text:
Talk:List of mayors of New York City

Removal of red links
We should be careful with red-links for old people's names because as time goes on someone with the same name might become notable, take the link, and screw up this page. I move that names should remained unlinked until there is a corresponding page for the person. The red-links i have not removed are sensitive to the particular person (of that name) who served as mayor and will be able to link to the proper page when the article is written. Nbruschi 03:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New York City mayoral terms
In NYC, the outgoing mayor leaves office at precisely 11:59:59 PM on December 31st. Incoming mayors are sworn in at the stroke of midnight of the first day of January following their election. 24.168.42.182 09:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Hood
The official list of NYC mayors does not mention Hood, so I did some Googling. As near as I can tell, a 19th century list had Hood instead of Noell, that list was widely copied, and some contemporary sources "corrected" that by including them both. However, the vast majority of definitive sources, such as the city's Green Book and New York City Mayors by Ralph J. Caliendo include Noell and not Hood. I've therefore removed Hood from this list, and have redirected Hood's article to Thomas Noell until some other evidence comes along. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Mayors who died in office
[Moved from my user talk page:]—— Shakescene (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Actually, I do have a question, have any mayors besides Wm Havemeyer and Wm Gaynor died in office? The standard sources (e.g. The Green Book & the Encyclopedia of NYC) don't give much indication for early mayors, but that may be because none of them died in harness. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The shorter term of the early mayors make it less likely that one would die in office. Maybe, also, someone in ill health wouldn't have been appointed.  Just guesses on my part -- I'll see what I can find. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this, Robert Lurting (#35) and Edward Holland (#40) both died in office. Also John Cruger (#38) died in the same year as his last year of service, but it's not clear if that was while he was in office or not -- although I'd think that the author would have mentioned it. (Also, the Wikipedia article on Cruger is more than the sub-stub some of them are, and it says nothing about dying in office, although it has info on his will and where he was buried. I tend to think Cruger did not die while in office.) There's also a half-dozen or so mayors for whom the date of death is not listed, but I have to think that if they died in office it would have been noted somewhere and therefore we would know their dates of death. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all that work; I'd thought there was a simple annotated list somewhere without having to research the first sixty mayors, one by one. Actually the first paragraph of John Cruger's Wiki-biography seems to say pretty clearly that he served as mayor until he died:"John Cruger (1678 – August 13, 1744) was an immigrant to colonial New York with an uncertain place of birth, but his family was originally Danish. In New York from at least 1696, he became a prosperous merchant and established a successful family as well. He served as an alderman for twenty-two years and as Mayor of New York from 1739 until his death in 1744." Maybe this is getting to a point where we should move the discussion off my talk page and onto the List of Mayors' where any passing experts might see it. —— Shakescene (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone may have been making an assumption about Cruger's death in writing the lede to that article. What the other source says is: "In 1744, Stephen Bayard is appointed mayor of six consecutive one-year terms. John Cruger died in New York City on Auhust 13, 1744." I have to think that these sentences wopuld have been reversed in order if Cruger had died in office.  Also, I believe at the time that mayors were appointed on July 1. Moving this discussion to the article talk page is probably a good idea.  Maybe I'll just cut and paste part of it there now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC) (Actually moved by Shakescene, except for this last comment, moved by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

I think you should remove the "died in office" marker from Cruger. The evidence is not definitive and, to me, not very persuasive, and Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The fact that the statement in the Wiki bio article isn't specifically referenced means that it's got to be taken with a grain of salt. Also, there's something funcky with the formatting, there's lots of text running down the side of the table. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I take it back, this seems definitive:

1744. On ye 13th of August 1744, father John Cruger then Mayor of this City dyed and (.he next day his corps was deposited in the Old Dutch Church.

 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added that source to the John Cruger article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict 2] Probably more work than I'm ready to do right now myself (especially since I'm a non-academic in Providence, and thus far from many NYC and college sources), but the sources for John Cruger are different from yours, including the Dictionary of American Biography (DAB). That of course doesn't preclude a mistaken conclusion on the Wikipedia editor's part but it would be drawn from different phrases and sentences. The Encyclopedia of New York City (first ed.) entry (by David William Voorhees, Ph.D. [NYU], a professional editor) says "Appointed mayor in 1739, he remained in office for five consecutive one-year terms." This doesn't preclude his dying in office, but the phrasing does throw more doubt upon the question, so I'll remove the dagger. ¶ As for the text running down the side, which text is it? I'm going to bed now, so it may not be fixed immediately unless you do it, but maybe an extra clear or { - } template could be added, or the footnote moved away from the wikitable. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I suspect our messages crossed, so a few things:
 * I fixed the formatting problem I was seeing, which you may or may not have been seeing, due to the different ways diferent browser render a page
 * I restored the "died in office" mark for Cruger, based on the evidence I posted above.
 * I also marked Lurting and Holland as dying in office.
 * I think the above evidence about Cruger is fairly definitive, coming as it does from the Cruger family records, but just in case, I checked my copy of the Encyclopedia of NYC, which is the latest edition, and it has the same text you quoted above, so there's no backup support from that source.
 * Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Alive at inauguration / died during this term
I'm not sure this adds all that much, especially since it's only presented for the currently livign mayors. I think it tip-toes into being WP:OR, although I wouldn't remove it for that. It just seems rather unnecessary. JMHO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter Delanoy, popular election and Leisler's Rebellion
Several sources, including The Encyclopedia of New York City, say that P[i]eter Delanoy was the City's only elected mayor before 1834 (or 1821). But the most-readily available sources are sparse and confusing. Wikipedia has no article on Delanoy. His predecessor's term ended in 1688, and elections weren't held until August or September of 1689, so it's not clear if Delanoy had been an unelected mayor earlier in the year (of if the job was vacant or held by a caretaker, perhaps the previous mayor). The Encyclopedia's article on the City Charter says that Delanoy was overthrown during or after Leisler's Rebellion, although its article on the Rebellion mentions his election in August 1689 (before which the city government "remained in the hands of appointees of James II") but not his overthrow. The Wikipedia article on the Rebellion doesn't mention Delanoy. Ralph Caliendo's book on New York Mayors, relied on for the deaths in office of other New York mayors, give such a confused, duplicative and sometimes contradictory account of Leisler's Rebellion in relation to P. Delanoy and Abraham de Peyster that it looks like mindless copying from other sources and significantly lessens my confidence in Mr Caliendo's work. I've put in as clear a note about Delanoy's election as I feel safe in writing, but I'd very much appreciate some verification, any necessary revision and sound references. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The lastest edition of the Encyclopedia of New York doesn't have an entry on Peter Delanoy, and there's no mention in the article on mayors of Delanoy being elected. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but look at the articles on Leisler's Rebellion and on the City Charter (1689 in the table of changes to the Charter). Caliendo's book, by the way, has nearly-identical phrasing to the Encyclopedia's (written by David Wm Voorhees) about government "remaining in the hands of appointees of James II", so one book may be lifting from the other. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording in the Leisler's Rebellion article appears somewhat ambiguous to me: "The city government, however, remained in the hands of appointees of James II until September, when the provincial convention called for elections in which Peter Delanoy become the mayor."What's unclear to me is whether the "elections" called for took place within the convention -- in which case, Delanoy was more or less appointed by the convention -- or if they were elections in the modern sense of being open to anyone with the franchise to vote. Nonetheless, the City Charter table of changes does refer to Delanoy as the city's "first elected mayor", and that seems definitive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * James Trager's New York Chronology says for 1689 that "...appointees of James II retain control of New York City's government until September, when Peter Delanoy becomes the first elected mayor under provisions laid down by the provincial convention." Trager (like Caliendo) seems confused, since previously he says that Jacob Leisler led a vehemently anti-Catholic faction that opposed William of Orange's accession. (James II was the Catholic king deposed by William and Mary in the very Protestant Glorious Revolution, still celebrated by the Orange Order of Northern Ireland.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lack of precision about what exactly happened is why I removed "directly" from "directly-elected" in the list. I'd like to have a RS confirm that it was a general election and not simply an election within the convention. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ralph J. Caliendo's book on New York mayors seems enlightening, except that after the extracts below he tends to repeat the same things in not wholly consistent ways about three times in the same mini-biography The city government, however, remained in the hands of appointees of James II until September, when the provincial convention called for elections in which Peter Delanoy became elected mayor.

[p. 22]

On September 29, 1689, by order of the committee of safety, the people had come together in their wards, and for the first time they had elected their aldermen and councilmen, and also for the very first time, they had elected their mayor, and Peter Delanoy was their choice for mayor; Johannes Johnson as sheriff, and Abraham Gouverneur as clerk. On October 14, 1689, Peter Delanoy was proclaimed mayor by Jacob Leisler, and on the same day he took the oath of office, together with the Common Council, in the city hall at Coenties Slip, now in the possession of the Popular Party.

