Common Peace

The idea of the Common Peace (Κοινὴ Εἰρήνη, Koinē Eirēnē) was one of the most influential concepts of 4th century BC Greek political thought, along with the idea of Panhellenism. The term described both the concept of a desirable, permanent peace between the Greek city-states (poleis) and a sort of peace treaty which fulfilled the three fundamental criteria of this concept: it had to include all the Greek city-states, it had to recognise the autonomy and equality of all city states without regard for their military power, and it had to be intended to remain in force permanently.

The advocates of the Common Peace saw it as a way to end the endemic warfare which engulfed the Greek poleis from the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War in 431 BC. From the King's Peace of 387/6 BC down to the foundation of the League of Corinth in 338 BC, the idea of the Common Peace influenced all peace treaties between Greek poleis. In the end, however, it turned out that only a strong hegemonic power could maintain a comprehensive peace for long. In modern times, the concept has been revived and in the 20th century, the principle of the Common Peace was a foundation stone of international organisations like the League of Nations and the United Nations.

The idea of the Common Peace
The idea of the Common Peace developed out of older ideas which had gradually taken form in the political interactions of the 5th century BC in Greece. Its temporary enforcement however owes less to the realisation of the need for a permanent peace, than to the fact that it seemed to serve the interests of several successive hegemonic powers. The history of the Common Peace is therefore not only part of the history of ideas, but also of the diplomatic history of Greece in the decades between the Peloponnesian War and the arrival of king Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great.

Development of the term

The Greek word Eirene, which originally only signified a 'state of peace', developed the related meaning of 'peace agreement' at the beginning of the 4th century BC. This was a consequence of a change in attitudes to war and peace more generally. Already in the 5th century BC, wars between Greek poleis were ended with treaties, which were known as spondai (σπονδαί), synthekai (συνθήκαι) or dialyseis polemou (διάλυσεις πολέμου). All these terms ultimately only indicated a truce or temporary break from war. But as a result of the unending warfare from the middle of that century, the idea gradually developed that a state of peace rather than war should be the normal state of international affairs. This is reflected in the increased prominence of the term Eirene and in its use as a term for peace treaties.

The term 'Common Peace' was first used in 391 BC, in reference to the failed negotiations between Athens and Sparta to end the Corinthian War. The Athenian politician Andocides advised his fellow citizens in a speech for the acceptance of a settlement which he called koine eirene. Possibly the term had already come into general parlance before this, but this speech is the first attestation. The first treaty in which the terms eirene and koine eirene were actually used was the 'King's Peace' imposed by the Spartans and Persians in 387/6 BC. The phrase koine eirene only appears in an official document for the first time in the peace treaty made after the Battle of Mantinea in 362 BC.

Generally, the term koine eirene is only sparsely attested in contemporary sources. Authors like Isocrates, Demosthenes and Xenophon do not use it at all. But they do refer to its essential characteristics for each of the peace treaties which the 1st century BC historian Diodorus consistently refers to as a koine eirene. The fact that Diodorus based his account of the period from 386 to 361 on the contemporary author Ephorus makes it very likely that the term was in general use at the time. It also appears in mid-4th century BC inscription from Argos, known as the Reply to the Satraps, whose exact date and circumstances are unclear.

Characteristics
In the speech of Andocides and the provisions of the King's Peace two characteristics are revealed which were new for peace treaties at this time. One of these was that all Greek poleis (with a few exceptions) were to be autonomous. The other was that each of these draft treaties were sent to all poleis. Peace is therefore no longer presented as a bilateral agreement between two formerly hostile poleis or leagues, but as a multilateral treaty, which would also encompass all the parties that were not involved in the conflict, as far as possible.

A third characteristic is not explicitly mentioned but can be inferred from the absence of set time limit. In the 5th century, it was the norm for peace treaties to have a specified period of validity. The Thirty Years' Peace of 446/5 BC between Athens and Sparta was named for the period of time it was expected to last. The Peace of Nicias of 421 BC was meant to last for fifty years, while treaties with a set period of one hundred years were practically intended to last forever. This derives from the idea that peace was not being made between the states as such, but rather between their populations, and thus the longest possible period of time that a treaty could last was the lifetime of a single generation - which could only make agreements for itself, not its descendants. By contrast, a koine eirene was in principle designed to endure forever. Although this was not actually explicitly stated in the treaties, it is clear from the internal logic of the autonomy clauses, since an independence with chronological limits would not be independence.

Multilaterality
The bilateral peace treaties of the 5th century BC between Athens and Sparta largely ignored the interests of other parties - including their own allies, who were not even consulted. Even the treaty of 404 BC, which ended the Peloponnesian War and was in practice a diktat from the Spartan side, was formally a treaty between Sparta and Athens. It did not contain any terms regarding the allies of Athens in the Delian League and was actually concluded despite the opposition of the Spartans' allies. The treaty therefore entirely reflects the conditions and ideas of the 5th century, in which there were only two major hegemonic powers in Greece, to which all other poleis were subordinated.

The idea of a multilateral panhellenic agreement was not actually new, however. After the defeat of Xerxes' invasion, a general peace had been concluded in 481, although it was temporary. In 450 BC, Pericles is reported to have desired to convene a general peace conference in Athens. It is reported that the refusal of the Spartans to participate on account of their fear of Athenian hegemony meant that it never actually took place. Apart from some multilateral treaties between individual poleis in Sicily and Ionia, the religious association of the Amphictyonic League was the only multilateral agreement of ancient Greece which was enduring and significant. The Amphictyonic oath forswore the destruction of member states in war or the removal of their water. Poleis that broke this oath would themselves be threatened with destruction. This might be a forerunner of the koine eirene.

That it became ever more common to make peace treaties on the basis of a koine eirene after 387 BC had a practical aspect. The successive hegemonial powers were not individual poleis, but several opposing poleis or leagues of roughly equal strength. With them, peace was only possible if all agreed together. For the general acceptance of such a multilateral agreement, the autonomy clause was the first requirement.

Autonomy clause
The Greek term autonomia signified the right and ability of the citizens of a polis to use their own legal system or nomos (νόμος) and to be free from all submission to other poleis. Since the polis had become the characteristic form of the state in Greece, there was an unwritten law in their relationships with one another that each of them - even the most insignificant ones - should be autonomous. The only exceptions to this were the small cities of Attica and Laconia, which hadlong been completely integrated into the Athenian and Spartan poleis. It was a source of substantial tension in the 4th century, when the Thebans attempted to incorporate the cities of Boeotia into a single polis in the same way.

Following the Persian Wars, however, the willingness to form leagues, called koina or symmachiai under the leadership of a hegemonic power or hegemon increased. These were entered into voluntarily, so that the principle of autonomy was theoretically not infringed. But as the Persian threat declined in significance, it seemed that the Athenians wished to convert the Delian League which they controlled into a naval empire which they ruled. Thus the Athenians violated the foundations of autonomia: the freedom of poleis to live under their own political systems, to be free of garrisons, cleruchies, external legal jurisdiction, and tribute. The introduction of phoros (φόρος, i.e. contributions for military purposes), the relocation of league's treasury from Delos to Athens and the forced introduction of democratic constitutions based on the Athenian model in some members of the league all seemed to violate the principle of autonomia.

The Spartans, whose Peloponnesian League was comparatively loosely organised, began to use the demand for autonomia as a diplomatic means to weaken the Athenian league from the middle of the 5th century BC. The took up the complaints of the Athenians' allies as their own: during and after the Peloponnesian War, the Spartans presented themselves as the protectors of the freedom of all Greek states. Thus the autonomy clause was not only a key component of every Common Peace because smaller poleis saw it as a way to ensure their independence, but also and more importantly because larger powers could use it to advance their own interests.

Development of the Common Peace
Whether a peace agreement was a Common Peace or not is uncertain for some treaties. In the following, a wide definition is used in order to make the development of the idea of the Common Peace clear. Criteria for inclusion are the autonomy clause and the permission for all Greek poleis to join, regardless of whether that option was actually taken up.

Failed peace of 391 BC
In 392/1 BC, in the course of the Corinthian War, Sparta submitted an initial peace offer to the Persian satrap of Lydia, Tiribazus. The Spartans were under pressure to extract themselves from their hopeless war in Asia Minor and simultaneously reassert their military supremacy in mainland Greece. For this it was necessary, firstly, to concede Persian control of the Greek cities of Ionia, and, secondly, to end the Persians' alliances with the Greek opponents of Sparta, especially Athens. Simultaneously, the Great King needed to be convinced that no new Greek power would form in the Aegean which might challenge Persian control of the Ionian cities.

The agreement that would solve all these problems was that Sparta and Persia would guarantee the autonomy of all Greek states (exceptthose in Asia Minor). The Spartans would then have been able to point to the protection of a generally recognised principle as the outcome of the war. At the same time, this would allow the Spartans to split the Greek world into a number of weak individual states, ensuring the Spartan hegemony and satisfying the Persian desire for security. The Greek city-states naturally rejected the treaty out of hand. The Persian king Artaxerxes II was also inclined to reject it. He recalled Tiribazus and replaced him with a new satrap, Struthas, who strengthened the Persian alliance with Athens.

A few months later, the Spartans attempted to come to terms with their Greek enemies in a conference in their own city. Once more, they made the autonomy principle the basis of any agreement, this time with concessions to Athens and Thebes. The Athenians would have retained the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and Skyros, while the Thebans' possession of Orchomenus would have been recognised.

It was during these negotiations that the formula of a 'Common Peace' for all Greeks was first used. The Athenian orator Andocides used it in a speech, in which he vainly urged his countrymen to accept the Spartan offer:

Andokides makes a distinction between treaties and a real peace. He invoked the panhellenic ideal, while idealising the project of the common peace. As he did this, however, he omitted the fact that the Ionian cities for whose freedom Athens had gone to war with Persia some hundred years earlier, would be abandoned as a result of this treaty. In the end the Athenians rejected the treaty because of this (and because after their alliance with Struthas, they believed they were in a stronger position).

