Star.
London, England, 1822-11-11 00:00:00


saw

3W

. , , "t . _, . , <-
‘ .. 4‘l. ‘1 . __» . k
.. . . . _ -
_ . ~

'.' ”9'

.

~‘ ~.

;‘ JR.

T‘ ,' T“ “E W 0? OF'Cmes ’l'
I:chch raocu‘ out an " . ' -
i use murh'oos manor 8: “06mm
. ~b ‘ .
‘ ﬁmoromrau‘muar or nausea, on. er.
mathematmitmoramm
and!“ tantrum ammonium
31:53?" a: one; «use the rm. and mg;
i . ere Worm” . ooeo
Suﬁsm Who. "dropouts: QumhdArmagl ,
(Concluded from the Scene! Thursday.) l ‘
‘ Sir Bauer Maaxnvrnhin continuation. The of-‘
fences over which this Court has c isance are not‘
of a temporal nature. rnrscmnﬁ. not affect to
exercise any. jurisdiction overdrese oﬂ'ences, for the
purpose of corporal punishment. .lts authority and
{‘urndiction are to inquire into and reform the evil
abuts and propensities. and in the quaint but‘terse lan-
guage of my Lord Coke, "It is to reform the inward.
logo.” The jurisdictions are altogether distinct and
‘di erent, and there are many instances who found of
cases of crime which, for these different purposes,
have been made the-subject of the jurisdiction and
authority of the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts.
These oﬂt'ences were all committed in England,'and in
a country foreign in respect of its criminal law and
jurisdiction. ey could not be inquired into or
punished by the municipal law of this land. And me-
ancholy and abortive would be the law of the Church
and its authorities, if crimes such as these, and com-
mitted 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
unpuni‘shed, because that he had committed these of-
fences it a foreign country, “ to the scandal of him-
self and his Church,” and in a country where they
might be committed with impunity: and that his
iwilful absence from this country, andneglect of his
lepiscOpal duties, and contempt of hissnperior, his court
and its laws, should protect him from the punish-
i ment of his crintes, and removal from his sacred ofﬁce.
‘ But the Ecclesiastical Court is not so weak and in-
‘competcnt, nor are its authorities so insulﬁcicnt and
I abortive in the enforcement of its laws and ordinances.
This case affords abundant evidence to the contrary.
The law can be applied and fully enforced against
the wilful, disobedients and absent man; and it is
right and necessary for the 'maintenance of true reli-
gion. and the discipline of the Church, that its la
can be thus administered and enforced. It will not
:be necessary to make separate and distinct observa-
3tions upon the evidence, as it is to be applied to the
‘ case of identity. The facts herein detailed all of them
contribute their due proportion to the establishment
of this material fact. But if further obsavation be
‘nccessary, be i: remembered that the Bishop has been
ifor the last three months wilfully absent from his
‘ Palace and his Bishopriclt, and has thoroughly neg-
hlected and deserted the great and important duties
jof his station, and that this has been a period of time
{when his presence and attendance were more than
‘necessary and 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 oﬁ'ences
imputed to the Bishop, of small account. But it is a
fact that is of some importance in the ascertain-
ment of his crime and of his identity. His absence
commenced immediately before the commission of
his great crime, and has continued ever since.—
It has covered the period of the proceedings in this
cause, their commencement, aud‘approaching ter-
mination. It cannot be now presumed that he is ig-
norant of their nature and purpose. One other cir-
cu'mstance, and decisive on this part of the case, re-
mains to he stated. Since the institution of this suit,
and the notiﬁcation of its commencement and pur-
pose. 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 re-
sidence and hospitality, is now bereft of ever'y article
that could contribute to its comfort or convenience.
He had to ask pardon for having dwelt solong in
the statement of this case; but its importance was
great. The duty imposed on his Grace and his
Brethren was painful, but it was necessary and no.
avoidable. The act required of them was the exer-
cise of a duty which his Grace and his Brethren owed
to themselves, and their successors, to their Goo,
and their country.
The evidence was then read in Open Court. It was
full and satisfactory. in the proof of all the facts ad-
verted to by the Learned Advocate in his Opening
speech, and particularly to the commission of those
acts which formed the foundation of and constituted
the necessity for the proceeding: The same reason
which .was assigned by the arned Advocate for
not detailing those facts in his speech, will inﬂuence
our determination, and justify us in withholding from
the Public a statement of facts so truly disgraceful
and degrading to the person accused, and now con-
victed, and aﬂlicting to his much-respected family
and friends. The testamentary ewdence 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 with the sale of his
property in Clogher. ‘ - i
When these several documents were all read and
entered, Sir Hanna MIRIDY'I'K stated to the Court“
that the evidence had closed. a
The evidence boin thus closed, ' i
Dr. S'rA'rus, on Ste part of the Ofﬁce, observed ,
upon it, and particularly upon the law which.re-‘
gulated the proceeding, and established its propriety
and necessity, nearly in the following terms. We
have now, my Lords, gone throught e evidence ini
this very distressing case, and, as we conceive, have‘
fully borne out by proof the offences charged by the
articles a ainst the unfortunate person accused. Some
increasechiﬂicnlty has been imposed upon us by the‘
peculiar circumstance of the impugnant not having
i appeared. lie is not before your Lordships either in
fperson or by roctor, and thence has arisen the ne»
‘cessity of much evidence to identify Percy Bishop of
Clogher as the person guilty of the enormities.—-
That some person committed those oﬁ'enc’es at the
time and place stated, is not questioned. It is now
my duty to shew your Lordships, by a few» observa-
tions on the evidence laid before you. that that per-
son was Percy Lord Bishop of Clogher. First, it ap-
pears by the evidence that the person who committed
these offences on the evening of the 19th of July last, ‘
was habited like a Dignitary of the Church. His}
figure also and appearance is particularly described;
and accord precisely with the testimony of other wit-j
nesses personally acquainted with the BishopofClog-l

