The Sun.
London, England, 1836-05-02 00:00:00

TIE SUN, A)N. MONDAY, MAY 2, ISA.

that the explanations of the Marshal will reconcile the partizans
of economy and those of the national honour.
The Committee will-hear 4l ars,h44 Cjza- isel.ow Monday.
(From the iburnal da Cirnitherm)',.
It seems that the causes and the object of the V:sit ~r our
Princes to Germany have bceil very much misunderstood, and
that instead of such family alliances, nothing more is intended
than to give a certain degree .of'autholity to the repeated
falsehoods of the disarming of PruAlit: -and Austria. M. de
Talleyrand, it is said, is the author of titelirst note delivered
to the Cabinet of Berlin, on this subject. - -SeGerding to this
note, " public opinion goes betray in suppositions of ill-will
towards France and its dignity,.which it would be wise to put
an end to. The presence of thelrench Princes at the Court
of Berlin and at the Grand Reviews would be a guarantee of
the good understanding between the two Powers, and would
convince the most incredulous of the sincerity of the promises
of disarming, &c. &c." This theme, varied with some other
commercial and English considerations, has furnished matter
for the negotiations relative to the journey of the Dukes of
Orleans and Nemours. Prussia has acceded to these over-
tures, and Prince Talleyrand has been despatched to Vienna,
with some communications for Prince Metteruich. There has
been no question whatever of a marriage. The itinerary of
the journey has been laid down, so as not to give any pretext
for difficulties founded on etiquette. The Princes will proceed
direct to Berlin through the Rhenish provinces, passing only
through the Prussian territory. From Berlin they will go to
Vienna through Silesia ; afterwards to Milan through the
Tyrol ; after a stay of ten days, during which they will visit the
site of the great battles of the Republic, they will go to Turin.
—lllessayer, April 30.

German Papers of the latest dates have been re-
ceived. They take notice of some differences between
the French Government and the Swiss Directory re-
acting the Press of Berne, which is, however, of no
km rtance. Prussia is about to follow the example of
Au trig, by disbanding a considerable number of her
trooios.

,
rl/4-5.-41. vices from Persia to the 11th of December, ran-.
noiMce the arrival of the Right Hon. H. ELIA-8--at
Teheran about the middle of October. He was re-
ceived with great kindness by the SHAH, who was
prodigal of his expressions of gratitude to the King
of ENGLAND, for the assistance rendered him by the
British Government. Nevertheless Russia had con-
trived to cast almost insurmountable difficulties in the
way of a commercial treaty between Persia and this
country. The SHAH was alarmed on account of the
silk trade, and appeared determined to encourage the
domestic manufactures of his subjects by that most
short-sighted of all schemes—the prohibitive system.
The emissaries of Russia had pointed to their own
country as an example of what such a system was
capable of achieving, and had secretly offered the
SHAH any assistance that he might require in order to
repel the growing influence of England. Thus,
wherever we move, we are met by Russian intrigues
for the destruction of our commerce. Much of this
may be attributed to perpetual vacillations in our
Foreign policy.

SHIPPING.-(THIS DAY.)

(FROM LLOYD'S.)

DEAL, APRIL 30.2—Wind N.N.E. MAY I.—Wind N. E.
strong.—Arrived the Hero, Gibson, and Ann, White, from
Belfast. Arrived from the river and sailed, the Harriett,
Andrews, for Trinidad ; Earl Grey, Robinson, for Liverpool ;
Hercules, Wilson, for Cork ; Hirondelle, Dare, for Rouen ;
Lady K. Barham, Freeman, for Jamaica ; and Betsey, Jury,
for Constantinople. Yesterday about noon, the brig Endeavour,
Price, of Liverpool, from Hartlepool to Newhaven, coal laden,
ran on shore on Margate sand, but was assisted off after
throwing part of the cargo overboard, by the Deal boatmen,
aad brought into the ➢owns this morning. She has pro-
ceeded on her voyage.
DOVER, MAY I.—Arrived off port the Nautilus, Martin,
from Sierra Leone; and Trerine, Carrikson, from Messina.
DART3IOIITII, MAY I.—Arrived Somerset, Cleft, Cadiz.
GUERNSEY, APRIL 30.—Arrived the Dolphin, Lanfesty,
from Havre.

