Java How To Program Late Objects

10th Edition Deitel Test Bank

Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://testbankdeal.com/dow
nload/java-how-to-program-late-objects-10th-edition-deitel-test-bank/
Chapter 10: Object-Oriented
Programming: Polymorphism
Section 10.1 Introduction
10.1 Q1: Polymorphism enables you to:
a. program in the general.
b. program in the specific.
c. absorb attributes and behavior from previous classes.
d. hide information from the user.
Ans: a. program in the general.

Section 10.2 Polymorphism Examples

10.2 Q1: For which of the following would polymorphism not provide a clean
solution?
a. A billing program where there is a variety of client types that are billed with
different fee structures.
b. A maintenance log program where data for a variety of types of machines is
collected and maintenance schedules are produced for each machine based on the
data collected.
c. A program to compute a 5% savings account interest for a variety of clients.
d. An IRS program that maintains information on a variety of taxpayers and
determines who to audit based on criteria for classes of taxpayers.
Ans: c. A program to compute a 5% savings account interest for a variety of
clients. Because there is only one kind of calculation, there is no need for
polymorphism.

10.2 Q2: Polymorphism allows for specifics to be dealt with during:

a. execution.
b. compilation.
c. programming.
d. debugging.
Ans: a. execution

© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
Section 10.3 Demonstrating Polymorphic
Behavior
10.3 Q1: Which statement best describes the relationship between superclass and
subclass types?
a. A subclass reference cannot be assigned to a superclass variable and a superclass
reference cannot be assigned to a subclass variable.
b. A subclass reference can be assigned to a superclass variable and a superclass
reference can be assigned to a subclass variable.
c. A superclass reference can be assigned to a subclass variable, but a subclass
reference cannot be assigned to a superclass variable.
d. A subclass reference can be assigned to a superclass variable, but a superclass
reference cannot be assigned to a subclass variable.
Ans: d. A subclass reference can be assigned to a superclass variable, but a
superclass reference cannot be assigned to a subclass variable.

Section 10.4 Abstract Classes and Methods

10.4 Q1: A(n) class cannot be instantiated.
a. final.
b. concrete.
c. abstract.
d. polymorphic.
Ans: c. abstract.

10.4 Q2: Non-abstract classes are called ________.

a. real classes.
b. instance classes.
c. implementable classes.
d. concrete classes.
Ans: d. concrete classes.

Section 10.5 Case Study: Payroll System

Using Polymorphism
10.5 Q1: It is a UML convention to denote the name of an abstract class in
________.
a. bold.
© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
b. italics.
c. a diamond.
d. there is no convention of the UML to denote abstract classes—they are listed just
as any other class.
Ans: b. italics.

10.5 Q2: If the superclass contains only abstract method declarations, the
superclass is used for ________.
a. implementation inheritance.
b. interface inheritance.
c. Both.
d. Neither.
Ans: b. interface inheritance.

Section 10.5.1 Abstract Superclass Employee

10.5.1 Q1: Which of the following could be used to declare abstract method
method1 in abstract class Class1 (method1 returns an int and takes no arguments)?
a. public int method1();
b. public int abstract method1();
c. public abstract int method1();
d. public int nonfinal method1();
Ans: c. public abstract int method1();

10.5.1 Q2: Which of the following statements about abstract superclasses is true?
a. abstract superclasses may contain data.
b. abstract superclasses may not contain implementations of methods.
c. abstract superclasses must declare all methods as abstract.
d. abstract superclasses must declare all data members not given values as
abstract.
Ans: a. abstract superclasses may contain data.

Section 10.5.2 Concrete Subclass

SalariedEmployee
10.5.2 Q1: Consider the abstract superclass below:
public abstract class Foo
{
private int a;
public int b;
© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
 public Foo(int aVal, int bVal)
{
a = aVal;
b = bVal;
}

public abstract int calculate();

}

Any concrete subclass that extends class Foo:

a. Must implement a method called calculate.
b. Will not be able to access the instance variable a.
c. Neither (a) nor (b).
d. Both (a) and (b).
Ans: d. Both (a) and (b).

Section 10.5.3 Concrete Subclass HourlyEmployee

(No questions.)

Section 10.5.4 Concrete Subclass

CommisionEmployee
(No Questions.)

Section 10.5.5 Indirect Concrete Subclass

BasePlusCommissionEmployee
10.5.5 Q1: Consider classes A, B and C, where A is an abstract superclass, B is a
concrete class that inherits from A and C is a concrete class that inherits from B. Class
A declares abstract method originalMethod, implemented in class B. Which of the
following statements is true of class C?
a. Method originalMethod cannot be overridden in class C—once it has been
implemented in concrete class B, it is implicitly final.
b. Method originalMethod must be overridden in class C, or a compilation error will
occur.
c. If method originalMethod is not overridden in class C but is called by an object of
class C, an error occurs.
d. None of the above.
Ans: d. None of the above.
© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
Section 10.5.6 Polymorphic Processing, Operator
instanceof and Downcasting
10.5.6 Q1: When a superclass variable refers to a subclass object and a method is
called on that object, the proper implementation is determined at execution time.
What is the process of determining the correct method to call?
a. early binding.
b. non-binding.
c. on-time binding.
d. late binding.
Ans: d. late binding (also called dynamic binding).

10.5.6 Q2: Every object in Java knows its own class and can access this information
through method .
a. getClass.
b. getInformation.
c. objectClass.
d. objectInformation.
Ans: a. getClass.

Section 10.6 Allowed Assignments Between

Superclass and Subclass Variables

10.6 Q1: Assigning a subclass reference to a superclass variable is safe ________.

a. because the subclass object has an object of its superclass.
b. because the subclass object is an object of its superclass.
c. only when the superclass is abstract.
d. only when the superclass is concrete.
Ans: b. because the subclass object is an object of its superclass.

Section 10.7 final Methods and Classes

10.7 Q1: Classes and methods are declared final for all but the following reasons:
a. final methods allow inlining the code.
b. final methods and classes prevent further inheritance.
c. final methods are static.
d. final methods can improve performance.
© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
Ans: c. final methods are static.

