The Sun.
London, England, 1822-11-11 00:00:00

The late BISHOP of CLOGHER'S CASE.

( Continued from the Freeman's Journal of Tuesday last.)
METROPOLITAN COURT OF ARMAGH, OCT• 21
Sir HENRY- MEIIEDYTH in continuation.—The offences
over which this Court has cognizance are not of a temporal ml-
ture. This Court does not affect to exercise any jurisdiction
over these offences for the purpose of corporal punishment.
Its authority and jurisdiction are to inquire into anti reform the I
evil habits and propensities, and in the quaint but terse lan-
guage. of my Lord Coke—" It is to reform the inward man."
The jurisdictions are altogether distinct and different, and
there are many instances to be found of cases of crime which,
for these different purposes, have been made the subject of
the jurisdiction and authority of the Temporal and Ecclesiasti-
cal Courts.
These offences were all committed in England, and in a
country foreign in respect of its criminal law and jurisdiction.
They could not be inquired into or punished by the municipal
law of this land; and melapcholy and abortive would be the
law of the. Church and its authorities, if crimes such as these,
and committed by -a Prelate of Ireland, " who should excel
all others in purity, and be an example to others to live well
and christianly,' should pass 'unnoticed and unpunished,
because that he had committed these offences in a foreign
country, ," to the scandal of himself and his Church;"
and in a country where they might be committed with
impunity; and that his wilful absence from this country,
and neglect of his epiScopal duties, and contempt of his supe-
rior, his Court, andits laws, should protect him from the punish-
ment dUe to his crimes, and removal from his sacred office.
But the Ecclesiasti.2al Court is not so weak and incompetent,
nor are its authorities so insufficient and abortive in the enforce-
ment of its laws and ordinances. This case affords abundant
evidence to the contrary. The law can be applied, and fully
enforced against the wilful, disobedient, . and absent man ; and
it is right and necessary for the maintenance of the true, reli-
gion, and the discipline of the Church, that its law can be thus
administered and enforced. . .

It will not be necessary to make separate and distinct obser
vations upon the evidence, as it is' to be applied to the case or
identity. The facts herein detailed all of them contribute their
due proportion to the establishment of this material. fact. But
if further observation be necessary, be it remembered that the
Bishop has been for the last three months wilfully absent from
his Palace and his Bishoprick, and has thoroughly neglected
and deserted the great and important duties of his station, and
that this has been a period of time ashen his presence and
attendance were more than necessary anti anxiously expected.
This absence and neglect of duty is in itself a canonical offence,
and punishable by its law. It is in respect of the offences im-
puted to the Bishop of small account. But it is a fact that
is of some importance in the ascertainment of his crime and
identity. His absence commenced immediately before the
commission of his crime, and has since continued. It has co-
' vered the period of the proceedings in this cause, their com-
mencement and approaching termination.. It cannot be now
presumed 'that he is ignorant of their nature and purpose: One
other circumstance, and decisive on this part of the case remains
to be stated. Since the institution of this suit, and the notifi-
cation of its commencement anti purpose, a public sale by auction
has been held of all the Bishop's property at the Palace of
Clogher. The entire stock and furniture have been sold, and
the,Palace which should be the place of his constant residence
and hospitality, is now bereft of every
_article that could con-
iribute to its-comfort or convenience.
He had to ask pardon for having dwelt so long in the state-
ment of this case. But its importance was great. The duty
imposed on his Grace and his brethren was painful, but it was
necessary and unavoidable. The act required of them was the
exercise of a duty which his Grace and his brethren owed to
themselves and their successors, to their God and their country.
The evidence was then read in open Court. It was full and
satisfactory, in the-proof' of the facts adverted to by the Learned
'Advocate, in his opening speech, and particularly the commis-
sion of those acts which formed. the foundation of, and consti-
tuted the necessity for the proceedings. The same reason which
was assigned by the Learned Advocate for not detailing those
facts in his seech will influence our determination, and justify
us in withholding'from the public eye a statement of facts so
truly. disgracefuland degrading to the person accused, and now
convicted, and afflicting to his much-respected family and
friends.
The testamentary evidence was read by the Proctor of Office,
as called for by Dr. Staples, commencing with the Bishop of
Clogher's admission into Holy Orders, and terminating in the
sale of his property in Clogher, and pretty nearly in the order
and to the purport following :
The Ist Document—That the Bishop of Clogher was in
Holy Orders, and had Iseen held and reputed to be so for 20
years past ; and that 20 years ago be held a Rectory, and per-
formed the duties thereof in this Archdiocese; and was proved
by the Rev. John Benjamin Story, and John Patrickson, Esq.
Register.
2d Document, was the attested copy of Impugnant's pro-
' motion to the See of Ferns, bearing date the 26th Aug. 1809.
3d 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 en-
thronement in the Cathedral of Ferns, in Sept. 1809.
sth 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. •
'Bth Document, was the Impugnant's admission of canonical
.obedience to the late Primate, as his Metropolitan, bearing date
October 1820.
9th Document, afforded proofs that the late Primate stated
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
there.
13th Document, was of considerable length; and went to esta-
blish the criminality of the Impugnant when in London, on
the 19th of last July, in association with John Moverly, a
private soldier in the Ist Regiment of Guards, in the public
house of. Edward Lee, situate in St. Alban's-place, in the
city of Westminster,* and county of Middlesex ; and the arti-
cles contained were supported by testimony of James Clarke
watchman ; John Plant, shoemaker, Robert Gleeson, and
Robert Glegg, watchmen.
14th Document, was the evidence of John Latchford, the
constable of the watch, to prove the note written by the Bishop
of Clogher, in the watch-house cell : and the proof of,the hand-
writing to be that of the Impugnant, was testified by the Rev.
Mr. Story, and Mr. Patrick Son.
15th Document, proved that the Earl of Roden is-nephew to
the Hon. Percy Jocelyn.
16th Document, proved by Mr. Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to
the Sitting Magistrate Mr. Dyer, was the arrest and bailing of
the Impugnant, and his acknowledgment at that time of his
name and dignity, and place of residence in London.
17th Document, 'proved the auction of furniture, &c. at Clog-
her, on the 16th of last September, and subsequent days.
18th Document, proved by Hugh Lyle, of Oaks, in the
county of Londonderry, Esq. that the person arrested in Lon-
don was the then Lord Bishop of Clogher.
Other documents were also read as to identity, and to shew
that the libel charged occurred in the County of Middlesex.—
The libel contained 54 Articles.
When these several documents were all'read and entered, Sir
Henry, Meredyth stated to the Court that the evidence had
closed.
The evidence being thus closed, Doctor Staples, on the part
of the Office, observed upon it, and particularly upon the lain