Peace of Antalcidas

The successes of the Athenian fleet in 390 BC, however, led to a reevaluation at the Persian court, which did not want the Athenians to get too strong. Struthas was replaced two years later by his predecessor Tiribazus, who negotiated a peace with the Spartan envoy Antalcidas. The resulting agreement, known as the 'Peace of Antalcidas' or the 'King's Peace' essentially accepted the Spartan proposals of 392/1. The most important terms were the inclusion of all Greek states and the guarantee of their freedom and autonomy. Only the Ionian cities, Cyprus and Clazomenae, which remained under Persian control, and the three aforementioned islands under Athenian rule were excluded. The Athenians had to surrender all other possessions and the dissolution of all leagues was the unavoidable consequence of the treaty. The key passage comes from Xenophon, whose Hellenica is the most important source for this period:

Most scholars see the Peace of Antalcidas as the first example of a common peace. Hermann Bengtson viewed the common peace as a side-effect of the treaty, which was originally only a decree of the Great King (from which it derives its name). The Spartans were appointed as guardians (prostatai) of the peace, with the power to interpret and enforce its provisions. All the Greek states swore to abide by this decree at Sparta - in light of the Great King's threat to go to war with anyone who refused to do so. This fact and the aforementioned exceptions show that a common peace was not fully achieved. Nor would one be achieved subsequently. While the autonomy and the inclusion of all cities was guaranteed, they were entirely dependent on the interests of those same powers which initiated and guaranteed the common peace.

Artaxerxes did not intend to provide Greece with an enduring peace, but to divide and weaken it politically. The Spartans displayed a desire for peace, but also a wish to ensure their own hegemony. The Spartan interpretation of autonomy required the dissolution of all leagues except their own Peloponnesian League, since this was not unified or centrally organised, but instead was a system of bilateral treaties which the Spartans had made with each individual member. In the Spartan view, bilateral treaties between individual states were not included in the ban on leagues controlled by a hegemonic power, although in practice this is exactly what the Peloponnesian League was.

Therefore, the Spartans remained the strongest military power in Greece. Under the pretext of protecting the autonomy principle, they maintained a hegemonic position over the next few years which greatly abused the autonomy of other states, such as the Chalcidian League and the city of Mantinea.

The Common Peace of 375 BC
In 382 BC, the Spartans seized the Cadmea, the citadel of Thebes, whose increasing strength was a thorn in their side. This act costed them the rest of their credit as protectors of autonomy and led to the Boeotian War with the Thebans and their Athenian allies. In the course of this, in spring 377 BC, the Second Athenian Confederacy was established. This league represented a violation of the clauses of the Peace of Antalcidas. But it is possible that a majority of the Aegean islands and coastal states now saw Athens as a better advocate of the principle of autonomy, as a result of their support for the Thebans. The league treaty was explicitly concluded:

The Athenians had thus taken clever advantage of the situation and the restoration of the naval confederacy clearly brought with it the undertaking to maintain the King's Peace. It had taken less than thirty years of Spartan hegemony to reverse attitudes on the Athenian empire. The first league had been presented as a threat to autonomy, but the second was claimed to be its protector. In order to prevent the Athenians from reassuming a hegemonic position, the new league was organised in accordance with the principles of the common peace. This is a sign that these principles were generally accepted by this time.

When the war with Sparta stagnated in 375 BC, the a willingness to make peace developed in Sparta and Athens. The Spartans could no longer hope for a victory and the Athenians had achieved their goals: the freedom of Thebes from Spartan control and the recognition of the sea league as compatible with the terms of the Peace of Antalcidas. Diodorus reports an embassy of the Great King came to secure a renewal of the peace, since the Persians needed peace in Greece in order to free the mercenaries up for a war they wanted to undertake in Egypt. The Greek states accepted the agreement and the Common Peace was renewed.

At this point, the Common Peace was extended in one respect: as already foreseen in the terms of the Second Athenian Confederacy, it was required that all foreign garrisons be removed from all cities. This was directed particularly at the Spartans who had garrisons in some south Boeotian cities, such as Thespiae (actually at their request, as protection against the Thebans). The Thebans were thus the main beneficiaries of the Common Peace of 375. The Spartans had begun the war on the same grounds that the Athenians now wished to end it: to prevent the further growth of Theban power. However, in the end the departure of the Spartan troops on the pretext of the autonomy principle left the Thebans with a free hand in Boeotia. Even so, the Athenians were clearly on the winning side: their success lay in the recognition of a new confederacy. Neither the Spartans nor the Persians could do anything about this, as they had done ten years earlier.

Despite the Persian diplomatic involvement, the Common Peace of 375 can be seen as the first which derived principally from Greek initiative and in which all parties were of roughly equal strength and thus received equal terms. For the first time, a peaceful system seemed to be possible without enforcement by a hegemonic power.

Failed negotiations of 371 BC
Two opposing political groups had already developed in Athens before the treaty of 375 BC: one sought an agreement with Sparta, the other a strengthening of the alliance with Thebes. However, the anti-Spartan forces over-estimated Athens' position after the peace and supported a democratic insurgency against the government of the island of Corcyra, which was allied with Sparta. Thus the Spartans, who were anything but satisfied with the result of the preceding clashes, already had grounds to go back to war a year and a half after the peace. At the same time, the situation was further complicated by the fact that Thebes destroyed the city of Plataea in 374/3 BC, which had an ancient alliance with Athens and had also been allied with Sparta since 380 BC. The Spartans therefore sent troops to Phokis, to threaten Thebes and undo the failures of the preceding years. Thus, 371 BC once more saw the outbreak of a general conflict.

In Athens, however, the moderate politicians considered the best outcome for their city to lie in a policy of neutrality and proposed a new common peace. To support Thebes would decisively strengthen their position. Support of Sparta, on the other hand, would have alarmed their allies, who say them as a threat to their right to autonomy. Further factors were also relevant: if the Spartans refused the proposed league, the Athenians would have been forced to fight two wars at once. Therefore, the Athenians decided to overlook the fate of Plataea and invited the Thebans to a peace conference in Sparta. The Spartans were even more willing to make peace now, since their actions in Phocis had been unsuccessful. Threatening Thebes thus became unlikely, but the Spartans did not consider themselves to be in any danger.

The common peace which was now proposed at the initiative of the Athenians, again saw critical innovation. The Athenian interpretation of autonomy prevailed and according to Xenophon, the Spartans committed to removing all their harmosts from cities of the peace. This was a difficult situation, since after 375 BC, only the cities in the Peloponnese (Sparta's chief area of influence) were relevant. Even more important for the continued development of idea of peace were rules which provided for all sides to demobilise their troops and fleets and which allowed the treaty partners to help one another in the event of an attack. The final clause, which did not impose a duty to help, was included at Athenian request. They intended to use it later to maintain the possibility of holding the balance of power between the other two powers.

Considered in isolation, this peace treaty could be taken as a skilled piece of Athenian diplomacy. But since it never actually came into effect, it can only be speculated whether it could have formed the basis of an enduring peace. After all, the treaty partners had taken account of the idea that sufficient force needed to be made available for use against potential treaty breakers in order to maintain the peace. In the Peace of Antalcidas, this had been accomplished by the threat of the Great King. In an agreement between free states, it had to be an agreement to oppose an attack on a treaty partner together.

At the planned swearing of the treaty, however, a serious rift arose between Thebes and Sparta. The Theban envoys had initially sworn to the agreement in the name of their own city and allowed that name to be placed on the treaty. But the next day, they demanded that the name of Thebes be replaced with that of the Boeotian League, since they claimed to be entitled to represent it. The Spartans categorically rejected this, since in their view the Boeotian cities ought to be autonomous. The split led to war and only twenty days later, the Battle of Leuctra took place, which proved to be the first Spartan defeat in open battle and decisively altered the balance of power in Greece in Thebes' favour.

After the battle, military activity ceased. At first, the Thebans undertook no further military action against the Spartans, who eventually sent troops to the Isthmus of Corinth to ward off any chance of a Theban attack on the Peloponnese. In this situation, the Athenians seized the initiative and called a peace conference, at which they could swear to the common peace once more and negotiate a new treaty. This was motivated by the desire to prevent further increase in Theban power. An innovation in this new peace treaty was that the possibility of aiding a treaty partner in attacking a disturber of the peace was transformed into a duty. This was a logical development of the previous failed peace and was found at the start of all future common peace treaties. Some researchers see the second treaty of 371 as the foundation of a military alliance (symmachia), as a result of this duty to intervene.

The Spartans joined this new agreement immediately for their own sake. Their neighbours, the Eleans had already sought to take advantage of the defeat of Sparta in the meanwhile and they refused to recognise the autonomy of some of their border cities, which they had given up in 399 BC under Spartan compulsion, but had retaken after Leuctra. Fatally, the Thebans did not agree to the treaty, since a common peace was inconsistent with their ambitions for their newly won hegemony. H. Bengtson saw this common peace as nothing more than an Athenian "gesture against Thebes, without practical value."

If the idea of the Common Peace had any chance to be based on equal rights for all states, it was in the short period between 375 BC and the Battle of Leuctra. Only then were there three Greek powers of roughly equal strength such that the strongest could be controlled by an alliance of the other two. Before and after this there was a clearly dominant hegemonic power (first Sparta, then Thebes) which either sought to use the common peace for their own purposes or rejected it altogether. Both approaches led to further military conflict. With the failure of the negotiations of 371 BC, the concept of the common peace largely lost credence as part of a practical policy.

Peace treaties of 368 and 366 BC
In the year after Leuctra, the Thebans clearly established their hegemony. Through a campaign into the Peloponnese, they established the independence of the Messenians, who had been ruled by the Spartans for centuries, and supported the establishment of the Arcadian League. A further war against an alliance of Sparta, Athens and Dionysius I of Syracuse proved inconclusive. Thus in 369/8 BC, all the Greek states responded to the call to meet in a peace conference at Delphi, issued by Ariobarzanes, the satrap of Phrygia. However, the negotiations foundered in the face of the Spartans' refusal to accept Messenian independence - a position which was supported by the Athenians and by the Persian representative, Philiscus. Since Ariobarzanes went into rebellion against the Great King a little later, it is not entirely clear whether he was acting on the king's orders or in accordance with his own interests.