10.7 Q2: All of the following methods are implicitly final except:
a. a method in an abstract class.
b. a private method.
c. a method declared in a final class.
d. static method.
Ans: a. a method in an abstract class.

10.7 Q3: Declaring a method final means:

a. it will prepare the object for garbage collection.
b. it cannot be accessed from outside its class.
c. it cannot be overloaded.
d. it cannot be overridden.
Ans: d. it cannot be overridden.

Section 10.8 A Deeper Explanation of Issues

with Calling Methods from Constructors
10.8 Q1: Which of the following is false?
a. You should not call overridable methods from constructors—when creating a
subclass object, this could lead to an overridden method being called before the
subclass object is fully initialized.
b. It’s OK to any of a class’s methods from its constructors.
c. When you construct a subclass object, its constructor first calls one of the direct
superclass’s constructors. If the superclass constructor calls an overridable method,
the subclass’s version of that method will be called by the superclass constructor.
d. It’s acceptable to call a static method from a constructor.
ANS: b. It’s OK to any of a class’s methods from its constructors.

Section 10.9 Creating and Using Interfaces

10.9 Q1: In Java SE 7 and earlier, an interface may contain:
a. private static data and public abstract methods.
b. only public abstract methods.
c. public static final data and public abstract methods.
d. private static data and public final methods.
Ans: c. public static final data and public abstract methods.

10.9 Q2: Which of the following does not complete the sentence correctly?
© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
An interface .
a. forces classes that implement it to declare all the abstract interface methods.
b. can be used in place of an abstract class when there is no default implementation
to inherit.
c. is declared in a file by itself and is saved in a file with the same name as the
interface followed by the .java extension.
d. can be instantiated.
Ans: d. can be instantiated.

Section 10.9.1 Developing a Payable Hierarchy

10.9.1 Q1: The UML distinguishes an interface from other classes by placing the
word “interface” in above the interface name.
a. italics.
b. carets.
c. guillemets.
d. bold.
Ans: c. guillemets.

Section 10.9.2 Interface Payable

10.9.2 Q1: Interfaces can have methods.

a. 0
b. 1
c. 2
d. any number of
Ans: d. any number of

Section 10.9.3 Class Invoice

10.9.3 Q1: Which keyword is used to specify that a class will define the methods of
an interface?
a. uses
b. implements
c. defines
d. extends
Ans: b. implements

10.9.3 Q2: Which of the following is not possible?

a. A class that implements two interfaces.
© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
b. A class that inherits from two classes.
c. A class that inherits from one class, and implements an interface.
d. All of the above are possible.
Ans: b. A class that inherits from two classes.

Section 10.9.4 Modifying Class Employee to

Implement Interface Payable

10.9.4 Q1: A class that implements an interface but does not declare all of the
interface’s methods must be declared ________.
a. public.
b. interface.
c. abstract.
d. final.
Ans: c. abstract.

Section 10.9.5 Modifying Class SalariedEmployee

for Use in the Payable Hierarchy
10.9.5 Q1: Which of the following statements is false?
a. An advantage of inheritance over interfaces is that only inheritance provides the is-a
relationship.
b. Objects of any subclass of a class that implements an interface can also be thought of
as objects of that interface type.
c. When a method parameter is declared with a subclass or interface type, the method
processes the object passed as an argument polymorphically.
d. All objects have the methods of class Object.
ANS: a. An advantage of inheritance over interfaces is that only inheritance
provides the is-a relationship. Actually, when a class implements an interface, the
same is-a relationship provided by inheritance applies.

Section 10.9.6 Using Interface Payable to Process

Invoices and Employees Polymorphically
10.9.6 Q1: Which of the following statements is false?
a. References to interface types do not have access to method toString.
b. Method toString can be invoked implicitly on any object.
c. With inheritance, classes and their inherited classes tend to be very similar.
d. Dramatically different classes can often meaningfully implement the same interface.

© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
ANS: a. References to interface types do not have access to method toString.
Actually, all references, including those of interface types, refer to objects that
extend Object and therefore have a toString method.

Section 10.9.7 Some Common Interfaces of the Java

API
10.9.7: Q1: Which interface is used to identify classes whose objects can be written
to or read from some type of storage or transmitted across a network?
a. Comparable
b. Runnable
c. AutoCloseable
d. Serializable
ANS: d. Serializeable.

10.9.7: Q2: Which interface is specifically intended to be implemented by classes

that can be used with the try-with-resources statement?
a. Comparable
b. Runnable
c. AutoCloseable
d. Serializable
ANS: c. AutoCloseable.

Section 10.10 Java SE 8 Interface Enhancements

(No questions.)

Section 10.10.1 default Interface Methods

10.10.1 Q1: Which of the following statements is false?
a. In Java SE 8, an interface may declare default methods—that is, public methods
with concrete implementations that specify how an operation should be performed.
b. When a class implements an interface, the class receives the interface’s default
concrete implementations if it does not override them.
c. When you enhance an existing interface with default methods—any class that
implemented the original interface will break.
d. With default methods, you can declare common method implementations in
interfaces (rather than abstract classes), which gives you more flexibility in designing
your classes.
Ans: c. When you enhance an existing interface with default methods—any
class that implemented the original interface will break. Actually, when you
enhance an existing interface with default methods—any class that
implemented the original interface will not break—it’ll simply receive the
© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
default method implementations.

Section 10.10.2 static Interface Methods

10.10.2 Q1: Which of the following statements is false?
a. Prior to Java SE 8, it was common to associate with an interface a class containing
static helper methods for working with objects that implemented the interface.
b. Class Collections contains many static helper methods for working with objects
that implement interfaces Collection, List, Set and more.
c. Collections method sort can sort objects of any class that implements interface
List.
d. With non-static interface methods, helper methods can now be declared directly
in interfaces rather than in separate classes.
Ans: d. With non-static interface methods, helper methods can now be declared
directly in interfaces rather than in separate classes. Actually, it's with static
interface methods that helper methods can now be declared directly in
interfaces rather than in separate classes.