which regulated the proceeding, and established its prop
nets
and necessity, nearly in the following terms : in out
this
We have now, my Lords, gone through the evidence
ne
very distressing case, and as we conceive have fully bort. c
by proof, the offences charged by the articles against
3h_ bee,
fortunate person accused. Some increased difficulty h. Sn,ug.
imposed upon us by the peculiar circumstance of the ll'asrlops
nant not having appeared. He is not before y9lll l'°!oeces.
either in person or by proctor, and thence has arisen the
sity of much evidence to identify Percy, Bishop of Clogneretapa
tfqletiwieespotebiors:sieedrvn
;guilty of the enormities alleged. That sorne Ea no
committed these offences at the time and place stated.g.l by 0
son
was
Percy,
rtoylisßiosinsnhtohapwe
omefvyiedieoungtehyeeltrao.
laid before
w.. youro
you,
ordshitt yet.
First, it appears by the evidence, that'the perstobnatwt:.;lo;
minted these offences on the evening of the 19th July IT 01'
habited like a Dignitary of the' Church. His figure, elisell
appearance is particularly described, and accords Pr jot
with the testimony of other witnesses- personally acclZ, o
with the Bishop of Clogher. 'When called on, in egst.totion
inert,
give his name, he, with a feeling very natural in the st ~s 1 it
in which he was placed, delined to give it, and it was neotiustr
becamethiantdliisepaetniseiniaglethfoarcktnhoewpliedirpgoesdeboifsprerococpuring his
the name and title of Percy, Bishop of Clogher. li'zahenticeao:PirPo°el
evidence to.which I would point the attention of the Court,_'o,
letter found upon the .person, of this individual in the wrejta •
house. This document, it will be recollected, he endeavow 01.
destroy, and for that purpose tore it into small Pieeetatcly
threw it into the fire-place. This act being observed by ,sbie
ford, the constable of the watch, he with very Commp'uottcl
diligence picked up the awayg of the paper awl l't.
them together, in such as to render the contents
esanest
ly legible. The paper thus re-united was produced di f the
morning in the office of the Magistrate, in the presence::: irbe
prisoners, and appeared to be a letter addressed to
1001
Bishop of Clogher," and signed "Roden." It `vas dit }42
to the Magistrate and read by him, and he founhe 0:e
be conversant on private business. The individual 0;10
say was the Bishop of Clogher, thereupon claimed it bold
Own, and as addressed to him, and the Magistrate pow!o
of opinion (whether right or wrong it is not fleet-oaq at ay
discuss,) that he had no authority to detain the doctun,,,eoiX
rected.it to be returned to the individual so calling hillise" f
of Cdogher, who immediately, a second time, tore the pared i.O
totally destroyed it. The document being thus annilidaA'pO'
proof could be given of the hand-writing, but we have re7,,,ito
dence toshew that Lord Roden, whose signature was sub os
this letter is the nephew of Percy, Bishop of Clogher,
asubtoit
in the habit of corresponding with him, all 'which ROO
afford strong evidence of the individual th's
being the person who filled that station.
the I
The next piece of evidence is the note written hY
se,
person during the night, in the cell at the Watch-hti
..lok
now before the Court. It appears to be addressed to ,ures war',
'Waring, 21, Montague-street, Portman-square,and
the initial 'letters " P.C." representing the name and tide bog%
it
Bishop of Clogher. We have proved that a person calling .ng
the
Bishop of Clogher lodged at that house and that J. sir,' of
his servant ; and we have further provedi that the wl"?tTare 11e
contents of that note, and the direction on .the back of