In the course of further clashes, Dionysius II of Syracuse withdrew his aid from the Spartans, leading them to turn to the Persians for assistance once more. Thus, in 367/6 BC, Greek envoyse to the court of the Great king engaged in what the ancient historian Karl Julius Beloch referred to as the Wettkriechen (wager-creep), in which the Theban Pelopidas was ultimately successful. The Persians now recognised Thebes as the organising power in Greece in the same way that they had recognised Sparta in the King's Peace twenty years earlier. Henceforth, the Messenians were to be independent from Sparta and Amphipolis from Athens, while the Eleans were granted the neighbouring area of Triphylia. Furthermore, all armies and the fleet of the Athenians were to be reduced in size.

This attempt at a common peace was rejected by Sparta and Athens. The Thebans did not manage to enthuse other city-states with the agreement either. These two attempts at a common peace under Theban hegemony represent a return to the idea of peace presented in 387 BC: the Persians attempted to use the influence of a Greek hegemonic power to force a common peace. That both attempts, unlike the King's Peace, were rejected is a result of the fact that the Great King had lost power as a peacebroker, as a result of the revolt of Ariobarzanes and other satraps. The most important reason for the course of events, however, may have been the experiences of the Greek cities with Paris after the King's Peace.

The Common Peace of 362
Due to the growing Theban pressure on Athens (such as the seizure of Oropus in 366 BC), the Athenians became hostile once more, especially when actual help from their allies failed to materialise. None of the Greek states were able to gain full dominance in the following years. The conflict arising from the split in the Arkadian League also remained unresolved. This culminated in 362 BC with the Battle of Mantinea, in which the Spartans, Athenians and their allies faced down the Thebans and their allies. After the battle, in which the foremost Theban commander Epaminondas was killed, both sides considered themselves the victors and again concluded a common peace.

For the first time, the agreement was reached neither at the instigation of one of more leading powers, nor as a result of the power of the Persian king. In this and in the refusal of the Greek states to support the Great Satraps' Revolt against the Persian king in Asia Minor, many scholars have seen a positive element. According to this viewpoint, the Greeks had managed to control themselves and establish a peace on their own. The opposing view is that the basis of this new common peace was simply the military and economic exhaustion of all parties, which also made an intervention in Asia Minor completely unthinkable.

The terms of the agreement particularly indicate that they arose from widespread war weariness and a desire to make peace as quickly as possible. They allowed each state to hold whatever they actually possessed at the time when the treaty was concluded. Territorial conflicts were not resolved at all - they no longer even posed an obstacle to agreement. The Arcadian League remained split into a northern and a southern half and the Messenians continued to be independent. Since half the land owned by the Spartans lay within Messenia, they did not accede to this common peace, but they were in no condition to carry on the war.

The Common Peace as the basis of the League of Corinth

After Mantinea, Greek politics continued along the same lines as before. When conflict with the rising power of Philip II of Macedon became more intense in the 350s, the idea of the Common Peace was revived once more. Philip first made the suggestion of replacing the Peace of Philocrates which had ended the Third Sacred War with a common peace. In the next few years, Demosthenes and other advocates of a decidedly anti-Macedonian approach gained preeminence in Athens. They rejected the proposal and called for war against Philip of Macedon. In 340/39 BC, the Athenians successfully brought together an alliance of Greek states, but their forces were decisively defeated by Philip at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC.

The Macedonians reacted harshly only against the Thebans, wishing instead to take advantage of the power of Athens and the other states by means of a league. The treaty establishing this league contained an express ban on interfering in the constitutions of other states by force (essentially an autonomy clause) and general bans on conflict and piracy for the first time, as well as a guarantee of free navigation. Only the Spartans refused to join this league. The other states were to send representatives, who would meet in a synedrion (council). They then entered into a personal alliance with Philip II, making him the Hegemon of the League.

Theoretically, the freedom and autonomy of the Greek state were thus assured. In practice, however, the general ban on conflict marked a striking limitation on independence. In addition, the Macedonians retained garrisons in the Cadmea of Thebes, the Acrocorinth, and at Chalcis - ostensibly to maintain the common peace.

The League of Corinth therefore marked the end of the Common Peace as the foundation for full equality between states and linked the idea of peace strongly with the guarantee of a hegemonic power once more. The alliance and the common peace were interlinked in the league treaty. The Panhellenic idea of a unified Greece and a campaign of vengeance against Persia were enabled by this Common Peace.

Reasons for failure
With 'autonomy and freedom' the Greek states at the beginning of the fourth century found a formula for a inclusive peace system which was acceptable to all sides. After 387 BC no peace was possible without it, even if the individual attempts only held for a few years each. However, the principles of the common peace also found their way into league treaties, such as the Second Athenian Sea League and the League of Corinth. A major opportunity for the development of a true Common Peace lay in the fact that the peace idea proved flexible enough to be developed further in this way.

Scholars like Bengtson take the view that the Greek city states did not have enough time before the establishment of the Macedonian hegemony, to fully adopt the Common Peace as an instrument of peace and as the foundations of a new order in the Greek world. The best chance for an enduring peace on the basis of equality between city states was probably missed with the failure of the Common Peace of 371 BC. Nine years later, after the Battle of Mantinea, a Common Peace was seen only as a compromise solution. The revival of the concept by Philip of Macedon was undertaken only in the interests of Macedonian power, as it had previously been used to support the interests of Persia, Sparta, Athens, and Thebes.

A major aspect of the failure of the Common Peace lay in the formulation of the concept itself, especially the broad interpretation of the autonomy clause. The mutual control of Greek states by one another was only possible at the beginning of the fourth century. The idea that any limitations of the ability to wage war were restrictions on freedom and autonomy made any system of peace almost certain to fail.

The leaders of the city-states were aware that good will alone was not enough to guarantee a Common Peace. Depending on the political situation, they developed mechanisms of enforcement to prevent disturbances of the peace. They gradually came to the conclusion that a common peace on the basis of equal rights for all states was only possible if all participants were to immediately come to the aid of any member of the alliance under attack. This assumed a roughly equal balance of power between the Greek states, which actually only existed for a short period between 375 BC and the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC. Before and after these dates, a Common Peace would only have had a chance if a strong guaranteeing power was prepared to provide military support to the agreement as necessary.

Afterlife
The principles of the Common Peace developed by the Greeks in the fourth century BC, only developed once more in Europe in the 17th century when they became the basis for enduring peace agreements and systems. Thus, the Peace of Westphalia was the first European peace agreement in modern times to be based on principles of the equality of sovereign states and on the inviolability of their internal affairs - that is, on the idea of autonomy. In his work Perpetual Peace of 1795, Immanuel Kant went one step further. He advocated not only the principle of non-intervention, but also called for a Volkerbund (People's league). In order to end the lawless natural situation between states, this would establish a federal relationship between them, in a manner similar to the common peace proposed after the Battle of Leuctra. Kant's ideas were appealed to in the twentieth century by the founders of the League of Nations and the United Nations.

See also
Spartan hegemony
Theban hegemony

References

Bibliography
 Ernst Baltrusch. Symmachie und Spondai. Untersuchungen zum griechischen Völkerrecht der archaischen und klassischen Zeit (8.-5. Jahrhundert v. Chr.) Untersuchungen zur antiken Literatur und Geschichte, vol. 43, edited by Winfried Bühler et al., Walter de Gruyter, New York, Berlin 1994.
 Hermann Bengtson. Griechische Geschichte. Von den Anfängen bis zur römischen Kaiserzeit. Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft. Vol. 3, 4. Munich1977, 1996. .
 Hermann Bengtson (ed.). Die Staatsverträge des Altertums. Bd. 2. Die Verträge der griechisch-römischen Welt von 700 bis 338 v. Chr. Munich/Berlin 1962
 G. L. Cawkwell. "The Common Peace of 366/5 B.C." The Classical Quarterly N.S. 11.1. (1961) pp. 80–86.
 Max Dieckhoff. "Zwei Friedensreden." Kleinere Attische Redner. edited by Anargyros Anastassiou and Dieter Irmer. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1977, pp. 379–391. .
 Victor Ehrenberg. Der Staat der Griechen, 2nd edition, Artemis, Zürich 1965.
 John V.A. Fine. The Ancient Greeks: A critical history (Harvard University Press, 1983)
 Franz Hampl. Die griechischen Staatsverträge des 4. Jahrhunderts vor Christi Geburt. Preisschriften der Fürstlich Jablonowskischen Gesellschaft zu Leipzig. Vol. 54. Leipzig 1938, Rome 1966 (Repr.).
 Martin Jehne. Koine Eirene. Untersuchungen zu den Befriedungs- und Stabilisierungsbemühungen in der griechische Poliswelt des 4. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. Hermes Einzelschrift. Vol. 63. Stuttgart 1994. .
 Immanuel Kant. Zum Ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf, edited by Theodor Valentiner, Philipp Reclam Jun., Stuttgart 1983.
 J.A.O Larsen. Greek Federal States: Their Institutions and History. Oxford University Press, London 1968.
 J.A.O Larsen. "Rezension von T. T. B. Ryder, Koine Eirene." Gnomon 38 (1966) pp. 256–260.
 Thomas Pistorius. Hegemoniestreben und Autonomiesicherung in der griechischen Vertragspolitik klassischer und hellenistischer Zeit. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Series 3. Geschichte und ihre Hilfswissenschaften. Vol. 272. Frankfurt am Main 1985. .
 Timothy T. B. Ryder. Koine Eirene. General Peace and Local Independence in Ancient Greece. Oxford University Press, London 1965.
 Christian Schmidt. Der Dreißigjährige Krieg, C. H. Beck Verlag, München 1995.
 Fritz Taeger. Der Friede von 362/1. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der panhellenischen Bewegung im 4. Jahrhundert. Tübinger Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, Vol. 11. Stuttgart 1930.