LIVERPOOL, APRIL 30.—Arrived the Expedition, Krousse,
from Danzig ; Dido, Newnet, and Augusta, Semki, Rostock.
WATERFORD, APRIL 29.—Arrived the Clonmel, Davies,
and Flora, Povey, from London.
Coax, APRIL 29.—Arrived the Hero of Malone, brundy,
from Bombay, sailed Dec. 17, and from St. Helena, March 17.
Off port, the Enchantress, Black, from Savannah.
PORTSMOUTH, APRIL 30.—Wind N. to N.E.
Sailed the Ceres, Klom, for Norway; and James Punnan,
Goodchild, for Richebucto.
PLYMOUTH, APRIL 29 and 30.—Wind N.—Sailed the John
Craig, --, for Savannah ; and Caroline, Irvine, for Quebec.

BRIDLINGTON, APRIL 29.—A vessel is in distress about ten
miles off this plain ; water above the cabin deck; cargo, bark
and rape cakes, much damaged. Crew taken to their boats.

The Sir Bourchier Wray, Wadley, from Newfoundland, ar-
rived at Dartmouth, lealy.
The Betsey Cocker, from Exeter, has arrived at
Dartmouth, with ionsiderable damage and leaky, bound to
Liverpool.

KING'S BENCR.--(THIS DAY.)

IPS IN IC il ELECTION.

This being the day appointed for bringing up for judgment
the persons whom the Attorney-General bad been directed by
the House of Commons to prosecute, for bribery at the last
election for the borow,li of Ipswich, and who had pleaded
guilty, the Court was unusually crowded.
At the sitting of the Court. the ATTORNEY- GENERAL rose
and said, it was his duty to pray the judgment of the Court
uiion Edward Bolton Finch, who had suirin-ed judgment to go
by defanit, on an indictment charging him with bribery at the
last Ipswich election.
The affidavit of Wm. Cohabit was then gut in and read,
setting forth the facts of the case, as to a sum of 71. baying
been paid by the defendant, on condition that he would vote for
Messrs. Fitzroy Kelly and R.. A. Dundas.
The affidavit of the defendant, Edward Bolton Finch, was
then read, expressing his regret at having, through zeal for the
interests of the party whose cause he espoused, been led to give
a bribe, and stating that at the time he had done so lie was not
aware of the serious consequences of such an act.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL said it %vas now his duty to pre-
sent tile defendant for the judgment of the Court. The peti-
tion against the return of Messrs. Kelly and Dundas had been
referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons,:who
had made a Report, and on the consideration of that Report
the Attorney-General bad been directed to prosecute these
who by that Report appeared to have been guilty of bribery at
that election. A clear case of bribery had been established
against the defendant, and he had pleaded guilty to it, and
now stood before their Lordships for judgment. It was there-
fore unnecessary for him (the Attorney-General) to do more
than present him for the judgment of the Court. He had
confessed his guilt, and it was impossible to deny that it was a
case of very gross bribery.
Mr. Ricumins then addressed the Court in mitigation of
punishment.' The low tone in which the Learned Gentleman
spoke rendered it impossible for us to catch his observations
distinctly. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the charge,
as the only compensation he could make to the offended laws
of his country. Whether the charge could have been brought
home to him, had he held out, was not now the question. He
•(Mr. Richards) had been instructed on behalf of the defendant
to express his sincere regret at having been led into the com•
mission of that offence for which he now stood before their
Lordships. When the Court came to apportion the punishment,
he was sure it would recollect that the defendant moved but in a
very humble walk of life; and almost all knew from experience
what the excitement of a contested election was, and that it was
difficult even for those in better circumstances,.and who moved
in a higher sphere, to resist its influence, or keep themselves
cool. For these feelings of excitement he was certain their
Lordships would make every allowance, and that however clear
the case might be as the election had now passed away, and
was no longer anything but matter of history, the slightest
punishment would suffice as an atonement. He trusted their
Lordships would, as the defendant had acknowledged his guilt,
and thrown himself entirely on the mercy of the Court, temper
justice with mercy in the present i"stance.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL sugg6sl3:l that it might be better
for the Court to postpone its judgrra; until the other defen-
dants were before it. Ile then pt' 4 that John Berry
Dacent be brought up for judgrrient.
The affidavit of Robert Bird, relative annum of 51. having
been paid him by the defendant, to vote .1 lessrs. Kelly and
Dundas, although he had, after receiving, 'money, voted for
the other candidates, Messrs. Wason anti Morrison, having
been read,
Sir F. POLLOCK, on behalf of the defendant, applied to the
Court for time to answer the allegations in the affidavits.
The ATTORNETXENEREL had no objection to give any
reasonable time.

