Starting Out with Java From Control Structures

through Data Structures 3rd Edition Gaddis

Solutions Manual download

https://testbankdeal.com/product/starting-out-with-java-from-
control-structures-through-data-structures-3rd-edition-gaddis-
solutions-manual/

Explore and download more test bank or solution manual

at testbankdeal.com
We have selected some products that you may be interested in
Click the link to download now or visit testbankdeal.com
for more options!.

Starting Out with Java From Control Structures through

Data Structures 3rd Edition Gaddis Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/starting-out-with-java-from-control-
structures-through-data-structures-3rd-edition-gaddis-test-bank/

Starting Out With Java From Control Structures Through

Data Structures 2nd Edition Gaddis Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/starting-out-with-java-from-control-
structures-through-data-structures-2nd-edition-gaddis-solutions-
manual/

Starting Out With Java From Control Structures Through

Data Structures 2nd Edition Gaddis Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/starting-out-with-java-from-control-
structures-through-data-structures-2nd-edition-gaddis-test-bank/

Human Biology 11th Edition Starr Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/human-biology-11th-edition-starr-
solutions-manual/
Art of Leadership 5th Edition Manning Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/art-of-leadership-5th-edition-
manning-solutions-manual/

Biology Today and Tomorrow without Physiology 5th Edition

Starr Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/biology-today-and-tomorrow-without-
physiology-5th-edition-starr-test-bank/

Exploring Social Psychology 7th Edition Myers Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/exploring-social-psychology-7th-
edition-myers-test-bank/

CB 8th Edition Babin Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/cb-8th-edition-babin-test-bank/

Macroeconomics 7th Edition Hubbard Test Bank

https://testbankdeal.com/product/macroeconomics-7th-edition-hubbard-
test-bank/
Introduction To Linear Algebra 4th Edition Strang
Solutions Manual

https://testbankdeal.com/product/introduction-to-linear-algebra-4th-
edition-strang-solutions-manual/
Gaddis: Starting Out with Java: From Control Structures through Data Structures, 3/e 1

Starting Out with Java - From Control Structures through Data Structures
Answers to Review Questions

Chapter 9

Multiple Choice and True/False

1. c
2. b
3. a
4. a
5. a
6. c
7. b
8. a
9. d
10. b
11. a
12. c
13. d
14. a
15. False
16. True
17. False
18. True
19. True
20. False
21. True
22. False
23. False

Find the Error

1. The valueOf method is static. It should be called like this:

str = String.valueOf(number);
2. You cannot initialize a StringBuilder object with the = operator. You must
pass the string as an argument to the constructor, such as:
StringBuilder name = new StringBuilder("Joe Schmoe");
3. The very first character is at position 0, so the statement should read:
str.setCharAt(0, 'Z');
4. The tokens variable should reference the array of tokens returned by the
str.split method, so the statement should read:
String[] tokens = str.split(";")
You cannot print the tokens to the screen by simply passing the tokens variable
as an argument to System.out.println. If the tokens are to be printed to the

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc., Hoboken NJ

Gaddis: Starting Out with Java: From Control Structures through Data Structures, 3/e 2

screen, a loop should be used to process each element in the array, so the
statement should read:
for (String s : tokens)
System.out.println(s)

Algorithm Workbench

1. if (Character.toUpperCase(choice) == 'Y')

Or

if (Character.toLowerCase(choice) == 'y')

2. int total = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < str.length(); i++)
{
if (str.charAt(i) == ' ')
total++;
}

3. int total = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < str.length(); i++)
{
if (Character.isDigit(str.charAt(i)))
total++;
}

4. int total = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < str.length(); i++)
{
if (Character.isLowerCase(str.charAt(i)))
total++;
}

5. public static boolean dotCom(String str)

{
boolean status;
if (str.endsWith(".com"))
status = true;
else
status = false;
return status;
}

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc., Hoboken NJ

Gaddis: Starting Out with Java: From Control Structures through Data Structures, 3/e 3

6. public static boolean dotCom(String str)

{
boolean status;
String str2 = str.toLowerCase();

if (str2.endsWith(".com"))
status = true;
else
status = false;
return status;
}

7. public static void upperT(StringBuilder str)

{
for (int i = 0; i < str.length(); i++)
{
if (str.charAt(i) == 't')
str.setCharAt(i, 'T');
}
}

8. String str = "cookies>milk>fudge:cake:ice cream";

String[] tokens = str.split("[>:]");
for (int i = 0; i < (tokens.length - 1); i++)
{
System.out.printf("%s, ", tokens[i]);
}
System.out.printf("and %s\n",
tokens[tokens.length - 1]);

9. if (d <= Integer.MAX_VALUE)
i = (int) d;

10. System.out.println(Integer.toBinaryString(i));
System.out.println(Integer.toHexString(i));
System.out.println(Integer.toOctalString(i));

Short Answer

1. This will improve the program’s efficiency by reducing the number of String
objects that must be created and then removed by the garbage collector.
2. When you are tokenizing a string that was entered by the user, and you are using
characters other than whitespaces as delimiters, you will probably want to trim the
string before tokenizing it. Otherwise, if the user enters leading whitespace

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc., Hoboken NJ

Gaddis: Starting Out with Java: From Control Structures through Data Structures, 3/e 4

characters, they will become part of the first token. Likewise, if the user enters
trailing whitespace characters, they will become part of the last token.
3. Converts a number to a string.
4. Each of the numeric wrapper classes has final static fields named MAX_VALUE
and MIN_VALUE. These fields hold the maximum and minimum values for the
data type.