Section 10.10.3 Functional Interfaces

10.10.3 Q1: Which of the following statements is false?
a. As of Java SE 8, any interface containing only one method is known as a
functional interface.
b. There are many functional interfaces throughout the Java APIs.
c. Functional interfaces are used extensively with Java SE 8’s new lambda
capabilities.
d. Anonymous methods provide a shorthand notation for creating lambdas.
Ans: Anonymous methods provide a shorthand notation for creating lambdas.
Actually, lambdas provide a shorthand notation for creating anonymous
methods.

© Copyright 1992-2015 by Deitel & Associates, Inc. and Pearson Education, Inc.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Ed infatti vi passa un gran divanò fra l’indispensabile
riconoscimento che far dee la S. Sede della Real Casa
Stuarda, ad esclusione di quella di Hanover da quel
chepassa nel riconoscimento almeno implicito, che fa la
medesima S. Sede di altri Principi Eretici. Per modo di
esempio; il Papa certamente nè tratta nè ha
corrispondenza alcuna coi Rè di Svezia e di Danimarca,
ma ciò unicamente per essere Eglino Eretici, non già
perche loro impugno neghi la legittima successione
dell’essere di Rè; Quindi nei Diarj stessi stampati coll’
approvazione della Corte di Roma, non si fa difficultà di
enunciarli per Rè di Svezia, per Rè di Danimarca; ma nel
caso nostro non solo può il sommo Pontefice trattare
direttamente colla casa di Hanover per essere Eretica, ma
neppur può in alcun modo nè anche tacitamente
riconoscere il Capo di quella per legittimo successore del
Regno d’lnghilterra; Poiche verrebbe in tal guisa a
canonizzare, ed ammettere direttamente per valido e
sussistente il sudetto inique Decreto.
Di tutti questi fatti e principj si è Veduto dal mondo
intero a qual segno era persuasa ed imbevuta la S. Mem.
di Clemente undecimo il quale nell’atto di ricevere, e di
abbracciare con paterno amore la Maestà di Giacomo
terzo, allorchi per suo unico rifugio in virtù dei Frattati di
Pace, ai quali tutti gli altri Principi Cattolici, esclusone il
sommo Pontefice, astretti furono di acconsentire, si portò
nello stato Ecclesiastico, e successivamente a Roma:
Persuaso, dico, il S. Padre ed imbevuto delle sudette
massime e sentimenti non si contentò di riconoscere, e di
trattare la Real Persona di Giacomo terzo per unico e
legittimo Rè d’lnghilterra, ma intendendo di volere nella di
lui Persona riconoscere tutta la Regia sua Prosapia, non
lasciò nè mezzi nè industrie per carcarne la propagazione
ed in consequenza procurargli un legittimo successore:
Epperò effettuato, che fù il matrimonio di Giacomo terzo
colla Principessa Sobieskj; facilitato non poco da qualche
Lettera del Papa scritta all’ Imperadore: Frà pochi mesi
divenne gravida la Regina e circa gli ultimi giorni dell’
anno 1720 trovossi prossima al parto; ed allora il S. Padre
conoscendo da una parte la necessità di dover rendere
incontastabile la legitimazione del Parto, e dall’ altra
intendendo l’obligo preciso, in cui ritrovasi la S. Sede, per
non contradire a se stessa, e per vie più sempre fare atti
protestativi contro l’accennato ingiusto Decreto, di
riconoscere la futura prole qual Erede Presuntivo, e
legittimo successore del Regno d’Inghilterra si accensa a
fare questo atto colla maggiore solennità possibile;
Perlocchi volle il S. Padre, che fossero chiamate per
essere presenti al parto, il Sagro Collegio, il Senato
Romano, i primi Prelati e Principi Romani, e la primaria
Nobilità di Roma; E Siccome la Maestà della Regina
stento a partorire per lo spazio di tre giorni in circa in tutto
questo tempo farono ripiene le Anticamere di Sua Maestà
dei riferti rispettabilissimi Personaggi, i quali
vicendevolmente surrogavansi gli uni agli altri, con avervi
ancora pernottato alcuni dei Signori Cardinali. In mezzo
adunque di consesso così rispettabile nacque ai 31 di
Dicembre dell’anno Sudetto Carlo Odoardo Principe di
Galles riconosciuto per tale e consequentamente per
Erede presuntivo della Corona dal Medesimo sommo
Pontefice, il quale non tardo punto a farlo annunziare a
tutto il Popolo per mezzo dello Sparo del Cannone di
Castello. E qui sia lecito riflettere che se il Rè Giacomo
terzo stato fosse in pacifico possesso del suo Trono, non
poteva il sudetto nato Principe ricevere maggiori onori, ed
atti più declaratorj del suo dritto successivo alla corona. La
sola formalità, che per parte della S. Sede rimanere
poteva al compimento di questi atti si era la tradizione
delle Fascie Benedette solite mandarsi ai soli Eredi
necessarj delle Teste Coronate, non già Elettive, ma
unicamenta successive: Ma perchi cessò di vivere la S.
Memoria di Clemente undecimo, prima che fossero del
tutto terminate le dette Fascie, toccò al di lui successore
Innocenzo tredecimo compire questo ultimo atto, com’ Egli
fece colla maggior Solennità possibile mandando a questo
effetto preciso un obligato con tutte le formalità e
ceremonie solite pratticarsi colle oltre Corti.
Da tutto questo racconto non si può negare che
appariscono nel suo pieno le obligazioni che ha la Real
Casa Stuarda alla S. Mem. di Clemente undecimo, ma
appariscono altrettanto quanto stava a cuore di quel
sommo Pontefice il decoro della S. Sede e come ben
intendeva l’indispensabile necessità da cui era astretta a
Sostenere inviolabili i Dritti della Casa Reale Sudetta:
Videva benissimo il S. Padre, che tutti questi replicati atti
di riconoscimento dovevano necessariamente inasperire il
Governo d’Inghilterra massimamente contro i Cattolici ed
in conseguenza essere in qualche maniera di Ostacolo al
buon successo delle missioni; Capiva altrasi che egli solo
era l’unico Principe Cattolico, che faceva questi atti di