Sir F. PoLLocK was desirous of putting the Court more
fully in possession of the facts of the case.
Lord DENMAN—What time do you require?
Sir F. POLLOCK—Such time as the circumstances may re-
quire.
Lord DENMAN—We don't know what the circumstances are.
It may be half an hour.
Sir F. Fou.ocK—Will your Lordships allow the case to
stand over till Thursday ?
Lord DEN➢tAN—You are the best judge of what will be re-
quired, but the fact of bribery having been admitted, I don't
see what good it can do. If there were any aggravating cir-
cumstances, you might require time.
Sir F. PoLLocK, after conferring with the defendant, said
he would not trespass on the indulgence of the Court.
The affidavit of the defendant, who is a barrister-at-law, was
then read. He acknowledged the offence, and pleaded that it
had been done at a moment of great excitement, and also that
he had already suffered a long imprisonment in Ncwgate for
an offence arising out of the same circumstances.
The affidavits of two Members of the select Committee of
the House of Commons, and several barristers and private gen-
tlemen, friends of the defendants, were also read.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was very painful for him
to present for the judgment of the Court a gentleman of his
own profession, who seemed to enjoy the respect and regard
of those with whom he associated, but he had no choice in the
discharge of his duty to the public. Considerinv, the rank
and profession of the defendant, and the probability that his
example might influence others he left it to the Court to pro-
nounce such a sentence as would meet the justice of the case.
Sir F. PoLLocx. addressed the Court in mitigation. The
defendant having pleaded guilty, had in that given the
first proof of his regret and sorrow for the offence he had com-
mitted, but he had voluntarily come before the Committee of
the House of Commons, and offered every reparation in his
power, by making a full and distinct disclosure of all the cir-
cumstances connected with the transaction. The result of
these proceedings was, that the defendant had been sent to
prison by order of the House of Commons, and had suffered an
imprisonment unparalleled in the annals of Parliament for
such offences,

Lord DENMAN—Does it appear on the affidavits what time
he was imprisoned
Sir F. Pouocx—No, my Lord, they speak of it as a lengthened
imprisonment. There was one observation which he wished
to press upon their Lordships. The offence had not been the
result of any premeditated system of bribery—it had been done
in the excitement of the moment ; and, lookinc, at the affida-
vits, it would seem as if Bird had been instigated by some of
the other party to make the defendant the victim of a deep laid
scheme, to entrap him into an act of bribery, which, in his
cooler moments, no person could more deeply regret. He
was grzteful to his Learned Friend the Attorney-General for
not having pressed any circumstances of aggravation on the
Court. The defendant now submitted himself to the merciful
consideration of their Lordships.
Mr. AUSTEN followed on the same side.
Lord DENMAN again inquired as to the term of the defen-
dant's imprisonment ?
Mr. AUSTEN understood it was four weeks.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt it necessary to say, that that
imprisonment had no connection with the present offence.
Sir F. PouocK contended that it arose altogether out of it.
John Pilgrim and Arthur Bott Cooke were then called up,
on the application of the Attorney-General, to receive judg-
ment.
The affidavits of George Cunnew, John Pilgrim, Philip
Barnes, and Samuel Garnett, were read in support of the
information ; and on the part of the plaintiffs the affidavits of
the following person's were read, viz., that of A. B. Cooke
himself, of W. Roper, Edward Bacon, James Bass, Rev. J.
Kitchen, John Cobham, J. W. Porter, H. Osborne, Daniel
Shepherd, John Donegan, Jonathan Wasp, Jeremiah Shel-
drake, Thomas Briscoe, and several others.
Mr. ALEXANDER, who appeared as Counsel for A. B. Cooke,
said that it appeared to him to be impossible for the Court to
do justice towards the defendants, if time were not given them
to answer the affidavits that had been read in support of this
information. These affidavits bore very hard upon the de-
fendant.

