danny Murphy, Mousa Dembélé and Dickson Etuhu, Baird has become a regular in central midfield again, alongside Steve Sidwell, and with just those two goals at Stoke to his name for Fulham in 113 games prior to 20 October 2012, he scored in consecutive weeks at the end of October, the first being the winner in the 1–0 defeat of Aston Villa and then scoring a header in a 3–3 draw with Reading on 27 October 2012. In January transfer window, Baird started negotiations with a move to West Brom, but the move to West Brom was broken down and stayed at Fulham. Baird sat out from the first team and made nineteen appearances for the 2012–13 season.

Baird was one of twelve players released by Fulham at the end of the 2012–13 Premier League season.

Reading
Despite training with QPR for two weeks and receiving a contract offer, Baird signed for Reading on 20 September 2013 on a deal until January 2014.

He made his debut the next day in a 3–1 win over Derby at Pride Park. Then on 9 November 2013, Baird provided assist for Garath McCleary to score the opener, in a 1–1 draw against QPR. However, a few weeks later, Baird sustained ankle injury that kept him out in the sidelined for weeks. But on 20 January 2014, Baird's contract was expired and left the club.

Burnley
After being left without a club since leaving Reading in January, Baird signed for Burnley on 20 March 2014 on a short-term deal until May 2014.

Two days after signing for the club, Baird made his Burnley debut, playing as a right–back, in a 3–0 win over Charlton Athletic. After the match, Baird said it was nice to make his return to the pitch, in addition, with a victory, though he was tired during the game. Two weeks later on 5 April 2014, Baird then provided assist for Scott Arfield, in a 1–1 draw against Watford.

At the end of the 2013–14 season, Baird went on to make seven appearances, as he played a little role of helping Burnley reaching promotion to the Premier League. Despite this, the club was keen to keep a hold of Baird beyond the season.

West Bromwich Albion
Baird returned to the Premier League on 7 July 2014, signing a one-year contract at West Bromwich Albion.

Baird made his West Brom debut, coming on as a substitute for Chris Brunt in the 77th minute, in the opening game of the season, with a 2–2 draw against Sunderland. Baird then made his first start for the club on 22 November 2014, in a 2–0 loss against Chelsea. However, Baird struggled in the first team, due to being on the substitute bench and injuries. Towards the end of the season, Baird initially played in the left–back position, but soon played in defensive–midfielder for four matches.

At the end of the 2014–15 season, it was announced that Baird was released by the club.

Derby County
After leaving West Brom, Baird signed for Derby County in June 2015 on a two-year contract. Upon joining the club, Baird was given a number twelve shirt.

Ahead of the 2015–16 season, Baird was given the captain armband, succeeding Richard Keogh, under the new management of Paul Clement. Upon learning he was the new captain, Baird said it was an honour, while Manager Clement cited his responsibilities and great qualities as the reason he was appointed captain.

Baird made his Derby County debut in the opening game of the season, in a 0–0 draw against Bolton Wanderers. Baird remained as captain for the first six matches, playing in the right–back and defensive midfielder until he suffered a concussion during a match against Preston North End and missed two matches as a result. After making his first team return against MK Dons on 26 September 2015, Baird was dropped to the substitute bench and played six times between October and December.

However, Baird struggled to be in the first team, having been sidelined to substitute bench and injuries. As a result, Baird lost his first team place to Cyrus Christie. Following Clement's sacking, Baird was removed as a captain and captaincy was returned to Keogh for the remainder of the season. Baird played his last game as captain on 6 February 2016, in a 1–1 draw against Fulham. Baird went on to make fourteen league appearances for Derby County in his first season. On 18 February 2016, Baird re–joined his former club Fulham on loan until the end of the season. Baird then made his Fulham debut two days later, playing forty–five minutes after coming on as a substitute, in a 3–0 win over Charlton Athletic. But unfortunately in mid–March, Baird suffered ankle injury. After missing three matches, Baird then made his return to the first team the following month on 9 April 2016, coming on as a substitute in the 77th minute, in a 2–1 win over Cardiff City.

Despite hopes of re-joining the club permanently, Baird was recalled from his loan on 2 May 2016. He was released by Derby at the end of the 2017–18 season.

In February 2019, Baird announced his retirement as a player with immediate effect.

International career
On 3 June 2003, Baird made his Northern Ireland début against Italy in a 2–0 defeat. Since then, he has been a regular member of the national side, despite playing little domestically between 2003 and 2005, including being involved in a squad when Northern Ireland played twelve matches without scoring a goal.

In March 2007, Baird was called up by the national team despite sustaining a groin injury against Colchester United a week before. Baird missed two international matches as a result. Northern Ireland FA deemed it a failure to comply to call-up, thus invoked a FIFA rule which states that "any player who fails to comply with a call-up for whatever reason may not play for his club for the duration of the call-up plus one day," and Southampton would risk points deduction by playing him during the said period. Baird then made his 50th international cap on 25 March 2011 and was given a captaincy against Serbia. He was previously given a captaincy in August 2007 against Liechtenstein in a Euro 2008 qualifier.

On 18 May 2016, Baird was selected as part of the provisional 27-man squad to represent Northern Ireland in the UEFA Euro 2016 competition. On 28 May 2016, Baird was named in the final 23 man Euro 2016 squad for Northern Ireland.

On 17 August 2016, Baird announced his retirement from international football.

Personal life
In September 2010 his mother's home in Rasharkin was petrol bombed by the loyalists in a sectarian attack.

Baird became a father on New Years Day in 2005 when his partner gave birth to a daughter, Shannon. In May 2006, Baird and his partner, Sarah, were married.

Honours
Southampton
 * FA Cup finalist: 2003
 * Fans' Player of the Season: 2006–07

Fulham
 * UEFA Europa League runner-up: 2010

Burnley
 * Football League Championship runner-up: 2014

title: Chris Baird


text:
Deutscher Landwein

Deutscher Landwein can refer to:
 * German wine classification above Tafelwein
 * Fruit wine from Germany

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Deutscher Landwein


text:
Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski

Włodzimierz Bonawentura Krzyżanowski (8 July 1824 – 31 January 1887) was a Polish American engineer, politician, and brigadier general in the Union Army.

A Polish noble, he took part in the 1846 uprising against Prussia and left Poland after its suppression. During the American Civil War he enlisted in the United States' Union Army, recruited a company of Polish immigrants, and became colonel of the 58th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, listed in the official Army Register as the "Polish Legion".

In the July 1863 Battle of Gettysburg, Krzyżanowski helped repel an evening assault by the famed Louisiana Tigers on the Union defenses atop East Cemetery Hill. After the war he held several government posts, though it is disputed whether he was the first American administrator of Alaska Territory, as has been often stated.

Early life
Krzyżanowski was born in Rożnowo, Grand Duchy of Poznań, into an old Polish noble family that bore the Świnka coat of arms, and whose roots reached back to the 14th century and ownership of the village of Krzyżanowo near Kościan. Krzyżanowski's father and both uncles had fought for Polish independence under Napoleon's banners, and his brother fought in the November 1830 Uprising. Krzyżanowski was first cousin to Frédéric Chopin, whose mother Justyna Krzyżanowska's brother was Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski's father.

After the death of Krzyżanowski's father, the family fell into debt and had to leave their estate. The mother sent Włodzimierz to relatives in Poznań, while the rest of the family moved to Warsaw. Young Krzyżanowski attended St. Mary Magdalen Gymnasium in Poznań, a principal center of the Polish nationalist underground in Prussian Poland.

Krzyżanowski took part in the 1846 uprising against Prussia and, after its suppression, fled Poland to avoid arrest. He went to the Free City of Hamburg, from which he sailed to New York, eventually arriving on January 25, 1847. In the United States he learned the English language and continued his education.

After completing his education, Krzyżanowski worked as a civil engineer and surveyor in Virginia and was instrumental in pushing America's railroads west. There he made the acquaintance of General Burnett and married his daughter Caroline, with whom he moved to Washington, D.C., to set up his own company, which brought him substantial wealth. He also became active in Republican Party politics. In 1860 he supported Abraham Lincoln's candidacy for president of the United States.

Civil War
In Washington, D.C., in early 1861, Krzyżanowski enlisted as a private two days after President Abraham Lincoln called for volunteers. Krzyżanowski recruited a company of Polish immigrants, one of the first companies of Union soldiers. He moved the company to New York City, enlisted more immigrants, and soon became colonel of the 58th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, listed in the official Army Register as the "Polish Legion".

Krzyżanowski participated in the battles of Cross Keys in the Shenandoah Valley, and Second Bull Run (Second Manassas), where he was injured when his horse fell, Chancellorsville, where his brigade and the corps they were part of were routed by a Confederate flank attack, and Gettysburg in the Eastern Theater.

President Lincoln appointed Krzyżanowski brigadier general on November 26, 1862. The appointment expired by law on March 4, 1863, because the U.S. Senate failed to confirm the promotion. The Senate belatedly approved the appointment on March 9, 1863, but recalled it March 11, 1863, returned it to President Lincoln on March 12, 1863, and tabled it on March 13, 1863, keeping the expiration of the appointment in effect.