riconoscimento: con tutto ciò tenendo avanti gli Occhi la
giustizia della causa che diveniva punto di Religione,
l’abborrimento che non mai abbastanza poteva rimostrare
la S. Sede al Sopracitato Decreto, e per fine l’obbligo
preciso de’ suoi Successori in non dipartirsi giammai da
quanto Egli faceva a prò di una Famiglia si bene merita
della S. Sede, non esitò punto di eseguirli con tante
Solennità, per mezzo delle quali toglieva a Suoi Medesimi
Successori qualunque ragione di dubbio circa il
trattamento dovuto al Principe di Galles, seguita la morte
del di lui Padre; Giacche sapeva benissimo il sommo
Pontefice che riconosciutosi una volta dalla S. Sede per
Erede presuntivo di un Regno un Figlio, non può mettere
in dubbio alla morte del di lui Padre, che gli Succeda in
tutto, ed in conseguenza nella sua dignita e ne’suoi onori;
In quella guisa appunto, che nell’ Impero (non ostante che
sia stato elettivo) riconosciutosi una volta dalla S. Sede
alcuno Rè de’ Romani non può Ella dispensarsi, Seguita
la morte dell’ Imperadore, dal riconoscerlo per di lui
Successore.
 Pieno pertanto il glorioso Clemente undecimo di questi
giustissimi sentimenti nell’ atto stesso di morire, volle
manifestare a tutto il sagro collegio qual si fosse la sua
premura perchè costantemente si mantenesse quanto Egli
aveva fatto verso la Real Casa, facendogli sù di ciò una
speciale raccomandazione. Fedelissimi e zelosissimi
Esecutori delle Operazioni e del Testamento di un tanto
Papa sono Stati tutti i Pontefici successori principiando da
Innocenzo Tredecimo fino a Clemente Tredecimo
felicemente regnante, tutti hanno trattato e risguardato il
Figlio Primogenito di Giacomo terzo come Principe di
Galles; cioè Successore del Regno d’Inghilterra. Quindi
dacchi il Principe cominciò ad essere ammesso all’
udienza dei Sommi Pontefici non vi è stata mai la minima
difficoltà circa il trattamento, anzi non mettendosi in
dubbio, che trà le altre distinzioni competer gli dovesse
una sedia a braccio simile a quella del Rè suo Padre; (il
che è lo stile della S. Sede verso gli Eredi presuntivi di un
Regno). A questa sola particolarità pregò la Maestà del
Re, che si dovesse derogare in sua presenza a solo ed
unico fine mantenere lo stile del Regno d’Inghilterra, che
porta non possa ne anche il Figlio Primogenito sedere in
ugual sedia col Padre presente, e per aderire a queste
brame della Maestà sua gli è stata sempre data una sedia
Camerale di appoggio, ma bensì senza bracci.
Rimane ora ad esaminare le contradizzioni, ed assurdi,
che ne seguirebbero ogni qual volta la S. Sede negasse di
riconoscere il Principe di Galles per legittimo successore
del Rè suo Padre alla morte di medesimo; Sarebbero
questi fuor di dubbio senza numero, nè si facile sarebbe
l’accennarli tutti; pure ne scorreremo alcuni. E
Primieramente siccome il Principe di Galles per lo spazio
ornai di 45 anni e stato in possesso del titolo e delle
prerogative di Principe di Galles, non si gli passono ora
negare, o sia egli presente o sia assente, senza derogare
e contradire espressamente agli atti più solenni di sei Papi
consecutivi. In Secondo luogo ne seguirebbe, che quella
medesima, Persona, alla quale la S. Sede oggi dà
trattamento e risguarda come Principe di Galles (che vale
a dire successore naturale del Regno d’Inghilterra, come
lo e il Delfino in Francia, ed il Principe di Asturias in
Spagna) domani verrendo a morte del Padre, se si ricusa,
quando Ella ne da parte, di riconoscerla come succeduta
al Padre medesimo nella dignità ed onori col fatto si nega,
che sia stato Principe di Galles. In terzo luogo qual
trattamento potrà darsi, morto il Padre, al Sudetto
Principe? Forse di Principe di Galles? Ma si avverta ch’
Egli non lo è più. Dunque o gli compete lo stesso
trattamento ch’ aveva il Padre a cui è succeduto, o
converrà dire che non gli competeva per tanti anni il titolo,
e le prerogative di Successore. Quarto, Affinche il Papa
faccia una innovazione di questa natura contradittoria ed
opposto allo Stabilimento di suoi Antecessori vi vuol
qualche causa quale certamente non vi è ni vi può essere;
poichè se alcuno di Principi Cattolici sono stati costretti a
retrocedere dal riconoscere la Real Casa Stuarda per
legittimo Erede e Successore del Regno d’Inghilterra; è
avvenuto in consequenza dei diversi trattati di Pace col
presente Governo d’Inghilterra che li metteva in necessità
di riconoscere la Successione Eretica com’ era stata
stabilita dal famoso Decreto del Parlamento: Ma tal causa
ogn’ un ben vede che non può addursi dal S. Padre in
alcun modo: Egli non ha mai fatto, nè puo fore trattati di
alcuna sorta co’ Principi Eretici; Egli neppure ha aderito in
questa parte ai sudetti trattati di Pace di altri Principi:
Sopra tutto Egli non hà potuto mai nè può riconoscere per
valido, o sussistente il famoso riferito Decreto contro del
quale, come si è accennato di Sopra, serve
d’incontrastabile protesta il continuato riconoscimento
della Casa Reale Stuarda. Anzi da qui verrebbe il quinto
assurdo di gravissimo pregiudizio alla S. Sede, e con
ammirazione di tutti i buoni, mentre cessando di
riconoscere il Principe di Galles come successore del Rè
suo Padre, verrebbe il Papa in certa maniera a rivocare
tutte le proteste fatte da’ suoi Antecessori, e se ne
inferirebbe una pregiudizievolissima consequenza; Cioè
che quando in un stato Eretico il Principe si faccia
Cattolico sia in facoltà di Sudditi per questo solo motivo di
escluderlo dal Principato. Sesto, che non vede l’assurdo
gravissimo, che ne succederebbe ne’ pubblichi Diarj
stampati fin’ ora coll’ autorità della S. Seda sempre per lo
spazio di tanti anni in una stessa Maniera? Sotto il Titolo
d’Inghilterra dovrà forse Scriversi Giorgio Terzo? Ma