‘c'r ~

'|!'«!,.l'll .I-! (r
t! 9 ‘ ‘ . \
f.“ ‘ 9'3 '
,n' ”o. '

i «iifc-Azﬁsr¥2;r
'J "M“. ''.’ .. ~‘
hm. a

ft 5:74 3;

I 11l ! lg 9‘31“ , a
'- ' a ‘1» «2 ~ F'y.
' .~ . ~:‘ , ‘, . _. 1 .-
t.. M?“
, .

.4“, ~, A,“ '*i§2.i:r‘s";'
‘ 33“,?!" a?
~ .aw mini;

*. . '. . in _ ." ﬁeld: . ..'
his“ I'ﬂhﬁtymaturalrsrtberwr WW
. ‘ .' . . ’ ‘ . . Cl“ ',' -, k
mthvnmmwggm -'!‘"°"f"_cla~e sarw‘mﬁmm by afﬁne-“ﬂ; 1».
m, hm“ . h". M “’B9 rewrite“ IM’iﬁa-h guiltyfof' sags ﬂoﬂi '
m“ a . eraw “It; hf! oflewdness. titanium: grins scandal, ”a
’title “em . I mm!” ‘, a! .mmoralnawndtthelike, mhe‘onduct is punish-
evidence to which I ‘ oulcdbsh the , “"3 I”? ' able ""7 the. Clﬂlastieal Courts. audio that case;
Court human, ' 8’9"“ "”9“.” .a“ ‘m'ﬁmuﬁmﬁmﬂewdhl Offence. n-ayhechsrsed
dividuali the h“ npon thopersnn of "9“.“ i” "'4‘?“ lintidemallyrof the guilt imputed—’s
be all II . zuchchoase. This decorum,“ if!“ The law is thus‘l‘aid down by 3;, Wm. Scott, in thd
lb ‘3“ "‘9‘. {endeavourd ‘9 destroy, ",‘d {‘2' ”'9 “N's“.- Nash. lst vol. of Mr. Haggard's Be.
'nib 5:202 tore it into costumes. and threw tt pom, p. 140. 1., gm “,9.- which “‘5 a ”in“ a
tsunami??? 13:?!“ vgglhszrved.-l;'7 MJ’. divorce, tlrcilibcl charged that the party impers‘fnng
. ’ .m. ‘ es W“ very was mairie before, to which itcw b" th~‘
commendabledtltgeace picked up theiornfragments such a charm was inadmissible ”o”a ' at
o p I! a
:‘fa‘hislzpet udnpasted them together tn-such a felony. In giving his judgment on thrmtézgs:
Th: Miler the contents perfectly legrble.- William ‘Scott “7*“ Certainly this Court cannot
mornirpgtl: “ii"mm'd' '9 produced the nest inquire into a felony directly. even where aCles-gy.
sence of the ‘;° "0f the Magistrate. In the PTG- man is sued for the purpose of deprivation“ But it
addressed‘to Eta“? “d appeared '3 i” ‘ Jen" is very freduent, and has occurred in practice to ad-
“Ro m}. h n a 3:39 o:33pm and signed mitafact in itself criminal, to he pleaded a. I nc.
b him “a hf.‘3 . 1° its-«meandfead cessary fact of the evidence in a civil suit." In the
bbsinesi. The F 89“}; :1! 1° '8 “mufﬁn! .00 P"_‘“‘° case of Lucy 17. Watson, before noticed, it was also
ICI .tnm it ,who. no any» the Bull"? objected that many of the charges against the Bishop
”dd :95“ "'37 B°oB 81‘8de! u in. arm. and as were temporal; on which Lord Holt observes “the
:ion' (”$253331 fag-3138:: 3:25;; ::i- assgmcrimcn which will answer most of the ohjéctions
. , . . ~ W in is, at as to what relates to theoﬂice of Bi
33.3.38 3.3.33 3.3.38... 3. 8.38'38 8' 3...... 8888 3.383:
socalling himself Bishop ofClogbenwho immediately 3.111035923358888 ‘” " S'ml'm'. “MW"
- ~ , ted Cawdr s case. to '
:‘ls‘ecgnd tune tore the paper and totally demoyeéit- Reports. p. Pl, in which the nine law is 13.93::
c. ocument being thus anmhtlated. no proof could ‘8 The ecclesiastical law and the temporal law but
be given of thehand-wnt‘tng, but we have read. eyi. gum] proceedin s, and to several ends. The c.
deuce enough to shew that. Lord Rodeo, whose stg- temporal, to inlfct punishment on the body lander
nature was subscribed to thrs letter, ts the nephew of or goods; the other spiritual ro ' e basics": ‘
Percy. Btslwp 0f Clqgher. and wall in the habit of the one to punish the outward iii—xiii... to sea
corresponding With him. 8“ WhTCh we ‘ubmi! afford form theinward." These authorities are decisive. But
strong evidence of the individual claiming this letter further it is to be observed that in the case before
being the person who filled that station. The next your Lordships no temporal 05m“. amountin to
