to say, whether a remedy could be obtained elsewhere. The learned judge, after showing that the same difficulty which he had pointed out as attaching to a process that went to impeach the king in his own courts, would attach to it if granted against the king's proctor; that he knew of no precedent in which any such process had been ever served personally on the king's proctor; and that he did not think the king's proctor, either by his warrant, or virtute officii, empowered to represent the person of the king, concluded his sentence by pronouncing that the court had no jurisdiction. If this application were properly made, under the forms prescribed by the law and constitutions of the country, before other tribunals (and this court was not bound to suggest either the mode or the court in which such a proceeding should be instituted), no doubt ought to be entertained, that real justice would be done.

METROPOLITAN COURT OF AR

MAGH, OCT. 21, 1822.

The Office of his Grace, the Lord Archbishop of Armagh, Primate and Metropolitan of all Ireland, at the promotion of Thomas Tilly, the Proctor of said Office, against the Honourable and Right Reverend Percy Jocelyn, Lord Bishop of Clogher, and one of the Suffragan Bishops of the Metropolitan Church of Armagh.-This cause of office was this day called on for hearing in the presence of his grace, the lord primate, and of four of his suffragan bishops, viz: the lords bishops of Kilmore, Derry, Dromore, and Raphoe, and of the right hon. Dr. Radcliff, his grace's vicar-general, and of

other distinguished and respectable personages. The bishop of Clogher having been thrice called in open court, did not appear; and in pain of his contumacy and contempt, the cause was proceeded in to a hearing and to its final determination.

Sir Henry Meredyth, the leading advocate for the office, stated the case. The bishop of Clogher, said he, is an ecclesiastic, and as such subject to the laws of the church. He has been for many years a priest in holy orders. In the year 1809 he was promoted to the united bishoprics of Leighlin and Ferns: on that occasion he was duly consecrated and enthroned, and he then swore canonical obedience to the then archbishop of Dublin, as his metropolitan, and subscribed to the canons of the church. For 11 years he acted as the bishop or pastor of that diocese, and with a character and conduct, which did honour to himself and his high office; insomuch, that in the year 1820, a little more than two months after the accession of his present majesty to the throne, he was deemed worthy of advancement, and he was accordingly translated to the see of Clogher, and to its high honour and advantages. On that occasion he took the oath of canonical obedience to the then lord primate of Ireland, his grace's predecessor. And, in the month of August, in the same year, he attended the triennial visitation of, and was visited by, his grace the late lord primate, as one of his suffragan bishops. These facts are sustained by legal and appropriate evidence. The canons of the church are referred to in the pleading, and particularly the 42nd of those canons, by which he was and

house in which he had been detected and arrested, he was seen and recognized by a respectable gentleman of Ireland, who, from his previous knowledge of his dress, person, and appearance, proved his identity. He had upon him at the time his usual and proper dress, as a bishop or dignitary of the church. There was no disguise or concealment upon his person or appearance. That circumstance had created an early suspicion and observance of him and his actions on that night, and contributed, with many other circumstances proved in this cause, to the establishment of his identity, which, under other circumstances, might have been difficult of attainment and of proof. In his way to the watch-house, he was surrounded and insulted by many persons, who pressed upon him, and, in a situation degrading to himself and his high office, he approached to and passed the gates of Carlton Palace. What his sensation and sentiments were, or must have been on that occasion, may be conceived; he must have then felt that he was "fallen." That feeling he himself displayed in a strong convulsive, but ineffectual struggle for his release and enlargement-a circumstance, too, which is of value in the ascertainment of his guilt and identity. Upon his arrival at the watchhouse, the bishop and his associate were brought together into the presence of the constable of the watch-a Mr. John Latchford. The bishop had then to meet and see those persons, who, he knew, could and did depose against him; in his presence and hearing, and in that of his associate, the full particulars of their crime were disclosed and detailed; he did not

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 also 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 in this cause. 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,

while, in order to give a further opportunity for denial or defence, he read to him and to the soldier, a private and short note of these examinations, which he had taken for his own information and guidance; 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 magistrate 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. It was of a private nature. The 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-respected 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 250l. each, would be required for his appearance at the

He

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 effected, or himself discharged. then, of himself, and in the presence and hearing of the magistrate, 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 hearing, declared he was a lodger. The bail was then perfected, according 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 bishop of Clogher was in holy

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 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 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 considerable length, and went to esta