questo non si può, mentre non vi ha mai avuto luogo, ne
può l’essere riconosciuto per Rè dal Papa. Dovrà dunque
lasciarsi sotto il sudetto titolo Carlo Odoardo Principe di
Galles—Enrico Benedetto Duce di York. Ma il Padre dov
è? Se egli è morto, non vi è più Principe di Galles. Dunque
questo Titolo non gli compete. Sicchè o bisogna indicarlo
per Rè o bisogna cassarlo, è cassare anzi per sempre il
titolo d’Inghilterra, come se più non vi fosse.
Rimane finalmente ad esaminare, se nelle circostanze
presente della S. Sede riconoscendo il Papa in caso di
morte del Rè Giacomo Terzo il di lui figlio già per tanti anni
in possesso del titolo e delle prerogative di Principe di
Galles per di lui successore nelle dignità ed onori, possa a
giusta ragione ciò chiamarsi novità. Chi scrive si appella al
mondo tutto, ai nemici medesimi della casa Reale, ma già
da questi stessi sente replicarsi ad una voce, che sarebbe
anzi novità per la S. Sede fare il contrario, sarebbe
contradizione a se stessa, sarebbe approvare ciò che non
può approvare, e per fine si usarebbe una grandissima
ostilità alla casa Reale in benemerenza di avere sagrificati
trè Regni per la S. Fede, privandola col fatto del solo asilo,
in cui possa risedere con decoro, e di cui è stata in
possesso per il decorso di tanti anni. Ne vi è certamente
Principe Cattolico che non conosca per tutti i motivi
sopradetti l’indispensabile necessità in cui trovasi la S.
Sede di non fare altrimenti, e capiscono tutti benissimo
che niun Principe è tenuto a render conto all’altro delle
Operazioni, che Egli fa, particolarmente quando sono
conseguenze, e principj del proprio Stato: Ed in effete non
ostante che tutti i Principi Cattolici in corpo abbiano
ultimamente ricusato di riconoscere il Rè di Polonia, ed il
solo Papa con due Principi Eretici lo abbiano riconosciuto:
Quale però de’ Principi Cattolici ha fatto mai querela sù di
ciò al S. Padre, o facendola non fosse per contentarsi di
una si giusta risposta, qual sarebbe, che il Papa non è
obligato a render ragione delle sue operazione in alcune
circostanze; che in questo non ha fatto altro, che seguire
le massime, ed i principj della S. Sede: e finalmente, che a
lui basta, che gli costi della validità dell’ Elezione, e delle
dovute convenienze usate al suo nunzio, e per
conseguenza alla sua Persona?
Ma nel caso nostro sempre cresce l’argomento, poichè
il riconoscimento di un Rè di Polonia potrebbe ammettere
qualch’ esame, o discussione, ma qual discussione o
esame può mai richiedersi nel riconoscere la legittima
successione di un Figlio al Padre dopo la sua morte nelle
di lui prerogative ed onori? Non è già questo
riconoscimento come quello in realtà, atto nuovo ma bensì
una sola necessaria conseguenza di quello, che già fù
stabilito da tanti anni dai sommi Pontefici, allorchì
riconobbero il Figlio di Giacomo Terzo. E tutti gli
argomenti, che addurre si potrebbero, acciochè la S. Sede
facesse una simil novità di dispensarsi dal riconoscere il
Principe di Galles alla morte del di lui Genitore per suo
legittimo successore, potevano addursi, ed avevano anzi
maggior forza per impedire il riconoscimento del
medesimo, in qualità di Principe di Galles dalla S. Mem. di
Clemente undecimo con tutte quelle circostanze e
solennità già riferite, mentre in quei tempi il Papa fù il Solo
Principe Cattolico, che riconobbe il Figlio di Giacomo
Terzo per Principe di Galles. E quantunque la casa di
Hanover si avvedesse che questo atto fosse un impegno
preso dalla S. Sede (come certamente lo era) di doverlo in
appresso riconoscere per legittimo successore del Padre
dopo la di lui morte, ciò non ostante non apportò alcuno di
quei cattivi effetti, forse ideati, o tenuti da alcuna Persone
poco informate e prattiche dello stato delle cose in quel
Regno.
Chi ha scritto questa memoria in ultimo si dichiara, che
non ha avuto altro scopo, che togliere i scrupoli di alcuni
poco intesi delle cose del mondo, e ribattere le difficoltà
che forse suscitar si potrebbe dai nemici non meno della
Casa Reale, che della S. Sede. Del resto i protesti
veramente tenuti alle continue dimostrazioni di Paterno
amore, e clemenze usate dalla Santità di nostro Signore
felicemente regnante verso tutta la sudetta casa Reale,
che non può neppur sospettare, che mancando a suoi
tempi il Rè Giacomo Terzo voglia punto deviare dalle
savissime traccie indicatigli da suoi gloriosi Antecessori.
Nota:—Siccome dopo stesa la presente memoria, pur
troppo non ha mancato più di uno di mettere in dubbio i
sentimenti della santità di nostro signore felicemente
Regnante verso la Real Casa, quasi che fossero
totalmente diversi da quella de’suoi antecessori, ed in
conseguenza potersi supporre essere un semplice
complimento verso la Santità sua quel tanto che con
fiducia si viva presuppone l’Estensore nell’ ultimo della
memoria perciò lo stesso ha creduto uno preciso dovere
di giustizia, ed insiemi di gratitudine rispettosa verso li S.
Padre d’inserire in fine questa stessa memoria tutte le
lettere, che possono aver rapporto alla presente
risoluzione presa dal Real Principe di Galles di ritornare in
questa Capitale; e siccome apparisce più chiaro della luce
del sole, quali siano i sentimenti precisi del S. Padre verso
la Real Casa, e la Persona del Real Principe di Galles
sudetto tanto autenticamente manifestati, così lo stesso
Estensore crede non esservi bisogno di glossa per far
conoscere quanto siano insussistenti, e false le precorse
assertive, e con quanta ragione e fondamento abbia
rimostrato l’Estensore tutta la fiducia e sicurezza nei
sentimenti della Santità sua e quanto li abbia ben
compresi il Real Principe di Galles, giacchè unicamente in
virtù de’ medesimi si è accinto alla risoluziona di restituirsi
a Roma.