3 pm: of evidence I; the note written by the same per- felony is charged. The articles impute lewd habits,
“”3 "ms :‘h. “'B'“ m the cell s‘“ the watchohouse, gross and scandal-its practices and'immoralities, none
‘nd nag; b 5”: ”3‘ C°“"' It “PM” ‘0 be “the" of them amounting to felonies, but clearly cognizable
* '0 7- tWahng, 21. Montague-street. P 011013!“ in this Court, contrary to the Canons, and sub'ect.
square. andstgned wrth the mutual letters “EC." repre- “’8 the party t 0 deprivation. Having now as] we
SJVMIKE the name and title of the litshop of Cloghef- conceive, established the facts charged against the
feCla'ehproicd that a 99““ calling “(“59" BIShOP individual accused, and also the jurisdiction of the
0 ,”8 3“ odged ‘t 1h“ house, and that John Court, it only remains for your Lordship’s sentence.
Wanna W“. h" servant, and we have further proved This is a duty I am aware must be most painful to
that the whole of the contents of that note, and the the Court: yet, however distressing the act may be,
ddrectton on the back of it are the handwriting of I am conﬁdent your Lordship will conscientiously
‘ '3 B'Sh°P.°f 0108““ ““3 fa“ “'9 have “V‘bhd‘ed and boldly pronounce that sentence which the law
:1 the testimony. of four 01' 5" witnesses, ﬁnd who demands. You will cut off this pcstileut member, and
‘Y‘, 5“" acquainted "“1 “if Chifnﬂﬂ 0‘ 1‘" hand-. discharge your duty to your country and your Goo.
ﬁ'mx’ and corresponded mm mm ‘9' sm“, ”3'," His Grace the Loan Pasture, after some coa-
mitaizs 1m“ detected m the comrmssron 0f enor- ferettce with his Brethren, requested that the Court
.’ are here imputed, should resort to the should be cleared. Sir Henry Meredyth before he
gmhﬂghzfmaif'wnzg akﬁctttrous name Qmongbapzt- reticed‘ tendered to his Grace a written sentence, for
.. . un nown, '5 9°} an tmpro e his perusal and approval, referring to and founded
3")?“"3? but “'3‘ g" .“mfh md'z'tal. shop‘ldho: upon the evidence in the cause The, sentence was
eay ore,an urtn ewo ttmeea - .° ..
8.83.5313," 38.88888 B'B3 “8:88:38 8,8,.M°,8,88888888;8 “:1: Em”; 323122.? liti?§l."§?in ....
n o nce was no ute to rm ave -
a false name, is not corisistent with .any “52:51: tence. His Grace and Brethren remained for some
motiVe, and yet we have proved that the same per- time in conference. It was then announced that the
son who,on the night of the 19th of July, gave Court was opened, and that the attendance of the
himself out in the watch-house as Bishop of Clogher, Advocates 3“" Prmtor Of Ofﬁce was exl""3"~'d- They
and signed a, for his name the initials up. C.» accordingly attbnded. and thereupon his Grace the
had lodged at Mr. Fay's house in Montague- Lord Primate. in the presence and hearing of his
street, far many days before as Bishop of Cloghen brethren the Lords Bishops, of hisVicar-General, and
This circumstance, we conceive, has great weight in of other distinguished personages, tose front his seat,
establishing identity. The next material fact is, that ”"3“ ‘h" “We of the auditory thenOstandinlh and ““5
when it became necessary to give 'bail, the person Btshopiof ClOgher being again thrice called, but not
323338.83833383°;8338'383;,3233333:83:~» 33333333:3'33'333'33383.333383333833833
. .s 'c . I. ac‘ , ’ , ‘
knowledged his recggnizance, which was sorecordtd read ‘3" “mm“ (”Will 2"“ a; pear hereafter) in
inhthiel oﬂicke of the lagisttate. :‘hlels; are all the bat“ :ﬁzié;“sm :1: ”:3: 'f "I‘3 m 0? "PP”;S" and
wrc too ace in n on, wic ean mit a un- , ' t n o'" a One 0 20'“ lat mani-
