The Sun.
London, England, 1820-03-27 00:00:00

and not in concert with the others, they were not liable to be
indicted for a conspiracy. If it should appear that the par-
ties could not possibly act as they did without some previous
conspiracy, that circumstance would implicate them in one
cusanom plan. If they should think that those who formed the
meeting of the 16th August could not come together as they did
without arms—with a regular step, and to a given time and
place—if they could not think these circumstances were acci-
dental, then they must be viewed as evidence of some previous
plan ; but if they should be of opinion that these things might
happen without any previous concert, then the idea of a pre-
emicerted plan was to be dismissed. That what had taken
place might have occurred without previous concert was ob-
vious enough. Some might have hews marching to the meeting
in a particular way, and these being heard of on their road,
might induce others'to come to the place of 'meeting in the
saute form. He stated this to show that the mere conformity
of circumstances did not necessarily imply any previous plan.
It would he for ilieJuryonly to connect those with the alleged
conspiracy who assisted at its formation, or who, apprized of
it after its formation, thought proper• to come into it. They
were to consider how it affected each of the defendants.
They might be of opinion that our of these defendants alone
had conspired with other persons, who were not included in
the indictment ; and in that case that. one defendant they could
find guilty, and him alone. This was the law as it affected
the CON spiracy with which the defendants were in this in-
stance charged. In diocese of holding an illegal assembly they
would not stand exactly on the same footing. Twelve per-
sons might he found guilty of illegally, assembling, though
nu previous concert could be established between them.—
In the case of riotous meetings or illegal drillings, those only
could be criminally connected with them who took part in
them, or who knowing that they were going on, wilfully at-
tended them, and gave them their countenance. On the
question whether the meeting of the 16th of August was or
was riot calculated to inspire terror, they would find a great
deal -of evidence furnished on the part of the ; rosecution
went to show that no immediate danger waste beapprehended.
It would, at the same time be remarked, that some of the
great objects of the defendants appeared to have been to
keep the peace at that particular period, with a view, as bad
been alleged, of producing a stronger imyressiun at anoe
tiler time. Having made these preliminary remarks, his
Lordship proceeded.—Having read over the evidence of the
first witness, he remarked to the Jury, that if it we re their
wish that he should do so, he would go thrhugh the whole of
the evidence, though this would occupy much of their• time,
on matters that were net of great importance.—No answer
tieing returned, he proceeded with the summing up.—He re-
marked as he proceeded, that the numbers assemb led on the
l6th of August were sufficiently great to do considerable
mischief, if immediate mischief were intended. The persons
assembled could not be held answerable fur the inscriptions
on the banners, unless they had in some way acted in con-
formity to them., Testimony had been offered as to the reli-
gious character of Moorhouse ; and from the circumstance
of his having been accompanied to the meeting of the ltith
August by Isis wife, who was then in the family way, it
was to be inferred, that so far as be was concerned no im-
mediate mischief was in contemplation. The marching in
military step could not he brought against the present de-
fendants, unless it were proved that they had cognizance of
the fact that bodies were about to march to the ground in
that manner, and attracted as their attention was to other
ohjects, they might not have paid attentio❑ to this., For the
inscriptions on the banners, it was for the Jury to determine
what was really the meaning that they were intended to con-
vey. If by " Equal Representation or Death," it was meant
that they would obtain a change in the Constitution or perish
in the attempt, that was sedition. If, as Mr. Hunt contend-
ed, the meaning was, " we are almost starved already, and
without equal representation we shall be starved quite, and
must perish," that was a very different thing. Men often
said that they would rather die than submit to this or to that,
but it did not follow that they had really made up their mind
to the alternative. For the Cap of Liberty, it was one of the
insignia of the Crown ill this Country, and therefore the
carrying of that emblem, unconnected with other circum-
stances, did not necessarily imply disaffection. It did not
appear that all business was suspended at Manchester on the
16th of August. Had that been the fact, it would certainly
have been easily proved.
His Lordship was going on, when the Defendants intimated
their wish that he should not take upon himself the task of
going through the whole of the evidence, but sum up with
as much brevity as he could. He reminded them that they
had a right to his time, but most of them expressed a wish
to relieve him and the Jury front the fatigue of going through
the. whole of the evidence. Upon this the Learned Judge
said he should sum up much shorter than he might other-
wise have done ; but requested, that if he omitted to touch
on any point of importance, that they would remind bins of it.
His Lordship, in commenting on the words said to have
been used by Bamford to the Middleto❑ party, remarked,
that conversations were most difficult of proof. Ample evi-
det,ce had been given of this in the course of the present pro-
ceedines, and therefore he would rather have sonic act to
prove the imputed intention than words said to have been
uttered, and reported in various ways by different witnesses.
Mr. Hunt was stated by one witness to have said, (pointing
to the military), "'There are your enemies; if they attempt
to molest yon, put them down, and having got them down,
keep them down." He (the Judge) only mentioned these
words for the purpose of remarking, that such a mass of
evidence had been offered to prove that he (Mr. Hunt) did
not use the words imputed to him with a reference to the
military, that on that subject he thought they must conclude
that Mr. Ent aisle had been mistaken.
Having proceeded through the evidence given in the course
of the first three days, offering comments as he went on, the
Judge, as the hour had now arrived at which the Court
usually adjourned, said, if he fatigued the Jury, and they
would signify .that they wished him to break off, he would
that moment desist. No answer being returned, he chntinu
to sum up for nearly another hour, when it was intimated
tlrtt an adjournment would be desirable. Upon this his
Lordship closed the business of the day, and the Court
adjourned till nine on Monday.
Before the Court broke up, Mr. Hunt, as the Jury were
about to separate, expressed a hope that they would abstain
from all discussion on the subject of the evidence given, till
the Court re-assembled, and also from reading what might
appear on the subject in the Newspapers, which had been
filled with libels on him all through the week.
His Lordship•was confident that the Jury would attend to
the wish which had just been expressed. If, however, he
(Mr. Hunt) desired it, he would put the book into their
bands and swear them on both points. This Mr. Hunt
thought quite unnecessary. After what had fallen from I►is
Lordship, he was sure that they would know their duty, and
he had nothing further to urge on the subject.