Category:Ancient Greek society
Category:4th century BC in Greece
Category:Political philosophy
Category:Peace movements
Category:Foreign policy doctrines
Category:Peace treaties
Category:International law
Category:Ancient Greek law
Category:Military history of ancient Greece
Category:Interstate relations in ancient Greece


Cachoeira (disambiguation)

Cachoeira (Portuguese meaning waterfall) may refer to several places in Brazil:

populated places:
Cachoeira, a city in Bahia state
Cachoeira Alta, Goiás
Cachoeira do Arari, Pará
Cachoeira do Campo, Minas Gerais
Cachoeira Dourada, Goiás, Goiás
Cachoeira Dourada, Minas Gerais, Minas Gerais
Cachoeira de Goiás, Goiás
Cachoeira Grande, Maranhão
Cachoeira dos Índios, Paraíba
Cachoeira de Minas, Minas Gerais
Cachoeira de Pajeú, Minas Gerais
Cachoeira Paulista, São Paulo
Cachoeira do Piriá, Pará
Cachoeira da Prata, Minas Gerais
Cachoeira do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul
Cachoeiras de Macacu, Rio de Janeiro
Cachoeirinha, a neighborhood of Belo Horizonte
Carmo da Cachoeira, Minas Gerais
Nova Cachoeirinha, a neighborhood of Belo Horizonte
São Gabriel da Cachoeira, Amazonas
Três Cachoe, Rio Grande do Sul
rivers:
Cachoeira River (disambiguation), several rivers

See also

Cachoeiras (disambiguation)
Cachoeirinha


Calathea rufibarba

Calathea rufibarba (furry feather or velvet Calathea) is a flowering plant in the Marantaceae family native to Brazil. The plant's common name is due to its fuzzy, fur-like underleaf texture, which is unusual in its genus. Common as a houseplant, the species requires warm temperatures, shade, and humidity to thrive, and may produce small yellow flowers.

References

External links

rufibarba
Category:House plants


Rise of Neville Chamberlain

The early life, business career and political rise of Neville Chamberlain culminated on 28 May 1937, when he was summoned to Buckingham Palace to "kiss hands" and accept the office of Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Chamberlain had long been regarded as Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin's political heir, and when Baldwin announced his retirement, Chamberlain was seen as the only possible successor.

Chamberlain was born in 1869; his father was the politician and future Cabinet minister, Joseph Chamberlain. He was educated at Rugby School and Mason College (now Birmingham University); at neither institution was he particularly successful. After a period in a firm of chartered accountants, the younger Chamberlain spent six years in the Bahamas managing a sisal plantation in a failed attempt to recoup the family fortunes.

After returning to England in 1897, Chamberlain became a successful businessman in his home city of Birmingham. He was interested in social affairs, and successfully stood for Birmingham City Council in 1911. He became Lord Mayor of Birmingham in 1915. His second term was interrupted in December 1916 when Prime Minister David Lloyd George asked him to become Director of National Service. Chamberlain received little support from Lloyd George in the post, and his eight-month tenure sparked a hatred between the two which lasted Chamberlain's lifetime.

In 1918, Chamberlain was elected to the House of Commons, at age 49 the oldest man to enter Parliament and later become Prime Minister. After four years on the backbenches, Chamberlain saw rapid promotion, briefly becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer after less than a year as a minister. Chamberlain subsequently spent five years as Minister of Health, securing the passage of many reforming acts. After two years in opposition, Chamberlain became part of Ramsay MacDonald's National Government, and spent five and a half years as Chancellor, directing Britain's financial policies as the nation emerged from the Depression. When Baldwin (who had replaced MacDonald as Prime Minister in 1935) retired in 1937, Chamberlain succeeded him.

Early life

Chamberlain was born in a house called Southbourne, in the Edgbaston district of Birmingham, England, as the only son of the second marriage of Joseph Chamberlain, who later became Mayor of Birmingham, and who also served as a Cabinet minister. Joseph Chamberlain had fathered two children by his first marriage, Beatrice and Austen. Joseph's first wife, Harriet, died giving birth to Austen; Neville's mother, the former Florence Kenrick, also died in childbirth in 1875, when Neville was six years old. Florence Chamberlain left three daughters in addition to Neville and her stepchildren. Joseph Chamberlain, in the midst of a highly successful parliamentary career, was often away, leaving the household in the hands of his sister. Young Neville was sent away to school at age eight.

Chamberlain attended Rugby School. Unhappy during his school years, he made no lasting friendships there. Although he did reasonably well in his classes, he was not outstanding academically or athletically, and his father withdrew him from the school four months short of his eighteenth birthday. In later years, as Chamberlain rose to the heights of British politics, he seldom visited the school, did not enrol his own son, and rarely spoke of his time there. Joseph Chamberlain then sent Neville to Mason College (which later developed into the University of Birmingham), which both emphasised the politician's connection to Birmingham and catered to the interest in science which Neville had shown at Rugby. Neville Chamberlain studied metallurgy and engineering for two years, but had little interest in the subjects. In 1889 his father apprenticed him to a firm of accountants. Within six months, he became a salaried employee.

Businessman (1890–1911)

Joseph Chamberlain had difficulty living within his means, a problem exacerbated by investment losses in the late 1880s. In 1890, Sir Ambrose Shea, Governor of the Bahamas, advised him that growing sisal in the Bahamas could restore the family fortunes. Joseph Chamberlain sent his two sons to the Bahamas to investigate in November 1890, and they recommended the venture. Neville Chamberlain was assigned to manage the undertaking, and in early 1891, the 22-year-old took out a lease on  on the island of Andros. He spent most of the next six years on Andros. The soil proved to be unsuitable for growing sisal, and the venture failed. Joseph Chamberlain lost £50,000 (approximately £4.2 million today). Neville Chamberlain returned to Britain in early 1897.

Neville Chamberlain resided in his father's Birmingham house, Highbury, a large part of which was shut up to save on expenses. His father and half-brother spent much of their time in London, where they were serving in the Lord Salisbury Government. Through a family connection, Neville Chamberlain was made a director of Elliot's Metal Company, which was located within a mile (1.6 km) of Highbury. Chamberlain took a hands-on approach, exploring all aspects of the business. In November 1897, he purchased (with assistance from his family) Hoskins & Company, a manufacturer of metal ship berths. Chamberlain served as managing director of Hoskins for 17 years, during which time the company prospered. Chamberlain introduced a profit-sharing scheme at Hoskins which he credited with ensuring industrial peace, and opened a medical clinic for the workers. His business acumen raised him in the eyes of his father, who told a friend that of his two sons, "Neville is really the clever one" and but for his lack of interest in politics, "I would back him to be Prime Minister".

Chamberlain's business interests did not completely fill his time, and he indulged his love of natural history and other outdoor pursuits. He spent many Sundays working in the gardens and greenhouses at Highbury. He enjoyed long walks in the countryside, and developed a passion for hunting and fishing. Even as he approached the heights of his political career, he would contribute articles to journals such as The Countryman. In 1931, he stated, "I really can't consent to die until they arrange some fishing in the next world." Chamberlain travelled extensively in Europe and North Africa, made a five-month tour to India, Ceylon and Burma in 1904–05, and according to his biographer, Robert Self, was one of the more travelled Prime Ministers.

Chamberlain also involved himself in civic activities in Birmingham. In 1906, Chamberlain was a founding member of the University House Committee at Birmingham University, the president of which was his aunt, Mrs Charles Beale, wife of the University's first Vice-Chancellor. He became an Official Visitor and then a director of the Birmingham General Hospital. He advocated a larger facility for the hospital, a cause in which he was eventually successful, though building did not commence until 1934 and he was still fundraising as Prime Minister. Stating that he was painfully aware of the defects of his own education, he played a part in the establishment of the University of Birmingham, of which Mason Science College became a part. Joseph Chamberlain became the University's first chancellor; Neville Chamberlain was appointed to its Council and later to its Board of Governors.

Though he declared himself uninterested in politics, Chamberlain supported his father's views loyally. He made speeches in support of British policy towards the Boers and when the Boer War broke out, supported the British war effort. During the "Khaki election" of 1900 he made speeches in support of Joseph Chamberlain's Liberal Unionists, which were allied with the Conservatives and later merged with them. In 1903, Chamberlain fell in love with Rosalind Sellor, a London professional singer, and repeatedly journeyed to the capital to be with her. The following year, she decided she preferred another man, leaving Chamberlain distraught. In 1910, he fell in love with Anne Cole, a distant relative by marriage, and the following year married her. Anne Chamberlain proved to be a loyal supporter of her husband and got along well with his maiden sisters. The two had a son and a daughter, with Neville Chamberlain involving himself deeply in the children's upbringing.

When he became Prime Minister in 1937 Chamberlain paid tribute to his wife:

Early political career (1911–1922)

Birmingham politician

While Chamberlain had continued to give speeches at general elections, his entry into politics at age 42 in 1911 stemmed from interest in local politics and the opportunities they offered for social improvement. In 1910, Chamberlain appeared before a Parliamentary committee, testifying in favour of a bill to merge Birmingham with its suburbs. The bill passed, tripling the size of the city and greatly increasing its population. Chamberlain was very interested in city planning for Birmingham. In November 1911, standing as a Liberal Unionist, he was elected to Birmingham City Council for All Saints' Ward, located within his father's parliamentary constituency. Chamberlain's party merged with the Conservatives the following year, forming the Unionist Party, which was given its present formal name of the Conservative and Unionist Party in 1925.

Upon his election, Chamberlain was made chairman of the Town Planning Committee, which sketched out four development schemes covering  in the city, allowing for suburban development while preserving green space. In 1913, he led a committee looking at housing conditions in Birmingham. It was a forerunner to the parliamentary Unhealthy Areas Committee (1919–21), of which he was chairman. Chamberlain found that over 100,000 housing units lacked toilet facilities, with nearly half of those not even having running water. He advocated gradual reorganisation to abate the problem, and warned that the city government must be ready to take over property if the private sector failed. Under Chamberlain's direction, Birmingham soon adopted one of the first town planning schemes in Britain which would, in time, be mirrored by other large industrial cities such as Liverpool and Leeds. However, the start of war in 1914 prevented implementation of his plans in Birmingham.