Translation[645]
Concerning the indispensable necessity of recognition,
by the Holy See, of the Royal House of Stuart, as the sole
and legitimate successors to the Kingdom of England, and
concerning the inconsistencies and incongruities which
would ensue, should she follow the contrary course, being
one which would little become the dignity of the Holy See.
He who presents this Memorial wishes to state the
case briefly, basing his reasonings on public and well-
known facts. No one in the world is ignorant of the fact
that King James II. was hunted from his throne in odium
Religionis. The very people who were scheming for his
expulsion would have been the last to deny two infallible
principles. The first—that the Kingdom of England was, of
its nature, an hereditary one; the second, that the Royal
Person of James II. was the lawful successor. Wishing
therefore to find an adequate pretext for deposing him,
without destroying the right of succession, which is, by
law, unalterable, they, to serve their own ends, brought
forward the question of the establishment in the kingdom,
already made by law, of the Anglican Religion; and making
as their chief complaint, that the fact of the king being a
Catholic placed that law in constant and imminent peril of
destruction and subversion, they made an Act of
Parliament in which, while claiming to explain the spirit of
the laws of succession, they declared at the same time
that it was not fitting that any one whosoever should
succeed who was of the Catholic Religion, or who did not
conform to the dominant religion.
By virtue of this Act, then, were James II. and his
Catholic offspring deprived of the throne, and his nearest
Protestant relative was called to succeed to it, whose line
has continued to do so even to our own days, not only in
the persons of James ii.’s two daughters, who were
Protestants, but also in those of the Princes of the House
of Hanover, these being the nearest Protestant heirs; in
proof of this, any one who has knowledge of the history of
the princes of this century knows that the Princess Anne,
called by them Queen, wishing to show favour to her
brother James III., to the exclusion of the House of
Hanover, sent accredited persons to try to persuade him
to declare himself a Protestant, and to remove, in this
manner, the only obstacle that stood in the way of his
possession of his kingdom: but that special grace of God,
which gave strength to his father, James II., to sacrifice
three kingdoms for the Holy Faith, likewise gave strength
to his son to refuse courageously any such means of
regaining them.
This, one may take for granted, is an undoubted fact,
that then, as now, the Holy See is bound by no Treaty of
Peace, in the arranging of which, by means of her
Ministers, she has had no voice, and how much less does
she approve of any act that can, either directly or
indirectly, infringe on her rights and those of Holy Church,
the head of whom is the Supreme Pontiff, the Vicar of
Christ: rather should such arise she would make fitting
protests.
Now can it be questioned that any public decree could
be more directly contrary to our Holy Faith, and
consequently could infringe more seriously on the rights of
Holy Mother Church, than that of which we are treating, by
means of which the rights of Succession are denied to any
one happy enough to be one of her sons? Hence it is that
the Supreme Pontiffs, beginning with Innocent xi. of pious
memory, did not deem it necessary to make any explicit
protest against such an iniquitous decree, contenting
themselves instead with the continued recognition which
the Holy See has always accorded to the Royal House of
Stuart, as the sole and legitimate successors to the
throne, so that the Holy See came to regard this Decree
(to which, had she refused to recognise the legitimate
Catholic successors, she would have been indirectly and
tacitly agreeing,) as null.
And indeed, there is a great comparison to be drawn
between the recognition given by the Holy See to the
Royal House of Stuart, to the exclusion of the House of
Hanover, and that which this same Holy See accords to
other heretical princes; as, for example, the Pope certainly
is in no treaty, and has no correspondence with the Kings
of Sweden and Denmark, but this is solely because they
are heretics, not because he denies in any way their
legitimate right to their succession. Thus, in the papers
printed with the approbation of the Court of Rome, no
difficulty is raised as to speaking of them as King of
Sweden and King of Denmark; but in the case in point, the
Most High Pontiff treats directly with this heretical House
of Hanover, though he cannot by any means recognise its
head as the legitimate successor to the Kingdom of
England, so that in this manner he is ratifying the
aforesaid iniquitous decree, and directly admitting it as
valid and real.
It is plainly seen by the whole world how deeply
imbued with these facts and principles was Clement xi. of
blessed memory, who, when His Majesty King James III.
turned to him as his only refuge (on account of the Treaty
of Peace, to which all the Catholic princes, with the
exception of His Holiness, were constrained to consent),
carried him away to the Papal States, and afterwards to
Rome: the Holy Father, I say, fully imbued with and
convinced of the aforesaid sentiments and truth, did not
content himself with simply recognising and treating the
royal person of James III. as the sole and legitimate King
of England, but, wishing to recognise also all his royal
progeny, he spared no trouble to ensure that the
propagation of the line should be carried on, in order to
procure him a legitimate successor. This was effected by
the marriage of James III. with the Princess Sobieski;
which was not a little facilitated by letters written by the
Pope to the Emperor. In a few months it became known
that the hopes for an heir were to be realised, and towards
the last days of the year 1720, as the time of his birth
approached, the Holy Father knowing on the one side the
necessity of rendering the legitimacy of the birth
indisputable, and on the other, realising that the Holy See
must in nowise contradict herself, but must act in such a
manner as to show most decidedly her protest against the
unjust Decree, by recognising the future offspring as heir-
apparent and legitimate successor to the throne of
England, he took upon himself to see that this event
should take place with the greatest possible solemnity;
and therefore, by the wish of the Holy Father, there were
called to be present at the birth, the Sacred College, the
Roman Senate, the highest Roman Princes and Prelates,
and the foremost nobility of Rome; and although there was
a delay of three days before the birth took place, during
the whole of this time the ante-rooms of Her Majesty were
filled with these most venerable personages, who relieved
one another by turns, while some of the Cardinals sat up
each night. Thus, in the midst of so honourable an
assembly was born on December 31st of the aforesaid
year, Charles Edward, Prince of Wales, acknowledged as
such, and consequently as heir-apparent to the Crown, by
the Supreme Pontiff himself, who without delay had the
birth announced to all the people by means of a salute
from the cannon of the castle. And here it is allowable to
reflect that even had King James III. been in peaceful
possession of his throne the aforesaid newly-born Prince
could not have received greater honours, nor could his
right to succeed to the Crown have been proclaimed more
unquestionably. The only formality which could have put a
finishing touch to the rest was the traditional Delivery of
the Swaddling Clothes, which it was the custom to send
only to the heirs of crowned heads (and then only to those
reigning by succession, not by election): but, as Clement
xi. of pious memory died before this matter was
concluded, it fell to his successor, Innocent xiii., to
complete it, which he did with all possible solemnity,
sending an ambassador, with all the formality and
ceremonies observed with other Courts.
From all this, it cannot be denied that the obligations
under which the Royal House of Stuart lay to Clement xi.
of blessed memory are very plainly shown, but it is also
shown just as plainly how much His Holiness had at heart
the dignity of the Holy See, and how well he realised the
absolute necessity by which he was bound to sustain the
rights of the aforesaid Royal House inviolable. The Holy
Father saw plainly that all these repeated acts of
recognition must necessarily greatly embitter the English
Government against the Catholics, and, in consequence,
must, in a manner, be an obstacle to the success of the
missions. He also understood that he alone was the one
Catholic prince who had made this act of recognition. With
all this, keeping before his eyes the justice of the cause
(which was quite apart from the question of religion), the
abhorrence that the Holy See could never sufficiently
show to the aforementioned decree, and, finally, the strict
obligation of his successors never to depart from the line
he had taken towards a family which deserved so much
from the Holy See, he did not hesitate for a moment to
pursue this course with great solemnity, thereby robbing
his successors of any reason of doubt concerning the
treatment owed to the Prince of Wales on the death of his
father; since His Holiness knew well, that once a son was
recognised as heir-apparent by the Holy See, no doubt
could be raised that at the death of his father he should
succeed to everything, and therefore to his dignity and
honours: in the same way that, in the Empire
(notwithstanding its being an Elective State), once the
Holy See recognised any one as King of the Romans, she
could not afterwards, on the death of the Emperor, free
herself from recognising his successor. The mind of the
glorious Clement xi. was so full of these just sentiments,
at the moment of his death, that he wished to show plainly
to all the Sacred College how great was his anxiety that
what he had done towards the Royal House should be
permanently maintained, laying on them a special charge
to that effect. All the succeeding Popes, beginning with
Innocent xiii. down to Clement xiii., now by the grace of
