- Software name: appdown
- Software type: Microsoft Framwork
- size: 173MB
are not necessarily exclusive.ahead and not see anybody else?
in handsome mourning for her brother who died yesterday of spotted fever.'Judy
An unhappy difference in principle of the most fundamental character occurred between Kossuth and G?rgei at this time, which brought ruin on the Hungarian cause, now on the verge of complete success. Kossuth was for complete independence; his rival for the maintenance of the Hapsburg monarchy. Kossuth, however, had taken his course before consulting G?rgeia fact that embittered the spirit of the latter. The Hungarian Assembly, at his suggestion, had voted the independence of Hungary (April 19, 1849), with the deposition and banishment for ever of the House of Hapsburg Lorraine. After this declaration the Hungarian forces increased rapidly. The highest hopes still pervaded the nation. They gained several advantages over the enemy, having now in the field 150,000 men. Field-Marshal Welden, the Austrian Commander-in-Chief, dispirited and broken down in health, resigned the command, and was succeeded by the infamous Haynauthe "woman-flogger." But the fate of Hungary was decided by Russian intervention actuated by the fear of the Czar lest the movement should spread to Poland. Hungary would have successfully defended itself against Austria; but when the latter's beaten armies were aided by 120,000 Muscovites under Paskievitch, their most famous general, coming fresh into the field, success was no longer possible, and the cause was utterly hopeless. On the 31st of July, 1849, Luders, having effected a junction with Puchner, attacked Bem, and completely defeated him. On the 13th of August G?rgei was surrounded at Vilagos, and surrendered to the Russian general Rudiger. The war was over with the capitulation of Comorn.Another ground of attack upon the Government at the opening of the Session was their conduct in not bringing up Mr. O'Connell for judgment. It was alleged that they had entered into a corrupt compromise with the great Irish agitator, in order to avert his hostility and secure his support at the elections. This was indignantly denied both by Mr. Stanley and Lord Plunket. They contended that as the Act expired with the Parliament, so did the conviction, and that Mr. O'Connell could not be legally punished. This was the opinion of the law officers of the Crown in Ireland, an opinion in which the English law officers concurred. Mr. Stanley said:"Not only was there no collusion or compromise, but I should have been most glad if Mr. O'Connell could have been brought up for judgment; but then we have been told that we ought not to have dissolved Parliament, because by so doing Mr. O'Connell had escaped. Now, no man can be more sensible than I am of the importance of showing to the people of Ireland that if Mr. O'Connell chooses to go beyond the law, he is not above the law; but, without meaning the slightest disrespect to Mr. O'Connell, I must say that if I put on the one hand the success of a great and important measure like the Reform Bill, and on the other the confinement of Mr. O'Connell in his Majesty's gaol of Kilmainham for three, six, or nine months, I must say that what became of Mr. O'Connell was as dust in the balance. Besides, the impression of the supremacy of the law was made upon the people by the fact of the verdict having been obtained against him, and an immediate change was wrought in the system of agitation, which, indeed, ceased. Such being the case, the question of what might be the personal consequences to any individual by the dissolution became of still less importance than it was before."
PS. I've just had an awful thought. Have you a butler? I'm afraid
Master Jervie and that editor man were right; you are most convincing