At Gettysburg on 1 July 1863 his men were pushed back through the town as the Union XI Corps retreated. During this action, Krzyżanowski was injured when his horse stumbled. However, next day he led a counterattack on Cemetery Hill that helped stabilize the faltering Union line.

Later in the year, the XI Corps was sent to the Western Theater to help raise the Confederate siege of Chattanooga. Krzyżanowski played a role in the Battle of Wauhatchie, where he followed Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker's orders very literally, and was present at the Battle of Missionary Ridge.

When the XI Corps was dissolved, much of it being added to XX Corps, Krzyżanowski was assigned to command at Bridgeport, Alabama, to guard the Nashville and Chattanooga Railroad, and later to Stevenson, Alabama, both commands within the Department of the Cumberland. He also commanded the 3rd Brigade of the Defenses of the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad, reporting to Maj. Gen. Robert H. Milroy.

On 2 March 1865 President Lincoln nominated Krzyżanowski for appointment to the grade of brevet brigadier general of volunteers, to rank from 2 March 1865. The U.S. Senate confirmed the appointment on 9 March 1865. Krzyżanowski was mustered out of the volunteers on 1 October 1865.

Postbellum
After the war, Krzyżanowski was given governing duties in Alabama. He later served as the appointed governor of Georgia. Supposedly he also served as the first American administrator of Alaska Territory. However, the Anchorage Daily News was unable to find conclusive information to support or disprove this claim. It is said that the supposed posting was a reward for his services as personal representative of Secretary William H. Seward during the negotiations for the purchase of Alaska.

He served in the U.S. Treasury Department and later in the customs service in Panama and New York.

Krzyżanowski died in New York City. On 13 October 1937, the 50th anniversary of his death, his remains were transferred with military honors from Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn, New York, to Arlington National Cemetery. President Franklin D. Roosevelt broadcast a nationwide tribute via radio, and Poland's president, Ignacy Mościcki, transmitted his from Warsaw.

Legacy
Krzyżanowski's legacy was honored by the American Polish Civil War Centennial Committee during the 1960s, which lobbied politicians for a greater appreciation of his remembrance. Thomas J. Lane pushed for House Joint Resolution 707, which would have made 9 July 1962 "Gen. Kryzanowski Memorial Day". The resolution did not, however, receive sufficient support from Congress.

title: Włodzimierz Krzyżanowski


text:
Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics

The Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP) is a research institute of the University of California, Santa Barbara. KITP is one of the most renowned institutes for theoretical physics in the world, and brings theorists in physics and related fields together to work on topics at the forefront of theoretical science.

The National Science Foundation has been the principal supporter of the institute since it was founded as the Institute for Theoretical Physics in 1979. In a 2007 article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, KITP was given the highest impact index in a comparison of nonbiomedical research organizations across the U.S.

About
In the early 2000s, the institute, formerly known as the Institute for Theoretical Physics, or ITP, was named for the Norwegian-American physicist and businessman Fred Kavli, in recognition of his donation of $7.5 million to the institute.

Kohn Hall, which houses KITP, is located just beyond the Henley Gate at the East Entrance of the UCSB campus. The building was designed by the Driehaus Prize winner and New Classical architect Michael Graves, and a new wing designed by Graves was added in 2003–2004.

Members
The directors of the KITP since its beginning have been:

 * Walter Kohn, 1979–1984 (Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1998)
 * Robert Schrieffer, 1984–1989 (Nobel Prize for Physics, 1972)
 * James S. Langer, 1989–1995 (Oliver Buckley Prize (APS), 1997)
 * James Hartle, 1995–1997 (Einstein Prize (APS), 2009)
 * David Gross, 1997–2012 (Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004)
 * Lars Bildsten, 2012–present (Helen B. Warner Prize (AAS), 1999; Dannie Heineman Prize for Astrophysics (AAS & American Institute of Physics), 2017)

The Director, Deputy Director Mark Bowick, and Permanent Members of the KITP (Leon Balents, Lars Bildsten, David Gross, and Boris Shraiman) are also on the faculty of the UC Santa Barbara Physics Department. Former Permanent Members include Joseph Polchinski and Physics Nobel laureate Frank Wilczek.

title: Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics


text:
Clobetasol

Clobetasol is a synthetic glucocorticoid corticosteroid. A propionate ester of clobetasol, clobetasol propionate, has also been marketed, and is far more widely used in comparison.

title: Clobetasol


text:
30th Division (United Kingdom)

The British 30th Division was a New Army division that was originally made up of battalions raised by public subscription or private patronage. The division was taken over by the British War Office in August 1915 and moved to France in December. It served on the Western Front for the duration of the First World War.

Formation
On 28 July 1914, the First World War started. Seven days later, on 4 August, Germany invaded Belgium and the United Kingdom entered the war to uphold the Treaty of London (1839). Britain faced a continental war it was not prepared to fight, and while the Expeditionary Force was dispatched to France and Belgium, the country lacked the forces required for the protracted war envisioned by the military leadership.

On 5 August, Herbert Kitchener was appointed Secretary of State for War. This position allowed Kitchener a largely independent role within the war cabinet. His first act, the next day, was to request parliamentary approval to increase the strength of the British Army by 500,000 men. Over the following days, the Army Council laid out plans for Kitchener's proposed expansion: traditional recruitment would be used to expand the regular army, bypassing the county associations and thus avoiding expanding the Territorial Force. The first wave, originally termed the New Expeditionary Force, became the First New Army. Historian Peter Simkins wrote that Kitchener held the Territorial Force in disdain, calling it an ill-trained "Town Clerk's Army", and this was partially why he set up a parallel recruitment system. Simkins noted that it would be a "gross oversimplification to ascribe Kitchener's decision merely to prejudice and ignorance". Had the Territorial Force been used as the basis for expansion it would have been "swamped" and "rendered temporarily incapable of carrying out any function at all", when a "viable home defence force" was needed due to the threat of a German invasion.

On 10 December 1914, the formation of the Fifth New Army was authorized and consisted of the 37th Division with the 110th, the 111th, and the 112th brigades. Edward Stanley, 17th Earl of Derby was instrumental in raising pals battalions for the King's Regiment (Liverpool) and the Manchester Regiment, which formed the basis of these newly formed brigades and the division. In April 1915, the Fourth New Army was broken-up to provide reinforcements for other new army divisions. This resulted in a series of number and name changes, with the Fifth New Army becoming the Fourth; the 37th Division was renumbered as the 30th Division; and the 110th and 111th Brigades became the 89th and 90th Brigades. The 112th Brigade was transferred to the 35th Division, and was exchanged with the 126th Brigade that was renumbered as the 91st when it joined the 30th.

The division started to assemble, as a single formation, in April 1915 near Grantham and the first general officer commanding (Major-General William Fry) was appointed on 4 May 1915. The final elements of the division did not join until August, owing to equipment shortages. On 14 September, the division departed Lincolnshire for Larkhill in the Salisbury Plain Training Area to undergo final training before being deployed to France. This lasted until 31 October, when the order for deployment was received. While advance parties left for France the next day, the rest of the formation was reviewed on 4 November by Edward Stanley. Two days later, a move to Southampton and Folkestone took place. Troops sent to the former were transported to Le Havre, while those sent to the later were dispatched to France via Boulogne. By 12 November, the division had finished its move and was located at Ailly-le-Haut-Clocher, northwest of Amiens. While some sort of insignia was displayed on the helmet and worn on the uniform sleeves once deployed, little is known of what they consisted of.

Service during the First World War
During 1916, the division fought in the Battle of the Somme, specifically: the Battle of Albert (including the First day on the Somme and the capture of Montauban), the Capture of Trônes Wood, and the Battle of Le Transloy. In 1917, it took part in the First and the Second battles of the Scarpe, which formed part of the larger Battle of Arras; this was followed by the Battle of Pilckem Ridge later in the year. The final year of the war saw the division engaged in the 1918 First Battle of the Somme, including the Battle of St. Quentin, actions at the crossing of the Somme, and the Battle of Rosieres. This was followed by the Battle of the Lys. Following these battles, the remnants of the infantry were withdrawn rendering the formation a division in name only. In July, it was reconstituted as a fighting formation. Around this time, a variation of the crest of the Stanley family–an eagle standing above a swaddled infant–was adopted as the divisional insignia. The formation then went on to take part in the culminating offensive of the war, the Hundred Days Offensive. The division's total losses during the war amounted to 35,182 killed, wounded, or reported as missing.

Following the armistice of 11 November 1918, the division moved back away from the frontline area until it reached the vicinity of Blaringhem, with the HQ based at Renescure, on 4 December. Towards the end of the month, the formation was tasked with supporting efforts at the army's supply ports at Dunkirk, Calais, Boulogne, and Étaples and relocated to them in January. By the middle of the following month, it was only supporting the ports at Boulogne and Étaples. Meanwhile, demobilization had started although the division's first troops did not return to the UK until May and the process had finished by 1 September when the division ceased to exist.