God reigning, have been most faithful and zealous
executors of this trust, and all have treated and regarded
the first-born son of James III. as Prince of Wales;
therefore as successor to the King of England. Hence,
ever since the Prince has been admitted to audiences with
His Supreme Holiness, there has never been the slightest
difficulty as to his treatment, or rather, there has been no
doubt, that among other fitting distinctions, he should
have, as did the king, his father, an armchair (which it is
customary for the Holy See to offer to the heirs-apparent
to a throne). But, in this one particular, His Majesty asked
that a slight modification might be made in his presence,
for the one and only reason of maintaining the custom of
the Kingdom of England, where even the eldest son in the
presence of his father is not allowed to sit in a seat equal
to his: and to comply with His Majesty’s wish, the prince
has always been given an easy chair, but without arms.
There now remains to examine the contradictions and
inconsistencies which would arise each time that the Holy
See refused to recognise the Prince of Wales as legitimate
successor to the king, his father, at the death of the latter.
These would be without doubt innumerable; it would not
be easy to foresee them all, nevertheless we can mention
some. Firstly, that as the Prince of Wales has for the
space of forty-five years been in possession of the title
and prerogatives of Prince of Wales, they cannot now be
denied him, whether present or absent, without derogating
and expressly contradicting the solemn line of action
followed by six successive Popes. In the second place, it
must follow that if the Holy See to-day treats and looks on
this same person as Prince of Wales (that is to say, as
natural successor to the throne of England, as is the
Dauphin to that of France, and the Prince of the Asturias
to that of Spain), and to-morrow hearing of the death of his
father draw back from recognising him as succeeding to
that father in dignity and honours, she thus denies that he
ever was Prince of Wales. In the third place, how could
she then recognise the aforesaid Prince after his father’s
death? Perhaps still as Prince of Wales? But it is averred
that he is that no longer. Plainly then, either he is entitled
to the same treatment as that given to his father, whom he
has succeeded, or, it is only right to say that he has not
been entitled all these years to the prerogatives and rights
of heir. Fourthly, before the Pope could make an
innovation of this nature, so entirely at variance with the
course adopted by his predecessors, it would be
necessary to have some very strong reason, which neither
exists now, nor ever can exist. For, if any of the Catholic
princes have been constrained to draw back from the
recognition of the Royal House of Stuart, as legitimate
successors and heirs to the throne of England, it has only
been in consequence of their entering on different treaties
of peace with the present Government of England, which
has put them under the necessity of recognising the
heretical succession, as established by the famous Act of
Parliament. But no such cause can possibly affect the
Holy Father in any way. He has never made nor can he
make treaties of any sort with heretical Princes: neither
has he ever taken part in the aforesaid treaties of peace of
other princes. Above all, he never has recognised, nor can
he ever recognise, as valid or real, this same famous
Decree, against which, as has been shown above, the
continued recognition of the Royal House of Stuart serves
as an indisputable protest. And from this we come to the
fifth serious inconsistency, which might be most prejudicial
to the Holy See; for if the Pope should cease to recognise
the Prince of Wales as successor to the king, his father, it
is evident, even to his most humble admirers, that he
would be, in a way, revoking all the protests made by his
predecessors, and a very dangerous consequence might
ensue: namely, that should the prince of any heretical
state become a Catholic, it would be within the power of
his subjects, for this one reason only, to deprive him of his
rights and inheritances.
Sixthly, is it not easy to see the serious inconsistency
that would arise in the Public Records, which, up till now,
have, with the authority of the Holy See, been printed for
so many years in the same manner? Under the heading of
England should there then be inscribed the name of
George III? But this is not possible, since he has never
been, nor can be recognised by the Pope as king. Should
there not rather be entered under the above heading—
Charles Edward, Prince of Wales—Henry Benedict, Duke
of York? But where is the father? If he is dead there is no
longer a Prince of Wales, then this title does not belong to
him. Either the title should be that of king, or it should be
abolished, with that of England, as if it no longer existed.
It only remains then to examine whether in the
circumstances in which the Holy See is now placed, the
Papal recognition (as in the occasion of the death of King
James III.) of the son who has been for so many years in
possession of the titles and prerogatives of the Prince of
Wales, as successor in dignity and honours, can, in any
justice be called an innovation. He who writes appeals to
the whole world, even to the enemies of the Royal House,
though even these he can hear declaring as with one
voice that the innovation would rather be, that the Holy
See should act to the contrary; it would be a self-
contradiction, in that it would be showing approbation of
that of which she does not approve, and further, it would
be showing great hostility to the Royal House in return for
its having sacrificed three kingdoms for the Holy Faith, in
depriving it of the only refuge to which it can rightly turn,
and in which it has trusted for so many years. And there is
no Catholic prince who does not well understand how
impossible it would be for the Pope to follow such a
course. They know well that no prince is called upon to
account for his doings to any one else, more particularly
when they concern matters or principles relating to his
own state. And indeed, notwithstanding that all the
Catholic princes in a body have lately refused to recognise
the King of Poland, and only the Pope, with two heretical
princes have done so, the Catholic princes, have, in this
action of the Holy Father found no cause of quarrel, or, if
they have found any, they have been satisfied with the just
remark, that the Pope is not obliged to give any reasons
for his actions under any circumstances, and that, in this
case, he has only followed the rules and principles of the
Holy See, and lastly that it is sufficient for him that he is
satisfied with the validity of the election, and of the
treatment accorded to his ambassador, as representing
his own person.
But in our case, this only strengthens the argument, in
that the recognition of the King of Poland admitted of
some inquiries and discussion, but what discussion or
inquiry can be necessary in recognising the legitimate
succession of a son to a father, after the death of the
latter? In reality there is no comparison between the two
cases, this last recognition being nothing new, but rather
the necessary consequence of the understanding that was
established years ago by the supreme Pontiffs, that they
should recognise the son of James III.
And all the arguments that could be cited, in order that
the Holy See should give herself a dispensation from now
recognising the Prince of Wales as legitimate successor
on the death of his father, might have been brought
forward just as reasonably, and with greater force, to
hinder Clement xi. of pious memory from recognising him
as Prince of Wales, as he did with all ceremony, as has
already been stated, being at that time the only Catholic
prince who did so recognise him. And although the House
of Hanover saw that this act constituted a promise from
the Holy See, which it certainly did, to recognise the prince
as legitimate successor of his father, after the death of the
latter, this, notwithstanding, brought none of those evil
effects (perhaps chimerical) which were feared by some
people who were but ill-informed or little conversant with
the state of affairs in the kingdom.
He who has written this Memorial would have it
understood in conclusion, that he has no other aim in view
than to remove scruples felt by some who know little of the
affairs of the world, and to combat the difficulties that
perhaps might be raised by enemies, not only of the Royal
House, but of the Holy See. For the rest, there has ever
been such continual clemency and fatherly love shown by
His Holiness, now by the grace of God reigning, towards
the whole of the aforesaid Royal House that it is
impossible to believe, on the death of King James iii., that
His Holiness will in any way depart from the most wise
example set by his predecessors of glorious memory.
Note:—As, after the completion of this Memorial there
were not lacking those who cast doubts on the sentiments
of His Holiness, now by the grace of God reigning,
towards the Royal House, suspecting that they differed
from those of his predecessors, and who, therefore, might
consider the lively confidence evinced by the writer in the
latter part of this Memorial simply as an empty compliment
towards His Holiness, this same writer has therefore
considered it a strict act of justice, as well as a tribute of
gratitude and respect, towards the Holy Father, to insert at
the end of this Memorial any letters that bear upon the
present resolution of the Royal Prince of Wales to return to
this capital. And as the exact sentiments of the Holy
Father towards the Royal House and the person of the
said Prince of Wales have been shown more
unquestionably clearly than the light of the sun, so the
writer considers any further comments and explanations
unnecessary, to show how unfounded and false these
suspicions are, and with how much reason and foundation
the writer has relied so surely on the sentiments of the
Holy Father, and how well the Royal Prince of Wales has
understood them, in that it is solely on the strength of the
same, that he continues in his resolve to return to Rome.
 APPENDIX VI
THE MACDONALDS