Lord DENMAN—It did not follow that because an affidavit
bore hard upon a party that he should have time to answer it.
Mr. ALEXANDER withdrew his application.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, had but a very few more words to
address to the Court in this case. It appeared to him that
the attention of the Court ought to be confined to the parti-
cular offence charged upon this information, and the circum-
stances attending it. Of course, therefore, their attention
would be confined to the single instance of the bribe given by
W. Cooke, as appeared by his own hand-writing. In this
case the solicitation came from COoke himself, and also the
offer. He agreed to give a sum of 201. to a voter on condi-
tion that he should vote for the two candidates whose
interests he supported, and this sum was received by the
voter. This voter certainly voted for the candidates in the
opposite interest, and he subscribed the amount of the bribe
to the support of their cause. It must be acknowledged, in a
moral point of view, that this was no mitigation of the offence,
and be could not see that its injurious consequences were in
the slightest degree altered. Cooke acknowledged, that
though he received no remuneration himself, he was engaged
in this systematic plan of bribery. But the fact of his re-
ceiving no remuneration, did not, as he before stated, alter
the case. With these observations, he would conclude. Th.e
Learned Gentleman spoke in so low a tone, and dropped his
so completely at the close of each sentence, that it is
impossible to give an accurate report of what he said.)
Mr. ALEXANDER had the honour to appear as counseli A n this
transactions for Mr. Cooke, and it was, therefore, his duty to
offer those topics, which, in his opinion, rendered this case in
some degree deserving of mitigation. He would not either in
this case, or in any other, attempt to deprecate severe punish-
ment, unless extenuating, circumstances could beshown in sup-
port of it. His case, collecting it from the various affidavits
before the Court, presented innumerable topics for observation.
He was not sure that he would discharge his duty by abstaining
from mentioning some of those which presented them-
selves to his mind. No man could have observed
what had passed since the January of. last year, without en-
tertaining a strong opinion of the circumstances which had
brought this case before the Court.i After, however, the ad-
dress of the Attorney-General, n which be abstained from
making any observations except what bore strictly upon the
case, he (Mr. Alexander) would limit the observations lie had
to address the Court to the purpose of obtaining a mitigation
of punishment. The affidavit of Pilgrim, which had been
read, introduced circumstances in contradiction of those state-
ments by Mr. Cooke. The defendant (Cook) very naturally
wished for a further opportunity of laying before the Court the
real facts of the case—no one could blame him for that anx-
iety. If it appeared that parts of the affidavits that had been
introduced were directly at variance with parts of the affidavits
introduced not only by Cooke, but with the other introduced
after the apology Pilgrim made for his mis-statements be-
fore the Committee of the House of Commons, it would
incline the Court to give the balance to what was stated by
Cooke. • How did he represent it to stand? He was an ac-
tive zealous partizan of the cause which he supported—he
naturally felt very strongly Is here an opportunity was offered
of serving that cause, and without recollecting what might be

the consequence; to himself, his natural anxiety led hint to do
all he could. I;ut there was a great lift:: once byt,, nen a
party actin, nraitir these eircamsta:ices, awls (ie where there
were no miti!ratin.r eircumstances. 'I here was only one eh ai.ge
a4ainst Cooke—in the whole history of this caic Unit' cane
single fact appeared against him, and on that single occasion he
was not the tempter—he was applied to. The tempter appeared
not in person before the Court, hut in one who escaped this
ordeal—in Cannew, whose affidavit was first read. Was Con-
new or Cooke right? The balance of evidence was certainly in
favour of Cooke, for the affidavit of Cunnew himself proved
that he made enquiry after Cooke. Did not this justify the
situation in which Cooke had placed himself, of a man applied
to far the parpose of confessing an illegal transaction ? Was
the same measure to be dealt to him as tl-.e tempted, as if he
had been the tempter ?—especially at a moment of time when
the election was drawing to a close—when the critical moment
had arrived which was to decide in favour of one party or the
other ? It also appeared that Cooke was far from being an
experienced election agent—it appeared that this was the first
time be had been engaged in such a business, and that he was
perfectly inexperienced and ignorant of the statutory conse-
quence that followed upon what he was led into. It also ap-
pared that there were not one, but two or three interviews,
before the bribe was given by Cooke.
Lord DENMAN—Did this appear to he the only transaction ?
Mr. ALEXANDER—No other transaction was charged against
him.