Order of Battle
The following units served with the division:
 * 21st Brigade

The brigade joined from the 7th Division in December 1915, swapping with the 91st Brigade.

 * 2nd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment (transferred to 89th Brigade 20 December 1915)
 * 2nd Battalion, Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own (Yorkshire Regiment) (left May 1918)
 * 2nd Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers (transferred to 90th Brigade 20 December 1915)
 * 2nd Battalion, The Duke of Edinburgh's (Wiltshire Regiment) (left May 1918)
 * 18th (Service) Battalion, King's Regiment (Liverpool) (joined from 89th Brigade 20 December 1915, rejoined 89th Brigade February 1918)
 * 19th (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (4th City) (joined from 90th Brigade 20 December 1915 disbanded February 1918)
 * 17th (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (2nd City) (joined February 1918, left as cadre June 1918)
 * 2/5th (Service) Battalion, Lincolnshire Regiment (joined May 1918, left June 1918)
 * 21st Machine Gun Company (joined 8 March 1916, moved to 30th Battalion Machine Gun Corps (M.G.C.) 1 March 1918)
 * 21st Trench Mortar Battery	formed by 5 July 1916

On reorganisation in July 1918:

 * 7th (South Irish Horse) Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment
 * 1/6th Battalion, Cheshire Regiment
 * 2/23rd (County of London) Battalion, London Regiment
 * 21st Trench Mortar Battery

 * 89th Brigade :

 * 17th (Service) Battalion, King's Regiment (Liverpool) (left June 1918)
 * 18th (Service) Battalion, King's Regiment (Liverpool) (transferred to 21st Brigade December 1915, returned from 21st Brigade February 1918, left June 1918)
 * 19th (Service) Battalion, King's Regiment (Liverpool) (reduced to cadre left 19 June 1918)
 * 20th (Service) Battalion, King's Regiment (Liverpool) (disbanded February 1918)
 * 2nd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment (joined from 21st Brigade 20 December 1915, transferred to 90th Brigade February 1918)
 * 89th Machine Gun Company (joined 13 March 1916, moved to 30th Battalion M.G.C. 1 March 1918)
 * 89th Trench Mortar Battery (joined by 16 June 1916)

On reorganisation in July 1918:

 * 2nd Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment
 * 7/8th (Service) Battalion, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers
 * 2/17th (County of London) Battalion, London Regiment
 * 89th Trench Mortar Battery

 * 90th Brigade :

 * 16th (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (1st City) (left June 1918)
 * 17th (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (2nd City) (left February 1918)
 * 18th (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (3rd City) (disbanded February 1918)
 * 19th (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (4th City) (left December 1915)
 * 2nd Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers (joined December 1915 left April 1918)
 * 2nd Battalion, Bedfordshire Regiment (joined from 89th Brigade February 1918 left May 1918)
 * 14th (Service) Battalion, Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders (joined April 1918, left June 1918)
 * 90th Machine Gun Company (joined 13 March 1916, moved to 30th Battalion M.G.C. 1 March 1918)
 * 90th Trench Mortar Battery (formed by 16 June 1916)

On reorganisation in July 1918:

 * 2/14th (County of London) Battalion, London Regiment
 * 2/15th (County of London) Battalion, London Regiment
 * 2/16th (County of London) Battalion, London Regiment
 * 90th Trench Mortar Battery

 * 91st Brigade :

The brigade formed in April 1915 and moved to the 7th Division in December of that year, swapping with the 21st Brigade.

 * 20th (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (5th City)
 * 21st (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (6th City)
 * 22nd (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (7th City)
 * 24th (Service) Battalion, Manchester Regiment (Oldham)

Divisional Troops
 * 11th (Service) Battalion, South Lancashire Regiment (joined as Divisional Pioneer Battalion May 1915, left as cadre June 1918)
 * 6th (Service) Battalion, South Wales Borderers (joined as Divisional Pioneer Battalion July 1918)
 * 226th Machine Gun Company (joined 19 July 1917, moved to 30th Battalion M.G.C. 1 March 1918)
 * 19th Motor Machine Gun Battery (joined 10 February 1916, left 6 June 1916)
 * 30th Battalion M.G.C. (formed 1 March 1918, reduced to cadre 13 May 1918 replaced on 29 June 1918 by a redesignated “A” Bn, MGC)
 * Divisional Mounted Troops
 * D Sqn, Lancashire Hussars (left 10 May 1916)
 * 30th Divisional Cyclist Company, Army Cyclist Corps (left 21 May 1916)
 * 30th Divisional Train Army Service Corps
 * 186th, 187th, 188th and 189th Companies (joined from 22nd Division in France in November 1915)
 * 40th Mobile Veterinary Section Army Veterinary Corps
 * 227th Divisional Employment Company (joined 24 May 1917)

Royal Artillery
 * CXLVIII Brigade, Royal Field Artillery (R.F.A.)
 * CXLIX Brigade, R.F.A.
 * CL Brigade, R.F.A. (left 2 January 1917)
 * CLI (Howitzer) Brigade, R.F.A. (broken up 26 August 1916)
 * 11th (Hull) Heavy Battery, Royal Garrison Artillery (R.G.A.) (joined June 1915, left March 1916)
 * 125th Heavy Battery, R.G.A. (raised with the Division but moved independently to France on 29 April 1916)
 * 30th Divisional Ammunition Column R.F.A.
 * V.30 Heavy Trench Mortar Battery, R.F.A. (joined by 7 October 1916, left by 11 February 1918)
 * X.30, Y.30 and Z.30 Medium Mortar Batteries, R.F.A.(joined April 1916, 11 February 1918, Z broken up and batteries distributed among X and Y batteries)

Royal Engineers
 * 200th (County Palatine) Field Company
 * 201st (County Palatine) Field Company
 * 202nd (County Palatine) Field Company
 * 30th Divisional Signals Company

Royal Army Medical Corps
 * 111th Field Ambulance (left September 1915)
 * 112th Field Ambulance (left September 1915)
 * 113th Field Ambulance (left September 1915)
 * 70th Sanitary Section (left 2 April 1917)
 * 96th Field Ambulance(joined November 1915)
 * 97th Field Ambulance (joined November 1915)
 * 98th Field Ambulance (joined November 1915)

General officers commanding
The division had the following commanders during the First World War:

title: 30th Division (United Kingdom)


text:
32nd Division (United Kingdom)

The 32nd Division was an infantry division of the British Army that was raised in 1914, during the First World War. The division was raised from volunteers for Lord Kitchener's New Armies, made up of infantry 'Pals battalions' and artillery brigades raised by public subscription or private patronage. The division was taken over by the War Office in September 1915. It served in France and Belgium in the trenches of the Western Front for the duration of the war. It saw action at the Battle of the Somme, the Pursuit to the Hindenburg Line, the Defence of Nieuport, the German spring offensive, and the Allied Hundred Days Offensive beginning at the Battle of Amiens. After the Armistice it marched into Germany as part of the Army of Occupation.

Formation history

The Division was one of those created for Kitchener's Fifth New Army ('K5') on 10 December 1914 and was originally numbered 38th until the six K4 divisions were converted into reserve units. It landed in France in November 1915. Major-General Reginald Barnes took command of the division for a short while in November 1916 before being replaced by the controversial Major-General Cameron Shute.

The division's insignia was four 'eights' arranged in an 'X' shape.

Order of Battle
The following units and formations served with the division during the war: The brigade joined from the 5th Division in December 1915, swapping with the 95th Brigade.
 * 14th Brigade :
 * 1/9th Territorial Force (T.F.) Battalion Royal Scots (left January 1916)
 * 1st Battalion, Devonshire Regiment (left January 1916)
 * 1st Battalion, East Surrey Regiment (left January 1916)
 * 1st Battalion Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry (left January 1916)
 * 2nd Battalion, Manchester Regiment (joined December 1915 transferred to 96th Brigade February 1918)
 * 1st Battalion, Dorset Regiment (joined 7 January 1916)
 * 19th (Service) Battalion (3rd Salford), Lancashire Fusiliers (transferred from 96th Brigade January 1916 left July 1916)
 * 15th (Service) Battalion (1st Glasgow), Highland Light Infantry (transferred from 97th Brigade January 1916)
 * 5th/6th Battalion, Royal Scots T.F. (joined 29 July 1916)
 * 4th Machine Gun Company (joined February 1916, moved to 32nd Battalion Machine Gun Corps (M.G.C.) 21 February 1918)
 * 14th Trench Mortar Battery (joined March 1916)

 * 95th Brigade :

The brigade transferred to the 5th Division on 26 December 1915, swapping with the 14th Brigade.