John, Lord of the Isles (died 1387), fourth in succession from

Donald progenitor of the clan, had two wives: (1) Amy MacRuari; (2)
the Princess Margaret, daughter of Robert ii., to marry whom he
repudiated or divorced Amy. The lordship of the Isles went to the
descendants of the Princess. The hereditary clan chiefship, which
ordinarily descends to the senior heir-male, did not necessarily follow
the title. The lordship of the Isles was taken from the Macdonalds
and annexed to the Crown in 1494, and the question who is supreme
hereditary chief of Clan Donald has ever since been a matter of
strife. Glengarry and Clanranald descend from Amy MacRuari, the
first wife, and are therefore senior in blood, but it is doubtful which of
these two families is the elder; last century the general preference
was for Glengarry, but the new Scots Peerage and the Clan Donald
historian favour Clanranald. Sleat and Keppoch descend from the
Princess Margaret, Sleat coming from Hugh, third son of Alexander,
Lord of the Isles (died 1449), grandson of John, and son of Donald of
Harlaw, while Keppoch comes from the fourth son of John and
Princess Margaret, and could only have a claim if there were a flaw
in the pedigree of Sleat. Doubts have been expressed of the
legitimacy of Hugh of Sleat, but these have been set aside.
Glencoe’s progenitor was Ian, son of Angus Og (died 1330), Bruce’s
friend who fought at Bannockburn, the father of John, Lord of the
Isles, mentioned above, but the Seannachies have pronounced him
illegitimate. From this Ian the Glencoe clan has been known as
MacIan for centuries.
It is interesting to know that in the summer of 1911, the three
hereditary heads of the families having serious claims on the
supreme chiefship of the clan, Glengarry, Clanranald, and Sleat (Sir
Alexander of the Isles), signed an indenture mutually agreeing to