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. “Your’s, truly, “Till we shall meet above.” Gentlemen, this is his letter. If it had been a full and explicit denial of the whole charge, it would have been more favourable to him. One is sorry to see the name of the Divine Being mixed up with so indecent and abominable a story. Mr. Patrick goes on to state that he denied having had hold of the boy, but he admitted that he was in the room; upon his saying to the Defendant that as to the two points in question, the boy was positive, and that he had no reason to doubt any thing that the boy said, the defendant replied that he was sorry for it, because it confirmed ancient reports. The witness said, “it did so;” and he told him that he should now believe all that he had heard heretofore, and he wished him a good morning. He says, “I never saw him afterwards to speak to him. This is an exact copy of the letter dated 6th October, 1816, addressed to Mrs. Hunter. I took an exact copy of it myself. I did not read the copy of the letter to the Defendant, for I had not the copy with me at that time. With respect to the letter I told him that I wished to know what the three things were that he could deny. I do not recollect the third point; it is not material, he admitted being in the room, but denied the laying hold.” He is asked in what terms the Defendant admitted that he was in the room, and he said the Defendant said, “I was in the room, but I did not lay hold of the boy.” He did not say why he was in the room. “I returned the letter of the 6th of October to Mrs. Hunter, from whom I received it.”