 * 14th (Service) Battalion, Royal Warwickshire Regiment (1st Birmingham)
 * 15th (Service) Battalion, Royal Warwickshire Regiment (2nd Birmingham)
 * 16th (Service) Battalion, Royal Warwickshire Regiment (3rd Birmingham)
 * 12th (Service) Battalion, Gloucestershire Regiment (Bristol's Own)

 * 96th Brigade :

 * 16th (Service) Battalion, (Newcastle), Northumberland Fusiliers (disbanded February 1916)
 * 15th (Service) Battalion (1st Salford), Lancashire Fusiliers
 * 16th (Service) Battalion (2nd Salford), Lancashire Fusiliers
 * 19th (Service) Battalion (3rd Salford), Lancashire Fusiliers (transferred to 14th Brigade 5 January 1916)
 * 2nd Battalion, Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers (joined January 1916 left February 1918)
 * 2nd Battalion, Manchester Regiment (transferred from 14th Brigade February 1918)
 * 96th Machine Gun Company (joined 15 March 1916, moved to 32nd Battalion M.G.C. 21 February 1918)
 * 96th Trench Mortar Battery (joined March 1916)

 * 97th Brigade :

 * 11th (Service) Battalion (Lonsdale), Border Regiment (left May 1918)
 * 15th (Service) Battalion (1st Glasgow), Highland Light Infantry (transferred to 14th Brigade January 1916)
 * 16th (Service) Battalion (2nd Glasgow), Highland Light Infantry (transferred to Divisional Pioneers February 1918)
 * 17th (Service) Battalion (3rd Glasgow), Highland Light Infantry (disbanded February 1918)
 * 2nd Battalion, King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry (joined December 1915)
 * 10th (Service) Battalion, Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (joined February 1918)
 * 1/5th (Cumberland) Battalion, Border Regiment (joined May 1918)
 * 97th Machine Gun Company (joined 15 March 1916, moved to 32nd Battalion M.G.C. 21 February 1918)
 * 97th Trench Mortar Battery (joined March 1916)

 * Mounted Troops
 * F Sqn, North Irish Horse	(joined April left June 1916)
 * 32nd Divisional Cyclist Company, Army Cyclist Corps (left 31 May 1916)

 * Pioneers
 * 17th (Service) Battalion (North Eastern Railway Pioneers), Northumberland Fusiliers (joined as Divisional Pioneer Battalion June 1915, left October 1916, returned September 1917, finally left November 1917 )
 * 1/12th T.F. Battalion, Loyal North Lancashire Regiment (joined as Divisional Pioneer Battalion November 1916, left January 1917)
 * 16th (Service) Battalion (Glasgow Boys Brigade), Highland Light Infantry (joined as Divisional Pioneer Battalion February 1918)

 * Machine Gun Corps
 * 219th Machine Gun Company (joined 25 March 1917, moved to 32nd Battalion M.G.C. 21 February 1918)
 * 32nd Battalion M.G.C. (formed 21 February 1918 absorbing brigade MG companies)

2nd County Palatine Artillery ''Originally raised in Lancashire for 32nd Division by the Earl of Derby but did not accompany the division to France in November 1915. Later joined 31st Division.
 * Royal Artillery
 * CLXV (2nd County Palatine) Brigade, Royal Field Artillery (RFA)
 * CLXIX (2nd County Palatine) Brigade, RFA
 * CLXX (2nd County Palatine) Brigade, RFA
 * CLXXI (2nd County Palatine) Howitzer Brigade, RFA
 * 133rd (2nd County Palatine) Heavy Battery and Ammunition Column, Royal Garrison Artillery
 * 30th (2nd County Palatine) Divisional Ammunition Column, RFA

53rd (Welsh) Divisional Artillery Attached to 32nd Division in France between 22 November and 27 December 1915, later rejoining 53rd (Welsh) Division in Egypt
 * I Welsh (Howitzer) Brigade, RFA
 * II Welsh Brigade, RFA
 * Cheshire Brigade, RFA
 * IV Welsh Brigade, RFA
 * 53rd (Welsh) Divisional Ammunition Column, RFA

32nd Divisional Artillery Transferred from 31st Division, joining in France between 30 December 1915 and 3 January 1916
 * CLV (West Yorkshire) Brigade, RFA (left 20 January 1917)
 * CVXI (Yorkshire) Brigade, RFA
 * CLXIV (Rotherham) Howitzer Brigade, RFA (broken up September 1916)
 * CLXVIII (Huddersfield) Brigade, RFA
 * 32nd (Hull) Divisional Ammunition Column, RFA
 * 32nd Divisional Trench Mortar Brigade
 * 32nd (Hull) Heavy Trench Mortar Battery (formed in April 1916 from Divisional Ammunition Column, later redesignated V.32; became X.32 Medium Battery 12 February 1918)
 * W.32 Heavy Trench Mortar Battery, R.F.A. (temporarily formed for Battle of the Somme; broken up 28 December 1916)
 * A.32, B.32 Medium Trench Mortar Batteries (temporarily formed for Battle of the Somme)
 * X.32, Y.32 and Z.32 Medium Mortar Batteries, R.F.A. (formed May 1916; X and Z broken up 12 February 1918 and distributed among New X and Y batteries)

 * Royal Engineers
 * 206th (Glasgow) Field Company
 * 218th (Glasgow) Field Company
 * 219th (Glasgow) Field Company
 * 32nd Divisional Signals Company

 * Royal Army Medical Corps
 * 96th Field Ambulance (left November 1915)
 * 97th Field Ambulance (left November 1915)
 * 98th Field Ambulance (left November 1915)
 * 90th Field Ambulance (joined November 1915)
 * 91st Field Ambulance (joined November 1915)
 * 92nd Field Ambulance (joined November 1915)
 * 72nd Sanitary Section (left 17 April 1917)

 * Army Service Corps
 * 32nd Divisional Train Army Service Corps (A.S.C.)
 * 221st, 222nd, 223rd and 224th Companies A.S.C. (remained in England in November 1915)
 * 202nd, 203rd, 204th and 205th Companies A.S.C. (joined in France)
 * 42nd Mobile Veterinary Section Army Veterinary Corps
 * 229th Divisional Employment Company (joined 25 March 1917)

Service
The division was engaged in the following major actions:

1916

 * Battle of the Somme
 * Battle of Albert, 1–3 July
 * Battle of Bazentin Ridge, 14–15 July
 * Battle of the Ancre Heights (32nd Divisional Artillery only), 23 October–11 November
 * Battle of the Ancre, 17–19 November

1917

 * Operations on the Ancre, 11 January–15 February
 * Capture of Ten Tree Trench (97th Bde only), 10 February
 * German retreat to the Hindenburg Line, 14 March–14 April
 * Capture of Holnon Wood, 1 April
 * Capture of Fayet (14th and 97th Bdes), 14 April
 * Battle of Messines (32nd Divisional Artillery only), 7 June
 * Operations on the Flanders Coast, 20 June–7 October
 * Defence of Nieuport, 10–11 July

1918

 * German spring offensive
 * Battle of Arras (97th Bde only), 28 March
 * Capture of Ayette (14th and 96th Bdes), 3 April
 * Battle of the Ancre, 5 April
 * Hundred Days Offensive
 * Battle of Amiens, 10–11 August
 * Second Battle of the Somme
 * Battle of Albert, 21–23 August
 * Second Battle of Bapaume, 31 August–3 September
 * Battles of the Hindenburg Line
 * Battle of the St Quentin Canal, 29 September–3 October
 * Battle of the Beaurevoir Line, 3–4 October
 * Battle of the Selle (32nd Divisional Artillery only), 17–25 October
 * Battle of the Sambre
 * Attack on the Happegarbes Spur (96th Bde only), 2 November
 * Crossing of the Sambre–Oise Canal, 4 November

Postwar
32nd Division was occupying Avesnes when the Armistice with Germany came into effect on 11 November. Two days later it was informed that it would take part in the advance to the Rhine, which began on 19 November. However, the division was halted on the Meuse between Dinant and Namur, to act as reserve for the British Army of the Rhine (BAOR). On 28 January 1919 the division began entraining for Bonn and on 3 February it took over the southern sector of the Cologne bridgehead while demobilisation of individuals continued. On 15 March the division was renamed the Lancashire Division in BAOR, and war-raised units were progressively replaced by Regulars during 1919. During the war the division lost 34,226 killed, wounded and missing.

General Officers commanding
The following served as General Officer Commanding (GOC) of the division during the war:
 * Maj-Gen William Henry Rycroft, 29 June 1915 to 22 November 1916
 * Maj-Gen Reginald Barnes, 22 November 1916; sick 9–16 and 29 January 1917
 * Brig-Gen James Tyler, Commander Royal Artillery (CRA), acting 9–16 January and 29 January–19 February 1917
 * Maj-Gen Cameron Shute, 19 February to 24 May 1917 and 20 June 1917 to 27 April 1918
 * Maj-Gen Hon Richard Montagu-Stuart-Wortley, temporary 24 May to 20 June 1917
 * Brig-Gen James Tyler, CRA, acting 27 April 1918
 * Maj-Gen J. Campbell, 27 April to 6 May 1918
 * Brig-Gen Frederick Lumsden, VC, GOC 14th Bde, acting 6 May 1918
 * Maj-Gen R.J. Bridgford, 7 to 31 May 1918
 * Maj-Gen Thomas Stanton Lambert, 31 May 1918 to 1919

title: 32nd Division (United Kingdom)


text:
Talk:Reynold Cobham, 1st Baron Cobham of Sterborough

}

Untitled
The Cobham Family:

Even reputable authorites on nobility have made careless errors concerning this comlicated family:

Afew notes to begin with have been placed here because they do not seem suitable for the page attached, for now at least Faedra 11:45, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC).