Copyright © 2016 Pearson Education, Inc., Hoboken NJ

Other documents randomly have
different content
which it is his duty to read and expound, and having read and
expounded them he can be found so far to forget every law of
human nature and every principle of virtue, by the commission of
this crime, he must be the most monstrous and attrocious of the
human race, and no punishment can be adequate to his offences.
But the punishment which must await him, would be infinitely worse
than standing in the Court below to receive sentence for the
completion of this attrocious crime; because I think that compared
with instant death for the consummation of the crime, the being
doomed to live the object of scorn, of hatred, and abhorrence by
every human being, must be a punishment infinitely worse.
Gentlemen, that is not too great for such monsters: but before you
find the Defendant to be such, be satisfied by the whole of the
evidence of his guilt. Compare the evidence on one side and on the
other; and if it raises a doubt in your mind, the Defendant is entitled
to the benefit of that doubt, and you will find him not guilty.
Mr. John Thomas was the first witness called for the Defendant, and
being sworn, was examined by the Common Serjeant.
Is your name John Thomas?—Yes.
Where do you live?—In Prospect-place, West’s-square, St. George’s-
fields.
In what way of business are you?—An appraiser and undertaker.
Have you known Mr. Church long?—Yes.
Were you one of his hearers?—Yes.
Were you acquainted with Mr. Patrick?—Not till the report was made
respecting Mr. Church.
Did you know him as one of the congregation attending Mr. Church?
—No, I cannot say I did.
Were you with Mr. Patrick on any day that he went to Mr. Church’s
house—I mean on the 9th of October?—Yes, a few days after the
report.
Did you go into the house with him?—No, I did not.
You were at the door?—I staid outside.
Had you learnt from Mr. Patrick that he was going to Mr. Church’s
upon the subject of this business?—Yes.
By Lord Ellenborough.—Did he tell you that he had a letter, and was
going to make inquiries of Mr. Church?—He called upon me at my
house to go with him.
By the Common Serjeant.—And told you he was going to Mr. Church’s
upon the business of this inquiry?—Yes; indeed it was my request
that he should. Mr. Thomas went to speak to his wife; and it was at
my wife’s request and Mrs. Patrick’s I believe that he went.
Your wife joined in her request?—Yes.
How long might his interview with Mr. Church last—how long was he
in the house?—He seemed to be a long while; not much less than an
hour.
As near as you could guess, the time, was it near an hour?—Yes.
When he came out did you put any questions to him respecting what
had passed between; him and Mr. Church?—Yes.
What questions did you put?—I asked him what Mr. Church had said.
What answer did he give you?—He said that Mr. Church did not say
any thing. He said Mr. Church seemed very much confounded on
account of the cause, he supposed, but he said nothing about it;
that it would be injurious to the cause of God. He did not say the
cause of God, but I only supposed he meant the cause of God.
By Lord Ellenborough.—Did he use the words “cause of God?”—No,
he said Mr. Church seemed very much confounded or confused.
Then the rest is all imagination of your’s?—We both imagined alike.
I don’t know that these were exactly the words, for I cannot call to
my mind what he did say; but it was conjectured the cause of God,
and which we heard afterwards was abused abroad.
You are now called, Sir, for the purpose of contradiction. You are
recollecting the effect, you know, of a conversation and
communication with Mr. Patrick, and you must say truly what
passed, if you can recollect it.—I don’t recollect all that passed.
By the Common Serjeant.—When you were stopt in your account of
what passed, you were going to say something. You were asked
whether Mr. Church had said any thing to Mr. Patrick which Mr.
Patrick related to you. What did he say?—He said, No. He said Mr.
Church seemed very much confused.
What did you ask Mr. Patrick next?—“Why,” said I, “what do you
mean. Why, if you know any thing against the man, did you not
charge him with it? I would have been very faithful with him, and
charged him with it.”
What answer did Mr. Patrick make to that?—He said he did not
know; he was not the person.
By Lord Ellenborough.—Repeat that in Mr. Patrick’s own words.
Attend, and wait to hear the question. Be so good as to suppose
that you were narrating the conversation as it occurred with Mr.
Patrick. Instead of saying, He, say I. Attend now.
By the Common Serjeant.—What further did he say? and give his own
words.—He said, “I don’t know: I am not so proper a person as you,”
or words to the same effect. I said to him, “What did he (meaning
Church) say respecting the report?”
What had the report reference to that you spoke of?—The report
respecting this transaction.
What answer did Patrick make to that? What did Patrick say to you
when you put the question, as to what Church had said respecting
the report?—I said to Mr. Patrick, says I, “what did he say respecting
the acknowledging the report”—that is, what did Mr. Church say to
Mr. Patrick about acknowledging the report that had gone abroad
respecting him. He said, “It was false.”
Do you mean that Church said it was false?—I mean that Patrick
said that the report was false.
By Lord Ellenborough.—That is not the answer to the question put by
the Gentleman. Did Church say that it was false?—I never saw
Church upon the subject.
By the Common Serjeant.—When Patrick made you an answer, did you
understand that answer to be, that Church had said the report was
false, or that Patrick himself said the report was false?—Patrick
himself.
Patrick himself said that the report was false?—Certainly.
Did you then put any other question to Mr. Patrick?—I did.
What other question did you put?—I said, what answer did Mr.
Church give respecting its having been reported that he was in liquor
—that he made an excuse that he was in liquor?
What answer did Mr. Patrick give to that?—He said it was false. He
said there had been a great deal of exaggeration.
Did you after this put any question to Mr. Patrick, whether he, Mr.
Patrick, thought that Mr. Church was implicated in the transaction or
not? Did you put any such question to him?
Lord Ellenborough.—Did you use those words, or words to the same
effect?—No, I did not I put these words to him—“Why,” says I, “you
did nothing! Did Mr. Church acknowledge nothing to you?” “No, Sir,”
says he, “he did not.” Then he said Mr. Church had not mentioned a
word about it.
Did you make any observation to him, or he to you?—I don’t
recollect any thing in particular. I said, says I, “As you can bring
nothing against him, let us pray for him, and if he had the least idea
of such a thing; and as you say you cannot bring any thing home to
him, and can’t prove any thing, that is all we can do. Let us pray
that he may not be guilty of such sin.”
Lord Ellenborough.—Did you say, pray for him, if he was under any
such temptation?—Yes; pray for him, if was under any such
temptation.
The Common Serjeant.—Did Mr. Patrick after that deliver any opinion to
you whether he thought Church was implicated in the transaction or
not?—No, he did not.
Did you at any other time see him, and hear him say any thing
about this transaction?—No.