With the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, Chamberlain became deeply involved in the war effort. In addition to his duties as councillor, Chamberlain helped recruit men for the Royal Warwickshire Regiment and set up funds for injured soldiers. Late in 1914, he became an alderman of Birmingham, and the following year, became Lord Mayor. Chamberlain's biographer, Robert Self, suggested that as Joseph Chamberlain had died the previous year, the honour was due to Neville Chamberlain's hard work rather than to any family influence. As a Lord Mayor in wartime, Chamberlain had a tremendous burden of work, and he insisted that his councillors and officials work equally hard. He set up crèches for workers, stockpiled coal to be distributed to the poor at cost in time of shortage, and reinvigorated Birmingham's various committees, which were ineffective and engaged in wasteful rivalries. He also chaired the local committee evaluating exemptions from conscription, and stated that he was more lenient than were other members of the tribunal. He halved the Lord Mayor's expense allowance, and cut back on the number of civic functions expected of the incumbent.

Under Chamberlain, the group which became the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra was initiated. The Lord Mayor persuaded Sir Thomas Beecham to conduct a series of events in Birmingham. The concerts caused Birmingham to be regarded as a cultural centre, and in 1919, the Orchestra was formally founded. Chamberlain established the Birmingham Municipal Bank, the only one of its type in the country, which aimed to encourage savings to pay for the war loan. The bank proved highly successful and lasted until 1976, when it was taken over by Lloyds Bank. Chamberlain was re-elected Lord Mayor in 1916, but he did not complete his term.

Director of National Service

Conscription for the Army, but not for civilian industry, had been brought in during the first half of 1916. Towards the end of Asquith's Government in 1916 a Manpower Distribution Board had been set up under Neville's brother Austen, but it had no executive powers. After Edwin Montagu had refused the new position of Director of National Service, as he thought the task of building up a new ministry was beyond him, Chamberlain, who was already nationally known, was proposed for the job by his brother Austen. In December 1916, the new Prime Minister David Lloyd George offered him the job, with responsibility for co-ordinating conscription and ensuring that essential war industries were able to function with sufficient workforces. Though reluctant to leave his post in Birmingham, Chamberlain accepted and resigned as Lord Mayor.

To a great extent Chamberlain's actual responsibilities were left vague by Lloyd George. On his appointment Lloyd George implied in the House of Commons that "compulsion" (the industrial equivalent of conscription) was to be extended to industry and that Chamberlain would soon produce a system of industrial enrolment. But Chamberlain found his work to be handicapped by the Prime Minister's political manoeuvres. As Chamberlain sought to maximise the number of workers subject both to military conscription and compulsion into industry, Lloyd George pledged to the unions that he would oppose any sort of "industrial conscription". Although Chamberlain repeatedly made proposals for mandatory service, they were turned down by Lloyd George and his War Cabinet. The Army still controlled its own recruitment at this stage, whilst Chamberlain met with resistance from the Ministries of Munitions and Labour. Chamberlain's proposal that all men under 21 be drafted from industry into the Army was blocked by Minister of Munitions Addison (19 January 1917), as it would have meant conscripting skilled young men who had already spent time in apprenticeships.

Chamberlain was not made a Privy Councillor. He also spurned advice from Lloyd George about his choice of advisors (apart from James Stevenson from the Ministry of Munitions who was briefly Deputy for Civil Recruiting), instead appointing cronies from Birmingham who were as out of their depth as he was. Chamberlain nearly resigned in June 1917 when, having not been told or consulted, he read in the newspapers that he had been given a new Parliamentary Secretary.

Denied the use of compulsion, Chamberlain had to persuade Britons to volunteer for essential war work, and fit young workers to leave the factories and enter the Army. He had to address mass meetings and issue posters. He found that workers were reluctant to exchange the comforts of home and wartime salaries for the uncertainties of the trenches and a wage of one shilling a day. Chamberlain had little confidence in voluntary schemes and they indeed proved unsuccessful, with only 9,000 workers freed to be drafted into the Army at a time when Britain was sustaining huge casualties.

Chamberlain finally resigned on 8 August 1917. He was thanked warmly by the staff at St Ermin's Hotel where the Ministry was housed. Lloyd George wrote to his family (in Welsh) that "Neville Chamberlain has resigned and thank God for that." He met with considerable sympathy from members of parliament after his resignation. John Dillon, an Irish Nationalist MP, stated that "if Mr. Chamberlain were an archangel, or if he were Hindenburg and Bismarck and all the great men of the world rolled into one, his task would be wholly beyond his powers". Unionist Party leader Bonar Law spoke of the "absolutely impossible task" Chamberlain had faced. Auckland Geddes, Chamberlain's successor, was made a Privy Councillor and had more power and more support from the War Cabinet than he had had.

The relationship between Chamberlain and Lloyd George was thenceforth one of hatred, with Chamberlain calling Lloyd George "that dirty little Welsh Attorney" and being implacably opposed to Lloyd George joining the National Government in the 1930s. Austen Chamberlain, the brother of one opponent and, for a time, the political ally of the other, regretted the enmity, "More's the pity, for together if they were together they might do a great deal." Lloyd George would later paint a most unflattering portrait of Chamberlain in his 1935 War Memoirs, claiming that "Mr Chamberlain is a man of rigid competency. Such men have their uses in conventional times … and are indispensable for filling subordinate posts at all times. But they are lost in an emergency or in creative tasks at any time." HIs dislike of Chamberlain is sometimes said to have been based on phrenology, although little contemporary evidence has been found to confirm this. Lloyd George would also have the last laugh in May 1940, when his speech in the Norway Debate helped bring down Chamberlain's government.

Candidate and backbencher

Having resigned as Director, Chamberlain returned to Birmingham, embittered by his experience in London. He wrote that the experience "reminds me of the Bahamas when the plants didn't grow". He had retained his seat on the City Council and busied himself with his civic duties, as well as his business interests and family life. In February 1918, having declined a third term as Lord Mayor, he was appointed Deputy Mayor.

Chamberlain had formed a close friendship with his cousin, Norman Chamberlain, who had also served on the City Council and who shared the future Prime Minister's social ideals. In December 1917, Norman Chamberlain was reported missing in action during the Battle of Cambrai, and in February 1918, Norman's body was found—a great blow to Neville Chamberlain, who described Norman as "the most intimate friend I had". Through the rest of his career, Neville Chamberlain laboured to further the ideals of his cousin, and wrote his biography—the only book he ever wrote. Some historians relate Norman's death to a hatred of war on his cousin's part which led to appeasement; according to Chamberlain's biographer Nick Smart, the death did not cause Chamberlain to hate World War I, and any influence on his later positions is far from certain.

After some hesitation as to his future career, Chamberlain determined to enter Parliament, though, after his experience with National Service, he feared that he would only have a brief, unsatisfying parliamentary career. Wishing to stand for a Birmingham constituency, he initially had some difficulty in finding one. The Representation of the People Act 1918 gave Birmingham five additional seats, and Chamberlain was adopted as candidate for one of the new seats, Birmingham Ladywood. With the election on hold until the conclusion of the war, he continued his work in Birmingham. Shortly after the Armistice, his sister Beatrice died in the influenza pandemic, and Chamberlain mourned her, "She had the warmest heart."  With the war ended, a general election was called almost immediately. Chamberlain stood as a Unionist (as the Conservative Party was known from 1912 to 1925) and was given the "coupon" or letter of endorsement granted by Coalition party leaders Lloyd George and Bonar Law to approved candidates, though he declined to make any use of it. He was elected with almost 70% of the vote and a majority of 6,833. At age 49, he remains the oldest man to enter Parliament for the first time and later become Prime Minister.

Chamberlain threw himself into Parliamentary work, begrudging the times when he was unable to attend debates and spending much time on committee work. When Austen Chamberlain, Chancellor of the Exchequer in the continued coalition government led by the Liberal Prime Minister, Lloyd George, tried to recruit him to serve on an additional committee, Neville Chamberlain informed his half-brother that he could only serve if it met between midnight and 7:30 am. Chamberlain took time to assure the future of the Birmingham Savings Bank, and Parliament passed an act which removed onerous restrictions from the bank. In March 1920, he was offered a junior post at the Ministry of Health by Bonar Law on behalf of the Prime Minister, but was unwilling to serve under Lloyd George despite Bonar Law's warnings that Chamberlain, now past fifty, might never be offered another chance to serve in government, as Lloyd George was likely to remain premier for a very long time. Chamberlain was offered no further posts during Lloyd George's premiership, and when Bonar Law resigned as party leader, Austen Chamberlain took his place as leader of the Unionists in Parliament.

Unionist backbenchers had long been restive as Lloyd George granted the Liberals in the Coalition more than their proportionate share of offices. In October 1922, discontent among Unionists against the Lloyd George Coalition Government erupted. When Unionist MPs were summoned to the Carlton Club for a meeting to receive their instructions for the forthcoming election, which, as in 1918 was to be fought in coalition with the Lloyd George Liberals, they instead rebelled and voted to fight the election as a single party. Lloyd George resigned as Prime Minister. Most Unionist leaders, including Austen Chamberlain, had supported the Coalition and advocated its continuation. They resigned from their government and party offices, with Austen Chamberlain writing, "The meeting today rejected our advice. Other men who have given other counsels must inherit our burden". Bonar Law was recalled from retirement to lead the Unionists as Prime Minister. Neville Chamberlain was in Canada at the time of the meeting and so was not forced to choose between supporting his brother's leadership and bringing down a Prime Minister he despised.