[p. 44]
 * Just to confuse things a little further, Jacob Leisler signed a commission making Delanoy mayor in mid-December 1689. Apparently (from Caliendo's Confused Chronology of a very confused time), Delanoy had been deposed or at least faced with an alternative mayor, by the actions of Gov. Fletcher, which were then reversed by his successor, Richard Coote, the Whig Earl of Bellomont, restoring Delanoy to the mayoralty. (A transposition of 1689 to 1698 on page 46 didn't make this any clearer.) I'm not sure if this explains some of the difference or not. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm no longer certain Caliendo is an RS. It seems to be self-published, and it looks like almost all the content is ripped off from elsewhere, with very little editorial oversight -- hence the repetition. But, yes, the Delanoy thing is very confusing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I have our smoking gun. This is from, p.99-100:"Something like a 'people's Revolucion' did indeed appear to be approaching New York between the autumn of 1689 and the spring of 1691. When the Committee of Safety called for a general election of local officers in September 1689, it decided (perhaps at [Jacob] Milbourne's urging) to broaden the range of elective positions: justices of the peace and militia captains were to be chosen directly by voters for the first time, tiggering a dramatic shift in the distribution of political power in the city.  Bakers, bricklayers, carpentyers, innkeepers -- workingmen heretofore thought unfit for public responsibility -- captured a majoprity of seats on the board of alderman. Johannes Johnson, carpenter, became sheriff, and William Churcher, bricklayer, became marshal. Peter Delanoy, a Huguenot and one of Leisler's inner circle, was elected mayor of the city." That's a clear descrirption that the election was a true general election, and the Delanoy was, indeed, directly elected. (I'll restore that language to the article momentarily). Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And if any book qualifies as a Reliable (though like all things human, imperfect and/or incomplete) Source, it would be Gotham, a book I wish I had. —— Shakescene (talk) 09:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Question
How many mayors of New York were born in this city ? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8422:1360:F500:835:88F7:B918:3F04 (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Willem Beekman
I have undone the addition of Willem Beekman as acting mayor in 1674 for these reasons:

 * The official Green Book list, which lists acting mayors, does not list Beekman
 * The first source given has nothing on page 375 that I can find that corroborates this information
 * The second source given, on page 117, list Beekman as "Burgomaster", not as mayor
 * The third source is the only one that actually lists Beekman as Mayor of New Orange, and it does not list him as "acting" mayor, which appears to be OR used to insert him into the list without disturbing the numbering scheme. Further, the cite is a genealogical site, and of dubious reliability.

I'm open to discussion about whether the sources provided are sufficient to add Beekman to the list.

