The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-23 00:00:00

s
men, and the law with respect to high treason "makes it
necessary for the Crown to- specify particularly in its
indictment the overt acts; that is, the acts done, and the
means used by the parties charged for the purpose of
effectuating the intention imputed to them. Accordingly
the indictment which will be submitted to you will con-
tain the various overt acts, whatever they may be, on
which the Crown relies; and in support of these the
Crown must satisfy you that some one or more of these
overt acts have actually taken place. You must be
satisfied by the evidence which the Crown will submit
to you, that one or more of these overt acts have actu-
ally been committed in the manner stated in the indict-
ment. And further, it is necessary for you to attend to
this rule—that not only must one or more overt acts be
proved to have been committed, but it is equally neces-
sary than one overt act shall be proved by two witnesses,
or that several overt acts shall be proved by two
distinct witnesses. You will not be justified in finding
a bill unless there be two witnesses to prove the
same head of treason. There must, in short, be
two witnesses to prove one overt act, or two witnesses to
prove several overt acts. And now, with respect to that
which forms the substance of the charge—the intention
to be inferred or to be expressly proved, my instruction
to you is this—the intention, as I have already observed,
is to be inferred from acts, writings, speeches, or de-
clarations; but so far as respects mere oral declarations,
you ought to pay. no regard to acts of treason which
may appear in evidence unless the language imputed be
connected with some design or some conspiracy. Words
by themselves do not constitute an act of high treason.
It is only in connexion with acts that they become evi-
dence of the intention. And when you are considering
.
the evidence so far as relates to the intention of the
party, the only rule which I would have you observe is
this, and it is a rule which is applied in all our dealings
and transactions during our intercourse in life, not simply
a rule of law, but also a rule necessary to be observed
whenever the question
of intention or knowledge becomes
a matter for investigation. The rule I refer to Is this—
" That you are to presume a man means that which is
the natural and necessary effect of his own declarations
and acts." The other class of counts to which your
attention will be directed require very little observation
from me—namely, that class of counts by which
the party charged may be said to levy war against our
Sovereign Lady the Queen in her realms. That charge
also is one which must be grounded upon one or more
overt acts ; and the rule to be observed by you in this
particular is, that the necessity of having two witnesses is
the same as I have just now stated to you—but the levy-
ing of war must be by an insurrection and actual force.
It is otherwise not within the meaning of the statute a
levying of war, not for any private, personal, or particu-
lar object, but for the purpose of some general innova-
tion; and I have no hesitation in telling you that, if it
should appear from the evidence to your satisfaction,
that the objects of these insurrectionary movements
were the severance of Ireland from the United Kingdom,
with a view to erect it into an independent power, that
would be a levying of war within the meaning of this
statute. But the language of the authorities to which I
have already referred illustrate what I have just now
told you. They say, " insurrections and risings for the
purpose of effecting by force and numbers, however ill
arranged, provided, or organized, any innovations of a
public nature, in which the party had no particular interest
or concern, have been deemed instances of the actual levy-
ing of war." It is essential to the making out of the
charge that there must be an insurrection—that there
must be force used in the accomplishment of it, and that
the object ofit be general in its character. These are
all the observations which I have thought it incumbent
on me to make for your government or direction; and
should any difficulty arise in any of your minds, I will
be at all times most anxious to render you such assist-
ance as you may require. But I believe I have now
pointed your attention to the specialities in the law of
high treason which perhaps before were not familiar to
you, and to which it will be necessary for you to give
your particular attention. I believe the Crown are pre-
pared to lay the indictments before you, and you will
now proceed to their immediate consideration.
The Foreman—My Lord, some of the grand jury wish
to understand if it is necessary that every overt act
should be proved by two witnesses.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—It will be sufficient if any one
overt act be proved by two witnesses, or one overt act
by one witness and another overt act by a second
witness.

The grand jury then (half-past twelve o'clock) re-
tired to their apartment to take the various bills of in-
dictment sent up before them into their consideration.
Mr. Hodges, the Government reporter, was the first
witness who was examined by the grand jury. His
examination lasted nearly two hours, so that, considering
the number of witnesses who are to be brought before
the grand jury, it is unlikely that they will find a bill
to-day. It is expected that they will not do so till to-
morrow.

The town is very quiet; there is no excitement.
The bills of indictment against Mr. O'Brien, Mr.
M‘Manus, and some peasants are for high treason; those
against Mr. Meagher, Mr. Leyne, and Mr. O'Donohue
are, it is understood, for treasonable practices; and as the
five days' notice of trial, required in a case of treason, is
not necessary in these cases, it is probable they will be
proceeded with before that of Mr. O'Brien.