Minister (1922–1937)

Bonar Law Government; early ministerial office

Many frontbench Unionists refused to serve under Bonar Law, who was forced to form his Cabinet from lower-ranking party members. Liberal MP Winston Churchill, who would lose his seat in the upcoming election, dubbed Bonar Law's ministry "a government of the second eleven". The conflict amongst the Unionists greatly benefited Neville Chamberlain, who rose, over the course of ten months, from backbencher to Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Bonar Law appointed Chamberlain as Postmaster General, a ministerial post below Cabinet level. Bonar Law called an election shortly after his accession, which the Unionists won, and Chamberlain was re-elected, though his prediction that his seat was "safe as houses" proved dubious—his majority was reduced to 2,443. In January 1923, Chamberlain granted the first operating licence to the British Broadcasting Company, though he opposed its request to broadcast the King's Speech setting forth the Government's programme in opening Parliament. Chamberlain feared that allowing the speech to be aired would lead to broadcast of parliamentary debates over the radio, "a prospect which makes one shudder".

Sir Arthur Griffith-Boscawen, the Minister of Health, had lost his seat in the 1922 General Election and failed to win a by-election in March 1923. Housing fell within the remit of the Minister of Health. As Chamberlain had experience in developing housing programmes in Birmingham, Bonar Law offered the Health Ministry, within the Cabinet, to him. Chamberlain was initially reluctant, feeling that he should not leave the Post Office before he "had a chance of doing something there", but decided that "it would not be playing the game" to refuse Bonar Law's request. There was a great shortage of housing in Britain as a result of pent-up demand from the war years, and almost all housing was rent controlled, giving builders little incentive to build more. Any removal of rent restrictions would be wildly unpopular. Chamberlain introduced a Housing Act in April 1923 that provided subsidies for private companies, and extended rent control until 1925. He expected rent control to be gradually abolished as the housing supply increased, but the restrictions remained in force until 1933, when a new scheme was enacted.

In May 1923, Bonar Law was diagnosed with advanced terminal throat cancer. He immediately resigned, and King George V sent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Stanley Baldwin, to form a government. Baldwin served as his own Chancellor for three months while he sought a successor and then promoted Chamberlain to the position. Chamberlain had little time for any policy changes, as he served only five months in the office and did not present a budget. Though the Unionists had an ample majority in the House of Commons and the current Parliament had four years to run, Baldwin decided that a general election was needed and that the Unionists should fight it on the issue of tariff reform. He hoped to gain both a personal mandate as Prime Minister and a policy mandate for his tariff proposals. He miscalculated badly: in the general election held in December 1923 the Unionists remained the largest party in the House of Commons, but were outnumbered by the combined Liberal and Labour MPs. The Baldwin Government retained office until it was defeated when Parliament assembled in January 1924, and Ramsay MacDonald became the first Labour Prime Minister. Chamberlain's majority in Birmingham Ladywood was cut yet again, this time to 1,500 votes.

With the Unionists in opposition, Chamberlain managed to broker a reconciliation between his brother (and the other Coalitionists) and the new leadership, and Austen Chamberlain resumed his place on the front benches. The Labour government fell within months, necessitating another general election. Neville Chamberlain was challenged by Labour candidate Oswald Mosley, who later led the British Union of Fascists. Mosley campaigned aggressively in Ladywood; and accused Chamberlain of being a "landlords' hireling". The outraged Chamberlain demanded that Mosley retract the claim "as a gentleman". Mosley, whom Baldwin described as "a cad and a wrong 'un", refused to retract the allegation. It took several recounts before Chamberlain was declared the winner by 77 votes and Mosley blamed poor weather for the result. Chamberlain had not wanted to desert Ladywood, but now deemed the seat impossible to hold and was adopted for Birmingham Edgbaston for the next election (held in 1929), at which Ladywood fell to Labour by eleven votes. The Unionists won the 1924 election, their last under that name. Baldwin formed a new government, in which Austen was Foreign Secretary and Neville Chamberlain declined to serve again as Chancellor, preferring his former position as Minister of Health.

Minister of Health

Within two weeks of his appointment as Minister of Health, Chamberlain presented the Cabinet with an agenda containing 25 pieces of legislation he hoped to see enacted. Before he left office in 1929, 21 of the 25 had passed into law. An early, very popular piece of legislation was the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925, passed after the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Winston Churchill, had agreed to find whatever money was needed to fund the Act. Churchill, recently returned to the Conservative ranks after nineteen years as a Liberal (1904–23), expressed envy at Chamberlain's receiving the credit for the Act, and the Minister of Health described his colleague as "a man of tremendous drive & vivid imagination but obsessed with the glory of doing something spectacular which should erect monuments to him". The Act lowered the age for receiving the government old age pension from 70 to 65, as well as providing for dependents of deceased workers. Though the pension sum, ten shillings (today about £20) per week, was not enough for a pensioner to make ends meet, Chamberlain stated that it was not intended to replace private thrift and that the sum was the maximum financially feasible.

Chamberlain sought the abolition of the elected Poor Law Boards of Guardians, which administered relief and which in some areas were responsible for setting rates (local property taxes). Many of the Boards were controlled by Labour, and had defied the Government by distributing relief funds to the able-bodied unemployed. Chamberlain's first step in the direction of abolition was the Rating and Valuation Act 1925, which greatly reduced the number of authorities which administered rates, as well as imposing uniform standards for assessment. Despite policy differences Chamberlain continued to work with Churchill, who showed him the manuscript of a volume of his heavily autobiographical The World Crisis. Churchill confided that he would have wished for two more years to revise the manuscript; Chamberlain wrote to his sisters that he could have done the job in two hours—with a pair of scissors.

Though Chamberlain struck a conciliatory note during the 1926 General Strike, in general he had poor relations with the Labour opposition. Future Labour Prime Minister Clement Attlee complained that Chamberlain "always treated us like dirt", and Chamberlain wrote in April 1927, "More and more do I feel an utter contempt for their lamentable stupidity." One Labour MP referred to Chamberlain as "a miniature Mussolini", and others claimed that Chamberlain's policies had allowed entire communities to starve, dubbing him the "Minister of Death". His poor relations with the Labour Party eventually played a major part in his downfall as Prime Minister.

With many mining communities suffering high levels of unemployment following the General Strike, some Poor Law boards granted relief to unemployed workers by misusing provisions intended for exceptional circumstances. These boards used the provisions to give benefits to nearly all applicants. With the system thrown into crisis, Chamberlain sought legislation to permit the Minister of Health to dismiss recalcitrant boards, and later got Parliament to pass further legislation to prescribe criminal penalties to members of such boards. Though no board members were prosecuted, Chamberlain dismissed three boards, replacing their members with his own appointees. Finally, in 1929, Chamberlain brought in legislation to abolish the Poor Law boards entirely, replacing them with bodies appointed by local authorities. Chamberlain spoke in the Commons for two and a half hours on the second reading of the Bill, and when he concluded, he was applauded by all parties. The Local Government Act 1929 passed by an ample majority, and the Morning Post commented that (despite Labour attacks), it had been found to be impossible to make it unpopular.

Return to opposition

Baldwin called a general election for 30 May 1929. Chamberlain expected the Conservatives to triumph easily, and thought he would be moved either to the Exchequer or be asked to serve at the Colonial Office, where Joseph Chamberlain had made his mark. Chamberlain easily won in Edgbaston, which he represented for the rest of his life, but the general election resulted in a hung parliament, with Labour holding the most seats. Baldwin and his Government resigned, and Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald took office.

Chamberlain anticipated that Labour would govern for two years, then seek another general election and be returned for a second term with an overall majority in Parliament. He believed that, were this to occur, at 67 he might well be too old to hold office again when that term expired. With no ministerial responsibilities, he departed on a three-month tour of East Africa, hoping it might be useful were he to serve in future as Colonial Secretary. As the minority Labour Government attempted to grapple with the onset of the Depression, the Conservative Party indulged in a period of internecine warfare, with Baldwin under attack in the Parliamentary Party and in the press for losing the election, and for being too moderate. Chamberlain attempted to mediate between the press lords and Baldwin, only to learn that the newspaper owners had been trying to influence local constituency organisations behind his back. During the leadership crisis, Chamberlain persuaded Conservative Party chairman J.C.C. Davidson to resign to relieve the pressure on Baldwin. Chamberlain took the vacant chair himself.

The campaign by the press lords, notably Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere for "Empire Free Trade", the removal of tariffs within the Empire, culminated in a crucial by-election at which the press lords ran their own candidate under the banner of the United Empire Party. Robert Topping, the General Director at Conservative Central Office, produced a memorandum showing that Baldwin's support had eroded tremendously. Chamberlain confronted Baldwin with the memorandum. Baldwin was badly shaken, and told Chamberlain he would resign. After a day, Baldwin reconsidered, and even considered giving up his seat and standing in the by-election himself. When Chamberlain told Baldwin that if he stood and lost, his successor would be badly damaged, Baldwin replied, "I don't give a damn about my successor, Neville." Chamberlain resigned as party chairman, though he continued as head of the Conservative Research Department, which he had founded, until his death. Baldwin did not stand in the by-election, but he retained his position and attacked the press barons as wanting "power without responsibility, the prerogative of the harlot through the ages", and the Conservatives won the election. Baldwin and Chamberlain healed their breach, and Chamberlain helped negotiate the return of the press lords to the Conservative fold. Baldwin led the Conservative Party for another six years. In January 1931, Churchill, one of Chamberlain's leadership rivals, left the Conservative front bench in a dispute over policy on India.

In 1931, the MacDonald Government faced a serious crisis, as the May Report revealed that the budget was unbalanced, with an expected shortfall of £120 million. As this information became public, there was a run on the pound, depleting the nation's gold reserves. The Labour Party refused to consider the massive cuts in unemployment compensation which would be needed to balance the budget, and Prime Minister MacDonald sought support from outside his party. With Baldwin on holiday in France, Chamberlain negotiated for the Conservatives. Chamberlain told MacDonald that the Conservatives would only join a coalition if the full recommended cuts in unemployment compensation were made. Finally, on 24 August 1931, the Labour Government resigned and MacDonald formed a National Government, supported by most Conservative and Liberal MPs and a minority of the Labour Party. Chamberlain once more returned to the Ministry of Health. The National Government was intended as only a temporary expedient, but governed Britain until Chamberlain's fall in 1940. In the ensuing General Election, the National Government won 554 of the 615 seats in the House of Commons, with 473 of its supporters Conservative MPs.

