am I from remembering what is past, as you advise me to do, not very like good Christians, for which I do not thank you. {81} The Jesuits are natives of my kingdom, and born my subjects; I will not harbour any suspicion against those whom their birth has placed under my government; and, if there should be any danger of their communicating my secrets to the enemies of France, I will take care to let them know only what I think fit. Let me manage this affair; I have gone through many others much more difficult: and now I charge you to think of nothing farther, than doing what I bid and command you to do." With such a speech in existence, is it not a disgrace to any man to cite against the society the remonstrance that gave occasion to it? I have done, then, with this writer's impure and disgraceful authorities; and I should here proceed immediately to the respectable, the noble, the brilliant list of authorities in favour of the Jesuits, but that I feel it proper previously to notice another attack upon them, from a very unexpected quarter, from one whom we are almost compelled to consider as an unbiassed {82} assailant, since (besides being a gentleman and a member of the legislature) he does, in the very act of aiming the blow which he gives, profess the highest admiration, respect, and regard for them. "I am ready to admit," says sir John Hippisley, "the merit of that body of catholics, as far as they are exercised in the secular walk of philosophical and classical instruction; their schools and seminaries have been the most celebrated," &c. Again; "It pains me to speak, in these terms, of a community, comprehending many highly respected ecclesiastics, and, in the bosom of which, many of my valuable friends have received their education," &c. But sir John's "sense of duty overcomes his individual partialities[33]."