The Sun. — 1822-04-19 (London, England)

JEREMIAH E. M'CAnTirr, Esqrs., Magistrates of the County of Cork, who held an inquest upon the body of Mr. BRERETON; but he refused to answer any questions. He was afterwards served with a Crown-summons to attend in this city, during the /ate Special Commission, for the purpose of giving information as to the persons who had engaged for the safety of Mr. BRERETON, which might have led to the discovery of the actual perpetrators of the murder. The summons, indeed, he obeyed, so far as related to his personal attendance ; but he positively refused, in the office of the Clerk of the Peace, to give information to Mr. HEDGES, Capt. WHITE, and another Magistrate ; and while those Gentlemen were examining and remonstrating with him, a message was delivered from his MAJESTY'S Attorney-General, desiring they might not further question Mr. O'SULLIVAN ; and informing them, that if they committed him to gaol, (which they had no intention of doing, although Mr. HEDGES said that, had he been a Clergyman of the Established ebtirch, .he would have thought it his duty to commit him,) he would discharge him. Thus this Priest, after setting at defiance the Laws of the Land, triumphed, in insulting them, and in screening murderers from justice. In his Letter already cited, he justifies his refusal upon two principles ;—The first, inasmuch as Spiritual Peers, as he erroneously states, are exempted, by the Canon Law, from voting in cases of Life and Death, so he, as a Priest, ought not to be required to give information against murderers, which might bring any of the said murderers to condign punishment. But this is fallacious reasoning ;:and I imagine he must have derived it from the same Theologians who taught the late learned and pious Dr. LANIGAN the difference between a serious promise and a solemn promise; and that it is no breach of moral duty to violate the former, when convenient so to do. —The second, that, as the " infatuated multitude admit their Clergymen amongst them, on the established principle of confidence, which, from time immemorial, existed between them, with the same feeling he goes naturally amongst them, to advise, intreat, and remonstrate with them on the madness of their proceedings ; in a word, to move heaven and earth to prevail upon them to refrain from violating the Laws, and consequently bringing destruction on their own heads : under these peculiar circumstances, would it not be hard to push the Priest to the extremity of violating this confidence ; would it mot be unbecoming to take advantage of the simple, unguarded, and unreserved confidence, of that infatuated multitude in their Priest, particularly when he is perfectly ignorant of the actual perpetrators of this horrid deed ?" Truly, Sir, I have heard of " honour among thieves ;" but this is carrying it to a romantic height unknown before; and (think he must have acquired the idea in the school of St. THOMAS AQUINAS, FILLINERUS, SONCHES, or some of the same fraternity. For myself, I know of no law, divine or human, that can justify a Priest, or even a Bishop, for screening murderers from justice : doubtless, the Crown Lawyers are better informed than I can be, at least as to the latter.— But I ask, and let those answer that can, had Priest O'SULLIVAN recognised any Protestants among " the infatuated multitude, would he have had any scruple of conscience in giving information against them ? As I am opinion that the Insurgents of the present day are actuated by religious motives, so I think that they have secret advisers and abettors, if not leaders, of a superior rank ; for, however prone the lower class of Roman Catholics may