འ

and could not deny their truth; his name and address were asked of him by Latchford; he positively declined and refused to give them. That refusal, under its circumstances, was natural; the constable, however, had a duty to perform, and after that refusal, and in order to obtain some information as to that person who was thus heavily accused, and yet appeared to be, and was in the habit of a dignified clergyman, he thought it necessary to examine the bishop's person. He then approached to him, the bishop at that moment bearing upon his person strong evidence of his guilt, and by his acts and expressions fully admitting it; during the search, the bishop was observed by Latchford to take from his pocket a paper writing, to tear it with violence, and hastily throw the pieces or fragments of it when torn, into the fire-place of the room. This circumstance attracted the attention of Latchford; he did not then observe upon it; he knew, that there was no fire in the grate nor any other paper in it. The bishop was shortly afterwards removed to a cell, or place of solitary confinement within the watchhouse. Shortly after his removal, he was heard by Latchford to cry with a loud voice, "could he not get bail;" and no reply being given, he asked for pen, ink, and paper, in order that he might write a note or letter. The pen, ink, and paper, were furnished to him by the directions of Latchford, and with a view that he might be thereby enabled to obtain some knowledge of the bishop's name and address, which were still unknown to him. The note was written by the bishop, and by his desire it was delivered

to Latchford, in order that it might be sent to the person and place to whom and where it was directed. Latchford retained the note. It was not his business to admit the bishop to bail-he could not do so. The bishop, in an anxious and importunate manner, requested and urged Latchford to send the note as directed. Latchford informed him he did not and could not send it. The bishop again and again called on him and pressed him to do so, and, in an earnest and supplicating tone of voice, cried out, and said "For God's sake send it;" but Latchford retained the note, and it is now in evidence and before the court. That note has been exhibited to many persons now resident in Ireland, who have been for many years acquainted with the bishop and his handwriting. They have been examined in this cause, and they have all agreed in their evidence of this note being of the handwriting of the bishop, and that the initials "P.C.," subscribed to it, denote his Christian name and title of honour. The note is in the following words:·

"St. James's Watch House, "Vine Street.

"John ;-Come to me directly, don't say who I am, but I am undone. Come instantly, and inquire for a gentleman below stairs, 12 o'clock-I am totally undone.

"P. C."

And was thus addressed-
"Mr. John Warring,

"21, Montague-street,
"Portman-square."

This note affords strong proof of the material facts of this case; the crime of the bishop; his consciousness of that crime, and of his then alarming situation; and

his anxiety to conceal his name and high station. It alsó affords, in addition to the other circumstances adverted to, powerful evidence of his identity. During the remainder of this unhappy night, this lost and degraded man was intent upon and engaged in prayer. His supplications and ejaculations throughout the night were loud and unceasing. He was visited occasionally by Latchford in the cell, and he was found at all such times upon his knees, in a posture of devout prayer and devotion. After the removal of the bishop to his cell, Latchford took up and collected the fragments or pieces of the torn paper; he joined or pasted them together, so as to make the writing perfect and legible. He preserved it carefully, and also the note which had been written by the bishop, and retained both of them, until the occasion on which they were afterwards shown to the bishop. In the forenoon of the following day, the 20th of July, the bishop was removed in custody to the Police-office of the district of St. James's, Westminster, and brought before Mr. Dyer, the sitting magistrate. In the presence and hearing of the bishop and the soldier, the several persons, who had charged them with their offences, were severally and apart, and upon their oaths, examined. It was viva voce examination. The bishop was then professionally assisted. The witnesses deposed to and detailed the same facts against him, which they had stated in the watch-house, and now, in their sworn evidence The bishop did not contradict, or deny, the truth of these charges. He was particularly called on and required by the magistrate to attend to him,

in this cause.

It

The

while, in order to give a further opportunity for denial or defence, he read to him and to the soldier, á private and short note of these examinations, which he had taken for his own information and guid ance; but the bishop and soldier remained silent-they sought not any evidence, they relied not on any facts for their acquittal, or proof of their innocence. The bishop appeared before the magis trate and his chief clerk, Mr. Fitzpatrick (a principal witness to this transaction), in the dress of a dignified clergyman. The letter, which the bishop had torn, and endeavoured to destroy the preceding night, was then produced by Mr. Latchford, and given to Mr. Dyer, who read it. was of a private nature. bishop, by himself and his counsel, claimed that letter as his own, and, at his request, it was given to him. Immediately upon getting possession of it, the bishop, in the presence of Mr. Dyer, his clerk, of Latchford, and of his own counsel, tore and destroyed that letter, so that no fragment could have been then saved, or can be now produced in evidence. That letter was addressed to the bishop of Clogher, and bore the signature and subscription of his much-re spected nephew, the earl of Roden. The note, which had been written by the bishop in the cell, was then produced, and read before him by the magistrate. The circumstances, under which it had been written and detained, were fully detailed by Latchford, and admitted by the bishop. He was then informed by the magistrate that his offence was bailable, and that bail to the amount of 500l. himself, and two sureties in 2501. each, would be required for his appearance at the