Lord DENMAN--But it did not appear previously?
Mr. ALEXANDER—It did not ; but the only charge brought
against Cooke was the charge in question. ylt was manifest
that Cunnew laid a plan in order to betray the other party ;
his intention was to induce some one of the party to offer a
bribe, and then to betray him. Ile did not use this topic to
extenuate the offence, but only to show that Cunnew had im-
posed upon and deceived Cooke, who now appeared before the
Court as the person tempted. He was aware of the value at-
tached to character in cases of this description. He would
not therefore make any general observations ; but if he were
not mistaken, there were about 30 affidavits of persons in
the Church, and of various professions, all deposing to the
good character of Mr. Cooke, taking it up from the time lie
left school to the moment when lie was before the Court.
This, he was sure, would have due weight with the Court.
There was another which he was sure would have effect with
the Court. This person had already suffered by Ilia miscon-
duct. He had been compelled to leave the country. He
had been confined to his bed, from sickness, for
the period of seven or eight weeks, `and had been put
to great expense during that time. The business on which
he entirely depended was at a stand still, and, in addition,
what must have been his mental sufferings, and his deep con-
trition at the error into which he had been led, and from which
he had every reason to apprehend very heavy consequences.
He had also been in prison, though for what length of time did
not appear, but the fact appeared that he had been in prison in
connection with this offence, and on all these grounds he hoped
that the Court would deal as leniently with him as they could.
Mr. PALMER appeared for Pilgrim. He was in hopes that
the Counsel for Cooke would not have thought it necessary to
make the observations with respect to Pilgrim he had done.
He had called him a practised briber. Now, how he could
justly have done that, he could not say ; for that charge was
not to be found in any portion of the evidence. Mr. Pilgrim
thought it his duty to obey his employers ; and in what he Inia
done he had only followed their desires. The parties, there-
fore, for whom he had committed, deserved, and they alone,
the full vengeance of the law. It was true that his client
had gone abroad to avoid the Speaker's warrant ; but he
had ultimately returned to the country, and surrendered
himself; he was then only imprisoned for a short time, because
the House felt that there were alleviating circumstances in his
case, and that it had purified itself by getting rid of two
Members who had sat there by bribery and corruption. He
submitted flint his client stood in the situation of a man equi-
tably entitled to the benefit of the statute against bribery, for
upon his evidence Mr. Kelly and Mr. Dundas were unseated.
The Court would recollect, too, that two years had not elapsed
since this act of bribery had been committed, and the friendly
warrant that was taken out against him might now be turned
into a deadly weapon to his injury. His client was
not the tempter, for he merely delivered the parcels
which he had been ordered to deliver by his employers. Now,
With respect to the fraudulent charges that had been made
against the defendants, the Court would recollect that two
Assizes had passed by, and no conviction of those charges had
taken place. In conclusion, he trusted the Court would
temper its judgment with mercy—that it would take into
its consideration this unfortunate man's wife and children,
for whom he had hoped to have gained a competence; that
competence, however, he was afraid was now taken from them.
He had sworn that he had taken no reward for what he had
done, and would not take any. He put his case confidently
to the consideration of the Court, and waited its judgment
with becoming humility.
After the Judges had consulted together for some time,
Mr. Justice LITTLEDALE gave judgment. The Learned
Judge after going shortly through the facts of the case sen-
tenced William Bolton Finch to four months imprisonment
in the Marshalsea ; John Berry Dacent to be imprisoned in
the same prison for two months, and pay a fine of 100/. to the
King : John Pilgrim to be imprisoned for six, and Arthur
Bolt Cook for four Calendar months.

The defendants then withdrew in the custody of the Mar-
shall of the Marshalsea.

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

WAITE V. WTLDE.