Sir Henry de Cobham of Rundale (Rundell), Governor of Jersey and Guernsey (d 1316), and who was married to Joan Penchester (c. 1269 - c. 1314), a daughter of Stephen de Penchester, Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports and owner of Penshurst Place, was decended from this family but by another branch.

The third son of John was Sir Reginald de Cobham of Orkesden and Eynesford, who wed Joan d'Evere (dau of William d'Evere), whose son was Reginald de Cobham, the first Lord Sterborough (c. 1295 - 1361) the husband of Joan de Berkeley, the daughter of third lord (Sir Thomas) de Berkeley.


text:
Talk:Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949

About.Com Article
So which came first, this article or the one at about.com which is exactly the same?

If you scroll to the bottom of that page you will see "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia" Dwyatt 101 08:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the House of Commons does not hold supremacy in the UK and certainly not within the Commonwealth or British Isles. From the two houses, the House of Lords is the highest house with the justices and magistrates power (with a greater power to create legislation through case law, than government.). All bills and acts must be accepted and ratified by the House of Lords. Further to this, is the supremacy of the constitutional documents, of which the parliament act or any act of parliament is certainly not one. It is my understanding that all acts of parliament exist in accordance with the signing of Magna Carta, secondly documents such as Magna Carta and British Law Land documents are all supreme sources of power in the British constitution which succeed the power of House of Commons. Further to this, the Protestant (not anglican) Church of England, with the supreme power to inaugurate a King/ Queen, is the supreme power awarding body as the nation is deemed by constitution to be given of the rights of God. Quite a lot of paper work to do and quite a few bodies to anull if you would like to make the house of commons supreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.171.129.68 (talk) 07:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Referring to this document of the Government of the UK I doubt that the Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913 has been introduced with a Parliament Act. Can somebody please check this issue and change the article if necessary? -- Umaluagr 12:49, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * See page 9 of that document:

 * "The procedure prescribed by the Parliament Act 1911 was used in one other case, that of the Temperance (Scotland) Bill 1913."

 * That document is mentioned in the References section on the article page - it was a source for my additions on 16 September. (PS - it is helpful to sign and date comments by adding ~ at the end. I've done it for you.) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:46, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is basically correct. But it was no Parliament Act, because the bill received royal assent with the agreement of the Lords in the second session. In my opinion it is just a Parliament Act, when the bill passes through without the approval of the Lords.

Further on in this paragraph you can read: "All these Bills were rejected by the House of Lords in the first session, subsequently certified by the Speaker under the Parliament Acts and sent to the Lords, but then received Royal Assent in the final session with the agreement of the Lords as a result of compromise amendments." In this case the Temperance (Scotland) Act should be listed in the threats for a Parliament Act.

I am writing on the German article for the Parliament Act, so I am happy if you can give me some input on that issue, so that I can correct it there as well. --Umaluagr 10:56, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Ah - thanks for the further comment, which makes perfect sense. I have corrected the article to deal with my mistake (mis-reading that document, I thought the end of that paragraph referred only to the later two bills, not the earlier one too, but I see that I was wrong).  -- ALoan (Talk) 12:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Invoking the Parliament Acts"
To talk about "invoking the Parliament Acts" may be a little misleading: it seems to imply the active taking of certain discretionary steps. However, section 2(1) of the Act, quoted on page 3 of SN/PC/675, makes it look like the operation is automatic (provided of course that all relevant conditions are met by the Bill), and that the Bill "shall ... be presented" for Royal Assent "unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary". So for a government to "threaten to use the Parliament Acts" means something like "we will not ask the Commons to direct to the contrary [and will oppose any such motion if proposed]". It is a subtle point, and I have not changed the article. I do not have access to the full text of the Acts. It would appear that the Speaker still has to certify the Bill: see the statement corresponding to footnote 13 on page 6 of SN/PC/675 and the bullet point corresponding to footnote 68 on page 16 of SN/PC/675. As with the certification of money bills, it is the Speaker and not the government who is invested with this particular power. The Speaker should, of course, himself be directed by the will of the House of Commons. -- G Colyer 19:21, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * See the end of this BBC News story. -- G Colyer 20:52, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I too am unhappy about the usage "invoking the Parliament Acts". I have read through the text of the acts carefully and it is quite clear (they are remarkably clearly drafted) that the acts come into play automatically unless the Commons takes action to stop them doing so. This means that nobody really "invokes" the act, rather they refrain from stopping their effect. Francis Davey 01:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * It's very common usage, even if technically incorrect. Even if Wikipedia indicates that the usage is incorrect, we shouldn't pretend it never exists. Fwiw, my understanding was that The Speaker had to certify the Bill for Royal Assent (without the Lords' agreement), which would imply that nothing is automatic — there is a conscious decision on the part of The Speaker to do so, irrespective of whether he's only doing so "by the will of the Commons", n'est ce pas? — OwenBlacker 12:52, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

 * My interpretation (for what its worth -- but I am a practising barrister) of the Act is that the Speaker is bound to certify the bill as law if the preconditions are met. Not that it would be justiciable if he didn't. Francis Davey 01:12, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think Wikipedia need even indicate that the usage is incorrect, just avoid using it.

 * What is the procedure normally used to convey the Commons' approval prior to Royal Assent? Do all bills normally terminate their passage in the Lords, regardless of where they begin? This "certification" by the Speaker may (for all I know) be normal procedure. In any case, it is not the government that "invokes" the Parliament Acts even in this weak sense. G Colyer 19:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

German featured atricle
Outrageous! The equivalent page is is a featured article (Exzellente Artikel) in the German wikipedia! Look at their lovely diagrams! Something must be done... -- ALoan (Talk) 21:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1949 act
this article needs background on why it was needed then - and why it was then never used! Morwen - Talk 17:29, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * There is some good background discussion in the judgments of the High Court  and Court of Appeal  (which I have been reading on the train!). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * INteresting stuff. Have added some material from there.  Morwen - Talk 09:50, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Salisbury convention
This article probably needs to mention the Salisbury convention, and whether the post-1949 acts were pushed through due to violations of this by the Lords. I believe fox hunting was in Labour's manifesto, dunno about the other stuff. Morwen - Talk 17:46, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of the Act
The article claims that the PM obtained the permission of the King to create new peers to force the bill through. However, the E2 writeup on this subject claims that merely the 'threat' of going to the king was enough to force it through. My friend's Law textbook (ISBN 0-406-95952-8) claims that the Edward VII and George V were reluctant to create new peers.

Does anyone have any reliable sources as to what exactly happened in this conflict? Fragglet 19:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Parliament Act challenge
I have removed the text:
 * The Countryside Commission and various individuals also brought legal actions on human rights grounds, that the Hunting Act was a disproportionate, unnecessary and illegitimate interference with their rights, and under European Community law, that the Act infringed the rights to free movement of goods, workers and to provide and receive services. These claims were dismissed by the Administrative Court (The Countryside Alliance and others v. H.M. Attorney General and others [2005] EWHC 1677 (Admin), 29 July 2005), but permission was granted for an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and an appeal is under way.

because it has nothing to do with the Parliament Act. Such information (apart from the reference to the non existent Countryside Commission) should be on the Hunting Act 2004 page. MikeHobday 14:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * Fair enough. You also removed the short discussion of the size of the panel in the HL decision - did you think it was not relevant either? -- ALoan (Talk) 22:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

 * I thought the section was over long and the detail too much for a relatively short, albeit important incident. Do you disagree? I don't feel strongly. MikeHobday 07:10, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Invalid?

 * "The consequences are unclear if the 1949 Act were to be ruled invalid. Certainly, the Hunting Act 2004 and the War Crimes Act 1991 would be then invalid."