next Clerkenwell sessions, to take his trial for the offences then imputed to, and sworn against him. His bail were in attendance. He was then called on by Mr. Fitzpatrick, as chief clerk of the office, to give him his name and address, in order to perfect his bail. The bishop hesitated, and for a time refused. He was then informed, and in the presence and hearing of his intended bail, that it was necessary for him to give his true name and address; and that without it, his bail could not be effect ed, or himself discharged. He then, of himself, and in the presence and hearing of the magis trate, his clerk, and Latchford, freely and voluntarily declared, that he was the honourable and right reverend Percy Jocelyn, bishop of Clogher, in Ireland; and that he was then residing, or lodging, at 21, Montague-street, Portmansquare, the house to which his note of the preceding night had been directed. His bail were then, and in his presence and hearing, duly sworn to their qualifications, their names and residences; one of them was a Mr. John Fay, 21, Montague-street, in which house the bishop of Clogher had previously, in his presence and hear ing, declared he was a lodger. The bail was then perfected, ac cording to the course of the office, and the bishop was accordingly discharged and retired.

The Clerkenwell sessions commenced on the 9th of September, but the bishop did not attend to take his trial, pursuant to his recognizance.

The evidence was then read in open court, nearly in the order and to the purport following:

The 1st Document-That the

orders, and had been held and reputed to be so for 20 years past; that 20 years ago he held a rectory, and performed the duties thereof.

2nd Document was the attested copy of impugnant's promotion to the see of Ferns, bearing date the 26th of August, 1809.

3rd Document was the evidence of his consecration to that see, in Christ Church, Dublin, by the then metropolitan of that archdiocese.

4th Document was the evidence of his installation and enthronement in the cathedral of Ferns, in September, 1809.

5th Document was the attested copy of his translation to the see of Clogher.

6th Document was his installation and enthronement in the Cathedral of Clogher.

7th Document was the attested copy of the late primate's patent.

8th Document was the im pugnant's admission of canonical obedience to the late primate, as his metropolitan, bearing date October, 1820.

9th Document afforded proofs, that the late primate acted as such.

10th Document was the oath of

canonical obedience sworn by impugnant to the late primate, as his metropolitan.

11th Document was the proof of the late primate's triennial visitation at Monaghan, in and for the diocese of Clogher, in August, 1820, and of the bishop of Clogher having attended there as the suffragan bishop of that diocese.

12th Document afforded proof of the impugnant having left the palace of Clogher in July last, and never since returned thither.

13th Document was of consi

to trouble the court at much length in order to prove their jurisdiction and authority to punish such offences, even to the extent of deprivation. It is quite settled law, that every archbishop has provincial power over all his bishops, and may hold his court where he pleases in his province, and officiate as judge. In the much-debated case of Lucy v. Watson, bishop of St. David's, it is laid down by lord Holt, that " admitting the point of jurisdiction to be disputed, would be to admit the disputing of fundamentals; for the archbishop has, without doubt, provincial jurisdiction over all his suffragan bishops, which he may exercise in what place of the province he pleases," 1 Burn's Eccl. Law, p. 167. The history of our church also, from the most ancient times, affords abundant instances of the exercise of this jurisdiction; a number of those instances will be found collected by Dr. Watson, in his Clergyman's Law, p. 57. The general jurisdiction is therefore quite clear. Objections, however, have been suggested, that this jurisdiction is confined to mere ecclesiastical offences, and cannot extend to crimes at common law. To this I answer, it is admitted the ecclesiastical court cannot try a mere temporal offence-for instance, a murder committed by an ecclesiastic; for that court cannot try murder, or judge what is murder. In such case, in order to punish, the spiritual court must wait for conviction by the temporal courts (or outlawry, which is tantamount), and build their sentence upon such conviction. This rule extends to all cases where a temporal offence alone has been committed by an ecclesiastic. But where a clergyman is guilty of

leading a profligate life, of lewdness, drunkenness, gross scandal, notorious immorality, and the like, such conduct is punishable by the ecclesiastical courts; and in that case, facts amounting to a temporal offence may be charged as evidence (incidentally) of the guilt imputed. The law is thus laid down by sir William Scott, in the case of Nash v. Nash, 1st vol. of Mr. Haggard's Reports, p. 140. In that case, which was a suit for a divorce, the libel charged that the party impugnant was married before; to which it was objected, that such a charge was inadmissible, as amounting to felony. In giving his judgment on this point, sir W. Scott says, "Certainly this court cannot inquire into a felony directly, even where a clergyman is sued for the purpose of deprivation. But it is very frequent, and has occurred in practice, to admit a fact in itself criminal, to be pleaded as a necessary fact of the evidence in a civil suit." In the case of Lucy v. Watson, before noticed, it was also objected, that many of the charges against the bishop were temporal; on which lord Holt observes, The distinction which will answer most of the objections is this that as to what relates to the office of bishop, and is against his duty, the spiritual court may deprive him, but not punish as for a temporal offence." His lordship also cited Cawdry's case in 5 Coke's Reports, p. 1, in which the same law is laid down. "The ecclesiastical law, and the temporal law have several proceedings, and to several ends. The one temporal to inflict punishment on body, lands, or goods; the other spiritual, pro salute animæ; the one to punish the outward man, the other to reform the inward."

the