This was a bill filed by a Mrs. Waite against the trustees
under her marriage settlement, her husband, her children, and
the assignees of her husband, who had become insolvent.
Under a settlement dated the 14th December, 1819, made
upon the marriage of the plaintiff with her husband Dr.
Waite, all moneys and other personal estate whatsoever to
which the plaintiff was entitled, and which she, or her husband
in her right might be entitled to, under the wills of Ezekiel
Nash and Martha Parry, together with a certain policy of in-
surance on the life of Dr. Waite, which was then subsisting
in the National Life Insurance-office, the trustees were to
take and lay out in the Funds, to be settled to the separate
use of the plaintiff, with remainder to her husband, with re-
mainder to her children
.there was also a covenant in the
settlement to keep up the insurance. By another deed of the
same date, made between the husband and the trustees, it was
covenanted that if the policy of insurance for 5,000/. which he
had entered into should be forfeited, or if the policy expired,
the trustees should renew it, and the Rectory stand charged
with the premium. The marriage took place immediately after
the settlement, and the trustees subsequently received under
the wills of Ezekiel Nash and Martha Parry, sums which
they invested in the purchase of 1,8811. stock. The policies
of insurance having expired about two years after the mar-
riage, the trustees commenced an action against the husband
to compel him to enter into a new insurance. In conse-
quence of this proceeding he male another insurance in the
Economic Office, which he assigned to the trustess. The
trustees sold out part of the 1,8811. to pay the premium,
and some dividends which were also due to the plaintiff and
in arrear, and they, getting into great difficulties in conse-
quence of tile embarrassments of the husband, the second
insurance was also suffered to expire. In all these proceed-
ings which have taken place, the trustees have incurred con-
siderable costs; which had been paid out of the trust pro-
perty. Under these circumstances the Bill prayed for an ac-
count of the property received by the trustees, and of the money
which had been misapplied.
It was agreed that an enquiry should be directed to ascer-
tain what had been received by the Trustees under the two
deeds—whether it would be for the benefit of the children, they
being made defendants, that any and what proceedings, should
now be taken for the recovery of the profits of the Rectory,
and whether any, and what proceedings, should be taken for
the purpose of substituting another policy, with liberty to state
special circumstances. _

Mr. BEANIES and Mr. Musno appeared for the plaintiff.
Mr. KINDERSLEY and Mr. Coo Pen for the Trustees.

Mr. WILLIAM EAGLE for the Assignees.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.

(THIS DAY.)

BIRD V. GROCOTT.

Mr. SIMPKINSON applied in this case ex parte, for an in-
junction to restrain the defendant from getting in any money
belonging to the partnership, from drawing any Bills in its
name, and from all interference in the affairs of the partner-
ship. The short facts of the case, as marked on the bill, were
these :—Prior to the year 1832, the plaintiff carried on the
profession of a solicitor at Liverpool ; in 1832 he agreed to
take into partnership a gentleman of the name of Docker and
the defendant, Mr. Grocott. Upon that occasion a deed was
executed by all the parties, on the 23d of April, by which they
agreed to carry on in partnership the profession of solici-
tors for seven years, in the premises previously occu-
pied by the plaintiff, who was to have nine. twelfths
of the profits of the business. Mr. Docker was to have two-
twelfths, and the defendant, Mr. Grocott, was to have the
remaining twelfth. The plaintiff was .to find the money for
carrying on the business, and was to receive all the monies
due to the partnership. The plaintiff was to be at liberty to
devote some of his time to certain speculations, but Mr. Doc-
ker and the defendant were to devote their whole time to the
business. In 1833 the partnership was dissolved with respect
to Mr. Docker, and it was then agreed between the plaintiff*
and defendant that each should take one of the two twelfths
belonging to Docker. At that period an account was made
out by the defendant, by which it appeared he was indebted
to the partnership. Since then he had received monies on the
account of the partnership, and threatened the plaintiff to re-
ceive further sums. Under these circumstances the present
injunction was applied for.
The COURT immediately granted the injunction.

The Duke of Portland has left Harcourt House,
to embark for Lisbon at Falmouth.
CARLOW PETITION EXPENSES.—The amount of
expenses incurred by Government in the investigation into the
Carlow affair was 1221. 10s., being the travelling expenses of,
and allowance for subsistence to, tour witnesses summo.:ed be-
fore the Committee. •
LORD BROUGLIAIII.—We hear from a gentleman
who has recently passed some time at Brougham Hall, that
Lord Broughani's health has so much improved as to justify
the most sanguine hopes of his ultimate and complete reco-
very, though it is not, we believe, his Lordship's intention to
resume public business during the present session of Par-
iament.—Leedg Mercury.
His Serene Highness Prince John of Lichtenstein
died on the evening of the 20th of April, at Vienna, of the
effects of the apoplectic fit which he had lately. It is said that
the Archduke Charles,-the Illustrious Companion in Arms of
the deceased Prince, has off:red to atteed the funeral as chief
mourner.