the handwriting of the Bishop of Clogher. This fact !sort
established by the testimony of four or five witnesses,.*.'ag,
been acquainted with the character of his hand-wriu
coresned with him for manears. ' .es
That a d
person detected in .thy e commission of enorniritiooia,
as are here imputed, should resort to the expedient oi
a fictitious name among persons to whom he was un. "iviclo,l
not an improbable supposition ;_ but that the same ioe he V,
should on the day before, and during the whole tinino Pc
previously occupied the lodgings in Montague-street,' eis
offence was imputed to him, have gone by a false
consistent with any assignable motive, and yet we "„..3-iy, g"
that the same person who, on the night of the Rith July,
himself out in the watch-house as Bishop of Clogher,
uf
ed,as forjiis name the initials P. C. had lodged at ,nichop m
house Montague-street for many days before AS vo,abtr
Clogher. This circumstance, we conceive, has great
establishing identity. essarisit
The next material fact is,
_that when it became nee ~„ce
give ball, the person charged with these enormities -;`', titi/e
name as Percy, Bishop of Clogher, by which name tin",, is
acknowledged his recognizance, which was so reconle
office of the Magistrate. Ojai
we
eThese
submitar aebuanfidathntelyfasettisbswtahnicthiatteoo,
tkhaPtlaticiee in 140--111 sea °.°f
the person he represented himself to be nansp:l7,ogc,cl3.iosilf°3?;*
Clogher. Yet add to this, that the regular procepta) j
Lordship's Court has been duly served upon the re3l ash, snst
that See, at his Episcopal Palace, his Cathedral Chi 0 0,4
all other places from whence the service of such proceeeo esP5,
be concluded to reach his knowledge—that that 11 doll:0
'upon him to defend himself against these disgrace J1;0
upon pain of deprivation, That the charges again,soreg,tbe
notorious to the empire and the world, and that no slioi cg
of
has been entered for him, no defence made, notatetiptisha
charge attempted : can a doubt remain as to p
tste
,Clogher being the real guilty individual ? • n has of 114-5
But we have further proved that a Sale by Atterwdoge owe
place at the Episcopal Palace,. that splendid apPell nest
dignity has been left as a naked ruin—that all this osca
0,
been done by the authority of the Bishop, that he went to,e4
himself from his See' and his duty, ever since lie we'cocrtn`of
don, a short time previous to the commission of tilFai,lenee
charged against him, altogether forming a mass Tbie, ;pg
identity, which we conceive to be perfectly irresist' Liseti bets
lest offence and the identity of the person aectrouble ,a
thus ablished, I 'do not think it necessary t^, diction
Court at much length in older to prove their jur's dept
authority to puinsh such offences, even to the este°
viuc•
vation.
has Pro Where
It is quite settled law that every Archbishop
power over all his Bishops, and may hold hi.
by e
he pleases in his Province, and officiate as Jtidb'e. Pact;
laid down in Lord Chief Baron's Comyn's digestco the 'el i 5
sons, c. 1., and it is stated that he may deprive. I,,et
debated case of Lucy v. Watson, Rishop of St.'" s tbat ebe
laid down by Lord Holt, 'one o the ablest J. n(.ltigleictionnat
sat in England, that " admitting the point of stirii- vontss,-0/0
disputed would be to admit the disputing of fun(_!'''aiction lace
the Archbishop has without doubt, provincial lost P,fte
all his Suffragan Bishops,•which he may exercise in 167,..-'rj,
of the Province he pleases," 1, Burn's Lccl. Law, tunes ag°ol•
history of our church, also, from the most ancientp", o
isasobntuilielidrneafnioitirseingis,,ttalieirtnegcyccislneoaafrn.t,hs eLexwe,rcise of his jurisdictitar action