BMK (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Responding to your first comment:
 * The first source given has nothing on page 375 that I can find that corroborates this information
 * Pg 375, 3d par, 5th line: Aug 29, 1683, mentions Mayor Beckman (Beekman), with Van Cortlandt . ..
 * Responding to your second comment:
 * The second source given, on page 117, list Beekman as "Burgomaster", not as mayor
 * Burgomaster is the Dutch term for mayor.
 * "Burgomaster (alternatively spelled Burgomeister, literally master of the town . . ." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgomaster
 * In July 1673, during the Third Anglo-Dutch War, the Dutch briefly occupied New York City and renamed it New Orange. Anthony Colve was installed as the first Governor. Previously there had only been West India Company Directors. After the signing of the Treaty of Westminster in November 1674, the city was relinquished to the English and the name reverted to "New York".  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Amsterdam
 * Examples from the first reference on which you commented, using the term:
 * p 35 - Sep 5, 1664: Burgomaster Cornelis Steenwyck and old burgomaster Van Cortlandt
 * p 48 - 22 Nov 1664 - Burgomaster Steenwyck
 * p 77 - 14 Jun 1665 - Burgomaster Van Cortlandt
 * p 80 - 28 Jun 1664 - Steenwyck, deposed burgomaster
 * p 76 - 12 Jun 1665 - [with the English taking control in earlier war]: Gov. Richard Nichols "by proclamation, now revoked "the form and ceremony of government . . . under the name of Schout, Burgomasters, and Shepens" and declared the be "Mayor (burgomasters), Aldermen (schepens) and Sheriff (schout)". This demonstrates the change of terms as governments changed.
 * It is during the period of the Third Anglo-Dutch War, nearly ten years later, when again under Dutch control Willem (William) Beekman was Burgomaster (Mayor). The first source has additional references to this era, and use of the term:
 * p 256 - 11 Aug 1674 - Van Brugh and Beekman were accordingly selected as burgomasters, and Kip, verplanck, Rombouts, Hoogland and Stephanus Van Cortlandt as Schepens of New Orange.
 * p 271 - 30 Oct 1676 - Burgomaster Van Burgh
 * p 665 - 5 Noc 1674 - Burgomaster Johannes van Brugh and Willem Beekman
 * It seems correct that Wilhelmus (Willem) Beekman be listed as a Mayor during the period 1674-1675.
 * Info update (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, regarding "Burgomaster", look at the other burgomasters listed in other years and compare them to the list of mayors. They are not listed that I can see.  That makes your assumption that burgomaster must mean mayor original research, which is not allowed.  "It seems" is not enough, you must have a source that explicitly says that, not combine information from multiple sources, with is synthesis, a form of original research which is, again, not allowed. BMK (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon on p.375 of "A History of New York", it does indeed say "Mayor Beekman" in passing -- but that's all it says. There's no explanation of when he was elected or appointed, no confirmation of which of the various Beekmans he was, nothing except the words "Mayor Beekman" in a list of names.  That's not sufficient to support inclusion in the list in the absence of any other direct and explicit information, and his absence from the official list of mayors maintained by the city.  It's just not enough to shoehorn him in -- please do some more research, and if you come up with something more convincing, please bring it here before you add it to the article, so that other editors can evaluate it. Thanks, BMK (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I think you cited biographies of Beekman in the other places where you've been inserting his name. If that is the case, do those biographies confirm that he was mayor of New York City in 1674?  If they do, why didn't you cite them?  If they didn't, don't you think that's pretty telling? BMK (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * p 256 - 11 Aug 1674 - Van Brugh and Beekman were accordingly selected as burgomasters, and Kip, verplanck, Rombouts, Hoogland and Stephanus Van Cortlandt as Schepens of New Orange.
 * p 271 - 30 Oct 1676 - Burgomaster Van Burgh
 * p 665 - 5 Noc 1674 - Burgomaster Johannes van Brugh and Willem Beekman
 * It seems correct that Wilhelmus (Willem) Beekman be listed as a Mayor during the period 1674-1675.
 * Info update (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, regarding "Burgomaster", look at the other burgomasters listed in other years and compare them to the list of mayors. They are not listed that I can see.  That makes your assumption that burgomaster must mean mayor original research, which is not allowed.  "It seems" is not enough, you must have a source that explicitly says that, not combine information from multiple sources, with is synthesis, a form of original research which is, again, not allowed. BMK (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon on p.375 of "A History of New York", it does indeed say "Mayor Beekman" in passing -- but that's all it says. There's no explanation of when he was elected or appointed, no confirmation of which of the various Beekmans he was, nothing except the words "Mayor Beekman" in a list of names.  That's not sufficient to support inclusion in the list in the absence of any other direct and explicit information, and his absence from the official list of mayors maintained by the city.  It's just not enough to shoehorn him in -- please do some more research, and if you come up with something more convincing, please bring it here before you add it to the article, so that other editors can evaluate it. Thanks, BMK (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I think you cited biographies of Beekman in the other places where you've been inserting his name. If that is the case, do those biographies confirm that he was mayor of New York City in 1674?  If they do, why didn't you cite them?  If they didn't, don't you think that's pretty telling? BMK (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Info update (talk) 03:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, regarding "Burgomaster", look at the other burgomasters listed in other years and compare them to the list of mayors. They are not listed that I can see.  That makes your assumption that burgomaster must mean mayor original research, which is not allowed.  "It seems" is not enough, you must have a source that explicitly says that, not combine information from multiple sources, with is synthesis, a form of original research which is, again, not allowed. BMK (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I beg your pardon on p.375 of "A History of New York", it does indeed say "Mayor Beekman" in passing -- but that's all it says. There's no explanation of when he was elected or appointed, no confirmation of which of the various Beekmans he was, nothing except the words "Mayor Beekman" in a list of names.  That's not sufficient to support inclusion in the list in the absence of any other direct and explicit information, and his absence from the official list of mayors maintained by the city.  It's just not enough to shoehorn him in -- please do some more research, and if you come up with something more convincing, please bring it here before you add it to the article, so that other editors can evaluate it. Thanks, BMK (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, I think you cited biographies of Beekman in the other places where you've been inserting his name. If that is the case, do those biographies confirm that he was mayor of New York City in 1674?  If they do, why didn't you cite them?  If they didn't, don't you think that's pretty telling? BMK (talk) 04:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you for your remarks. It is not an assumption that the Burgomaster was the Mayor. Descriptions such as master of the town and head of state clearly express the role as chief executive.  My use of the phrase "it seems" was an expression of courtesy.
 * Below is additional information and references which confirm that William Beekman was Mayor of New York City in 1683.
 * "The mayor of the city in 1683 was William Beekman." History of the City of New York: Its Origin, Rise and Progress. Volume 1 page=301
 * ". . .as the time for the inauguration of new city magistrates was now at hand the commander in council, in accordance with the duke's general order, continued in office the actual incumbents. William Beekman, the deputy-mayor thus kept his place as acting mayor." History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth Century. Van Rensselaer, Mrs. Schuyler. Vol 2. Macmillan Company, NY 1909. p 247
 * "As soon as the assembly adjourned, the city magistrates, William Beekman still acting as mayor [1683] . . . ." History of the City of New York in the Seventeenth Century. Van Rensselaer, Mrs. Schuyler. Vol 2. Macmillan Company, NY 1909. p 269
 * "William Beekman was Lieutenant in the militia in 1673 and Deputy Mayor of New York from 1681 to 1683." Distinguished Families in America Descended from Wilhelmus Beekman and Jan Thomasse Van Dyke. p 5.
 * You write: "I beg your pardon on p.375 of "A History of New York", it does indeed say "Mayor Beekman" in passing -- but that's all it says. There's no explanation of when he was elected or appointed, no confirmation of which of the various Beekmans he was, nothing except the words "Mayor Beekman" in a list of names." A fair reading of the cited authoritative reference clearly states the timeline down the right margin. Opposite "Mayor Beekman" it states 29 August 1683. While you are correct the printed page says Mayor Beekman instead of Mayor William Beekman, further exploration of the book would indicate it was William Beekman.
 * Further, the footnote on this page cites Minutes of the Common Council, the official government record.
 * Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York, 1675-1776: in Eight Volumes. pp 94-105, show numerous Warrants and Orders by Deputy Mayor (Acting Mayor) Willliam Beekman.
 * Another source corroborating the same:
 * "In accordance with further instructions, John Spragg became secretary of the colony, and Anthony Brokholls, with Matthias Nicolls and others, were appointed to catalogue the records surrendered by John West. Rev. John Gordon became chaplain of the English soldiers in New York, and Mayor William Beekman, Stephanus Van Cortlandt, Lucas San ten, Mark Talbot, and Gabriel Minvielle were appointed to survey Fort James, while Captain Thomas Young was made pilot of the port." National Magazine.  Vol 16. August, 1892. p 376, middle of right column.
 * "In 1683, when Thomas Dongan became Governor, Beekman was Mayor of New York, and was one of those appointed to survey Fort James. On 9 November, 1683, he signed a petition to Governor Dongan asking that certain privileges, granted to New York City in 1665, should be confirmed by a charter of the Duke of York. John Watts De Peyster. Vol 1. Allaben, Frank. NY, 1908.
 * Manual of the Corporation of the City of New York, 1845-6. David T. Valentine. Levi Slamm & Co., 1846. Official city publication, as adopted by the city. D. T. Valentine, Clerk of the Board, NY. Burgomasters Johannes van Bruggh, William Beekman. p 117.
 * Info update (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So we're left with a bit of a mystery as to why the city, in its official records, doesn't include Beekman as Acting Mayor.  One possibility, gleaned from the quotes you cited above, is that Beekman was in fact the Deputy Mayor, and acted as "acting mayor" in his capacity as Deputy without being the actual "Acting Mayor."  There may well be (I'm speculating here), a distinction between someone who is the official Acting Mayor and someone who is the Deputy Mayor who is acting as mayor in the absence of an elected or appointed Mayor. I think this is a question you might want to bring to a city historian for an official ruling, since -- as of now -- the Green Book List is the official list of Mayors and Acting Mayors, as far as New York City is concerned. BMK (talk) 07:11, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "The active management of affairs was at once taken up by the new Governor. His instructions from the duke, signed on January 27th, [1683] required that on his arrival be should call together Frederick Philipse and Stephanus Van Cortlandt, and other of the most eminent inhabitants, not exceeding ten in all, and swear them to allegiance to the king, fealty to the duke as" lord and proprietor," and official faithfulness as members of his council. . . .Rev. John Gordon became chaplain of the English soldiers in New-York, and Mayor William Beekman, Stephanus Van Cortlandt, Lucas Santen, Mark Talbot, and Gabriel Minvielle were appointed to survey Fort James, while Captain Thomas Young was made pilot of the port. The administration of the colony having been properly organized, Doogan immediately turned his attention to a matter which directly concerned the interests of his patron." The Memorial History of the City of New York from its first settlement. James grant Wilson. 4 vols. p 403.
 * "On November 9, 1683, Dongan received a petition signed by William Beekman, Mayor, Johannes Van Brugh, John Laurence, Peter J. Morris, James Graham, Cornelius Steenwyck, and Nicholas Bayard, Aldermen of the city, asking that certain "ancient customs, privileges, and immunities," which had been granted them in 1665, should be confirmed by a charter from the Duke of York, with some additions . . ." at p 411.
 * "October twenty first 1683, "our new governor has at last arrived. His excellency is a person of knowledge, refinement and modesty. . . The corporation [NYC] entertained him at a banquet, presided over by Mayor William Beekman, at which all the leading citizens were present and a round of receptions and hospitalities followed. "Thomas Dongan, Catholic Colonial Governor of New York". [Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia. Vol XXII, 1911]. p 212
 * Footnote to the Green Book list of Mayors: "Prior to June 15, 1665, (when New Amsterdam was captured by the British) the city was headed by Burgomasters." The 2003-04 Green Book. p 4.  This indicates the list is incomplete, or intended not to reflect the city under Dutch rule. It is during the 1 year period when the Dutch regain control of New York City that William Beekman held office.
 * Info update (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * New research sheds more light, and confirms that for two years Wilhelmus Beekman was Acting Mayor.
 * His predecessor as Mayor Captain William Dyer who was also Collector of Customs and a member of Gov. Andros' Council. In November, 1680 authority to levy taxes expired but, although lacking authority to continue the expired taxes without express orders from the Duke of York, Mayor Dyer, who was also tax collector, continued to levy customs taxes. Arriving shipments were impounded for unpaid taxes. Dyer was summoned before the very court of which he was normally the presiding officer, that of the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of New York. With Deputy Mayor William Beekman presiding in his place, the court promptly ordered Dyer to surrender the goods which he had been holding for non-payment of customs. The Lieutenant Governor empaneled a grand jury. Mayor Dyer was formally indicted for having "trayterously maliciously and advisedly used and exercised Regall power and authority over the Kings subjects." Ultimately, Dyer was sent to England "to be proceeded against as his Majesty and Council shall direct."[History of the State of New York. Second Volume., 1871]. p 351
 * William Beekman and his fellow aldermen continued to administer municipal matters and Brockholls discreetly reappointed all of them in 1681 and 1682 without attempting to name a successor to the unfortunate Mayor Dyer. (The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce 1647-1877. Philip L. White. New York Historical Society, 1956. p 63.)
 * As acting Mayor since the elimination of Dyer more than two years before, Beekman occupied a post which gave him great prestige in the eyes of the inhabitants. (The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce 1647-1877. Philip L. White. New York Historical Society, 1956. p 64.)
 * On November 8, William Beekman, still Acting Mayor, presented to Governor Dongan the aldermen's petition for a city charter. (The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce 1647-1877. Philip L. White. New York Historical Society, 1956. p 66.)
 * Info update (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "On November 9, 1683, Dongan received a petition signed by William Beekman, Mayor, Johannes Van Brugh, John Laurence, Peter J. Morris, James Graham, Cornelius Steenwyck, and Nicholas Bayard, Aldermen of the city, asking that certain "ancient customs, privileges, and immunities," which had been granted them in 1665, should be confirmed by a charter from the Duke of York, with some additions . . ." at p 411.
 * "October twenty first 1683, "our new governor has at last arrived. His excellency is a person of knowledge, refinement and modesty. . . The corporation [NYC] entertained him at a banquet, presided over by Mayor William Beekman, at which all the leading citizens were present and a round of receptions and hospitalities followed. "Thomas Dongan, Catholic Colonial Governor of New York". [Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia. Vol XXII, 1911]. p 212
 * Footnote to the Green Book list of Mayors: "Prior to June 15, 1665, (when New Amsterdam was captured by the British) the city was headed by Burgomasters." The 2003-04 Green Book. p 4.  This indicates the list is incomplete, or intended not to reflect the city under Dutch rule. It is during the 1 year period when the Dutch regain control of New York City that William Beekman held office.
 * Info update (talk) 08:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * New research sheds more light, and confirms that for two years Wilhelmus Beekman was Acting Mayor.
 * His predecessor as Mayor Captain William Dyer who was also Collector of Customs and a member of Gov. Andros' Council. In November, 1680 authority to levy taxes expired but, although lacking authority to continue the expired taxes without express orders from the Duke of York, Mayor Dyer, who was also tax collector, continued to levy customs taxes. Arriving shipments were impounded for unpaid taxes. Dyer was summoned before the very court of which he was normally the presiding officer, that of the Mayor and Aldermen of the City of New York. With Deputy Mayor William Beekman presiding in his place, the court promptly ordered Dyer to surrender the goods which he had been holding for non-payment of customs. The Lieutenant Governor empaneled a grand jury. Mayor Dyer was formally indicted for having "trayterously maliciously and advisedly used and exercised Regall power and authority over the Kings subjects." Ultimately, Dyer was sent to England "to be proceeded against as his Majesty and Council shall direct."[History of the State of New York. Second Volume., 1871]. p 351
 * William Beekman and his fellow aldermen continued to administer municipal matters and Brockholls discreetly reappointed all of them in 1681 and 1682 without attempting to name a successor to the unfortunate Mayor Dyer. (The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce 1647-1877. Philip L. White. New York Historical Society, 1956. p 63.)
 * As acting Mayor since the elimination of Dyer more than two years before, Beekman occupied a post which gave him great prestige in the eyes of the inhabitants. (The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce 1647-1877. Philip L. White. New York Historical Society, 1956. p 64.)
 * On November 8, William Beekman, still Acting Mayor, presented to Governor Dongan the aldermen's petition for a city charter. (The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce 1647-1877. Philip L. White. New York Historical Society, 1956. p 66.)
 * Info update (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"First Elected"
Is there any particular reason why the column only gives links to the elections where the mayors were *first* elected, rather than every election they won? They should be plenty of vertical space in each row to list every election, since there are large portraits anyway. Chuborno (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A. Oakey Hall's party affiliation as mayor - Democratic or Republican?
Am I missing something some historical information that everybody else knows? A. Oakey Hall's listing says that he was a Republican. But according to these newspaper articles that I found when I was updating the New York County District Attorney page, and which were published in the New York Times at the times of his elections, he was a Whig in 1854 when he ran for district attorney, a Republican in 1861 when he ran for district attorney, and then a Democratic Tammany Hall candidate when he ran for D.A. in 1864 and 1867 and for Mayor in 1868 and 1870. So for Mayor, shouldn't he be listed Democratic? (The same way Bloomberg is listed by the party tickets he used when he ran, not his original affiliation.)