Frvg o'cLocx, P.M.—At five o'clock, P.M., the grand
jury returned to their box, when they were told that
they should retire again to their room till the judges re-
sumed their seats upon the bench. They withdrew ac-
cordingly. Their Lordships in a few minutes took their
seats, and the grand jury were recalled from their room.
TheiForetnan handed down to the Clerk of the Crown
true bills for high treason against
William Smith O'Brien,
T. B. M'Manus,
James Orchard,
Denis Tyne, and
Patrick O'Donnell.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, addressing the Court, said
that the present would be the most convenient time to
have the prisoners arraigned, in order that counsel might
be assigned and copies of the indictment forwarded to
them .

The COURT assented to this being done.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would trouble the
jury with another bill against Mr. Meagher, and pro-
bably they would be able to consider it that evening.
The Foreman replied that the:jury were not disposed
to enter into consideration of another bill at that ad-
vancedess
JUSTICE onthe
sfollowingai
Said
that
o r mgnrienagt.
deal of the
ma
hour of the day, and would prefer proceeding
with the business
Tttheer CwiTE which would be brought before the grand jury
was common to both cases.
i
The Foreman asked if it would be necessary to exa-
mine again all the witneSiei that had been before them
in the other case
The CHIEF JUSTICE replied that this was entirely in
the discretioa of the jury.
The bills against Mr. Meagher were then handed up
to the Grand Jury to be considered by them.
At twenty minutes :after fiye o'clock the prisoners
were arraigned, when the Chief Justice intimated to
them that a bill for high treason had been found against
them, and each of them was entitled to a copy of the
indictment. He desired to know if' they wished to get a
copy ?
The prisoners replied that they wished copies of the
indictment, which were accordingly furnished to them.
Mr. POTTER asked if the Attorney-General intended
to furnish the prisoners with any other documents ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL replied in the negative.
Mr. PORTER applied to the Court to assign as counsel
for Mr. O'Brien, Mr. James Whiteside, Q.C., and Mr.
Francis Fit a4erald.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assented to this arrange-
ment of counsel..

Mr. POTTER then said that Mr. MiManus had not yet
employed an agent, and was therefore unprepared to se-
lect counsel.

The COURT assigned Mr. Potter as Mr. M'Manus's
agent, and informed him that he might inform the Clerk
of the Crown whom he desired for his counsel any time
before he pleaded.
Mr. LANE (solicitor) said he had to apply on behalf of
three prisoners, who were his clients, namely, James Or-
chard, Patrick O'Donnell, and Denis Thynne, for a copy
Of the panel.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that the High Sheriff
htd not yet returned the panel, and that neither of the
parties, the Crown, or the prisoners, had yet been fur-
nished with a copy.
Mr. LANE observed that the panel had been returned
by the Sheriff, and was now in the office of the Clerk of
the Crown.

The Arr °IINRY-GENERAL said he was not aware of
that fact before, and with respect to the application, he
could only say,
that he did not wish to establish any pre-
cedent by giving
a copy of the panel to the prisoners, as
they were not entitled to it as a right.
Mr. LANE,-~I ask it as a favour, and not as a right.
The
—RIEF JUsTicE—You have admitted that you
are not of right entitled to a copy of the panel, and as a
matter of favcur it cannot be granted unless with the
consent of the Attorney-General. It is to him there-
fore, and not to the Court, that your application ought
to be made.
The Court was then adjourned to the following day
(Friday) at eleven o'clock.
The trial of Smith O'Brien, which will take precedence
of the other State trials, will not take place sooner than
Thursday next, as may be derived from the foregoing
proceedings.
The grand jury will be required to attend this day,
to investigate other bills which will be sent before them.
THE INDICTMENT.
The jurors of our Lady the Queen of the first count
charge William Smith O'Brien, Terence B. M'Manus,
James Oribard Riehard O'Donnell, and Denis Thynue,
being subjects of our said Lady the Queen, with having,
on the 7th day of July, and on divers other days,
between that day and the 30th of the same month, in
the parish of Ballingarry, levied war against our said
Lady the Queen ; obstructed constables in tho execu-
tion of their duty; attacked a certain dwelling-
house at the common of Boulagh, and then and there
by force of arms traitorously attempted to subvert
the Government. The second count charges the same
parties with having traitorously levied war against our
Lady the Queen at Nlullinahone. The third count
charges the saute parties with having erected a barri-
cade at Killenaule in order to obstruct the marching of
the troops. The fourth count charges the same parties
with a further attempt to levy war against the Queen at
Ballingarry. The fifth count charges the same parties
with having subsequently appeared in arms, at Ballin-
garry, on the 29th of July, with a design to subvert and
destroy the constitution of the realm. The sixth and
last count is a general one, and embraces all the overt
acts set out in the five former counts.
It is confidently stated, says:the Dublin herald of last
evening that at the next commission in Green-street
Mr. Duffey will be tried, but whether on the indictment
already found against him fur felony or on a new one for
treason does not appear to be determined. It is said
that in either case the Crown, exercising a power Con-
firmed by statute, will try hint by a jury not of the city,
but of the county of Dublin, Mr. O'Dogherty will also