The Sun.
London, England, 1825-01-13 00:00:00

NEW COURT.

(Berre the COMMON SERGEANT.)
Benjamin Wo fe, an elderly man, was indicted for receiving
17 yards of woollen cloth and 24 silk shawls, the property of
Zochariah Langley and others, his partners, the prisoner well
knowing the same to have been stolen, and for which offence
two persons were tried and convicted at the last Sessions.
Mr. BRODERICK, who conducted the prosecution, rose and
informed the Jury, that in this case he had no evidence to-
adduce against the prisoner, and consequently he was entitled
to his discharge. The Jury instantly pronounced him Not
Guilty.
Martha Baker was indicted for stealing two sheets and a
pair of boots, value 205., from the house of Mrs. Hannah
Hall, May's-buildings, St. Martin's-lane, on the 20th Decem-
ber last. The prosecutrix not appearing when called, the
Common Sergeant ordered the prisoner to be discharged, and
the prosecutrix's recognizances to be estreated.
(Before the RECORDER.)
STEALING IN A DWELLING-BOESE.—Thomas Laish-
ington, a young man, stood indicted for stealing a silver watch,
ribbbn, and key, value 205., the property of Mr. Robert Sun-.
man, on the 12th November last. it appeared from the evi-
dence that the prisoner had gone into the prosecutor's house in
Warwick-row, Pimlico, and informed his wife that he and his
master had just arrived in town; their washerwoman being dead
he intended to recommend her to wash for them; he begged at
the same time to dry his stockings at the fire, to which she readily
agreed, but he had only remained there a few minutes before he
left the room, slamming the door after him. Mrs. Simmon
instanly missed the watch, and pursued the prisoner; the
watch was afterwards found near the spot. The Recorder
summed up the evidence, and the Jury found the prisoner

THE LONDON JOURNALS.

DAILY
Extracts from the Morning Papers, Jan. 13, 18,25.

[MORNING POST.]
We are quite at a loss to conceive what ra-
tional objection France or the Holy Alliance can
take to our conduct towards South America. As
to any right in the case, either derived from the
law or practice of nations, no European Power,
and least of all the French Cabinet, can pretend
to such. Upon what pretext, pray, did the Go-
vernment of Louis XVI 11. invade Spain, and put
down the Constitutional System in that ill-fated
country ? Was it for the mere maintenance of
abstract legitimacy, or the " monarchical prin-
ciple?" If so, why not commence a crusade
against South America, aye, North America too,
as well as against the Peninsula ? There were no
institutions established on the south of the Pyre—
nets so hostile to the views of the Holy Alliance
as those on the other side of the Atlantic. A
more tangible and legal excuse was therefore
made for that outrage, and the only excuse, in
point of fact, which could avail for attacking an
Independent State. The interest of France for-
sooth—its peace and safety were compromised by
the conduct of its neighbour—by the circum-
stances which followed the adoption of the Spa-
nish Constitution. This was the alleged ground
of war, and could we or any other third party
presume to be better judges of the interest of
France than the Government of France? What-
ever our own opinions might be on the subject
—whatever our own wishes—whatever our own
conviction of the results of the enterprise—
enless we felt that the interest of England
would be better consulted by openly and hos-
tilely joining the lists with Spain against its
invaders, we had no option after the failure of
mediation, but to remain neutral. The latter
course we honourably pursued, and we now say,
that if wisdom, policy, and a desire to preserve
amity with the Continent, induced us to observe
strict neutrality in that instance, the same mo-
tives ought to govern.Frauce with regard to our
recognition of South America, and ensure at
least its neutrality. Can the nicest casuist imagine
it possible to show that France is as much inte-
rested in preventing this Government from enter-
ing into commercial treaties with Colombia,
Mexico, &c. as England was in preventing the
invasion and occupation of Spain by a French
army ? And next, can the most brazen-faced
partizan dare to affirm that the interest of France
dictated its conduct towards the Peninsula, in
any thing like the degree which the interest of
Britain—its profound and universal interest—
dictates the establishment of friendly relations
with the new States of America ? In neither
respect is there room to run a parallel. All our
negociations with the Court of Madrid to avert
this step having proved abortive, but two alter-
natives remained to the British Ministry, the
one, to sacrifice the trade, capital, and rights of
the people of England to the stupid pride of the
beloved Ferdinand—the other, to let him reap
the bitter fruits of his impotent obstinacy, and
secure the most vital constituents of our own
welfare and power, by treating with the compe-
tent Authorities we find established in the New
World. Could tie hesitate which to choose ?
There was, indeed, one precedent of an opposite
nature which we might have followed—the pre-
sent King of Spain has certainly, during his
whole reign, committed one continued act of felo
de se against his own character, the dignity of his
station, and the freedom, independence, honour,
and interest of his country. But such an ex-
ample, however edifying, the Head and Govern-
ment of this empire must be excused from follow-
ing. Towards Ferdinand, and towards the
world, we always have acted, and always shall
act, with generous magnanimity ; but it is rather
tdo much to suppose that the People of England
should be made a stalking horse to that or any
Monarch's idiotic perversity. The die is now
cast, and we are prepared to stand the hazard.
We have not voluntarily injured or interfered
with the rights of the Peninsula ; but we have
been compelled by events to assert our own
rights in preference to the silly groundless pre-
tensions of any Stale.