- Software name: appdown
- Software type: Microsoft Framwork
- size: 499MB
Those princes that did bring men into the field, such as the Hessians, Brunswickers, etc.the Menschen-Ver?ufer, or man-sellers, as they were styled by their own peoplewere rapacious beyond example. During the American war we had employed these Hessians, Brunswickers, and the like, at a cost that excited general indignation. Besides paying seven pounds ten shillings and a penny for every man, the Duke of Brunswick, who furnished only four thousand and eighty-four men, had had an annual subsidy of fifteen thousand five hundred and nineteen pounds. The Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, who furnished twelve thousand men, had ten thousand two hundred and eighty-one pounds a year.
The number of Railway Acts passed during the first half of the century was more than 1,000; and the sums which Parliament authorised the various companies to expend in the construction of railways from 1826 to 1849 amounted to the enormous total of 348,012,188, the yearly average being 14,500,508. The Liverpool and Manchester Company was the first that contemplated the conveyance of passengers, which, however, was regarded as a sort of subsidiary traffic, that might produce some 20,000 a year, the main reliance being on the conveyance of raw cotton, manufactured goods, coals, and cattle. It need not be remarked how widely the result differed from their anticipation. The receipts from passengers in 1840 amounted to 343,910, and it was estimated that the saving to the public on that line alone was nearly a quarter of a million annually. But as yet the system was in its infancy, though the broad gauge had been introduced by Brunel in 1833. 1675-1682.
various points along the river, especially at Les
 Frontenac au Roi, 2 Nov., 1672; Ibid., 13 Nov., 1673; Harangue du Comte de Frontenac en l'Assemble Quebec; Prestations de Serment, 23 Oct., 1672; Rglement de Police fait par Monsieur le Comte de Frontenac; Colbert Frontenac, 13 Juin, 1673.The Ministry had, as a matter of course, been much weakened by the retirement of Lord Grey; but, having got through the Session, it might have survived to the next meeting of Parliament but for the death of Earl Spencer, which occurred on the 10th of Novemberan event which removed Lord Althorp to the House of Peers. It was supposed that this would lead only to a fresh modification of the Cabinet, by a redistribution of places. For example, Lord John Russell was to succeed Lord Althorp as the leader of the House of Commons. Lord Melbourne's Administration seemed to be quietly acquiesced in, as sufficient for a time; the nation evidently assuming that, in any case, a Liberal Government was the necessary consequence of a reformed Parliament. The public were therefore startled when it was announced on the 15th that the king had dismissed his Ministers. It appeared that Lord Melbourne had waited upon his Majesty at Brighton, on the 14th, to take his commands as to the new arrangements he was about to make. But the king said he considered that Government dissolved by the removal of Lord Althorp; that he did not approve of the intended construction of the Cabinet; that Lord John Russell would make "a wretched figure" as leader of the House, and that Abercromby and Spring-Rice were worse than Russell; that he did not approve of their intended measure with regard to the Irish Church; and concluded by informing Lord Melbourne that he would not impose upon him the task of completing the Ministerial arrangements, but would send for the Duke of Wellington.
Another action was brought by Stockdale; the printers were directed to plead the privilege of the House. The Court gave judgment against the plea, and damages were afterwards assessed, which the House of Commons ordered the Messrs. Hansard to pay. On the 31st of July those gentlemen again communicated to the House that similar legal proceedings were threatened by Mr. Polac, on account of alleged defamatory matter in a Parliamentary Report on the state of New Zealand. The House of Commons passed another resolution, reaffirming its privilege, and directing Hansard not to take any defence to the threatened action, which, however, was not proceeded with. But Stockdale, on the 26th of August, 1839, commenced a third action for the publication of the report, which continued to be sold. The printers then served him with formal notice of the resolutions of the House and of their intention not to plead. Stockdale, notwithstanding, on the 26th of October filed a declaration in the said action, wherein the damages were laid at 50,000; and on the 1st of November interlocutory judgment was signed for want of a plea. On the 2nd of November notice was served that a writ of inquiry of damages would be executed before the Sheriff of Middlesex on the 12th of the same month. The writ of inquiry was accordingly executed, when the sheriff's jury assessed the damages at 600; the consequence of which was that the sheriff took possession of the printing-office, premises, and stock-in-trade of the printers of the House of Commons. But he was placed in a dilemma with regard to the sale, which was ultimately prevented by the amount of damages being paid into the sheriff's office on the night previous. On the 16th of January following, Lord John Russell presented a petition from the Messrs. Hansard, which recited the facts of the case, and prayed for such relief as, in the circumstances, the House might think fit. The course which Lord John recommended was, that the persons who had violated the privileges of the House should be summoned to their bar. He therefore moved that Stockdale, with Burton Howard, his attorney, William Evans, the sheriff, the under-sheriff, and the deputy-under-sheriff, be summoned to the bar of the House. There was a long discussion on the legality of the course to be pursued. The motion was carried by a majority of 119. On the 17th of January, therefore, Stockdale was called to the bar, and interrogated by the Attorney-General as to the facts of the different actions. The House then resolved that Stockdale should be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms. It was also resolved that the sheriffs should be called to the bar. They were accordingly brought in by the Serjeant-at-Arms, dressed in their scarlet robes. On the 21st of January they petitioned the House, expressing their sorrow for having incurred its displeasure, and stated that they believed that they had only done their duty towards their Sovereign and the Queen's Bench, whose sworn officers they were. They prayed, therefore, that they might not be amerced or imprisoned. Lord John Russell moved that the sheriffs, having been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, should be committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, which was carried by a majority of 101. The same course was adopted with regard to Mr. Howard, the attorney, who was called in and reprimanded by the Speaker.[See larger version]