Could someone explain why this is the case? If the monarch has given assent to the bill, does it manner that it was created in an inproper manner? If I don't get a reply, I think I'll remove the 'Certainly', and make the statement more uncertain. Dmn € Դմն 13:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It certainly does matter. It is widely accepted that the Queen in Parliament is sovereign - that is, the Queen acting with the consent of both Houses of Parliament.  The first Parliament Act provided a mechanism to pass Acts without the consent of the House of Lords (quite how this is rationalised in constitutional terms is a matter for debate - delegating power or redefining Parliament or whatever - IIRC, there is some interesting discussion of the effect of the Parliament Acts in the speeches delievered in the House of Lords).  If the 1949 Act were held to be invalid, then it would be an easy matter to see that Acts passed in reliance upon its terms would be invalid too.  Quite what it means for a purported Act of Parliament to be invalid is left as an exercise for the reader! -- ALoan (Talk) 13:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the House of Lords has ruled that the Act is valid, there seems little point in keeping the paragraphs about what would have happened if it was invalid. I presume that part was written before the final judgement was made, when the court case was still a current event. I'm going to levae this for a few days and then if no-one objects I'm going to remove it, as it seems to me that this kind of speculation is not encyclopedic (or at least not anymore). Richard75 13:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC) Done.Richard75 14:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

"other types of bills"
I have a question on the content:

The Parliament Act 1911: "imposed a maximum legislative delay of one month for "money bills" (those dealing with taxation) and two years for other types of bill" ; and

The Parliament Act 1949: "Parliament Act 1949 (12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 103), which further limited the power of the Lords by reducing the time that they could delay bills, from two years to one<--- Which "bill" does it refer to? the "money bills" or "other types of bills" (as stated in the Parliament Act 1911)?

I would be grateful for your answer. scarlett_tong 15:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The 1949 Act decreased the time that the Lords could delay non-money bills from 2 years to 1 year by amending section 2 of the 1911 Act. The provisions relating to money bills in section 1 were left the same.  See the text of the [amended] Act here - the amendments are in [square brackets]. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed text
I have removed thye following text:
 * However, the Liberal government did not follow through with reform of the House of Lords, and the composition of the Lords remained much the same for another 50 years, until life peers were introduced in 1958. Despite further calls for change, the position remained the same until the Labour government elected in 1997 took the first steps to reform the Lords.  The House of Lords Act 1999 reduced the number of hereditary peers entitled to attend and vote in the Lords; however, as of 2006, there are no directly-elected members of the second chamber.  However, the small number of remaining hereditary peers were elected by a vote of all the hereditary peers in the lead up to the reform (including those who were to lose their seats).

because it doe snot belong as "background to the 1911 Act. Some of it may well belong elsewhere in the article. MikeHobday 08:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

A question
If House of Commons enactes a bill to abolish the House of Lords, can House of Commons use the Parliament Acts to bypass Lords' veto ?

Siyac 13:02, 23 Jan 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. MikeHobday 12:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Parliament Acts and constitutional change
One concern I have about the Parliament Acts is this: although the 1911 Act takes a self-denying ordnance on extending the life of a parliament, it says nothing about entrenching this safeguard.

The limit on the life of a parliament (and government) is set at five years by the Septennial Act 1715 (as amended by the 1911 Act). Section 2(1) of the 1911 Act forbids its use on any Bill intended to extend this limit, But it would be quite possible, following the precedent of the 1949 Act, for a government to stay in power indefinitely first by re-wording s. 2(1) appropriately, leaving it free to set up a dictatorship. In other words, any government since 1911 could, in theory, have passed, say, an Emergency Powers Act of Self-Perpetuation.

Do contributors believe that this point is made strongly enough on the article? Steve-o 16:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 * I think it's too theoretical to need space in the article. It might make an interesting footnote if you have a reliable third-party source that makes the same supposition. (Anyway, there's bound to be an alternative method laying around to subvert the intent of the law: an Order-in-Council or something equally undemocratic) Yomangani talk 17:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

 * There was some discussion on this very point in the court decisions in the Jackson case following the enactment of the Hunting Act 2004 (follow the links to the decisions of the High Court, Court of Appeal and House of Lords for further edification). There was some discussion of whether the Act could be construed as including an implied restriction preventing the Act from being used to amend itself to remove that sort of safeguard (although that is precisely what happened with the 1949 Act, together with special tweaking of the "sessions" of Parliament to ensure the provisions of the 1911 Act were met) or to make other wide-ranging changes to the British constitution.  Typically, the courts refused to give a definitive answer to this question, as it was not necessary for the case before them. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Septennial Act and general elections
I wanted to explain a minor amendment I made to the first section. Technically, the Septennial Act never set a maximum time between general elections. Indeed, the general election of May 1997 was more than five years after the one of April 1992. What the legislation does is mandate that any Parliament will automatically dissolve the day after the fifth anniversary of the day it was first called. In practice, each Parliament is called within a few days of being elected and a new election is called immediately on Parliament being dissolved (and the campaign is usually just a few weeks), this sets the maximum time between elections as just over five years (as with the 1992 Parliament), but this is not statutory. The Triennial Act means that a new Parliament must be called within three years of the old one being dissolved, not the few weeks that is normal these days. Of course, a government that did not call an election when Parliament was dissolved would not be able to legislate, and its right to levy taxes would lapse within a year. Qlangley (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC).

The title of this page
I think that this page should be moved to Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 (currently a redirect) since that is the correct collective title of these two Acts and avoids confusion with the new article Parliament Act (this is a list) and with other "Parliament Acts", such as the Parliament Act 1660. James500 (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 are now articles. James500 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone raises an objection to this, I intend to effect the page move described above in the immediate future. James500 (talk) 18:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This page move has now been effected. This page was formerly at Parliament Acts. James500 (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

paying Mps
The provision for paying Members of parliament was long awaited and fought for. I have mentioned this. Previous tothis act, fundamentally only people who had money could become Mps! Johncmullen1960 (talk) 08:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I am going to delete the following passage as I can find no reference to this in the actual text of the Act. Whoever wrote this must have gotten confused with another statute:

 * It also provided for Members of Parliament (excluding government ministers) to be paid £400 per year. The payment of MPs had been a demand of radical democratic movements since at least the 1830s.

Suggested merge of 1911 and 1949 articles to here
I'd like to suggest that we merge Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 into Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Both the 1911 and 1949 articles have very little content - mostly an infobox, links to the full text, and a link to this excellent article - which could be moved here without too much trouble. The pages are essentially redirects where you have to find and click the link here (also making this page harder to find), when it merging them here would mean we could send people to this page directly. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Strongly support, on the proviso that the 1911 and 1949 articles redirect to here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.231.37 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Comment When I created these articles I had it in mind to move the material that was only relevant to one Act and not the other (e.g. the history of the passage of the 1911 Act) to relevant article. I thought it would lead to clearer presentation and I thought that if a blow by blow account of the provisions of each of these Acts was given, this article might become rather long. I did not actually get round to this. I think that there is some material in each article that is not reproduced in this article. If you really want to merge them you will have to make sure that it is reproduced. James500 (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * didn't seem to be consensus to merge, remove tag, Tom B (talk) 01:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

 * Alternative proposal Split this page in two.James500 (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Accuracy
This article isn't totally correct. It represents one view. But there are others, held by people who are acknowledged experts in the field. The one held by Albert Venn Dicey, in the edition of Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution that was published after the 1911 Act is: "Hence, on the whole, the correct legal statement of the actual condition of things is that sovereignty still resides in Parliament, i.e. in the King and the two Houses acting together, but that the Parliament Act has greatly increased the share of sovereignty possessed by the House of Commons and has greatly diminished the share thereof belonging to the House of Lords."

On other words, it is incorrect and inaccurate to say, as this article states, that Parliament delegated anything at all. Uncle G (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC) What you are complaining about is a lack of balance not a lack of accuracy. Nothing in that section (as far as I can see) is untrue but it may be that it does not include all relevant information. In that case be bold and edit some in. Francis Davey (talk) 08:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see any way in which that section of the article is inaccurate. In particular it does not represent any particular view as being correct, though it does report the decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction to decide whether the 1949 Act was valid (on which Dicey had no view of course). In what way do you think Dicey's view is contradicted by the article? Francis Davey (talk) 20:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * In the way explicitly stated above. This article presents only one view.  That's not the view held by all scholars, and one very prominent scholar in the field of U.K. constitutional law in particular does not hold the view presented by this article, and quite clearly contradicts the statement that the 1911 Act delegated power solely to the Commons, or indeed delegated anything at all.  Heck, even the sources that are already cited here state that there's no delegation going on.  Yet we have an article that nowhere states the widespread view, held by many scholars, that Donaldson's/Wade's idea of delegation is, quite simply, a mistaken one; but rather we have an article that incorrectly presents Donaldson's/Wade's ideas as the primary mainstream views, and merely goes on to say that attempts to correct the flaws, that those views imply, have failed.  That's a woefully incomplete and inaccurate portayal of scholarship on this subject.  The mainstream view is in fact that these purported problems don't actually exist as claimed.  What this article is presenting as legal scholarship on this matter is in fact an over-amplified minority viewpoint. By the way, you'll also find that the mainstream view, even nowadays, is that there are no "courts of competent jurisdiction" that you refer to.  So your argument that "courts of competent jurisdiction" have demonstrated something has improper foundation.  The courts will not go "beyond the parliamentary roll" in deciding what is and isn't an Act of Parliament.  This is the view that was held by Dicey, and it is the view still held today by the mainstream.  It is still the widely accepted principle in mainstream scholarship and legal opinion that the courts do not have jurisdiction to rule on the procedures of Parliament.  Lord Denning tried to assert otherwise (in the Court of Appeal), but he, too, failed to change established legal doctrine on this.  Uncle G (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't read it that way. As I read it the article states that some legal academics have raised objections, one of which is the delegation theory. There's no assertion that this is a widespread or mainstream view or even a credible one. That Lord Donaldson wanted to put the matter beyond doubt by legislation doesn't mean that the delegation theory is widespread or widely accepted. One edit that would be OK would be to say "some legal academics" rather than "legal academics". I think the "some" is understood, but no harm spelling it out - I'll make that change. Unless you have a good survey article you can cite, there would be no basis for stating that this was not a widespread view. However it would be perfectly legitimate to make an edit to the effect that other lawyers have taken a different view of the effect of the 1911 Act and Dicey's view is certainly notable.

