party really implicated_.” When our readers have gone through this article, and have heard us declare our perfect conviction of its truth; when they have heard us say, that it is agreeable, as far as it goes, with the enquiries which we have made, when they have further heard, that the scene of the brutal transaction was in a back room of the public-house above mentioned; that the parties had drawn the curtains of the room, but had left a part that the curtains did not cover but that might be seen through; that a little girl (vindicatress of her sex!) happening to go into the back court into which the window looked, wondering to see the curtains drawn, had the curiosity to look in, where she saw the parties engaged in that way not to be described, that the little girl (better guardian of public morals than the respectable part of the press) ran to the landlord, who came out with other persons with him, who were all witnesses of the fact, to that certain extent, at least, of which the _Observer_ speaks; that after this, the landlord and others laudably went, dashed in the door, took the parties in the state of Achilles as far as nakedness was necessary to their intentions; that they then dragged them to the watch-house, in that very same state: when our readers have heard all this, they will naturally cry aloud, “why is the _name_ of this Bishop suppressed?” It is a Bishop the article says. It is a “venerable prelate;” it is a Right Reverend Father in God; and why then, is his name suppressed? The _Observer_ informs us that another “worthy prelate” has been named; and unfortunately named; and the _Observer_ requests its readers to reflect before they come to a positive determination as to who the party is. What, _are all the Bishops_ then, to live under this imputation or suspicion? Are all the Bishops to be suspected for the sake of this wretch, as the _Observer_ itself justly calls him? This would be injustice towards the Bishops in general, equal to that which the most respectable and most infamous part of the press has been guilty. We shall do our duty. And we here inform our readers: without anticipating the decisions of courts of justice; without pretending to know whether the alledged crime can be proved or not; without pretending to anticipate any thing of this sort, we inform our readers of that which they all ought to know, that the person, who was taken from the White Lion public-house above-mentioned to the watch-house, and who was afterwards taken from the watch-house to Marlborough-street, and who was held to bail as above-mentioned; we here inform our readers that that person who was so taken along with the soldier of the guards was the _Honourable_ and _Right Reverend Father in God_, PERCY JOCELYN, Lord _Lord Bishop of Clogher_, (lately translated to that Bishopric from the Bishopric of Ferns,) a _Commissioner of the board of Education_ (“education of the country!”) brother of the late _Earl of Roden_.