Did any thing more pass at this meeting than what you have told
us? No.—Yes, Sir. I ask pardon: I met him in June last, coming over
Waterloo-bridge. I did not at first know him; and he spoke to me,
and he said, “My name is Patrick.” I said, “Mr. Patrick, why what are
you doing with Mr. Church?” “Why,” says I, “I hear you have
brought something else against him: what is that?”
Lord Ellenborough.—There is no contradiction of Mr. Patrick in this.
He was not asked to this (continuation of the answer). “Why,” says
he, “Sir, I should not have done it, but that Mr. Church has spoken
more disrespectful things respecting Mrs. Patrick.” He said he should
not have done it, but that Mr. Church had said many disrespectful
things of Mrs. Patrick.
Cross-examined by Mr. Marryatt.
Was it the Sabbath after the 27th of September that you first heard
of this?—I believe it was. It was within two or three days after.
I think we have learnt that upon the Thursday night Mr. Patrick came
home, and that on the Friday morning the boy communicated to him
what had happened. Now on the Saturday, was not this matter
currently talked of about Mr. Church?—No, I believe not.
You mean that you heard of the report two or three days after the
thing happened?—Yes.
You then heard of the report?—Yes.
You told us that you were desirous that Mr. Patrick should call on Mr.
Church?—Yes.
Then he did so, at your desire?—Yes.
Did Mr. Patrick bring the boy to you, and offer to have him brought
face to face with Mr. Church?—I believe he did.
Mr. Patrick said the boy was outside?—Mr. Patrick called at my house
in the course of the morning, and he sent him, and he said the boy
was outside.
Did he wish you to see the boy?—Not particularly, I believe.
For what purpose did he bring the boy?—To go to Mr. Church’s?—I
supposed so.
To go with you or with him, or with both of you to Mr. Church’s?—I
was to go with him, and therefore the boy followed.
Did the boy go with him into Mr. Church’s house?—He staid outside
the door. He walked on the other side of the way, opposite to where
I was.
But he waited whilst you waited?—Yes: we both waited outside.
Ready to go in to Mr. Church’s when you were wanted?—Yes: Mr.
Patrick was to go in and hear what Mr. Church had to say; and then
we were to go in, too.
And he took the boy with him, in order that he might be taken in
and see Mr. Church face to face?—He brought the boy with him, and
I suppose that was his intention.
Did you decline introducing the boy to Mr. Church?—I had no
particular acquaintance with Mr. Church?—I was only one of his
hearers, and I thought it would be too great a liberty for me to go to
him. Mr. Patrick wanted me to go in alone to Mr. Church, first.
Did he not invite you to take the boy in with you?—He said nothing
about that; I don’t recollect any thing that he did.
Why did you tell me, then, that you supposed the purpose of
bringing the boy was that he should be introduced to Mr. Church?—
No doubt about that. I don’t know any other reason he had than
that, for bringing the boy.
Did he say so?—I don’t know that he said that that was his reason.
He said he had the boy there.
Do you remember your declining to go in with Mr. Patrick to Mr.
Church’s?—I told him I had no particular interest in the business. I
had no intimacy with Mr. Church, except hearing him. I thought I
had no business to be interested in the knowledge of the fact, being
only a hearer. I thought therefore that my visit would be obtrusive.
Because you had no particular interest in the business?—Why, I
certainly had no interest in it.
And therefore you declined going in and taking the boy with you?—I
saw no necessity of so doing, as he did not acknowledge himself
guilty of any thing bad.
By Lord Ellenborough. But the boy being there, had you not the
curiosity to examine the boy?—I did not, it being delicate subject.
Did you not think it important to come at the truth upon the subject,
as the boy was there and you might have examined him yourself?—
If Mr. Church had confessed any thing, I should have thought it my
duty to take the boy and have them face to face.
But I should have thought that the circumstance of his not
confessing would be the reason why you would take them face to
face; or else why should you take the boy at all. But Mr. Church not
having confessed any thing, you therefore would not examine the
boy.—Was that your reason for not examining the boy?—Yes, my
Lord.
By Mr. Bolland.—But if he confessed any thing, you would have taken
the boy to have them face to face?—Yes.
Your object was to take the boy and have them face to face, if Mr.
Church acknowledged the crime?—Yes.
But surely when you found that Mr. Church had acknowledged his
fault, then there would be no reason for taking the boy to have them
face to face?—I should have thought it proper to take the boy in, if
Mr. Church acknowledged his crime. I wished the boy in fact to
come in with us; but when Mr. Patrick came out and said that Mr.
Church did not acknowledge any thing of it, I did not think it
necessary to have them face to face.
Then you did not think it right to have the boy in?—I never spoke to
the boy.
You never asked the boy about this transaction?—No.
Mr. Patrick never gave any opinion whether Mr. Church was
implicated in the transaction; but in answer to a particular part of
the transaction, he said that Mr. Church asserted that it was false?—
Yes.
Did you see the letter sent to Mrs. Hunter?—No.
I mean the letter about the three points of the boy’s statement
which Mr. Church said he was able to contradict?—No.
Mr. James Reeves sworn.
Examined by the Common Serjeant.
Were you the Clerk attending the Magistrate when the charge was
made before him;—I was.
Who was the Magistrate?—I must refer to the book—(Witness
produced a book.)
That is your minute book in which you enter the proceedings of the
day?—Yes.
Who was the sitting Magistrate on that day?—Mr. Serjeant Sellon
appears to have been the Magistrate on the 19th of November, as it
appears by the book.
This being a charge of misdemeanor, do you find by your book that
any account was committed to writing of what the witnesses said?—
No; it was not. It is merely a note, or entry of the names, as
follows: “Warrant for a misdemeanor, parties appeared by the
Officer, and ordered to find bail.”
Cross-examined by Mr. Marryatt.
Was that the Magistrate by whom the warrant was granted?—Yes.
Was the oath administered before the warrant was granted?—Yes;
there had been an ex-parte examination to grant the warrant on the
oath of the party.
That is in another book?—It is; that is left behind; I do not know any
thing of it.
But there is a deposition on oath prior to the granting of the
warrant?—Yes.
Re-examined by the Common Serjeant.
The depositions in cases of misdemeanour you don’t take in detail?
—No.
Were the depositions taken in writing in any book which you have
not here?—I am not aware of that.
Lord Ellenborough.—You were not told to bring it?—No.
Was that the only information upon which the warrant was granted?
—There was nothing taken down in writing when all the parties were
before the Magistrate.
Were the depositions taken down before the warrant was granted?—
Yes.
Then, after the warrant was executed, and at the time of the
examination when the Defendant was there, you took no minutes?—
No farther than the names of the parties; and what I have here.
Mr. Wood sworn.
Examined by Mr. Gurney.
Were you present at the examination of Mr. Church before the
