The Sun.
London, England, 1817-10-20 00:00:00

iYhohail addressed -yon. You ate to judge from
the evidence applied to the case according to the
law 'Of the case as laid down by the beat aathori-
ties. .Impartiitil ''S7 lit:your d'utv, and it is a duty
whictil am confident, von will exercise. If you
think the evidenCe affords 'proof of •-•t11,.... crime
charged, you will find the prisoner guilty. If, on
the other hand, you find the evidence insufficient,
you will "acquit-the prisoner ; and•ittlrat-shonld be
the result,-.none can rijoice more than I, assured
as I ant that you %s ill judge accortliitg4o, the evi-
dence. The first count in the indictment charges
She prisoner With levying war against the King.
It is very important for you to understand whack
meant by levying war._ The expression is clear,
yet it 'applies to diverse meanings: I i•eill now
state to you the law as clearly established in re--
feren.ce to t case before you. The words of-the
Statute 25 Edwaid 111. arc, " If a•man levy war
against our Lord the King in his realm." The
•explanation of this law, which I have here, is short
and clear; I therefore read it to you rather than
give an explanation in any words of my 0wn......
If there be an insurrection, a large rising'of the
people in order by force and violence to accom-
plish or revenge,-not any private object or private
quarrel oft heir own, but an object of a general na-
ture,-that is-a levying war against the King."—
From my experience of the administration of jus.-
tice, from the decisions of Courts, and from the au-
thority of Sir lltitthew Hale, Judge Foster, and•
Lord Coke, I can affirm that this is -a clear and
correct explanation of the terms of thestatate.—
Private tumults are not a levying of war. If the
object be only a private one, whatever may be its
character otherwise, it is not a levying of war. To
destroy a private enclosure is not levying war
against the King; to destroy all enclosures is a
levying of war. If the object be to pull down a
chapel, Or an offensive building, it is not a levy-
ing of war ; it it be to destroy all chapels, or all
offensivehnildingsi it is alevying of war. There
must, thent- be- an instirrection or . large rising;
force and violence .mint be used ; it •must be far a
general object. That there was an insurrection
is clear ; it is also clear that force and violence
were-used. ,It Is your province to say whether
the object was general or private; whether the

insurrection was only the effect of privatelnprels,
of wild„ violent, . and riotous tu:link, or whether
the object was to alter the measurespf Government,
and to destroy the laws of the country,. lf,l have
Made myself intelligible to yut►, you ca►,linve no
►difficulty in understanding the nature of your duty.
The ot er counts of the indictment are founded upon
the 3Gt h of the King. 'f'd e question for you to

deferwine is, whether any of the three charges is
proved by the evidence which I now detail to you.

The evidence is all on One side, and most of the
witnesses were not even cross-examined ; vet at•
tempts were made, very properly, in the speeches
of the Counsel, to fix imputations on the credit of
the evidence. It is for you to judge whether such
attempts were successful. The Learned Judge
then read the evidence. very fully. kle remarked,

that the atrocious murder which took placie.,was
not. treason ; but it was for Orem
,to .say, what
was the object of such atrocious conduct.—Ele
at last concluded a charge of two hours thus :
This, Geuticmen, is:the evidence. That: there
was an insurrection. is clear ; that there was a
large rising, .and that more were to join in Not-
tingham Forest, is quite clear. It is equally clear
that lase' persons assembled thus • were armed.—
There- was, then, force and violence. Was this
violent and . forcible.rising calculated to accom-
plish any private object, or to revenge any private
quarrel ; or was it calculated or intended to alter
the Government, and to bring about a revolution ?

The low situation in life of the persons engaged
in this insurrection is no excuse. A crime is not
less a crime because the criminal is poor. If there
could be no E►rospect of success, that is no excuse ;
because the crime consists in the intention, and
not in the adequacy of the means. The question
for you is, was the rising calculated to alter the
Government, to overturn the laws, and to cause
a revolution ? You have tl►e evidence before you,
and-it 'says, that it was declared, froth_ time ,to
time, that there could be no good-WittiOat an
overturn of the Government, that the Parliament
must be pulled down, and similar expressions.—
If you believe this evidence, you- are bound by
the oath, you have taken to find the prisoner
guilty. If, on the other hand, you can lay your
hands ou your hearts and believe and are satisfied

that the object was private or personal, then you
will not find him guilty. lam persuaded you will
give every attention, and exercise the most perfect
intregity. All consequences that may result you
are to lease entirely out of view, and to regard
only strict justice, and a just verdict according to
the law, in the face of God and your country. •
The Jury retired, and in twenty minutes re-
.

tinned with a verdict, finding Jeremiah Brandreth
Guilty of High Treason, and that he had.no funds
or tenements, . goods or chattels when the crime
was -committed. The 'Court was ekcestively
crowded, and the most profound silence prevk'dled
while the verdict was given in and recorded.
The .prisoner seemed quite unmoved, and even
indiflerent.

The CHIEF BARON asked the Attorney-General
whether lie could say it was probable that any
other trial could be gone through to-day, as
otherwise it would be a hareship for the Jury to
be confined during the Sunday.
The ATTORNEY-GBNRRAL conceived, that it
was even impossible to finish any other trial this
day, and proposed, with Mr. Cross's consent, to
adjourn till Monday. Mr. Caoss assented. -
All the Jurors were ordered to continue in at-
tendance.—Adjourned at. half past ten to eight

on Monday morning.
[The issue of Broutireth's Trial is now known .;
yet we should not even still have pubAslielipy of
the intermediate proceedings, had their publica-
tion rested with us originally. The speech, how-
ever, of the AfTORNEY-GENERAL, and the sum-
mit% up of the CHIEF BARON, having already gone
forth to the public, we rigidly confine ourselves. to
presenting a more faithful Iteport of them.]--
(The Tatues)

I~'i liven Turner is the next person that will be

When the Court adiOurned, the prisoner was
left in the custody of Ur. Eaton and a few lave-