Featured article status
I nominated this article for a featured article review overlooking the usual talk page period because of what I considered to be very significant failings in the article against what are stringent standards. This omission has been challenged, and although I believe that it should be omitted because of the blatant failings of the article, I would like to outline the objections here (as would be proper procedure) so if any editor is able to being the article up to the required standard, they can: These are the main points. I wanted to be thorough because of what I see as the magnitude of the problem. I'd really like this article to be an FA and I appreciate the time editors have put in, it's just not there. It was passed as an FA in looser times, and fells well short of the standards expected of FAs. I think it's currently around a 'B', with a GA nomination possible with some work. I hope to find the time to improve it and that's part of the reason I'm sorry I've had to lay everything out here. I hope very much that these things will not be true of the article in the future. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 14:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On 1a): well written. My prose has come under fire before, so I'm not the best judge, but I think the prose could be improved considerably. The are for example, vague terms and sentences like "the Conservative opposition, many of whom were large landowners themselves" and "hundreds of new Liberal peers". Sentences like "One of the reasons for the Irish Parliamentary Party MPs' support for the Parliament Act, and the bitterness of the Unionist resistance, was that the loss of the Lords' veto would make possible Irish Home Rule (i.e. a devolved legislature)." lack clarity and a clear understanding.
 * On 1b) Comprehensive. I do not believe that the subjects as covered in enough depth. As two of the most important documents in British parliamentary history, there is a lack of thorough discussion of what was being brought it, how, the audience, critical reception (in the press, for example) and only a thin discussion present of the effects of the act on future events. Whilst this sort of detail would be suitable for a GA (perhaps) it is not comprehensive. The 1949 act is given one paragraph where I believe it is possible to write an entire article on it (which I hopefully will do).
 * On 1c) well researched. There are large areas left unreferenced, and the sources used are mixed, with some (eg. "Epolitix.com") not appropriately scholarly.
 * On 1d) neutral. Quite possibly. It's hard to form and opinion without a thorough text. For example, the weight given to Labour's plans in the 1997-2010 period may or nay not be justified.
 * On 2a) The lead. Not a poor representation, by any means; I don't think it's the main problem with the article. The weight on the 2004/5 events seems disproportionate, however.
 * On 2b) Layout. I'm not sure whether this is included under 2b, but I think the use of bullet points in the text could be improved with prose.
 * On 2c) citation style. Some of it could be improved, with different date styles and ways of referencing web pages used in the notes, as well as being a mix of 'notes' and 'citations'. Overall they use ref tags rather than inline bracketed forms, but are not in teh thorough style (ISBNs, dates, publisher info, that sort of thing) that are required by FA reviewers, if not by the criteria per se.

second sentence exceedingly awkward
The second sentence of this article is exceedingly awkward. It reads:

"It is provided that they are to be construed as though they were a single Act."

This construction is passive voice (what provides this?) and is unnecessarily wordy besides.

I suggested changing the sentence to:

"The 1949 Act provides that the two laws are to be construed as a single Act."

Apparently my use of the term "law" was objectionable (I was trying to avoid using "Act" three times in the same sentence). Also, the reverter commented, "being construed as one Act isn't the same thing as being a single Act." But I fail to see how the modification from "construed as though they were a single Act" to "construed as a single Act" takes anything out of the sentence.

Hopefully someone with more knowledge of the subject matter can fix this issue. It's a glaring problem for a supposedly featured article's opening paragraph. AgnosticAphid talk 18:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The second sentence is not exceedingly awkward or glaring problem. There are much worse parts of this article than that sentence. As to your question, I would have thought that someone could figure out "what provides this" by looking at the footnote, as you did.

I am going to change the sentence to "section 2(2) of the Parliament Act 1949 provides that that Act and the Parliament Act 1911 are to be construed as one" which should be beyond argument. James500 (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060925213950/http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page140.asp to http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page140.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060930235610/http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=46&item=history to http://www.liberalhistory.org.uk/item_single.php?item_id=46&item=history
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930023520/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtholref/17/1710.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/jt200203/jtselect/jtholref/17/1710.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050415132644/http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbills/126/2000126.htm to http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199900/ldbills/126/2000126.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Duff references for over 12 years.
Ref name "AB2R" is defined as  and as, and is called in two other places with no indication of which version is intended. This error has existed since the 9th of October 2006. The editor who introduced the error has not edited Wikipedia for over 6 months. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, after close perusal of too many diffs to mention, I have been able to correct the error. We should all be ashamed that such an error should have persisted for so long. DuncanHill (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949


text:
Aceair

Aceair SA was a Swiss aircraft manufacturer established in Manno in 1999. It was developing the AERIKS 200 in kitplane form.

Status
Aceair ceased operation in 2004, and with it the Aeriks 200 project was cancelled. This was principally due to Diamond Engines cancelling the manufacture of the rotary engine the 200 was based around. Some assets of the company were purchased by a pair of entrepreneurs, and so the Aeriks 200 may eventually see commercial launch someday.

title: Aceair


text:
Mohammad-Ali Jamalzadeh

Mohammad-Ali Jamālzādeh Esfahani (13 January 1892 in Isfahan, Iran – 8 November 1997 in Geneva, Switzerland) was one of the most prominent writers of Iran in the 20th century, best known for his unique style of humour. In view of his vast influence over Persian short story writing, he is often referred to as the father of this genre in Iran.

Early years and family
Sayyed Mohammad-Ali Jamalzadeh was born in Esfahan into a middle-class family. The date of his birth is uncertain; years between 1892 and 1896 have been mentioned and, by the end of his life, even he himself was not certain of the actual year. The year 1895 has traditionally been taken as the year of his birth.

Jamalzadeh's father, Sayyed Jamal ad-Din Esfahani, was a progressive mullah and preacher who became a constitutional revolutionary, delivering raging sermons that inspired his son but cost him his life; he was executed in 1908 on the order of Mohammad Ali Shah Qajar who considered him among the most dangerous of his enemies.

Living abroad
The young Jamalzadeh lived in Iran only until he was twelve or thirteen. Thereafter, he lived in Lebanon, where he attended the Aintoura Catholic School (1908) near Beirut, in France (1910), and in Switzerland where he studied law at University of Lausanne and later at University of Burgundy in Dijon, France.

After his father's death, Jamalzadeh's life took a turn for the worse, but thanks to many supporting friends and to occasional paid teaching jobs, he survived starvation. By the time of World War I, still in his early age, he joined the Committee of Iranian Patriots (Komita-ye Melliyun-e Irāni) in Berlin and, in 1915, founded a newspaper (Rastakhiz) for this group in Baghdad. In a trip from Baghdad to Istanbul, Jamalzadeh witnessed the Armenian genocide and encountered many corpses during his journey. He wrote of his experiences and eyewitness accounts decades later in two books entitled "Qatl-e Amm-e Armanian" (Armenian massacres) and "Qatl o ḡārat-e Arāmaneh dar Torkiye" (On the massacres of Armenians in Turkey). During this time he also worked for the periodical Kāveh (1916). In 1917, he published his first book Ganj-e Shayegan (The Worthy Treasure). An overview of Iran of the start of the 20th century, Ganj-e Shayegan deals with Iran's socio-political and economic problems, a major contribution which bridges the gap between literature and science. In the same year he represented the Nationalists at the World Congress of Socialists in Stockholm. His later years, until 1931 when he settled in Geneva and worked thereafter for the International Labour Organization, were spent in temporary employments, such as one at the Iranian embassy in Berlin.

During all these years, Jamalzadeh had very little contact with Iran but continued to write about the lives of contemporary Iranians. His preoccupation with the use of language and his Dickensian style of writing, including repetitions, piling up of adjectives, and using popular phrases, quickly remind the reader of Jamalzadeh's background and of his sincere intentions.