Magistrate?—I was.
What are you?—A hatter, near the Elephant and Castle, in St.
George’s Fields.
Lord Ellenborough.—Did you take the testimony of the witnesses
down in writing?—No.
Mr. Gurney.—Did Foreman, the boy, in the account he gave before
the Magistrate, say for what purpose he searched the house?—He
said that he went out to the Potter and told the Potter that there
were thieves in the house, and that the Potter and he came to
search the house. He was asked a question by Mr. Sellon, whether
or no he searched the room where Mr. Church slept. He said, No, he
did not search that room. Mr. Sellon said, “Why not search that
room?”
What answer did he give to that?—The answer he gave was that the
Potter wished to break the door open. Mr. Sellon said, “Did you try
the door to see whether it was open, before the Potter talked of
breaking it open?” He said, No: he did not wish to disturb his
mistress.
Whilst the Potter was examined, did he say what was the alarm that
Foreman gave to him; did he say what was the alarm?—I cannot
charge my memory as to that.
Mr. Gurney.—My Lord, this is the case of the Defendant.
Mr. Marryatt then replied to the Defendant’s case, as follows:—
May it please your Lordship, Gentlemen of the Jury—My learned
Friend has almost admitted the case on the part of the Prosecution,
in the nature of his address to you, by saying, in effect, that if you
believed Mr. Church to have gone into the boy’s chamber at that
unseasonable hour of the morning, he could hardly come there for
any purpose but that ascribed to him by this Indictment. At least, if
my Learned Friend did not make that confession in terms so
explicitly as I have given them, certainly he has not offered in his
address to you the smallest explanation of so very suspicious a
purpose. And although I invited him, when I first had the
opportunity of stating this case, to assign any possible reason,
except that which is imputed to the Defendant as matter of crime,
why he should be in the Boy’s room under such circumstances, we
have had no motive assigned, nor any suggestion of apology or
excuse offered for such conduct.
There is an improbability in this case it is contended; because there
had been no overture of the same description made to the lad
before this period, nor any circumstance, by which an indication of
the Defendant’s unnatural propensities, prior to this transaction,
could be inferred. Gentlemen, we have lived some time in the
world, and we have seen that men, with these diabolical passions,
make those overtures, not unfrequently, to persons they never saw
in the whole course of their lives, until some occasional meeting—
sometimes in the Parks—nay, sometimes, even at public assemblies;
and yet so extraordinary is the phrenzy with which men of these
propensities are hurried, there is no accounting for their conduct on
these occasions: certainly there is no amounting for the conduct of
this Defendant in going into the boy’s chamber, except that which his
abominable and unnatural lusts can suggest, and which are imputed
to him by this indictment. Gentlemen, in the first place, was he
there? Why it is suggested that the boy’s fright had magnified the
powers of his vision, and that he must have mistaken the Defendant
for his mistress, or for the maid servant, who slept with his sister.
Now, Gentlemen, we have it in evidence that Mr. Church is a man
near six feet high: a man of considerable size, and distinguishable
from the boy’s mistress, who is a little feminate figure; and also very
distinguishable from the maid servant, whom my learned friend, Mr.
Gurney, wishes you to infer was the person who entered the
prosecutor’s room, because the maid’s chamber door was not shut;
although there was no question asked by the Defendant’s Counsel,
as to the intimacy of this young man with that servant maid. I admit
that the servant’s door was not fast; but my Learned Friend did not
inquire whether the servant’s door had been left open or fastened,
when the servants went to bed; nor was any inquiry made whether
the lock of that door was defective, as sometimes happens to be the
case with the servant’s rooms in a gentleman’s house; for
deficiencies of that description are not so immediately remedied as
in the more preferable rooms of the house. Gentlemen, could the
young man by any possibility mistake the female figure of the maid
servants or of his mistress, for the man he described—a man that is
of considerable size—near six feet high, and a very striking object in
point of height? Most unquestionably there is no pretence for
supposing, that there could be any body else but Mr. Church in the
room at that time. Now what is the conduct of the young lad on
that occasion? He goes down to West, the potter, immediately, and
states to him, that Mr. Church had behaved indecently. I admit that,
in the course of conversation, he mentioned some of the particulars
of what occurred, which the potter says he does not recollect. The
boy goes on further, and states particulars that he had related to the
man, which the latter says had not been mentioned to him; and
what is more probable, than that in giving an account of a
conversation which took place so long ago as the month of
September last, that the one may add half a sentence which the
other does not remember? But was not the statement that the lad
made at the time to the second witness, West, (though the latter
does not recollect the whole of what passed) that Church came into
his chamber, and conducted himself with indecency towards him?
They then return to the house; the lad and he examine the house
for the purpose of ascertaining whether any body else is there; no
other male person sleeping in the house; and they find all secure
and safe; and yet it is to supposed, that they went in search for
thieves! Why the result of the search would decide whether the
object of the search was to see whether there were any thieves in
the house—for neither a door nor a window had been opened, nor
was there any aperture at which a thief could gain admittance. It is
clear, therefore, that there was no other male in the house except
Church, the party indicted; nor is there now any colour for supposing
that there was any body else there of his sex but himself. But, it is
said their object was to search for thieves, and that the alarm was
for thieves, and that the Boy, when he went before the Magistrate,
gave some account about searching for thieves. Why, in his
examination here to-day, when he was asked whether he and West
did not go back together to the house and search for thieves, he
very naturally said, “Yes, Sir:” but why did he give that answer?—
Because there was another proposition put to him, which appeared
as material as that with respect to the search for thieves, and
accordingly he answered in the affirmative. It is true that he did
admit at first, that he went to search for thieves; but when he came
to give the explanation to the answer, he states that he did not
particularly search for thieves; and after a little cross-examination by
the same Learned Counsel, it appeared that the object was not to
search for thieves, but merely to ascertain that there was no other
man in the house that could possibly commit this indecency, this
outrage against religion, morality, and nature. But the man who was
called last, named Wood, is called to state something that passed
