Bond between Abram Quackenboss of Dumphries to the Honourable William Dickson of Galt

Bond (1 page, printed) between Abram Quackenboss of Dumphries to the Honourable William Dickson of Galt for 400 pounds, Oct. 27, 1836.

Agreement (1 page, handwritten note) stating that William Barker of Oxford paid for the broken lots no. 21 and 22 and in the 3rd concession in the County of Oxford

Agreement (1 page, handwritten note) stating that William Barker of Oxford paid for the broken lots no. 21 and 22 and in the 3rd concession in the County of Oxford of Reverend Harris’ land, Nov. 7, 1831.

Letter to J.P. Bradley from William Harmon of Bytown

Letter to J.P. Bradley from William Harmon of Bytown regarding money due from a timber sale, Sept. 25, 1847.

Probate (vellum) of Last Will and Testament of Hervey William Price of Welland who died Jan. 27, 1875

Probate (vellum) of Last Will and Testament of Hervey William Price of Welland who died Jan. 27, 1875. It is proven that the administration of the estate was granted to Joseph Augustus Woodruff, Aug. 19, 1880.

A national security strategy for England: Matthew Sutcliffe, the Earl of Essex, and the Cadiz Expedition of 1596

The English cleric Matthew Sutcliffe arguably produced the first comprehensive security concept in history. It had at its centre the war between England and Spain (1585-1604), and Sutcliffe advocated taking the war to the Iberian Peninsula to seize Philip II's main Atlantic ports, rather than remaining satisfied with the indirect combat of Spain in Flanders, defensive action against naval attacks on England and the guerre de course on Spanish shipping at sea. This approach seems to be at the heart of Essex's 1596 naval campaing against Spanish ports, which foundered on the bureaucratic politics of the Elizabethan government.

Earl of Aylesford v Morris (1873)

A Characteristic of a landmark case is that it stands for a proposition of law. In Earl of Aylesford v Morris,1 Lord Selborne held that where there existed an inequality between contracting parties, with weakness on one side and an extortionate advantage taken of that weakness on the other, the contract could not stand unless the party claiming the benefit of the contract could rebut the presumption by establishing that the transaction was ‘fair, just and reasonable’. This chapter examines the historical circumstances behind the formulation of this proposition.