References are right under my signature. I listed one article that mentioned his party in each election campaign, but there are others. Subscription to the Times may be required to see the articles — my apologies.

Ira Leviton (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

 * Oakey Hall was definitely a Democrat as mayor. He was the front man for Tammany Hall's Tweed Ring.  I went to Newspapers.com and verified it.  A story from the New York Tribune for November 30, 1868 identifies him as a Democrat.  An article from the Louisville Courier-Journal for July 6, 1868 names Hall as one of Tweed's top lieutenants in the Tammany Hall Democratic organization.  The New York Sun for December 2, 1868 has a page one article identifying Hall as the successful Democratic nominee for mayor.  An ad in the New York Sun for November 26, 1868 invites voters to a Democratic rally for Hall and Richard O'Gorman, the Democratic nominee for Corporation Counsel.  The Daily Phoenix (Columbia, SC) for November 29, 1868 identifies Hall as the Democratic nominee for mayor, and Frederick A. Conkling as his Republican opponent.

 * I think you're on solid ground to make the party affiliation as mayor Democratic.

 * Billmckern (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Daniel F. Tiemann
Here's what I just added to Tiemann's article:

"In December 1857, Democrat Fernando Wood, the mayor of New York, was removed from office by the New York State Legislature, and an election was held to replace him. Fed up with the corruption of Wood's administration, members of the Democratic Party's inner circle, powerful merchants such as August Belmont, John A. Dix, William Havemeyer, and John van Buren left the party and joined with reformers such as Peter Cooper, Republicans and Know-Nothings to create a fusion Independent Party. They nominated Tiemann as their candidate, while Wood ran on the Democratic ticket.  Tiemann won the election with 51.4 percent of the vote, against Wood's 48.6 percent.  He served for one term."

Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Pre-consolidation mayors
I am unfamiliar with Pre-consolidation. Is this the same time period as Post-Revolutionary? ~1776-> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EFC0:105:199A:4B54:94D:5B71 (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, "pre-consolidation" refers to the period before 1898, when the City of New York (i.e. Manhattan and its extensions north, known as The Bronx), the City of Brooklyn, the western portion of Queens County, Richmond County (Staten Island), and parts of Westchester County were consolidated into the City of Greater New York. The Bronx was, at that time, a part of New York County, i.e. an extension of Manhattan.  The new Bronx County was created from that extension plus parts of lower Westchester County.  The unconsolidated eastern portion of Queens County became Nassau County.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Age of death?
Not clear why this info should be included in the table of post-consolidation mayors. Nareek (talk) 13:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Mayors Term Definition Between 1784 - 1803
As the mayors of this era were appointed by the Council of Appointment as opposed to being elected, and there were no term limits as we understand them today, do we define James Duane, Richard Varick, and Robert Livingston as one term mayors? Or do we assign them single year terms and their successors had and roll that into the total number of years served? i.e. Is Varick an 11 term, or a 1 term, mayor? 1I0I1I0I1I0 (talk) 08:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * 11 term, because they were appointed to serve ffor a year, and then re-appointed at the end of the year. Also, because ootherwise all mayors during this period would be 1 term mayors, which would make "term" a meaningless stat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2019 (UTC)s

title: Talk:List of mayors of New York City


text:
List of astrologers

This is a list of astrologers with Wikipedia articles.

A

 * Pietro d'Abano
 * Haly Abenragel
 * Sumanadasa Abeygunawardena
 * Evangeline Adams
 * John Addey
 * Adelard of Bath
 * Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa
 * Pierre d'Ailly
 * Albertus Magnus
 * Albubather
 * Alchabitius
 * Alcuin
 * Paulus Alexandrinus
 * Thomas Allen
 * Antero Alli
 * William Andrews
 * Mustapha Adamu Animashaun
 * Antiochus of Athens
 * Ibn Arabi
 * Arcandam
 * Stephen Arroyo
 * Elias Ashmole
 * Madalyn Aslan

B

 * Francis Bacon
 * Roger Bacon
 * Marina Bai
 * Alice Bailey
 * Tiberius Claudius Balbilus
 * Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi
 * Olivia Barclay
 * Muhammad ibn Jābir al-Harrānī al-Battānī
 * Clifford Bax
 * Philip Berg
 * Walter Berg
 * Berossus
 * Bhrigus
 * Abū Rayhān al-Bīrūnī
 * Joseph Blagrave
 * Hannes Bok
 * Guido Bonatti
 * Tycho Brahe
 * Rob Brezsny
 * Giordano Bruno

C

 * Jonathan Cainer
 * Tommaso Campanella
 * Campanus of Novara
 * Nicholas Campion
 * Gerolamo Cardano
 * Giovanni Domenico Cassini
 * Christopher Cattan
 * Geoffrey Chaucer
 * Cheiro
 * Martin Chemnitz
 * Henry Coley
 * Hermannus Contractus
 * Nicolaus Copernicus
 * Abiathar Crescas
 * Critodemus
 * Robert Thomas Cross
 * Aleister Crowley
 * Nicholas Culpeper

D

 * Bejan Daruwalla
 * Louis de Wohl
 * John Dee
 * Shakuntala Devi
 * Jeane Dixon
 * Dorotheus of Sidon
 * William Drummond of Logiealmond
 * Gerina Dunwich

E

 * Reinhold Ebertin
 * Edward'O
 * Dennis Elwell
 * Epigenes
 * Michael Erlewine
 * Abraham ibn Ezra

F

 * Cyril Fagan
 * Rui Faleiro
 * Jing Fang
 * Barry Fantoni
 * Ibrahim al-Fazari
 * Muhammad al-Fazari
 * Serge Raynaud de la Ferrière
 * Jack Fertig
 * Marsilio Ficino
 * Nigidius Figulus
 * Roy C. Firebrace
 * Lucius Taruntius Firmanus
 * Robert Fludd
 * Simon Forman
 * Paolo Fox
 * Eric Francis
 * David Frawley

G

 * John Gadbury
 * Jacques Gaffarel
 * Galileo Galilei
 * W. D. Gann
 * Rockie Gardiner
 * Pierre Gassendi
 * Michel Gauquelin
 * Luca Gaurico
 * Gan De
 * David Gans
 * Gerard of Cremona
 * Gersonides
 * Yukteswar Giri
 * A. Frank Glahn
 * Linda Goodman
 * Russell Grant
 * Liz Greene

H

 * Z'ev ben Shimon Halevi
 * Manly Palmer Hall
 * Robert Hand
 * Erik Jan Hanussen
 * Françoise Hardy
 * Harkhebi
 * Thomas Harriot
 * Franz Hartmann
 * Jābir ibn Hayyān
 * Max Heindel
 * Hephaistio of Thebes
 * Herman of Carinthia
 * Hermann of Reichenau
 * Hermes Trismegistus
 * Christopher Heydon
 * Hipparchus
 * Hippocrates
 * Abraham bar Hiyya
 * Gustav Holst
 * Margaret Hone
 * Deborah Houlding
 * Bruno Huber
 * Hypatia of Alexandria

I

 * Isaac Israeli ben Joseph

J

 * Jaimini
 * Joyce Jillson
 * John of Eschenden
 * Marc Edmund Jones
 * Mangal Raj Joshi
 * Carl Jung

K

 * Johannes Kelpius
 * Warren Kenton
 * Johannes Kepler
 * Muhammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī
 * al-Kindi
 * Karl Ernst Krafft

L

 * John Lambe
 * Bonet de Lattes
 * Sybil Leek
 * Alan Leo
 * Jim Lewis
 * Johannes Lichtenberger
 * William Lilly
 * Guido von List
 * Ramon Llull

M

 * Magi
 * Giovanni Antonio Magini
 * Marcus Manilius
 * A. T. Mann
 * Mantreswara
 * Gregory Paul Martin
 * Mashallah ibn Athari
 * Julius Firmicus Maternus
 * Richard Mead
 * Philipp Melanchthon
 * Walter Mercado
 * Merlin
 * Franz Mesmer
 * Francis Moore
 * Marcia Moore
 * Pauline Moran
 * Jean-Baptiste Morin
 * Richard James Morrison
 * Mystic Meg

N

 * Valentine Naibod
 * John Napier
 * Richard Napier
 * Naubakht
 * R. H. Naylor
 * Don Neroman
 * Nostradamus
 * Domenico Maria Novara da Ferrara

O

 * Olympiodorus the Younger
 * Sydney Omarr
 * Haruka Orth

P

 * Paracelsus
 * Parameshvara
 * Parashara
 * Derek Parker
 * Julia Parker
 * William Parron
 * John Partridge
 * Pellitus
 * Georg von Peuerbach
 * Porphyry
 * Tiphaine Raguenel
 * Pseudo-Geber
 * Ptolemy
 * Pythagoras
 * Pothuluru Veerabrahmendra