before the Magistrate; and, according to his representation, there
was something said about going to search for thieves. It is
observable, however, that he did not take up the whole story told in
the testimony of the lad, nor did my Learned Friend examine him as
to the anterior part of his statement: and from this it must fairly be
inferred, that the most material part of the boy’s testimony given to-
day, and that given before the Magistrate, was consistent, and not to
be shaken. For you may be quite certain, Gentlemen, that when my
Learned Friends on the other side content themselves with catching
at the smallest variance in the testimony of the witness from his
original statement; it is a decided proof that the most important part
of the case is not to be shaken, and is incapable of contradiction.
The material part of the evidence remains untouched by any shadow
of doubt as to its credibility. My Learned Friend rests satisfied with
the contradiction upon the subject of what passed between the
Potter and the Boy, but which, I say, is wholly immaterial as it affects
his credit; and the only further objection he makes to his testimony
is, that his evidence of to-day does not correspond, in some minute
particular, with his examination before the Magistrate. For the
reasons, however, which I have given you, Gentlemen, you will
dismiss these trifling matters from your serious consideration.
But it seems that Mr. Patrick has been guilty of some mis-statement
as to what occurred in the early stage of this proceeding; and we
have Mr. Thomas called, as it is said, for the purpose of contradicting
him, as to the result of some conversation which passed between
them after the interview at Mr. Church’s house. Gentlemen, it is
some what singular that Mr. Thomas, who was one of the
Defendant’s hearers, and interested himself so much in this case,
that when the boy is brought to give him information as to the
complaint which he had to make against Mr. Church, he does not
make the least inquiry into the lad’s account of the transaction, nor
does he express any desire that the lad should be introduced to Mr.
Church. We have it in evidence from himself, that on the day when
Mr. Patrick called upon Mr. Church, he waited with the lad on the
outside of the house; and although Mr. Patrick brought the boy for
the express purpose of having him confronted face to face with the
Defendant, still Mr. Thomas does not ask a single question of the
lad, nor does he go into any examination upon the subject.
Gentlemen, that this case was immediately blazoned about very
early is clear, though it was not carried before the magistrate so
soon; because we find that when Mr. Patrick came home on the
Thursday night, though he did not speak to the boy until the next
day, the Friday, yet the subject was generally mentioned to his wife
before he returned, and therefore the matter might have got wind
before it was fully explained by the boy to his master on the Friday
morning. It is quite clear that it was known to the congregation on
the following sabbath, and according to that letter which has been
read to you, (upon which I make no comments, except so far as it
bears on Mr. Patrick’s testimony), the Defendant, Mr. Church, had
written on the 6th of October to Mrs. Hunter, Mrs. Hunter having
previously written to him on the subject, for he begins by referring
to the letter which Mrs. Hunter had addressed to and expresses
regret that he shall lose her as a hearer in future: so that Mrs.
Hunter therefore, amongst other persons, was acquainted with the
rumours, because from him this letter comes, from which it appears
that she had written to him before; for it begins by stating—“My
heart is already too much affected: your letter only added affliction
to my bonds.”—Gentlemen, I only dwell upon this circumstance in
confirmation of Mr. Patrick’s statement, that Mr. Church could
contradict, not the whole of the report, but three points of the boy’s
statement. This letter having come to the knowledge of Mr. Patrick,
in which these three points are alluded to, and being desired by
some of the congregation to pay the Defendant a visit, he
accordingly resolves to call upon him. On that occasion he
introduces himself by stating, as the apology for his calling, that he
had seen a letter from the Defendant, in which he stated that he
could contradict certain points of the boy’s story. The Defendant you
will observe does not contradict the fact of his having written such a
letter, but he goes into an explanation with the witness as to what
are the points of contradiction; and then he states that so far as his
having laid hold of the boy, and his having told the lad that the
person who addressed him was his mistress, the whole was a mis-
statement; and these, Gentlemen, are the only points of denial upon
which the Defendant rested in his interview with Mr. Patrick, to
whom, however, he admitted distinctly that he was in the boy’s
chamber, though he denies the subsequent part of the transaction,
which the boy to-day has solemnly sworn to have taken place.
Now, gentlemen, I ask again, if he was in the boy’s chamber, for
what reason or proper purpose could he by possibility go there? And
if he was in that room, can you have any doubt of the truth of all the
circumstances which the boy has positively sworn?—If it was a
person of the male sex who entered that apartment, it must clearly
have been the defendant; for there was no other man in the house.
It appearing distinctly that Mr. Patrick was absent from home on that
night. Then I ask you, whether there is any ground for disbelieving
the boy’s story, who, immediately after the disgusting scene he has
described, goes to the pottery, tells his story to the workman, and
stays there the remainder of the night, chusing rather to lose his rest
than stay in the house with Mr. Church, under the liability of a
further encounter for the same detestable purpose. The reason
which the boy has given for not alarming the house, is not an
unnatural one. We have it in evidence that Mr. West, feeling a manly
indignation at what had happened, manifested a disposition to pull
the unnatural offender out of his bed, and turn him into the street.
But the boy, apprehensive that such an occurrence might give an
alarm to his mistress, persuaded the potter to abstain from his
purpose, and they accordingly did not enter the defendant’s door.
Thus, gentlemen, the testimony of the prosecutor is consistent in all
its parts; for although Church denied some circumstances of the
transaction as stated in his letter read to-day, yet every main and
important feature of the transaction is confirmed by collateral
circumstances. Mr. Patrick’s evidence is a direct corroboration of the
boy’s story, from the moment that the transaction first took place
down to his examination of to-day. But if, gentlemen, as I said
before, you feel any reasonable doubt of the purpose for which the
defendant came into the boy’s room, it is your duty to acquit him;
but, on the other hand, if all the circumstances of the case conspire
to imprint upon your mind that the defendant had clearly no other
purpose, but a guilty and unnatural one when he entered that
apartment, it is your bounden duty, disgusting as it may be, to
pronounce a sentence of condemnation, whatever consequences
may result to the defendant in the judgment which he shall
hereafter receive.