ber of those instances will be found collected by P.'lo` _4lc:sir
Objections,p.
gested, that this juriOiction is confined to 'ter ,ty, s
offences, and cannot extend to crimes at,Common 'e"araot si
I answer, it is admitted the Ecclesiastical Court _iitteLla,e
mull cony.
mere temporal offence, , for instance—a murt girder, ore 4ot
an Ecclesiastic ;. for that Court cannot try m
57.—holwIteavege.r.,n1:aeraiccoeseliaysitirilf
what is murder. .In such case, in order to 'Pol,!le
ritual Court must wait for conviction by build
coo
sentenceCourts,‘v Ie where
e a
temporal(uor outlawryn
sucoffence
fFe n ewhichaio conviction.n ies htaalstihtabisienennoitiLnet,toeltiltacdtee:c.altiaboi:lol:rpro,4ib:
clesiastic. But where a-Clergyman is guilty ot a pato ire
fligate life, of lewdness, drunkenness,. gross sen 111;bl:ell tos.
immorality, and the like, such conduct is. Pin b_oontiog ot
Ecclesiastical Courts, and, in that case, facts rdeo:fillip,
temporal offence,' may be charged as evidence ( sir
the guilt imputed. The law is thus laid doyn u• Y
finchc
Scott,po sn, tph C
ic4aos.e of Nash v. Nash, Ist vol. a r'
110015
In ihat case, which was a suit for a divorce; thetoe
ntl ,t,
that the party impugmant was married before, to air° ,s
objected that such a charge was inadmissible, :It, sir ~00
to felony. In giving his judgment on this l'_";`„„tiire: 00
Liam Scott says, " Certainly this Court fi!.cor
a felony directly, even where a clergyman sas 05;
purpose of deprivation.- But it is very freq-uer tit',"L the ';•
red in practice to admit a fact in itself crhnina tit the c
factatunceycesys.ary
Watson,o tbheefoerveidhenoctieceind,a
ictivirilassualtfers'oe 01,ectcans'
tener,„pviL,'
mostwhich
oLforadteHolt j
eocbt
oenr vs e si ,s
this,T h nwwhien will a--
many of the charges against the Bio.dp
dh7t,sri,e.
secaerto
may deprive hith, but not punish for a ok.c:! e '
office of Bishop and is against Itclilitisnstintdauestt:yti•°°, t:h'cheinaSpPorietrisi3tltuoipoeic:e:tetif:
His Lordship also cited .Cawdry'.s cave in '..0;
page 1, in which the same law is
clesiastical law, and the temporal tener-ho
ceedings, and 'to several ends. The "rn„.oo,is • r."..otsti":
etoobtbeedr
flict punishment on the body, lanai, the out, st‘.
man.—theconceivSpiritual, pro salute anima';' the one Wrgeso author:ls tilt!,
ectaisriefveo.rmßtahte further it
is
04,,,,osiitsceerd'h',0buit'll'i;
in the case before your Lordships no temP rai
amounting to felonies, but clearly cognizapty'
to deg cha,..*oo
ing to felony, is charged. The articles
tra- to the canons, and subjecting the PFbed tali on 01
is
Having now, As we conceive, estab _
" teACC.
against the individual accused, and also tale dugs sen,
eo
Court, it only remains to pray for your l'°'to the &lin 'tOraci'cli
gross and scandalous practices and iminor-rliii_tfie:st,iebniFceoutiaroftiLilli;
is a duty I am aware must be mostpainfuln,,,tit ystir__ee
,a
ever distressing the act may be, 1 ars. co
en"that seatect;bos, 0P
°at?: confereclecari: brace
will conscientiously and boldly pronoun° „,,tiient his
the law demands.—You will cut off thiSP"ut God. o %VP sir
di,SHChisarogeraycoeutrhdeuhotyrtdo Primate,
acoteu,natrityex
Henry Aleredith, before he retired,,, spPrucsose
a written sentence, for his perwat in the
Brethren, requested that the Court
ring to, and founded upon the evider'c'
ssOliteaulceirle Ifllf

kui
ll
~ eaPolita
'lllstzian

fSl'ani%ll
Ch 4144

Coloratil
Peruvian
At4ricar

14104, 11W,
flit

Sot,

)roPricti

thio
O i
rne °tit
• the tin.
has been
lr°•
rdshlr
ie netts,'
Ahern
)e Fe
;1
is,l3r/°
,"4
that Pe"

.1.- . pi;
;11Ce ViAitn Sir
:leaP.-brACe
Dis
refer'
!oval, via
call"