Q

 * Joan Quigley

R

 * Bangalore Venkata Raman
 * Heinrich Rantzau
 * Robert Thomas Cross
 * Regiomontanus
 * Carl Reichenbach
 * Georg Joachim Rheticus
 * Rhetorius of Egypt
 * Richard of Wallingford
 * Ali ibn Ridwan
 * Lois Rodden
 * Roger of Hereford
 * Dane Rudhyar
 * Cosimo Ruggeri

S

 * Gunter Sachs
 * JoJo Savard
 * Johannes Schöner
 * Michael Scot
 * Sepharial
 * Shi Shen
 * Ebenezer Sibly
 * Gautama Siddha
 * Gironima Spana
 * Karl Spiesberger
 * Count of St. Germain
 * Johannes Stadius
 * Johannes Stöffler
 * Jackie Stallone
 * Athena Starwoman
 * Ludwig Straniak
 * Shelley von Strunckel
 * Sudines
 * Pope Sylvester II

U

 * Chandramauli Upadhyay
 * Harilal Upadhyay
 * Mellie Uyldert

V

 * Daivajna Varāhamihira
 * John Varley
 * Arnaldus de Villa Nova
 * Johannes Virdung
 * Varāhamihira

W

 * Walcher of Malvern
 * David Wells
 * William of Marseille
 * Alfred Witte
 * Maurice Woodruff
 * Wilhelm Wulff

Y

 * Yavanesvara
 * William Butler Yeats
 * Ibn Yunus

Z

 * Abraham Zacuto
 * Zadkiel
 * C. C. Zain
 * Abū Ishāq Ibrāhīm al-Zarqālī

In literature

 * Klingsor, four fictional German astrologers
 * Professor Trelawney

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

title: List of astrologers


text:
Telson

The telson is the hindmost division of the body of an arthropod. Depending on the definition, the telson is either considered to be the final segment of the arthropod body, or an additional division that is not a true segment on account of not arising in the embryo from teloblast areas as other segments. It never carries any appendages, but a forked "tail" called the caudal furca may be present. The shape and composition of the telson differs between arthropod groups.

Crustaceans
In lobsters, shrimp and other decapods, the telson, along with the uropods, forms the tail fan. This is used as a paddle in the caridoid escape reaction ("lobstering"), whereby an alarmed animal rapidly flexes its tail, causing it to dart backwards. Krill can reach speeds of over 60 cm per second by this means. The trigger time to optical stimulus is, in spite of the low temperatures, only 55 milliseconds.

In the Isopoda and Tanaidacea (superorder Peracarida), the last abdominal body segment is fused with the telson, forming a "pleotelson".

Chelicerates
The term telson is widely used for the caudal spine of some chelicerates. The chelicerate telson can be clearly seen in a number of fossil species (like in eurypterids) and in extant animals (like the horseshoe crab "tail" and the scorpion sting). Some authorities have urged that the usage of this word in this context be discouraged.

Myriapods
In millipedes, the telson consists of a legless pre-anal body segment (which may contain a posterior extension known as an epiproct), a pair of anal valves (paraprocts) or plates closing off the anus, and a plate below the anus (hypoproct), also known as a subanal scale.

In centipedes the telson is the hindmost body segment, posterior to the genital openings, bearing two anal valves.

Hexapods
Proturans, an order of minute soil-dwelling animals, are the only hexapods with a telson.

title: Telson


text:
Second Battle of Newbury

The Second Battle of Newbury was a battle of the First English Civil War fought on 27 October 1644, in Speen, adjoining Newbury in Berkshire. The battle was fought close to the site of the First Battle of Newbury, which took place in late September the previous year.

The combined armies of Parliament inflicted a tactical defeat on the Royalists, but failed to gain any strategic advantage.

Background
In the early months of 1644, the Parliamentarians had won victories at Cheriton in the south of England and Nantwich in the northwest. Also, they had secured the allegiance of the Scottish Covenanters, who sent an army into the north east. These developments both distracted the Royalists and weakened their forces around Oxford, King Charles's wartime capital.

Early in June, the Parliamentarian armies of the Earl of Essex and Sir William Waller threatened to surround Oxford. King Charles made a night march to escape to Worcester. He was still in danger but on 6 June, Essex and Waller (who disliked each other) conferred at Stow-on-the-Wold and fatally decided to divide their armies. While Waller continued to shadow the King, Essex marched into the West Country, to relieve Lyme which was under siege, and then to subdue Devon and Cornwall.

This allowed the King to double back and return to Oxford to collect reinforcements. On 29 June, he then won a victory over Waller at Cropredy Bridge. Waller's army, most of which was unwilling to serve far from its home areas in London and the southeast, was subsequently crippled for several weeks by desertions and threatened mutinies. The King was thus free to march after Essex's army.

Essex was soon trapped against the coast at Lostwithiel. He relied on support from the Parliamentarian navy, but contrary winds prevented the Parliamentarian ships leaving Portsmouth. Although Essex himself escaped in a fishing boat and his cavalry broke out of encirclement, the rest of his army was forced to surrender on 2 September, losing their arms and equipment. The troops were paroled, but suffered severely from exposure and attacks by country people during their march to Portsmouth. Although they were re-equipped, only 3,000 infantry (out of the 6,000 who started) were fit for service.

Campaign
After the victory at Lostwithiel, King Charles first probed the Parliamentarian defences at Plymouth then marched back across the southern counties of England to relieve several garrisons (including Banbury, Basing House and Donnington Castle, near Newbury), which had been isolated while he had been campaigning in the west. King Charles was joined briefly by Prince Rupert, who had been defeated at the Battle of Marston Moor in northern England on 2 July. The King ordered Rupert to march into Gloucestershire in an attempt to draw some of the Parliamentarian armies after him. However, the Parliamentarians did not send any units to follow Rupert, and his manoeuvre divided the Royalist forces, rather than those of Parliament.

By the time that King Charles arrived in Berkshire with his army, the Earl of Essex had assembled three Parliamentarian armies and positioned them to block any Royalist advance on London. By 19 October Waller was at Basingstoke where he was joined by the Earl of Manchester with the Eastern Association army the next day. The Earl of Essex also arrived at Basingstoke on 20 October with an army composed largely of elements of the cavalry and infantry that had survived the battle at Lostwithiel.

On 22 October, Charles relieved Donnington Castle. He knighted Lieutenant Colonel John Boys, the commander of its garrison, and promoted him to colonel. He hoped to relieve Basing House next, but the combined Parliamentarian armies were too strong for him to risk an advance. He therefore waited around Newbury for Rupert, and another detachment under the Earl of Northampton which had been sent to relieve Banbury, to rejoin him.

Dispositions and plans
Charles' army held three strong points: Donnington Castle north of Newbury, Shaw House northeast of the town and the village of Speen to the west. The River Kennet prevented the Parliamentarians making any outflanking move to the south, but the small River Lambourn divided the Royalists at Speen and Newbury from those at Shaw House and Donnington Castle.

Shaw House and its grounds including some Iron Age embankments incorporated into the defences, were defended by Lord Astley, with three "tertias" or brigades of infantry under his son, Sir Bernard Astley, Colonel Thomas Blagge and Colonel George Lisle. Speen was held by Rupert's brother Prince Maurice, with a mixed detachment from the Royalist forces from the west country. Charles's cavalry under George, Lord Goring were in reserve. They were divided into four brigades under Goring himself, Lord Wentworth, the Earl of Cleveland and Sir Humphrey Bennett. The Earl of Brentford was the Lord General, and Charles' deputy Lord Hopton commanded the artillery.

Early on 26 October, the combined Parliamentarian armies advanced to Clay Hill, a few miles east of Newbury, where they set up an artillery battery. Intermittent exchanges of cannon fire took place throughout the day. Essex had been taken ill, and Waller and Manchester decided that a frontal attack on Donnington Castle and Shaw House would be too costly. They opted instead to divide their forces. While Manchester demonstrated with 7,000 infantry against Shaw House, Waller took 12,000 men (including the infantry from the Earl of Essex's army, a brigade of the London Trained Bands and most of the cavalry) on a long march of 13 mi around the Royalist position to fall on Speen from the west. It was intended that on hearing the opening cannonade from Waller's guns, Manchester would then put in a full-scale attack on Shaw House.

Battle
Waller set off late on 26 October and camped overnight far to the north. His force broke camp and resumed its outflanking move on 27 October while Manchester launched a diversionary attack on Shaw House. Although the Royalists at Donnington Castle observed Waller's movement, and even sent a small detachment of cavalry to harry his rearguard, the troops at Speen were not warned of the danger. Waller's force crossed to the south bank of the Lambourn at Boxford, and formed up and attacked at 3 o'clock in the afternoon, with cavalry under Oliver Cromwell on the left flank, infantry under Philip Skippon in the centre and cavalry under Sir William Balfour on the right.

Maurice's forces had been dispersed to forage, and were caught unprepared. Although they repelled the first attack on Speen, the Parliamentarian infantry rallied and stormed the village, capturing several cannon (including some which the Royalists had captured at Lostwithiel). Balfour routed Maurice's cavalry and also defeated the Earl of Cleveland's brigade, but was then checked by the fresh Queen's Regiment of horse and musketeers under Sir Thomas Blagge lining hedges east of Speen. Cromwell was uncharacteristically slow in coming into action and his wing was thrown back by a charge by Goring's remaining cavalry under Goring himself.