THE CHARGE.
Lord Ellenborough delivered his charge to the jury as follows:
Gentlemen of the Jury—This is an indictment against John Church
for an assault upon the person of Adam Foreman, with intent to
commit an unnatural crime with him. There has been a considerable
body of evidence laid before you, against him as well as for him: and
it is for you to say in the result, after giving that evidence due
consideration, whether the defendant has committed the assault
with intent to perpetrate the atrocious crime imputed to him by the
indictment.
Now, assuming the fact to be that Mr. Church was in the room at the
time this offence was supposed to have been committed, that alone
imposes upon him the necessity of giving some explanation for the
occasion which brought him there. If, in addition to the fact of being
there, which he admits, himself, to be true, you should believe the
boy further in his statement that such an overture was made to him,
and that the hand of a man was put upon his private parts in bed,
you will have to say with what other purpose than as an inducement
to the commission of an unnatural crime, it had been placed there.
That is, supposing you believe the facts as stated by the young
man. I should apprehend that no reason can be suggested for such
an indecent intercourse (supposing it did take place) with this man’s
person unless it was a prelude or inducement to the committing of
the crime imputed to the defendant. Now the main question for
your consideration will be, whether that which is sworn by Foreman,
and confirmed by Mr. Patrick, is truly sworn. I think too much stress
has been laid upon the circumstance, stated about the searching for
thieves, which it is said, on the part of the defendant, was the
avowed object of Foreman in returning to the house. It was very
natural and highly probable when he apprehended, if he did truly
apprehend, that a male person had come into his room and had
accosted him in the manner he stated, that he should be clearly
satisfied before he went farther in communicating to the potter the
indecencies offered to his person, that there was no other male in
the house, and seeing that no other male could come into the house
at that time of night, unless he came for this purpose and no other.
In this point of view, I think it is not at all unnatural or improbable in
his conduct, even if he had said that he had gone in search for
thieves; and, if you recollect, his evidence was, “that he had
searched the house, not for thieves in particular, but to see if there
was any body in any of the rooms.” “I did not think of thieves,” says
he, “because I knew who it was,” and so on. He now says, that at
that time he knew it was Mr. Church, and therefore he did not think
of searching for thieves, his object being, in searching the house, to
ascertain whether there was any other male in the house besides
the one to whom he attaches the crime imputed by this indictment.
Gentleman, I shall now proceed to state to you the evidence as it
has been given on both sides.
Adam Foreman, the first witness, states, that he shall be twenty
years of age the first day of December next. “I am an apprentice to,
Mr. Patrick, the potter, of Vauxhall; I have been with him about five
years. I have known the defendant, John Church, by sight about
two or three years. He is a preacher, and I have attended as one of
the congregation in the chapel where he preaches; I have often
seen him. I sleep generally at my father’s house, but when my
master goes out of town I sleep at his house. The defendant Church
lives near his chapel in St. George’s Fields. The defendant came to
sleep at my master’s on the 25th of September last.” It seems,
Gentlemen, he came there by invitation from Mr. Patrick, having
weak health, and it being more convenient for him to sleep in better
air. “He slept there on the night of the 25th September; I slept
there also, that night. I don’t know whether the defendant had
been there before; I cannot say whether I had seen him there
before. My master was out of town that night, but where I cannot
say. The persons who slept in the house that night were Mr. Church,
my mistress, the children, and the two maid-servants; there was no
other man in the house except Church and myself. My bed-room
was the front parlour on the first floor, over the kitchen. It was not
usually a bed-room, but I slept there because there was no other
bed-room that I could sleep in. A temporary bed was put up there
for me. I went to bed at near one o’clock. There was a kiln
burning, and I was obliged to sit up to let the man in to the kiln
when he came. It was necessary for me to sit up to attend that kiln,
and to give the man the key. That man’s name is Thomas West. I
went to sleep directly I went to bed. I had not been asleep more
than half an hour, before I was awoke by some one putting his
hands under the bed clothes, and laying hold of my private parts.
He laid hold of me very tight. I put my hand out of the bed clothes
and caught hold of him, and asked him who he was. I said, who are
you? I laid hold of him, as near as I can guess, by the upper part of
the arm; and I felt lower down, and found by the sleeve that he had
got a man’s shirt on. I had a hold of him by the upper part of the
arm, and running my hand down to the wrist, I found he had a
man’s shirt on. The wrist was buttoned. I knew very well it was
man, because he had got a man’s shirt on. The person, whoever it
was, said, in a feint voice like a woman, “Adam, don’t you know
me? I am your mistress.” It was not Mrs. Patrick’s voice. I knew
the voice directly I heard it to be Mr. Church’s. He fled from the
room directly; he went out of the room in a hurried step. I got out
of bed and put on my small clothes and shoes, and went out to the
door. As the man opened the door, I saw by the lamp that it was Mr.
Church, and he had only his shirt on. The lamp is outside of the
street door, on the Terrace, and throws a light through the fan-light
of the hall door. It is a parish lamp. At the time I saw Church by
the light of the lamp I was sitting up in bed: I had not then left my
bed. I saw that the person who went out through the door had a
man’s shirt on. I did not see his face at all; his back was to me. I
then got up and put my small-clothes on and shoes, and went to the
pottery to get the man to come up to the house. I told Thomas
West what had happened. He was in the pottery, and was there I
before went to bed. The person who went out at the door shut it
after him. I saw him by the light of the lamp when he opened the
door. There was no light in the room; the light came from a lamp on
the terrace. That lamp is about five or six yards from the door of
the house on the terrace. The terrace, on which my master’s house
is situated, is a row of houses raised above the road. The lamp is
upon the terrace opposite to the door. The light from the lamp is
given to the passage through the fan-light over the door. When the
man opened the door and went out, I saw him by the light from the
lamp. I could not see the face of the person, but I saw that he had
a shirt on. I was rather alarmed. It all took place in a minute. It
was not long about. I don’t know how long he had been there
before I awoke. From the moment I awoke it took place as fast as
possible. I immediately went to West. We did not know whether
any body had got in or not. West and I directly came and searched
the house for thieves. We went and looked at every chamber door
in the home except Mr. Church’s and my mistress’s. We looked at
the door of Mr. Church, and that of my mistress. They were both
shut. We found all the doors in the house shut except the servant’s,
which we found on the jar.”
Now, Gentlemen, great stress is laid by the learned counsel for the
Defendant upon this circumstance. It is suggested that it might be
Mrs. Patrick, or one of the maid servants who entered the room. It
appears that one of the servants was the prosecutor’s own sister,
and it was not likely to be her that went in. It is said the
prosecutor’s counsel ought to have called the maid servant and Mrs.
Patrick to negative the supposed circumstance of their having gone
into the room. Now, this observation is to be made, that it was open
to the one side or to the other to have called the maid servant, and
have proposed that question to her. It was clearly open to the
Defendant, if he chose to call the maid, and to have asked her that
question; and it was equally open to the counsel for the
prosecution. It was also open to both sides to have called Mrs.
Patrick. It is probable that the prosecutor’s counsel did not like to
expose her to the pain of an unnecessary examination, because the
Defendant might have called her as a witness for himself.
“I went and told West that Mr. Church came down into my room,
and behaved in a very indecent manner. I told him that Church had
been there and laid hold of my private parts. I did not search the
house for thieves in particular, but to search if any body was in any
of the rooms. We searched the house. We looked all over it to see
if there was anybody in any of the rooms. We searched the house,
but not for thieves in particular. I did not think of thieves, because I
knew who it was. We did not go into the maid servant’s room; we
only looked in. We found the door open and looked in. The maids
were in bed. One was my sister. The door being a-jar, we pushed a
little, and we saw that they were a-bed. We did not speak to them.
We did not search the house for thieves, because I knew who the
person was. The reason of my searching the house was because I
wished to be quite right before I made the accusation against Mr.
Church. We found that there was no other man in the house but Mr.
Church. There was no door, no window open, at which any other
man could have come in. The light from the Terrace came through
the fan-light over the door. The lamp gives a pretty fair light to the
hall, and shews a little light up the stairs. The time when the person
opened the door and went out, was the time that I got a view of his
person. I did not hear him when he first came into the room. I was
awakened by the application of his hand to my person. He was
standing by the bed-side on the floor. I did not call to him by name,
or give him to understand that I knew who he was. I did not see
any part of his face, but I saw his back as he went out of the room.
He was a person that appeared to be the height of Mr. Church. I
cannot say what height he is. I cannot say exactly whether he had a
night-cap on. I think it was a handkerchief tied round his head. I
could not tell what sort of a handkerchief it was, whether coloured
or not.”
He does not say positively whether it was a light or a coloured
handkerchief, but he says he could not tell. He did not see whether
it was coloured or not.
“We went to Church’s door, but we did not touch it, nor did we go
in. West wanted to go into the room and pull him out.”