Chancellor and Conservative heir apparent

After the election, MacDonald wanted to designate Liberal National Walter Runciman, an advocate of free trade, as Chancellor. Conservatives insisted that a member of their party who favoured tariffs be given the office. Reluctantly, MacDonald designated Chamberlain as Chancellor, and Runciman was made President of the Board of Trade. Chamberlain proposed a 10% tariff on foreign goods, with lower or no tariffs on goods from the colonies and the Dominions. Joseph Chamberlain had advocated a similar policy, "Imperial Preference"; his sons found it pleasing and appropriate that Chamberlain could now promote his father's policies, and Sir Austen Chamberlain wrote to his brother in November 1931, "Father's great work will be completed in his children."

The tariff issue bitterly divided the Cabinet, and threatened to end the National Government. The Cabinet accepted a proposal by Lord Hailsham, Secretary of State for War, that they agree publicly to disagree, a rare suspension of the doctrine of Cabinet collective responsibility. Chamberlain prepared his tariff bill, which exempted the Dominions pending the Ottawa Conference, set for later that year. On 4 February 1932, he laid it before the Commons. Addressing a packed House, with the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York and Joseph Chamberlain's third wife in the gallery, and with his brother seated behind him, Chamberlain concluded by referring to his father's inability to get a similar proposal adopted,

At the end of the speech, Sir Austen Chamberlain walked down and shook his brother's hand. The Import Duties Act 1932 passed Parliament easily. The Ottawa Conference that August produced little result, with Chamberlain bringing home several minor bilateral trade agreements, and no general agreement.

In the interim between the Import Duties Act and the Ottawa Conference, Chamberlain presented his first budget, in April 1932. The gold standard had been abandoned in the early days of the National Government; the Bank of England sought its restoration. Chamberlain, on advice from his officials, declined to restore the gold standard, realising that a devalued pound would improve the balance of trade. Otherwise, Chamberlain maintained the severe budget cuts that had been agreed to at the inception of the National Government: Chamberlain cut means-tested benefits and public sector wages, which proved to be an unpopular move. He also cut interest rates, which led to a house-building boom in the south of England and supported plans to clear slums. Interest on the war debt had been a major cost in each budget. Chamberlain was able to reduce the interest rate on most of Britain's war debt from 5% to 3.5%. Between 1932 and 1938, Chamberlain halved the percentage of the budget devoted to payment of interest on the war debt.

Chamberlain hoped that a cancellation of the war debt owed to the United States could be negotiated. In June 1933, Britain hosted the World Monetary and Economic Conference. Describing the event as the "most crucial gathering since Versailles", Time magazine featured Chamberlain on its cover, referring to him as "that mighty mover behind British Cabinet scenes, lean, taciturn, iron-willed ... It is no secret that Scot MacDonald remains Prime Minister by Prime Mover Chamberlain's leave." The Conference came to nothing, when US President Franklin Roosevelt sent word that he would not consider any war debt cancellation. After the US Congress passed the Johnson Act, forbidding loans to nations in default on their debts, Chamberlain felt that Britain could not pay the entire debt, and, as the Act made no distinction between a partial and complete default, the Chancellor entirely suspended Britain's war debt payments to the US.

In 1934, Chamberlain was able to declare a budget surplus, and restore many of the cuts in unemployment compensation and civil servant's salaries he had made after taking office. He told the Commons, "We have now finished the story of Bleak House and are sitting down this afternoon to enjoy the first chapter of Great Expectations." With MacDonald in physical and mental decline and Conservative Party leader Baldwin exhibiting ever greater lethargy, Chamberlain increasingly became the workhorse of the National Government.

Defence spending had been heavily cut in Chamberlain's early budgets. By 1935, faced with a resurgent Germany under Hitler's leadership, he was convinced of the need for rearmament, and was the driving force behind Defence White Papers advocating rearmament in 1936 and 1937. Chamberlain especially urged the strengthening of the Royal Air Force, realising that Britain's traditional bulwark, the English Channel, was no defence against air power. Rearmament was an unpopular policy in Britain, and Labour attacked Chamberlain as a warmonger. Labour leader and Leader of the Opposition Clement Attlee spoke against the 1936 Budget as tremendously overspending on defence: "Everything was devoted to piling up the instruments of death." Churchill also criticised the National Government's defence plans, though he called for an even faster buildup. Despite the sniping from both sides, Chamberlain was very concerned about the expense of rearmament, "What a frightful bill we do owe to Master Hitler, damn him! If it only wasn't for Germany, we should be having such a wonderful time just now."

In 1935, MacDonald stood down as Prime Minister, taking Baldwin's post as Lord President of the Council, and Baldwin became Prime Minister for the third time. Chamberlain remained at the Treasury, almost the only Cabinet member not to be moved in the subsequent reshuffle. Chamberlain was still spoken of as 'heir apparent', but feared being eclipsed by a younger man. To be seen more as the second man of the Government, he insisted on moving into Number 11 Downing Street, the Chancellor's traditional residence, which had been occupied by Baldwin during MacDonald's premiership. Baldwin indicated his desire to remain in office until his 70th birthday in August 1937, but Chamberlain doubted he would last that long. In the 1935 General Election, the Conservative-dominated National Government lost 90 seats from the massive majority of 1931, but still retained an overwhelming majority of 255 in the House of Commons. During the campaign, Deputy Labour Leader Arthur Greenwood attacked Chamberlain for spending money on re-armament, stating that the re-armament policy was "the merest scaremongering, disgraceful in a statesman of Mr. Chamberlain's responsible position, to suggest that more millions of money needed to be spent on armaments".

In January 1936, Edward VIII became king on the death of his father, George V. Chamberlain supported Baldwin's stance that King Edward must abdicate if he wished to marry the woman he loved, Wallis Warfield Simpson, a divorcee. After the conclusion of the Abdication Crisis, Baldwin announced that he would remain until shortly after the Coronation of King Edward's successor George VI. King George was crowned on 12 May 1937; Baldwin resigned on 28 May, advising the King to send for Chamberlain. Sir Austen did not live to see his brother's final "climb ... to the top of the greasy pole", having died two months earlier.

Appraisal

Polemics such as Guilty Men, which helped demolish Chamberlain's reputation for his foreign policy as premier, also touched on his record as minister. These books blamed the National Government, in which Chamberlain had taken a leading role, for a failure to rearm. Historian David Dutton suggested in his book on Chamberlain that the damage to his reputation, both as Prime Minister and as a Cabinet minister, could have been contained had the Conservative Party defended his policies, but for 23 years after Chamberlain's death, the party leaders (Churchill, Anthony Eden, and Harold Macmillan) had made reputations as opponents of appeasement, and who were little minded to defend Chamberlain's record as a minister. The Labour landslide in the 1945 General Election cemented this inclination, with Macmillan stating that it was not "Churchill who had brought the Conservative party so low. On the contrary it was the recent history of the Party, with its pre-war record of unemployment and its failure to preserve peace."

The adoption of policies using Keynesian economics led to other criticisms of Chamberlain's ministerial record. Popular wisdom then held that governments could keep unemployment at a low level through spending. Chamberlain's acceptance of unemployment as an inevitable part of the business cycle was seen as outdated. In 1958, as Prime Minister, Macmillan described a report advocating limits on public investment as "a very bad paper. Indeed a disgraceful paper. It might have been written by Mr. Neville Chamberlain's Government."

In 1961, a controversial biography of Chamberlain by Conservative Party chairman Iain Macleod defended Chamberlain's ministerial record. Macleod pointed out that Chamberlain had been a "most valiant" champion of rearmament as Chancellor as early as 1934, but that little was done. According to Time magazine, Macleod saw Chamberlain as a "humanitarian industrialist, [a] progressive Lord Mayor of Birmingham and a dedicated Minister of Health who was damned as a 'Tory socialist'[.] Chamberlain had worked tirelessly in the '20s and '30s for the 'noble and fascinating ideal' of fashioning a better life for Britain's workingman."

The 1960s and 1970s saw a further reassessment of Chamberlain as a Cabinet minister. Historians such as A. J. P. Taylor pointed out that while the 1930s were a decade of misery for some, for most Britons, it was a time of rising living-standards, with unemployment concentrated in only a few regions of the country. As economists and historians came to question the assumption that the National Government could have spent its way out of unemployment, Chamberlain's tenure as Chancellor was to an extent rehabilitated. American social historian Bentley Gilbert stated that Chamberlain was "the most successful social reformer in the seventeen years between 1922 and 1939 ... after 1922 no one else is really of any significance." According to Taylor, writing in 1965, Chamberlain did more to improve local government while serving as Health Minister than did anyone else in the 20th century.

In the 1980s Margaret Thatcher instituted economic policies reminiscent of Chamberlain's as Chancellor—control of inflation (even at the expense of unemployment), minimisation of budget deficits, and low rates of direct taxation. This was a point not lost on the Labour Party, and the Trades Union Congress adopted a slogan of "Forwards to the Eighties not Backwards to the Thirties". Thatcher's critics denigrated both her policies and those of the 1930s in such comparisons, but she did not care to defend those of the 1930s. Thatcher stated that the historical justifications for her economic positions were the policies of the Victorian era.

Dutton, who traced the progress of Chamberlain's reputation through the years, wrote in 2001 that Chamberlain's accomplishments at the Ministry of Health were "considerable achievements by any standards" and stated that they should not be seen in isolation, but as part of "the authentic Chamberlain, a man who was throughout his life on the progressive left of the Conservative party, a committed believer in social progress and in the power of government at both the national and local level, to do good." Five years later, Chamberlain biographer Graham Macklin quoted Dutton in noting the eclipse of Chamberlain's earlier accomplishments by his later policy of appeasement:

Parliamentary election results

Notes

Explanatory notes

Citations

References

Books

Journals

Online sources

  (RPI equivalents)

External links

 University of Birmingham Special Collections The political papers of Neville Chamberlain

Chamberlain, Neville
Early Life And Career
Category:19th century in the United Kingdom
Category:20th century in the United Kingdom
Category:20th century in politics
Chamberlain, Neville


Ulysse Diallo

Ulysse Diallo (born 26 October 1992) is a Malian professional footballer who play for Sabah in the Azerbaijan Premier League.