The Earl of Manchester was slow to throw in his own attack, pleading that the noise of Waller's guns had not been heard over the exchanges of artillery fire at Shaw House. Just before dark, he made a determined attack on Shaw House, but was beaten back.

Casualties in the day's fighting were heavy, but roughly even on both sides.

Aftermath
The Royalists had held off the Parliamentarian forces but Charles knew his army was not up to another day's fighting. He was outnumbered and with the loss of Speen, his forces were vulnerable to another attack the next morning. He hastily retreated to the north, leaving his wounded and most of his guns and baggage in Donnington Castle. Much of the Royalist army withdrew over a bridge over the River Lambourne which was an obvious line of retreat, but no Parliamentarian troops blocked their path, and the Royalists were free to withdraw.

The following day, the Parliamentarian commanders held a council of war at Speen. Cromwell, Balfour and Sir Arthur Hesilrige eventually were allowed to take cavalry in pursuit of the King's army, but soon found that the Royalists had already crossed the River Thames at Wallingford and had reached the safety of the neighbourhood of Oxford. The Parliamentarians called off the pursuit and instead made a hasty attack on Donnington Castle. The attack was defeated with heavy casualties.

By 1 November, Charles had been reinforced by Rupert, Northampton and other forces to a strength of 15,000 men, and was able to relieve Donnington Castle again on 9 November. The Parliamentarians declined to contest the second relief of Donnington, and the Royalists found on 19 November that they had also raised the siege of Basing House. Charles thus ended the campaigning season with a notable success.

The Parliamentarian armies' unwieldy council of war was divided. When the King offered battle on 9 November, Manchester made his famous remark that "The King need not care how oft he fights... If we fight 100 times and beat him 99 he will be King still, but if he beats us but once, or the last time, we shall be hanged, we shall lose our estates, and our posterities be undone." Cromwell, his lieutenant general, made the equally famous rejoinder, "If this be so, why did we take up arms at first? This is against fighting ever hereafter. If so, let us make peace, be it never so base".

The dissatisfaction expressed by Cromwell and other Parliamentarians over the failure to trap Charles after the battle and the subsequent half-hearted operations, eventually resulted in the passing of the Self-denying Ordinance, which deprived Essex, Waller and Manchester of their commands, and the formation of the New Model Army, with which Parliament gained victory the next year.

Newbury was one of the few battles of the English Civil War in which an army attempted a wide outflanking move. Waller and Manchester took a risk in dividing their army, but were aware that they enjoyed superiority of numbers.

title: Second Battle of Newbury


text:
Talk:Chatswood, New South Wales

Untitled
deleted the template because it should only appear in articles that the template links, i.e. other lga's not individual suburb articles. each lga should have it's only template, like template:Sydney Pittwater suburbs, i.e. a template:Sydney Willoughby suburbs needs to be created, and then that template should be added to the chatswood article. clarkk 12:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Template of Sydney Willoughby suburbs created
'it is said that most of the Chatswood customers and visting residents are to be following a circut of social networking,the well known Bridget Gourlay, said to be the 'Ruler' of Chatswood has been reported as 'the wolf pack leader' of the teenage vistors disturbing the elders shoppingItalic text.

In preparation for updating the Chatswood entry, I have created a template for template:Sydney Willoughby suburbs John_Rotenstein 05:30, 05 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Copyright of pictures
The pictures are on public domain, but do you have permission of everyone on the photos whose faces are recognisable that their images can be on public domain? Cheers.

 * There is some ongoing debate about this among experts, but from my understanding, the general legal principle as to whether you need permission has to do with whether or not there is an implicit expectation of privacy or not. Walking through a shopping mall, and you have zero expectation of not being seen. Taking photographs is generally treated as just another form of "being seen". As always, pornography is the thing that really pushes the boundaries, so it's where we really get to see what he limits of this principle are. For example, if you stand in a public place, but use a telephoto lens to photograph a glimpse of someone nude in the bedroom of a far-away apartment, then you have violated that person's expectation of privacy. See also: "up-skirt" photos taken in public without consent in US - in this case I would strongly agree that there is an expectation of privacy in this regard. See also questions about US photographer's rights. Finding Australian material is harder, but from my understanding the short answer is: it's nice to ask, but I think not legally required, provided the people being photographed are in public, and what you're photographing is what you would normally see (which is why using photography techniques such as the Sony NightShot to see through clothing is out). I've deliberately used the extreme boundary cases to define the edges of what is and isn't permitted, but a standard photo of people wandering in the mall falls well within those boundaries. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 00:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge
Mako did a merge of Chatswood Westfield and Chatswood Chase into the Chatswood article without asking. I think it's better if there's a consensus to this before that goes ahead (since many other Westfield Shopping Centres have their own articles.) Debate can go below. Abstain (JROBBO 08:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC))

 * Apologies for taking WP:BB literally and making that change to the Westfield article, the bulk of which I'd written myself. Anyway .... personally I don't see the point in stub articles of a few sentences when that could be included within the main article, and similarly I don't see the point in articles giving detailed information of nature that is temporary (the minor shops, opening hours etc within a shopping centre change frequently and so quickly becomes out of date) when that information already exists on that businesses website, particulary when there is little of note to set the subject apart from similar subjects. As such I'm (obviously) in favour of merging these into the Chatswood article, but at this stage prefer to wait on the outcome of some related dicussions (WP:LOCAL and User:GarrieIrons/All Westfields are the same) before starting the AFD process.--Mako 09:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That's ok - Chatswood Chase does have some history though - it was quite an early shopping centre in Sydney as far as I remember... is it worth checking that out? (JROBBO 12:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Chatswood Chase opened in 1983, I've no idea what was there previously, though I know Chatswood had a couple of department stores (Woolworths, Waltons) that are long gone so may have been on the site before the Chase. Maybe a trip to the library this weekend is on the cards, I've been meaning to flesh out the history section of Chatswood (and surrounds) for a while now.--Mako 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No objection, so I've removed the merge tags and changed the mall stubs into redirects. They can be changed back into articles at a later date if they outgrow this article. -- Mako 12:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything as I assumed that you were going to do some research before deciding whether or not either article had a notable enough history - that was what you said you would do. I'm not too concerned about this - if there is a notable enough history we can always change it back. However, I have one request - can you please merge the articles properly. There was some information and a picture on the other pages which you don't seem to have merged into the article. Can you do that the right way please? (JROBBO 05:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

The articles got re-created. Since there's still not really enough in Westfield Chatswood to support an independent article, I have re-proposed the merge. --Elonka 21:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Chatswood Chase did not open in 1988
Chatswood Chase opened in 1981. It has had three minor expansions since it opened.Eregli bob

Chatswood Chase in fact opened in 1983 Localteacher1 (talk) 09:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Demographics of Chatswood
It was previously stated that a notable Armenian population lived in the chatswood area, the number noted was approx. 15,000 being the largest minority in Chatswood, it is amazing to see that this has been taken off the chatswood article, considering there are still 2,000 Armenians living in Chatswood, since many made new homes as a notable Chinese, Hong Kong population moved in. I will not be changing the article as I believe the person responsible for this should be do it, or someone else who supports my belief. 2,000 Armenians is still the 2nd largest minority in nimbin.
 * It is not the 2nd largest ethnic group according to the 2006 Census. Armenians are not in the top five groups. If you have references that show otherwise, then add the information. J Bar (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Restaurants in Chatswood as well as Eateries
could someone explain who and why Greek eateries was added to Chatswood, someone please note how many greek restaurants there are in the Chatswood area. ..... Um...ZERO. I'm not sure who the person was adding and changing so much information about this page but how about you leave it to people who live in chatswood and spent their whole lives there.. Thanks.
 * Cafe Andronicus 316 Victoria Avenue

Cantonese restaurants?
I noticed that the article says there are Chinese, Cantonese, Vietnamese and Greek restaurants in Chatswood. Since Canton is in China, wouldn't Cantonese restaurants already be covered by the reference to Chinese restaurants? Mentioning the two separately appears to be pointless, misleading and perhaps even confusing. Why is it written like this? (Huey45 (talk) 03:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC))

Incorrect info
Every time I add correct information about Chatswood ( I'm third generation from the suburb born and raised) it gets deleted. Beauchamp Park is in Nicholson Street NOT Beauchamp Ave and that information can be found on Willoughby Councils website. Also I added information about the original ethnic groups that reside in Chatswood such as Armenian,Greek,Italian and Croatian and it too was also deleted. I suggest that those of you who know nothing about the real Chatswood or its history refrain from trying to edit this page. I am a local teacher of twenty years standing, a local historian and work closely with the Willoughby Historical Society and I have worked for the West Ward Progress Association in Chatswood. The information I placed was in fact correct. I will change it back. Localteacher1 (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Chatswood, New South Wales. 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/20081014021543/http://chh.com/pages/contact.aspx to http://www.chh.com/pages/contact.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Chatswood, New South Wales


text:
Roker

Roker is a seaside resort of Sunderland, city of Sunderland district, Tyne and Wear. England. It is north of the River Wear's mouth and Monkwearmouth, west of the North Sea, east of Fulwell and Seaburn is south. It lies within historic County Durham.

The majority of the houses in Roker are terraced or semi-detached. Further west, to the part bordering Fulwell, are cul-de-sacs with semi-detached bungalows, these being owned mainly by members of Roker's sizeable elderly population. On Roker Terrace (Roker's main street) are exclusive apartments and hotels which overlook the seafront.