dautly substantiate that the person accused was the (“ted h" “,"°"3° (“1"‘8’ and delicacy i“ “1° db-
person he represented himself to be, namely, the ““923 °f ‘l‘" Palnful “"4 ""90""m duty. When
‘ Bishop of Clogher. Yet add to this, that the regular ﬁntshed, he signed it in open Court, and. directed it
process of your Lordship's court has been duly served ‘0 be “"3,“ in ‘1" [3'8252'1 0? hii Diocese, W 136"! it
u n the real Bisho of th 'at hisE isco 31p.” now remains a rccor o t esetm , rtant rocee in :8
hi 3, his Cathedral (ghurchjtarstfieall other £placeps from and ‘Pf their PEI‘fCCt consummaiizn by lii” 355015“;
whence theservice of such process must be concluded g°P"':"°l';. “In“ QCPWUQ“ 0* DOW” Pf“! 10°91!“
to reach hts knowledge—that that process calls upon ’o'" t c “ WP'EQk 0f “08"". and his Episcopal
.him to defend himself against these disgraceful "d" and authorities.
‘chargcs, upon pain of deprivation. That the charges '—""
.against him are notorious to the empire and the
‘ world, and that as no appearance has been entered
for him, no defence made, no denial of the charge
lattempted, can a doubt remain as to the Bishop
lof Clogher being the real guilty individual ?
But we have further proved that asale by auction has
taken placein the Episcopal Palace, that that splendid
appendage of his dignity has been left as a naked
ruin—that all this must have been done by the au.
thority of the Bishop—that he has absented himself
from his See and his duty, eyer since he went to Lon-
don, ashort time previous to the commission of the
enormities charged against him, altogether forming
a mass of evidence of identity which we conceive to
be perfectly irresistible. The oﬂ'ence and the identity
of the person accused being thus established, 1 do
not thiult it necessary to trouble the Court at mush
length in order to prove tlseir jurisdiction and autho-
rity to punish such ofences,eyen to the extent of de-'
prtvation. It is quite settled law that every Arch-
bishop has provincial power over all his Bishops, and
may hold his Court where he pleases in his province,‘
and oﬂiciate as Judge. This isso laid down in Lord
Chief Baron Comyn’s digest - Eccl. Persons,
c. l. and it is also stated that be may deprive. In the
much debated case of Lucy v. Watson, Bishop of St.
David's, iris laid down by Lord Hon. one of~the
ablest Judges that ever sat in England, that “ Ad-
mitting the point of jurisdiction to 'be disputed,
would be ‘0 admit the disputing of fundamentals, for
the Archbishop has, without doubt, provincial juris-3
diction over all his Suﬁ'ragan BishopS. _which he:
may exercise in what place of the province he
pleases," 1. Burns’ Ecclesiastical Last, page 161-1
The history of our Chunch. also, from the most an-
-cient times, aﬁ'ords abundant instances of the exerb‘
‘cise of this jurisdiction; .a number of those instances
; will be found collected by Dr. Watson, in his Cler-
gyman‘s Law. p. 57. The general jurisdiction is
therefore quite clear. Objections, however, have been
”£sth that this jurisdiction is conﬁned to were.
I: tactical We“, and cannot attend to critisei
at common law. To this unswelB it is submitted, the .
Ecclesiastical Court cann% try a mere ‘ temporal
ofence—fot instance, murder committed by an eccle-
siastic; for the Court cannOt try murder, or judge.
what is murder. In such case, in order to puni ,
the spiritual eourt'rnust wait for conviction by the
temporal courts (or outlawry, which hunter-cunt),

If), I“
4- , 4 .'-.v' 1’ . an-v
~.: t Janka '35 . . ~ ﬁ ks
;, . , “If! t _5 1