Career
Diallo was born in Bamako, Mali.

After impressing for Ferencvárosi TC during a five-week trial, Diallo signed with them on 24 July 2013. After one season with Ferencváros, Diallo had his contract terminated by mutual consent at the beginning of June 2013, going on to sign a two-year contract with F.C. Arouca later in the same month.

In January 2015, Diallo joined Azerbaijan Premier League team Gabala FK on trial.

On 2 February 2015, Diallo signed a six-month-deal with Académica. In late June, Diallo went on trial with Russian Football National League side FC Tosno appearing and scoring on a friendly against Spartak Moscow II.

On 3 July 2015, Diallo signed a three-year-deal with Marítimo.

On 2 august 2019, Diallo signed a two-year contract with Azerbaijan Premier League side Sabah FC.

Club statistics
Updated to games played as of 7 November 2014.

Honours and achievements

Individual
Awards

 Lebanese Football League Team of the Season: 2012–13

References

External links

MLSZ

Category:1992 births
Category:Living people
Category:Sportspeople from Brazzaville
Category:Malian footballers
Category:Association football forwards
Category:Ferencvárosi TC footballers
Category:F.C. Arouca players
Category:Associação Académica de Coimbra – O.A.F. players
Category:C.S. Marítimo players
Category:Mezőkövesdi SE footballers
Category:Puskás Akadémia FC players
Category:MTK Budapest FC players
Category:Sabah FC players
Category:Primeira Liga players
Category:Nemzeti Bajnokság I players
Category:Azerbaijan Premier League players
Category:Malian expatriate footballers
Category:Expatriate footballers in Lebanon
Category:Expatriate footballers in Hungary
Category:Expatriate footballers in Portugal
Category:Expatriate footballers in Azerbaijan
Category:Malian expatriate sportspeople in Lebanon
Category:Malian expatriate sportspeople in Hungary
Category:Sportspeople from Bamako


Ocran, Virginia

Ocran is an unincorporated community in Lancaster County in the U. S. state of Virginia.

References

Category:Unincorporated communities in Virginia
Category:Unincorporated communities in Lancaster County, Virginia


Dieudonné Kossi

Dieudonné Kossi (born 10 March 1961) is a Central African Republic boxer. He competed in the men's lightweight event at the 1984 Summer Olympics.

References

Category:1961 births
Category:Living people
Category:Central African Republic male boxers
Category:Olympic boxers of the Central African Republic
Category:Boxers at the 1984 Summer Olympics
Category:Place of birth missing (living people)


Evanston Park, South Australia

Evanston Park is a northern suburb of Adelaide, South Australia. It is on the southeastern side of Gawler. It is on the eastern side of Main North Road and Adelaide Road extending north from near the intersection with Gawler Bypass Road.

Governance
The majority of Evanston Park is in the Town of Gawler, straddling the boundary so that the eastern portion of the suburb is in the City of Playford. For the 2014 state election, the western part of Evanston Park was in the state electoral district of Light and the area east of Bentley Road was in the electoral district of Napier. For the 2018 election, the entire suburb will be in Light.

References

Category:Suburbs of Adelaide


Wine Museum, Ehnen

The Wine Museum (Musée du Vin), located in Ehnen on the Luxembourg side of the Moselle, illustrates the art of wine-making with exhibits of traditional vintner's tools and bottling equipment together with old documents and photographs. The property was acquired by the state in 1974 and opened as a museum in 1978. It occupies the home of a former vintner with winemaking antiques and furnishings.

The museum
Standing close to the banks of the river, the 18th-century house belonged to the prosperous Wellenstein family. The premises also house a cooperage showing how barrels were made, a large wine press, a smithy and the former Ehnen office of weights and measures. The museum exhibits demonstrate the process of wine-making from growing the grapes to bottling the wine. Many of the items in the museum have been donated by local vintners. There is also a small vinyard with all the local grape varieties. As these grapes are grown on government land, the wine made from them is served at official functions such as embassy dinners.

The museum is open from April through October, and is one of the main sites of the annual Riesling Open wine festival.

See also
 List of museums in Luxembourg

References

Category:Museums in Luxembourg
Category:Tourist attractions in Luxembourg
Category:Luxembourg wine
Category:Convention centres in Luxembourg
Category:Wine museums
Category:Museums established in 1978


Brachylinga

Brachylinga is a genus of stiletto flies in the family Therevidae. There are at least 20 described species in Brachylinga.

Species
These 28 species belong to the genus Brachylinga:

 Brachylinga albifrons Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga albiseta (Malloch, 1932) c g
 Brachylinga antennata (Krober, 1911) c
 Brachylinga attenuata Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga baccata (Coquillett, 1893) i c g
 Brachylinga bicolor Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga chilensis (Macquart, 1840) c g
 Brachylinga cinerea (Cole, 1923) i c g
 Brachylinga clausa (Kroeber, 1929) c g
 Brachylinga concava Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga curacaoensis Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga divaricata Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga fraterna (Krober, 1911) c g
 Brachylinga laculata Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga mexicana Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga mimica Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga morata (Coquillett, 1893) i c g
 Brachylinga obscura (Coquillett, 1893) i
 Brachylinga ornata (Krober, 1911) c g
 Brachylinga ornatifrons (Krober, 1911) c
 Brachylinga pavida (Coquillett, 1893) i c g b
 Brachylinga pilosa (Krober, 1914) i g
 Brachylinga punctifrons (Kroeber, 1914) c g
 Brachylinga sericeifrons (Krober, 1928) c g
 Brachylinga squamosa (Hardy, 1943) i
 Brachylinga tepocae (Cole, 1923) i c g
 Brachylinga tridentata Webb, 2006 c g
 Brachylinga xanthoperna Irwin & Webb, 1992 c g

Data sources: i = ITIS, c = Catalogue of Life, g = GBIF, b = Bugguide.net

References

Further reading

Category:Therevidae
Category:Articles created by Qbugbot
Category:Asilomorpha genera


Takracetus

Takracetus was a primitive cetacean that lived approximately . The type specimen (GSP-UM 3041) is a partial skull though the literature mentions a second more complete specimen.

Notes

References

Category:Protocetidae
Category:Prehistoric cetacean genera
Category:Fossil taxa described in 1995
Category:Extinct mammals of Asia


MobiCom

MobiCom may refer to:

 MobiCom, the International Conference on Mobile Computing and Networking
 Mobicom Corporation, a mobile phone network in Mongolia


Pycnopsyche scabripennis

Pycnopsyche scabripennis, the giant red sedge, is a species of northern caddisfly in the family Limnephilidae.

References

Category:Integripalpia
Category:Articles created by Qbugbot
Category:Insects described in 1842


Tom R. Tyler

Tom R. Tyler (born March 3, 1950) is a professor of psychology and law at Yale Law School, known for his contributions to understanding why people obey the law.  A 2012 review article on procedural justice by Anthony Bottoms and Justice Tankebe noted that, "Unquestionably the dominant theoretical approach to legitimacy within these disciplines is that of 'procedural justice,' based especially on the work of Tom Tyler.".  Professor Tyler has been at New York University since 1997;  in January 2012, he joined the faculty at Yale.

Tyler is the author or co-author of 9 books and an editor for 6 others.  His widely cited 1990 book on Why People Obey the Law was republished in 2006 with a new afterword discussing more recent research and changes in his thinking since its initial publication.

Tyler and Huo (2002) is based on surveys of people in different ethnic groups to understand their concepts of justice.  They found that minority African-Americans and Hispanics have essentially the same concept of justice as majority whites but different experiences.  They describe two alternative strategies for effective law enforcement:

 Deterrence:  effective but inefficient
 Process-based:  efficient and effective

The difference in efficiency follows, because people who perceive that they may be victimized unfairly by law enforcement are less likely to cooperate.  Tyler and Huo's analyses suggests that biased, unprofessional behavior of police, prosecutors and judges not only produces concerns of injustice, it cripples law enforcement efforts by making it more difficult for police and prosecutors to obtain the evidence needed to convict guilty parties.

Tyler and Blader (2000) discussed procedural justice and cooperative behavior and how they impact the performance of more general groups through their effect on social identity and cooperative behavior.

References

Notes

Category:Yale Law School faculty
Category:Living people
Category:1950 births
Category:American social psychologists
Category:People from Columbus, Ohio
Category:Columbia University alumni
Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni


Taenarum (town)

Taenarum or Tainaron (Ταίναρον) or Taenarus or Tainaros (Ταίναρος) was a town of ancient Laconia, situated at the distance of 40 stadia, or , north of the isthmus of the Taenarian Peninsula (modern day Cape Matapan). A cavern near Tenarus was considered the entrance to the Greek underworld, through which Heracles dragged Cerberus in his 12th labor, and also through which Orpheus led Eurydice back among the living. Through this association the infernal world was often styled "Tenarus" among classicist writers.

Taenarum was famous for a green marble much prized in the ancient world, as well as the purple snail that yielded the prized Lacedaemonian Purple dye. It was also famous for valuable marble (), known for its red and black elements.

Taenarum, was also the seat of a bishop; no longer a resident see, it remains a titular see, suffragan of Corinth, in the Roman Catholic Church.

Its site is located near the modern Tainaron.

References

Category:Populated places in ancient Laconia
Category:Former populated places in Greece
Category:Locations in Greek mythology
Category:Catholic titular sees in Europe


Ericeia brunneistriga

Ericeia brunneistriga is a moth in the  family Erebidae. It is found in New Guinea.

References

Category:Moths described in 1906
Category:Ericeia