In addition to Seaburn seafront, the coast at Roker seafront played host to Sunderland International Air show, the biggest free air show in Europe, which took place each year, usually over the last weekend in July. However the Sunderland Air show has been cancelled indefinitely as Sunderland City Council says it wants to make the city carbon neutral. The popular event, which attracted hundreds of thousands of spectators to Roker, was last held in 2019, just before the pandemic.

Name and etymology
The name was first recorded as Roca in 1768. The exact origin of the name is unclear, but it may be a transferred name from Cabo da Roca in Sinatra, Portugal.

History
The story of Roker began in 1587, when the Abbs family were granted land on the north side of the River Wear on the condition that they provided six soldiers to defend the mouth of the river. Fast forward to 1840, when Roker Terrace was built upon the cliff tops, along with Monkwearmouth baths and Roker Park soon after. The pier and lower promenade were built six years later. In 1898 Roker Park Stadium was built and Roker became known worldwide for being home to Sunderland A.F.C. The stadium was used for ninety-nine years until 1997. In the early 20th century Roker became a hugely popular resort for locals and tourists alike, and in 1928 it was taken over by the Borough of Sunderland, along with Fulwell and Seaburn.

In 1995 Roker Park Conservation Area was declared.

Landmarks
St Andrew's Church (1905–07) is recognised as one of the finest churches of the first half of the twentieth century and the masterpiece of Edward Schroeder Prior.

One well-known landmark of sorts in Roker is the Bungalow Cafe, which is an old-fashioned café in a tiny bungalow on the upper promenade. Also famous is the signpost next to the café, marked: "To Beach" (pointing towards the beach), "To Village" (pointing into Roker), "To Bungalow" (pointing to the cafe), and "To Germany" (pointing out to sea).

A museum is located in the Roker Watch House which was originally opened in 1906 as the headquarters of the Roker Volunteer Life Brigade. It is open every Sunday afternoon and on Bank Holiday Mondays.

Other nearby landmarks are the statue of Bede's cross on the cliff top near Roker Park and St Peter's Church, Monkwearmouth. The cross recognises the work of the Venerable Bede, who worked in the North-East all his life at the twin monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow. There is bid for the twin monasteries to gain World Heritage Site status.

Lighthouses and pier
From 1717 the newly formed River Wear Commission began to improve the harbour entrance at the mouth of the Wear. By 1750 a pair of breakwaters had been built (which survive in truncated form as the 'Old' North and South Piers).

By the beginning of the next century each had a lighthouse at its end. (The lighthouse which stands today in Roker Cliff Park originally stood on the Old South Pier; it was deactivated in 1903 and removed eighty years later.)

With the growth of Sunderland as a port, it was decided to improve the approach to the river by creating an outer harbour, protected by a new pair of new breakwaters curving out into the North Sea from the shore on each side. The new piers were the brainchild of Henry Hay Wake, who at the age of 25 had been appointed Chief Engineer to the River Wear Commission (in succession to Thomas Meik) in 1868. The foundation stone for the New North Pier (Roker Pier) was laid on 14 September 1885. Applauded at the time as a triumph of engineering, the 1,198 ft pier is built of granite-faced concrete blocks, which were loaded onto wagons at River Weir Works by a Goliath crane and unloaded and placed at the end of the pier by a Titan crane.

The opposite 'New South Pier' was begun at around the same time but never fully completed due to the start of the First World War; the twin lighthouse planned for its end was never built.

Roker Pier Lighthouse
The lighthouse at the pier head was completed in 1903. Its distinctive stripes are of naturally coloured red and white Aberdeen granite. When built it was said to be Britain's most powerful port lighthouse. Equipped with a third-order rotating catadioptric optic (consisting of a single-panel Fresnel lens backed by a prismatic mirror), it displayed a single flash every five seconds. The lighthouse had initially (like its predecessors) been lit by gas from the town mains, but the supply to the end of the pier was found to be intermittent so the gas light was soon replaced by a Chance Brothers incandescent petroleum vapour mantle lamp. This increased the effective intensity of the light from 40,000 to 150,000 candle power, to give it a range of 15 nmi.

A fog siren was also provided, powered by compressed air from a pair of 7-horsepower gas engines located in the basement. It gave a two-second blast every twenty seconds in foggy weather from a sounder on the parapet, which was regulated by clockwork.

The light was semi-automated in 1936 when a new light system was installed by AGA. The main lamp was a 750-watt incandescent light bulb, with a gas mantle lamp (fed from the town supply) provided as a stand-by, activated by an automatic lamp changer; and a small electric motor automatically wound the clockwork which rotated the lens.

Full automation followed in 1972, when the old optic was replaced by two back-to-back arrays of six sealed beam units mounted on an AGA gearless rotating pedestal, to give the light an increased range of 23 nmi; a new fog horn was also provided at the same time. The system was supervised remotely from the Pilot House on the Old North Pier. Subsequent to its removal the 1903 optic was added to the maritime collection of Sunderland Museum and Art Gallery.

In 2007 the lighting system was again replaced with a dual-drive Pelangi PRL400 rotating pedestal and lamp.

Roker Pier Lighthouse still functions today. Both pier and lighthouse have undergone significant refurbishment in recent years. In 2012, as part of the restoration, a new flashing LED lamp array was installed, replacing the small Pelangi unit previously in use. In 2018, following a comprehensive six-year process of refurbishment, the lighthouse was opened to the public for the first time; regular guided tours now take place, with access provided by way of the tunnel which runs the length of the pier.

Demographics
The population of Roker is approximately 4,600. Since the redevelopment of former brownfield areas of heavy industry into affluent riverside housing areas, and the founding of the St Peters Campus of the University of Sunderland to the immediate south of the area, Roker has undergone rapid demographic change. The first of these two changes brought a large influx of professional and managerial workers into the areas now known as St Peters Riverside and North Haven. The arrival of the university campus has seen a large number of the larger houses in the vicinity of Roker Avenue being converted into flats and student residences. The pursuant studentification has brought a substantial Chinese community into the area for the first time, along with a variety of other nationalities

Along with the district of Monkwearmouth, Roker forms the St Peter's electoral ward on Sunderland City Council, which is a division of the Sunderland Central parliamentary seat. St Peter's ward was a safe Conservative ward in the 1980s, but became a battleground between the Conservatives and Labour in the 1990s and has remained as such ever since. Of the wards three council seats, all three are held by the Conservatives.

Streetname traditions
On the site of Sunderland AFC's former stadium is a small housing estate, its street names all being references to the football club (Clockstand Close, Goalmouth Close, Promotion Close, Midfield Drive etc.). The streets in between Roker Baths Road and Roker Avenue are all named after members of William Ewart Gladstone's cabinet (Gladstone, Hartington, Forster, Bright, Stansfield, and so on).

title: Roker


text:
John T. Mills

John T. Mills (November 12, 1817 – November 30, 1871) was an Irish-born American jurist who was an associate judge of the Third, Seventh and Eighth Judicial Districts of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Texas.

Biography
Born in County Antrim, Ireland, Mills immigrated to America with his parents as a child. His family settled in Beaufort County, South Carolina, where he studied law before moving to Clarksville, Republic of Texas, in 1837. From 1839 to 1845 he served three consecutive terms as an associate judge of the Supreme Court in the Third, Seventh, and Eighth Judicial Districts. After Texas was admitted to the Union, he served as a judge for the state in various district courts from 1846 to 1850. In 1849, he ran on the Democratic ticket for Governor, but was not elected.

Mills' first marriage, to Mary Jane Vining, lasted from 1843 until her death in 1854; he married a Mrs. Adair and moved to Marshall shortly thereafter. His second marriage produced a son. John Mills died in Marshall, Texas, and is buried in the Marshall Cemetery there. Mills County, Texas, is named in his honor.

title: John T. Mills


text:
Peace, order, and good government

In many Commonwealth jurisdictions, the phrase "peace, order, and good government" (POGG) is an expression used in law to express the legitimate objects of legislative powers conferred by statute. The phrase appears in many Imperial Acts of Parliament and Letters Patent, most notably the constitutions of Barbados, Canada, Australia and formerly New Zealand and South Africa.

It is often contrasted with "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", a spiritually analogous phrase found in the US Declaration of Independence.

Background
Legal documents often contain a residual clause which expresses which entity will have authority over jurisdictions that have not otherwise been delineated or are in dispute. While specific authorities are often enumerated in legal documents as well, the designation of a residual power helps provide direction to future decision-makers and in emerging issue areas.

At its origin, the preferred phrase was "peace, welfare and good government," but this eventually evolved into "peace, order and good government," which soon became part of the standard phraseology used in British colonies to denote the residual power of the government. Although this phrase is used in the constitutional documents of several commonwealth countries, it has taken on a particular importance in the Canadian constitution due to repeated disputes about the nature of residual federal power in Canada.

Canada
In Canada, "peace, order and good government" (in French, "paix, ordre et bon gouvernement") is sometimes abbreviated as POGG and is often used to describe the principles upon which that country's Confederation took place.

A similar phrase, "peace, welfare, and good government", had been used the Act of Union 1840 that created the Province of Canada. The now familiar phrase "peace, order and good government" was originally used in the British North America Act, 1867 (now known as the Constitution Act, 1867) enacted by the Imperial Parliament, and it defines the principles under which the Parliament of Canada should legislate. Specifically, the phrase appears in section 91 of the federal Act, which is part of the block of sections that divide legislative powers between the federal and provincial levels of government.