That is confirmed by the testimony of West himself.
“I objected to West’s pulling him out, because I was afraid of
disturbing my mistress. She would have been very much alarmed.”
That was the account he gave in his original examination before the
magistrate, as the reason for his not going into the room.
“Church never had any conversation with me, nor did he ever make
any overture of this sort to me before this time. There was nothing
particular in his manner or in his conduct towards me before this
time. I have never spoken to him at all since. I saw him attend
before the magistrate. There I spoke in his presence, but not
immediately to him. I did not hear him speak before the
magistrate. I have given the same account before the magistrate
that I have now done here. I know no other circumstances from
which I could collect that it was a man. The hand was withdrawn
when I awoke. By the height of the person I saw, I could ascertain
whether it was or was not the height of my mistress or any of the
female part of the house. Mr. Church was a great deal bigger than
any body there. I don’t think he is quite six foot. He is a tall and
stout man. There was light enough by the lamp to see the outline of
the man, so as to be able to say that he was a tall person. Mrs.
Patrick is quite a little woman, she is quite different person from the
person I saw in the room. I am quite clear of that. The maid who
slept in the room with my sister, is about as tall as I am; not quite so
tall. I am quite sure it was not her. There was no other maid in the
house.”
This is the evidence of the first witness; and you observe he says, he
is quite sure it was not any of the females of the house who came
into his room; and he is quite sure that there was no other male
person in the house besides himself and the Defendant Church; and
he is certain that it was not the maid nor his mistress.
The next witness examined is Thomas West. He says, “I am
workmen to Mr. Patrick, the potter. On the morning of the 26th of
September last, I relieved Adam Foreman at the Kiln. I relieved him
about half past twelve o’clock in the morning: he left me shortly
afterwards for the purpose of going to bed. I saw him again in
about half an hour. He was only part dressed. He had his small
clothes, his shoes, and one stocking on. He came to me in a very
great fright, and bid me light my candle. He appeared very much
alarmed, and bid me light my candle and come along with him up to
the house. He told me, as we were going along the garden, that Mr.
Church had been to him, and behaved in a very indecent manner.
He did not explain how. He unlocked the door, and we went into the
house together. When we got into the house he put the remainder
of his clothes on. We then went and searched every room in the
house, beginning at the bottom and going upwards to the top,
except my mistress’s room and Mr. Church’s. We went into all the
rooms except Mr. Church’s and Mrs. Patrick’s. We did not go into Mr.
Church’s room or that of my mistress. We did not open the door of
either of those two rooms. When we came to Mr. Church’s door, I
said, “I’ll go and pull him out; shall I?” The Lad said, “No, for fear of
disturbing my mistress.” In consequence of that observation of the
lad’s, I forebore going into the room. Foreman then came along
with me into the Pottery. He came down stairs; locked the back
door, and staid with me the whole of the remainder of the night at
the Pottery ’till the morning. We searched in all the rooms of the
house for the purpose of seeing if there was any other person in the
place. We found no window or door open at which any body could
have got into the house. I saw them all secure and fastened. When
Foreman came to me, he did not explain what Church had done to
him; he only told me that Church had behaved in a very indecent
manner to him. I did go to search for thieves in the house. When
he told me that Church had behaved in a very indecent manner to
him, I went to see if there was any other person in the place.
Foreman did not tell me he believed that there was thieves in the
house. I am quite sure he did not explain in what way Church
behaved to him. He did not tell me that Church came to his bed
side, and laid his hand upon his private parts; he never from first to
the last, either in the course of the morning when staying with me,
or after we had been to the house, tell me what Church had done,
and that he had laid his hand upon his private parts. I went before
the Magistrate some time after this; I believe it was six or seven
weeks.”
Gentlemen, there would be a great deal in the observation upon the
circumstance of the parties not going before the Magistrate until six
or seven weeks afterwards, if the matter had been kept a secret.
But it is not kept a secret; so far from that, it was quite notorious.
And here is a letter, in the hand-writing of the Defendant himself,
dated the 6th of October, in answer to a letter of Mrs. Hunter; and it
appears that the subject had been ventilated and circulated, for
some days before, and had become the topic of general discussion
amongst the Defendant’s congregation; because it appears that Mrs.
Hunter had written a letter herself to the Defendant upon it. There
is nothing, therefore, in the observation of the Learned Counsel for
the Defendant as to the tardiness of going before the Magistrate.
He says, “The Lad then went with his father. The Lad generally slept
at home at his father’s house. The father lives about a quarter of a
mile from Mr. Patrick’s. The Boy did not sleep at his father’s the next
night; but he did the next night after that. We did not go to the
Justices until about six or seven weeks afterwards. I did not
communicate with Mr. Patrick upon the subject before I went to the
Justice.”
The next witness called is Mr. Patrick. He says, I am a Potter, at
Vauxhall; the boy, Foreman, lived with me all the time I have been in
the pottery business; that is, between five and six years. He slept in
my house only occasionally, and that was whenever I went out of
town. As there was no other male in the house on those occasions,
he used to sleep there for the purpose of giving the key to the Potter
in the morning. I was absent from home on the 25th of September;
and on that occasion the Boy slept in my house; he slept upon a
chair bed in the front parlour; it was a temporary bed for a nurse
occasionally. I knew the Defendant, John Church; I first became
acquainted with him when I came to reside at Vauxhall; he is a
Baptist Preacher, and I attended his chapel; and that was the way I
became acquainted with him. His residence is adjoining to the
Chapel. In the month of September, the Defendant came to sleep at
my house. He complained occasionally of ill health; and thinking
that he was ill, I asked him, out of friendship, to take a bed at my
house, as I thought the air would be of service to him. I returned
home on the evening of the 26th of September, and on the morning
of the 27th the Boy made a communication to me respecting this
transaction.
So that you see, Gentlemen, the Boy makes this communication to
his master at the earliest moment he has an opportunity of speaking
to him.
“Several of the congregation afterwards applied to me, and at their
request I went to Mr. Church on the 9th of October.”
But, Gentlemen, the 9th of October is not the first time that this
matter was mentioned; for it appears to have been in circulation at
the time that Mr. Church wrote the letter which has been given in
evidence.
“That was the first communication I had with Mr. Church on the
subject. Church said he took it extremely kind of me in calling upon
him. I said he might take it as he pleased, as I did not come
willingly, but that some of his congregation thought that I ought to
see him on the business.”
You observe, Gentlemen, that it was at the request of some of the
congregation that he went; and, in a subsequent part of the
evidence, it appears that Mr. Thomas, one of the congregation, had
expressly desired him to call upon the Defendant.
“I told him, I waited upon him, having seen a letter, wherein he
denied three particular points in the Boy’s statement. He then
denied, in the fleet place, having taken hold of the Boy, and in the
second, his having said to the Boy that he was his mistress. The
third point I didn’t particularly recollect; but in the course of
conversation he admitted that he had been in the Boy’s room. He
denied that he had had hold of the Boy, and that he had told the
Boy that he was his mistress. I told him that of these two points the
Boy was positive, and I had no reason to doubt any thing that he
said. The Defendant said ‘that he was very sorry for it; the worst of
it was, it confirmed ancient reports.’”
Gentlemen, this is the language of Church himself. What those
antient reports were we have not heard; we are only left to guess at
what the expression alluded to.
Upon which Mr. Patrick said, “It did so, and of course,” says he, “I
told him that I should believe all that I had heard heretofore: and I
wished him a good morning. I have never spoken to him since; but
I have seen him.—This is an exact copy of the letter dated the 6th of
October, addressed to Mrs. Hunter.”
Gentlemen, this letter is afterwards read in evidence. Mrs. Hunter
being called as a witness, she stated that she believed, from the
knowledge that she had of the character of the Defendant’s hand-
writing, she believes the original from which this copy is taken, was
written by him; and Mr. Patrick swears that the letter from which he
took this copy was, in his belief, in “the hand-writing of the
Defendant.”
Now, Gentlemen, upon reading this letter, one is very much struck,
not by what it contains, absurd as it is in some respects, and
containing something like a profane use of the sacred name of the
Saviour, but at the absence of what one certainly might naturally
expect to find in the letter of a person writing to a friend, and one of
his own congregation, upon this subject. What is so natural as that
he should most explicitly and peremptorily deny the whole
accusation and charge, and rest with confidence upon his own
innocence and the character which he bore amongst his
congregation. But instead of that, he envelopes the matter in a
sanctified discussion, such as has been read to you, dwelling upon
the sacred name of our Saviour in a very indecent manner. I shall
read this letter to you again; and if you find any thing in it which can
be construed into an express denial of the circumstances charged
against him, I am sure it will make a proper impression upon your
minds. I confess I can find no such denial. He says, “I am able to
contradict three things”—one of which is laying hold of the boy’s
person, and the other the speaking of his mistress. The third point,
Mr. Patrick does not recollect. But, you will observe, he did not deny
being in the room: that seems to be a fact now undisputed. The
letter is in these words:—

