[D] I have sometimes been asked, and the question has sometimes been slyly popped to me, and to others, by certain limbs of the law, if I was a _Jesuit_? I answer first, that I have not the honour to belong to that learned, and much calumniated body, the Jesuits. I answer secondly, I perfectly understood the _sly_ drift of these _questions_, and _inuendoes_. It was as good as to say, "Jesuitism is a strange compound of all kinds of tricks and quirks, and of mental reservations, and deceptions. Now this little spectacle fellow, is one of them, and therefore, he is up to all the Jesuitical trade, and is a perfect specimen of it. Nay, I believe, that he could slyly board us with his Jesuitical tricks, _even_ while we were looking on." Well, one good turn certainly deserves another. And now, I must as politely as I can, tell these limbs of the law, that if I am to judge of the law from the little, that I have really seen, and know about _them_, and that if Jesuitism be _really_, what they _imagine_ it is, and if the whole of England ever became Catholic, and then, from Catholicism jumped to Jesuitism, in this case, I certainly think that these limbs of the law, will not have to study, the celestial arts of Jesuitism, as pourtrayed in their own imagination; for they will be _already_, perfectly dubbed masters of Israel in that art, and they will certainly occupy distinguished places, in the various departments of _mental reservations_, pious frauds, and charitable tricks and quirks upon their neighbour's pockets. Really this reminds me of Paddy, who had just arrived from Ireland, and was _sneeringly_ asked by a _busy_ Englishman, what kind of a crop of Murphies, they had had in Ireland? Pat had a shillalah in his hand, he up with it, knocked down the Englishman, and said; "And sure your honour, we have had a very good crop of Murphies, and you may know it by the feel, for that is the stalk of one." Now, I hope these limbs of the law, will not be offended at me for taking up my spectacle shillalah, and just politely flooring them, for their _Jesuitical inuendoes_ and _mental reservations_ in my regard. I hope they will not be offended, at my defending myself, for their own profession will teach them, that every one is allowed fair play, whether he be a metamorphosed calumniated Jesuit, or a limb of the law in the body of a man's pocket. But far be it from me to adopt their extensive, and sweeping mode of argumentation, viz., the law of the land is a heap of deceptions, and tricks, now such a man is a lawyer, therefore he must be a sleight-of-hand gentleman in that art. Before I make this sweeping conclusion, I ought _first_, to examine seriously, and carefully, if the law _really is_, this strange compound of deceptions, and I ought then, to examine and really know, that this lawyer has really acted according to this deception, I ought to do this, before I condemn him personally, or open the flood-gates of condemnation