Once Upon a Time (Yeki Bud Yeki Nabud)
Jamalzadeh's major work Yeki Bud Yeki Nabud (یکی بود یکی نبود - Once Upon a Time), published in 1921 in Berlin, did not reach Iran until a year later, and when it did, it was not received favourably. The public, especially the clergy, loathed Jamalzadeh's portrayal of their country to the degree that copies of the book were burned in public squares. A collection of six short stories, Yeki Bud Yeki Nabud deals with the social and political conditions in Iran around the start of the 20th century, a subject that up to then had been outside the purview of writers and poets in general. Moreover, interwoven with this is a considerable amount of militancy against Western interference in Iran and an open mockery of religious fanaticism. Jamalzadeh's simple and colloquial style, combined with a measured humour, enhanced the impact of his writings, making his stories such as Yeki Bud Yeki Nabud and Farsi Shekar Ast (Persian is Sugar) even more poignant than otherwise would be the case. This hostile public reaction affected Jamalzadeh to the degree that for the next twenty years he refrained from engaging in any literary activities.

What's Sauce for the Goose... (Bil-e Dig, Bil-e Choqondar)
One of the most well known short stories from Jamalzadeh's "Once Upon A Time" is Bil-e Dig, Bil-e Choqondar (بیله دیگ بیله چغندر) known in English as "What's Sauce for the Goose." This first person narrative follows the story of an Iranian man in Europe who, in his reminiscence of Iranian bathhouses, meets a masseur with whom he engages in deep conversation.

The story begins with the unnamed narrator absorbed in an internal monologue on habits and their tendency to return, even after a person tries to break them. The narrator then, almost as if returning to habit, expresses his sudden urge to attend a hammam (bathhouse) in order to satisfy his previously expressed feelings of nostalgia. Upon arrival to the bathhouse, the narrator was disappointed to find that the Turkish-style bathhouses of Europe were no match for their Iranian counterparts that he knew and loved; however, he was pleasantly surprised to be massaged by an Iranian-trained masseur. By engaging in conversation with the masseur, the narrator underestimates the servant's background and realizes some of the flaws of the Iranian society and culture. After learning that masseur was an advisor to several Iranian ministries, the narrator is immediately overcome with skepticism and disbelief. The masseur continued to tell his story of being placed into the role of an advisor, the respect and high position that he gained by chance, and his less-than-positive judgment of Iranians from an outsider's perspective. One of the negative aspects he alludes is the dishonesty of Iranians, illustrated in his story of being robbed by thieves and given empty promises. After listening to the masseur, the narrator slyly retorts with a Persian proverb "Bil-e dig, bil-e choqondar." After unsuccessfully attempting to explain the proverb, the narrator's time at the bathhouse is done. Disappointed that their time is up, the masseur hands the man his diary in which he details his encounters in Iran.

Upon his return home, the narrator begins to read the diary. He quickly realizes that the stories in the diary are written by an uneducated man, who views Iran with the prejudice that the whole world should be like Europe. In one observation, the masseur comments on the absence of women from public life. Obviously, women are not actually absent from the society but appear in public fully covered in body-length black veils. Due to not being introduced to the specifics of local culture, the European masseur took them for "strange types of priests".

The masseur also comments on the social stratification in Iranian society. He writes that the men in Iran are distinguished by the color of their hats and that there are three groups: The Yellow Hats, the White Hats, and the Black Hats. As the narrator keeps reading the descriptions for each group, he learns that they represent the peasants, the clerics, and the government, respectively. The European observer cannot understand why the Yellow Hats, who sacrifice all their belongings to the other two classes hold so much respect for them at the same time. He says: "They are so insistent upon this that often both they themselves and their families starve to death or die from the cold and are buried without so much as a shroud, while the Black Hats and the White Hats have profited so much from the Yellow Hats' suffering that they have no idea how to spend their money." Once the narrator read through the whole diary, he mails it back to the masseur with a little note. In it, he includes the translation of the proverb he previously failed to explain.

The European masseur's observations come off as naïve and limited due to his ignorance, but they serve as a social satire that Jamalzadeh uses as a literary strategy to exemplify a humorous but eye-opening perspective on Iranian society.

A scholarly analysis that has been done by Clause V. Pederson regards the modernist views that Jamalzadeh's shows in his literature. There is no doubt Western influences in modern Persian literature, including Mohammad-Ali Jamalzadeh's works, but many of the cultural and political influences in these stories are often overlooked along with its message that reflects on a new worldview. Jamalzadeh's literary works express a modernist view of the world where there is no fixed world order and the individual is the center of the universe that has the freedom to use his rational and intellectual capabilities to understand, interpret, and create their own surrounding reality subjectively and relatively. Examples of these ideas are shown in Jamalzadeh's short story "Bile dig, Bile Choghondar" ("What's Sauce for the Goose") which demonstrates these views on individuality, rational faculties, interpretation, the relativity of truth, and reality. An example that the author uses to recount this point across is in the Moayyed and Sprachman translation: "Habit truly is like a beggar from Samaria or a pet cat or a Jew owed money or an Isfahani jakesraker: no matter how many times you throw it out one door, it'll always return through another". Here he does not refer to regular ordinary habit but is referring to the habits that blind people and doesn't allow people to see the world as it truly is. In the story, the narrator meets a French masseur who has been to Iran with his former master. From the story that the masseur tells about Iran, a ridiculing and exaggerated story, the narrator then realizes that his own understanding of Iran has been clouded by ill memory and habit. He realizes that the European masseur's understanding is limited and partly wrong. Although he feels humiliated at the fact that he did not understand his own culture, he realizes that this new knowledge helps him to understand Western culture and also Iranian culture better than the masseur does because the masseur has not allowed himself to see the world as it really is.

Later writings
He began writing again in the 1940s, but by that time he had lost the dexterity that imparted conciseness, novelty of form, originality of ideas, a biting sense of humor, and a tight structure to his earlier stories. Tautologism, a tendency toward using sage remarks, making mystical and philosophical speculations, and disregard for order became the hallmark of his later writings. Sahra-ye Mahshar (Armageddon) (1947), Talkh-o Shirin (Bitter and Sweet) (1955), Kohne va Now (Old and New) (1959), Qair az Khoda Hichkas Nabud (None Existed Except God) (1961), Asman-o Risman (The Blue Yonder and Rope) (1965), Qesse-ha-ye Kutah Bara-ye Bachcheha-ye Rish-dar (Short Stories for Bearded Children [i.e. for Adults]) (1974), and Qesse-ye Ma be Akhar Rasid (Thus Ends Our Story) (1979) were written during this phase of his literary activity. Although Jamalzadeh continued to criticize the court and the clergy, some of his works of this period lack his original unique Persian style, even though he is at times as biting and as veracious as in his earlier writings.

In addition to Persian, Jamalzadeh was fluent in French, German, and Arabic. He translated many books from the latter languages into Persian.

Jamalzadeh was nominated for the 1965, 1967, and 1969 Nobel Prize in literature by Richard N. Frye, Ehsan Yarshater, and Jes Peter Asmussen respectively.

Death
Jamalzadeh died at the age of 105, in Geneva, Switzerland. His tomb is located in the "Petit-Saconnex" cemetery (block number 22).

Personal life
In 1914 Jamalzadeh married his first wife, Josephine, a Swiss woman and a fellow student in Dijon. In 1931 and during his residence in Geneva, Jamalzadeh married his second wife, the German Margaret Eggert.

Writings

 * Shaygan's Treasure (1916)
 * Iran and Russia Relations (1921)
 * Yeki Bud Yeki Nabud (Once Upon a Time) (1921)
 * Prosperity Garden (1938)
 * Sadi's Councils (1938)
 * Lunatic Asylum (1941)
 * Story of Stories (1941)
 * Amo Hosseinali's Biography (1942)
 * Qoltashan Collection (1946)
 * Gathering Desert (1947)
 * Rah-Ab Nameh (1947)
 * A Man with Thousand Professions (1947)
 * Masoumeh Shirazi [play] (1954)
 * Bitter and Sweet (1955)
 * Sar va Tah Yeh Karbas (1956)
 * Masterpiece (1958)
 * Pipe's Voice (1958)
 * Old and New (1959)
 * Jamali's Kashkoul (1960)
 * None Existed Except God (1961)
 * Seven Countries (1961)
 * Soil and Human (1961)
 * Vulgar Encyclopedia (1962)
 * Earth, Landlord and Peasant (1962)
 * Mysteries' Small Box (1963)
 * Cock-and-Bull (1964)
 * Method of Writing and Story Writing (1966)
 * Shiraz and Humor of Us, Iranian (1966)
 * Short Stories for Bearded Children (1973)
 * Isfahan (1973)
 * Nightingale (1973)
 * Qanbar Ali, A Generous of Shiraz (1973)
 * Our Story is Finished (1978)
 * Familiar Democracy (1984)
 * Acquaintance with Hafiz Thesis (1988)

Translation

 * Le Café du Surat by Bernardin de Saint-Pierre (1921)
 * The Story of Mankind by Hendrik Willem van Loon (1955)
 * Wilhelm Tell by Friedrich Schiller (1956)
 * Don Carlos by Friedrich Schiller (1956)
 * Selected Stories by Molière (1957)
 * L'Avare by Molière (1957)
 * Democracy and Human Prestige (1959)
 * En Folkerfiende by Henrik Ibsen (1961)
 * Turkmen War by Comte de Gobineau (1973)

title: Mohammad-Ali Jamalzadeh