Oct. 6, 1816.
“Dear Mrs. Hunter—My heart is already too much affected. Your
letter only added affliction to my bonds; but I forbear. I would
have called on you this morning, but I was too low in mind to
speak to any friend but Jesus. There I am truly comfortable.
Pardon me. But I make no remarks on what you have been
told. I must bear it. Though I am able to contradict these
things, I would rather not. Mr. and Mrs. Patrick have always
dealt kindly to me. I am only grieved that dear Mrs. P. whom I
really love, that she should try to injure me in the estimation of
those who are real friends to my dear children. The thought
affects me, Why hurt my poor family? But I am too much
depressed to enlarge. I shall never forget their kindness. God
will reward them, as he has many who have dealt well to me.
But he will resent cruelty in those who have and are still trying
 to degrade me. Mrs. P. will live to see it. Dear Mrs. Hunter, I
am grieved at heart. I can not relieve your mind. I am truly
sorry to lose you as a hearer, because your soul has been
blessed, and you know both the plague of the heart and the
value of Jesus. May he be increasingly precious to you!—in his
person, love, and grave. Farewell, my dear kind friend. The
Lord Jesus will reward you for your love to me and kindness to
mine. God is not unrighteous to forget your work of faith and
labour of love. With many tears I write this. May we meet in
glory, when no enemy shall distress my mind, nor sin, nor death
shall part us more. I need not remind my dear friend that I am
a child of peculiar Providence.”

This is very extraordinary. Whether he considers himself as

privileged above the rest of mankind, I know not: but it should seem
that he does. He says:

“I am a child of peculiar providence: and that Heart of Eternal

Love, and that Arm of Invincible Power, has protected me—has
called me to himself—and for every act of straying, will correct
me.”

Therefore, he admits that he is subject to the punishment of the

Divine Being. Whether he is exempt from the temporal jurisdiction
for his crimes or not, seems to be a matter of doubt with him: for he
says,—

“In every act of straying, God will correct me with his own hand;
but will resent every other hand sooner or later.”

So that he admits that for his offences, or his “acts of straying,” as

he is pleased to call them, God will punish him with his own hand;
but that no other hand will punish him. The letter concludes—

“This you will live to see. Adieu, dear friend: accept the starting
tear, and the best wishes of an heart sincere.
Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

testbankdeal.com