"It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make Laws for the Peace, Order, and good Government of Canada, in relation to all Matters......"

POGG is a head of power arising from opening words of section 91 and is distinct from the enumerated powers under that section. The broad language suggests to some although not to others that there is a comprehensive grant of residual legislative authority to the federal government. Although the residual nature of the clause remains, the scope of the clause has been limited by the jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC). The JCPC narrowed the scope of the clause to the three distinct branches which remain while also broadly interpreting the scope of provincial authority over property and civil rights under section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867. The jurisprudence has been defined into three branches: Emergency Branch, Gap or Purely Residual Branch, and National Concern Branch, as defined in the Supreme Court of Canada judgment Re: Anti-Inflation Act.

Interpretation doctrines
Although the text of the act gives Parliament residuary powers to enact laws in any area that has not been allocated to the provincial governments, subsequent jurisprudence has limited the scope of the "peace, order, and good government" power. The limitation on the scope of this clause stems from the narrow interpretation of its branches and the expansive interpretation of provincial powers under section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Particularly limiting is the breadth of provincial power over property and civil rights under s. 92(13). Although the Emergency Branch and the National Concern Branch may be viewed as delimited federal competencies like the enumerated clauses under section 91 (see e.g. AG Canada v AG Ontario (Labour Conventions), [1937] AC 326 (PC)), the clause remains residuary.

The powers under POGG must be interpreted in light of the subsequent jurisprudence on the limitations of the clause and the expansive powers of the provinces under their enumerated heads of power. If a matter does not fall within one of the enumerated classes in section 92, section 91, or the emergency or national concern branches, then it falls within the narrowly defined residual branch of POGG. The POGG power is best understood as a narrowly defined residual power limited to the following three branches.

The Gap or Purely Residual Branch
POGG's gap-filling power covers issues such as drafting oversights and matters not within the boundaries of a province. Drafting oversights include things the drafters of the Constitution forgot to think about but would unambiguously have allocated to Parliament if they had. For instance, section 92 allocates responsibility for provincially incorporated companies to the legislatures but section 91 says nothing about federally incorporated companies: the gap branch allocates this jurisdiction to Parliament, per John Deere Plow Co v Wharton, 1915. Matters not within the boundaries of a particular province include Canadian territorial lands and waters that are within provincial boundaries such as the seabed off the coast of Newfoundland, per Reference Re Seabed and Subsoil of Continental Shelf Offshore Newfoundland, [1984] 1 S.C.R. 86.

The gap branch is rarely relied on because there is so little left to default to the federal government after taking into account the enumerated provincial power over property and civil rights under section 92(13) which applies to any transaction, person or activity that is found within the province. Historically new subject matters, such as aeronautics, do not necessarily fall residually to the federal government, per Johannesson v West St Paul (Rural Municipality of), 1952.

The Emergency Branch
Parliament may invoke emergency powers under the emergency branch of POGG. This began in 1882, when the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (then the supreme authority over Canadian law) ruled in Russell v. The Queen that the federal government could legislate with regard to alcohol, because even though this would probably have been considered provincial jurisdiction in ordinary circumstances, the federal government was acting to ensure order in Canada. This concept further evolved during the 1920s, when in the 1922 Board of Commerce case, it was stated that POGG could be invoked in times of war and famine, to allow Parliament to intervene in matters of provincial jurisdiction. POGG was later used this way in the Anti-Inflation Reference of 1976, when the Supreme Court of Canada allowed Parliament to regulate inflation on the grounds that it posed a considerable economic problem for Canada. In that case, a great degree of deference was exercised in accepting what the federal government deemed to be an emergency.

The National Concern Branch
The "national concern" doctrine (sometimes referred to as "national dimensions") was an alternate means of applying the POGG powers that found use in the mid-20th century. It allowed Parliament to legislate on matters that would normally fall to the provincial government when the issue became of such importance that it concerned the entire country.

The doctrine originated from a statement by Lord Watson in the Local Prohibition case (1896), wherein he stated:
 * Their Lordships do not doubt that some matters, in their origin local and provincial, might attain such dimensions as to affect the body politic of the Dominion, and to justify the Canadian Parliament in passing laws for their regulation or abolition in the interest of the Dominion.

After this case the doctrine was completely ignored until 1946 when Viscount Simons brought it back in the case of Ontario v. Canada Temperance Foundation, [1946] A.C. 193 (P.C.). The test as stated in Temperance Foundation was whether the matter "goes beyond local or provincial concern or interests and must from its inherent nature be the concern of the Dominion as a whole".

Current approach to interpretation
The above branches of the power are currently governed by the principles stated by Le Dain J. in R. v. Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd.:

"The national concern doctrine is separate and distinct from the national emergency doctrine of the peace, order and good government power, which is chiefly distinguishable by the fact that it provides a constitutional basis for what is necessarily legislation of a temporary nature;

The national concern doctrine applies to both new matters which did not exist at Confederation and to matters which, although originally matters of a local or private nature in a province, have since, in the absence of national emergency, become matters of national concern;

For a matter to qualify as a matter of national concern in either sense it must have a singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern and a scale of impact on provincial jurisdiction that is reconcilable with the fundamental distribution of legislative power under the Constitution;

In determining whether a matter has attained the required degree of singleness, distinctiveness and indivisibility that clearly distinguishes it from matters of provincial concern it is relevant to consider what would be the effect on extra‑provincial interests of a provincial failure to deal effectively with the control or regulation of the intra‑provincial aspects of the matter."

Sociological value
Despite its technical purpose, the phrase "peace, order and good government" has also become meaningful to Canadians. This tripartite motto is sometimes said to define Canadian values in a way comparable to “liberté, égalité, fraternité” (liberty, equality, fraternity) in France or “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the United States.

It has been used by some scholars to make broad characterizations of Canada's political culture. US sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset, for example, contrasted POGG with the American tripartite motto to conclude Canadians generally believe in a higher degree of deference to the law. As Canadian historian Donald Creighton argued in his report to the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, the expression was used interchangeably in the 19th century by Canadian and Imperial officials with the expression peace, welfare and good government. The term welfare referred not to its more narrow modern echoes, but to the protection of the common wealth, the general public good. Good government referred to good public administration, on the one hand, but also had echoes of what we now talk of as good governance, which incorporates the notion of appropriate self-governance by civil society actors, since one element of good government was thought to be its limitation to its appropriate sphere of responsibility.

Elsewhere in the Commonwealth
The phrase "peace, order and good government" appears in many 19th and 20th century British Acts of Parliament, such as the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865, the British Settlements Act 1887, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, the South Africa Act 1909, Hong Kong Letters Patent 1917, and the West Indies Act 1962 and the Government of Ireland Act 1920. In the Constitution of Malta, the phrase is followed by the qualifier "in conformity with full respect for human rights, generally accepted principles of international law and Malta’s international and regional obligations in particular those assumed by the treaty of accession to the European Union".

In Ibrelebbe v. The Queen [1964] AC 900, 923, the words "peace, order and good government" contained in the Ceylon Constitution Order-in-Council (1946) were said by the Privy Council to: "connote, in British constitutional language, the widest law-making powers appropriate to a sovereign". Likewise in Australia, the High Court found in Union Steamship v King [1988] HCA 55 that the grant of power to legislate 'for peace, order/welfare and good government' was a plenary power to legislate within/for the territory.

However, in New Zealand, those powers are not considered as unlimited. In The Trustees Executors and Agency Co. Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1933) 49 CLR 220, Justice Evatt of the High Court of Australia wrote a separate judgement analyzing the power to make laws for the "peace, order and good government of New Zealand" under the New Zealand Constitution. Evatt held that laws dealing only with circumstances, persons or things outside of New Zealand, while not prima facie invalid could, in some cases, fail to satisfy the description of being for the peace, order and good government of New Zealand. A law that failed to satisfy that description would be beyond legislative power and invalid, but Evatt J noted that cases of this kind would be "very rare".

In R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex p Bancoult (No 1) [2000] EWHC 413, the High Court of England and Wales struck down an ordinance made in 1971 by the Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory expelling the entire population of the Chagos Archipelago to make way for an American military base at Diego Garcia, purportedly under his power to legislate for the "peace, order and good government" of the territory. Lord Justice Laws, ordering the British government to allow the inhabitants to return to their former homes, condemned the depopulation of the islands in the name of "peace, order and good government" with the words:

It was Tacitus who said: "They make a desert and call it peace – Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant (Agricola 30). He meant it as an irony; but here, it was an abject legal failure." Despite this, in 2008 the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte Bancoult (No 2) held that the plenary power exists to the extent that even legislation removing all inhabitants from a territory is valid; this was later confirmed in the 2016 UK Supreme Court case R (on the application of Bancoult (No 2)) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

General and cited references

 * Creighton, D. G. British North America at Confederation: A Study Prepared for the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations. Ottawa, Queen's Printer, 1939.
 * Dyck, Rand. Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches.  Third ed.  Scarborough, Ontario:  Nelson Thomson Learning, 2000.
 * That Section 4(1) of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as Enacted stated "Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Parliament of Southern Ireland and the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall respectively have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland with the following limitations, namely, that they shall not have power to make laws except in respect of matters exclusively relating to the portion of Ireland within their jurisdiction, or some part thereof, and (without prejudice to that general limitation) that they shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters in particular, namely:—"

title: Peace, order, and good government