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 1st 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 articles contained were supported by the testimony of James Clark, 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. Patrickson. 15th Document proved, that the earl of Roden is nephew to the hon. Percy Jocelyn. 16 Document, proved by Mr. Michael Fitzpatrick, clerk to the sitting magistrate, Mr. Dyer, was the arrest and bailing of the impugnant, and hi: acknowledgment at that time of his name and dignity, and place of residence in London. 17th Document proved the auction of furniture, &c. at Clogher, 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 London was the then lord bishop of Clogher. Other documents were also read as to identity, and to show 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 Hen. Meredyth stated to the court, that the evidence had closed. The evidence being thus closed, Dr. Staples, on the part of the office, observed upon it, and after stating the facts of the case he continued in nearly the following terms: These, said he, are all the facts which took place in London; and they abundantly prove, that the person accused was the person he represented himself to be, namely the bishop of Clogher. Yet add to this, that the regular process of your lordships court has been duly served upon the real bishop of that see, at his episcopal palace, his cathedral church, and all other places from whence the service of such process must be concluded to reach his knowledge-that the process calls upon him to defend himself against these disgraceful charges, upon pain of deprivation-that the charges against him are notorious to the empire and the world and that no appearance has been entered for him, no defence made, no denial of the charge attempted; can a doubt remain as to the bishop of Clogher being the guilty individual? But we have further proved, that a sale by auction has taken place at 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 authority of the bishop-that he has absented himself from his see and his duty, ever since he went to London, a short 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 offence and the identity of the person accused being thus established, I do not think it necessary 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. 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 anima; the one to punish the outward man, the other to reform the inward.” "The the 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 1st 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 articles contained were supported by the testimony of James Clark, 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. Patrickson. 15th Document proved, that the earl of Roden is nephew to the hon. Percy Jocelyn. 16 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 Clogher, 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 London was the then lord bishop of Clogher. Other documents were also read as to identity, and to show 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 Hen. Meredyth stated to the court, that the evidence had closed. The evidence being thus closed, Dr. Staples, on the part of the office, observed upon it, and after stating the facts of the case he continued in nearly the following terms: These, said he, are all the facts which took place in London; and they abundantly prove, that the person accused was the person he represented himself to be, namely the bishop of Clogher. Yet add to this, that the regular process of your lordships court has been duly served upon the real bishop of that see, at his episcopal palace, his cathedral church, and all other places from whence the service of such process must be concluded to reach his knowledge-that the process calls upon him to defend himself against these disgraceful charges, upon pain of deprivation-that the charges against him are notorious to the empire and the world and that no appearance has been entered for him, no defence made, no denial of the charge attempted; can a doubt remain as to the bishop of Clogher being the guilty individual? But we have further proved, that a sale by auction has taken place at 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 authority of the bishop-that he has absented himself from his see and his duty, ever since he went to London, a short 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 offence and the identity of the person accused being thus established, I do not think it necessary 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. 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 anima; the one to punish the outward man, the other to reform the inward.” "The the These authorities we conceive to be decisive. But further it is to be observed, that in the case before your lordships no temporal offence amounting to felony is charged. The articles impute lewd habits, gross and scandalous practices and immoralities, none of them amounting to felonies, but clearly cognizable in this court, contrary to the canons, and subjecting the party to deprivation. Having now, as we conceive, established the facts charged against the individual accused, and also the jurisdiction of the court, it only remains to pray for your lordship's sentence. This is a duty, which, I am aware, must be most painful to the Court; yet, however distressing the act may be, I am confident your lordship will conscientiously and boldly pronounce that sentence which the law demands. You will cut off this pestilent member, and discharge your duty to your country and your God. His grace the Lord Primate, after some conference with his brethren, requested that the Court should be cleared. Sir Henry Meredyth, before he retired, tendered to his grace a written sentence for his perusal and approval, referring to, and founded upon the evidence in the cause; this his grace received. His grace and brethren remained for some time in conference. It was then announced, that the court was opened, and that the attendance of the advocates and proctor of office was expected. They accordingly attended; and thereupon his grace the lord primate, in the presence and hearing of his brethren the lords bishops, of his vicar-general, and of other distinguished personages, rose from his seat, and, the entire of the auditory then stand ing, and the bishop of Clogher being again thrice called, but not appearing, his grace proceeded to read the sentence in open court. When he had finished, he signed it in open court, and directed it to be lodged in the registry of his diocese; where it now remains a record of these important proceedings, and of their perfect consummation by the absolute deprivation and deposition of Dr. Percy Jocelyn from the bishopric of Clogher, and from his episcopal order and authorities. CORONER'S INQUEST ON THE (See Deaths p. 286.) The inquest was held at his lordship's house at North Cray. Before the jury left the room, where they had met, for the purpose of seeing the body, one of them suggested that his colleagues as well as himself, should take off their shoes, in order to prevent, as far as possible, any noise that might be occasioned by them in walking, and which might disturb the marchioness. This hint was immediately acted upon, and the jury left the room. They were conducted to the dressing-room, in which the body of the deceased lay, and where it had remained from the preceding morning. It was lying with the feet towards the window, on the face, enveloped in a morning-gown, with a handkerchief tied round the head. The floor was covered with blood, in which the garments of the deceased were drenched. The wound, which had occasioned death; was pointed out to the jury; it was immediately under the left ear, and was extremely small. Not a word was spoken, and the jury retired once more to the din |