In a detail of restrictions he mentions the superintendence of the seminaries being consigned to the ministry of public inspection, and asserts, that priests of the _Greek_ national church are directed to attend the Jesuit colleges, to instruct the pupils of the Greek communion in religion. I am unacquainted with the weight of authority to be allowed to sir John's correspondent; but, certainly, the result of my inquiries differs { 92} widely from the information communicated by him. The Jesuits have, ever since their establishment in Russia, been treated with unsuspecting liberality. The integrity of their institute has been scrupulously maintained, and the authority given to the catholic archbishop of Mohilow has ever been exactly confined within the limits prescribed by the council of Trent. By a law of the present emperor, all colleges were subjected to the control of the university of Petersburgh. The Jesuits, feeling the inconvenience of this, soon had their own chief college of Polosk erected into a university, by which they became exempted from the temporary control. They have an establishment at Petersburgh, called the "College of Nobles," into which young noblemen only are admitted as pensioners, and these are educated in the regular collegiate discipline, whatever be their religion. They attend at divine service, and at public catechisms and instructions. The majority of them are of the national religion, and, if their parents or they themselves desire it, the { 93} superior of the Jesuits permits a priest of the Greek church to come to the college on Sunday, where he explains the national catechism to them in a private room. Beyond this he has nothing to do in the house. This practice may be known at court, but it was neither enjoined nor recommended by the court. This is the account I have collected of the Jesuits in Russia, and, I am persuaded, that they are not more restricted than the catholics in general, whom sir John appears to attack through the Jesuits, for in this long note (page 36), which seemed exclusively designed for the exposure of their Russian degradation, he slides unexpectedly into an exposure of "the restrictions, which attach _generally_ upon the exercise of the Roman catholic discipline." In this I have here no part to take, the general question has passed through abler hands than mine; my subject confines me to the society of the Jesuits, and in so doing calls upon me to notice the advertisement prefixed to sir John Hippisley's Speech. In that advertisement we find it to be sir John's opinion, { 94} that the bull of Pius VII, by which the order of Jesuits is restored, should not be published without the rescript of Clement XIV, by which it was suppressed, as a pendant; and, in a style of triumphant irony, he leaves it to the consideration of an author favourable to the society[37], on comparing the pontifical acts, "whether he can advantageously take the field against the memorable rescript of Ganganelli, and enter the lists with the living writers _of his own communion_, who espouse that deliberate pontifical act; for," says he, "it does not appear, that the denunciation pronounced by the bull of Pius VII has extinguished the ardour of the opponents of the constitution, which he has so solemnly re-embodied. Two publications on the subject have issued from the French press, since the date of this bull, namely, _Du Pape et des Jesuites_, and, _Les Jesuites tels qu'ils ont été dans l'Ordre Politique, Religieux, et Moral_. { 95} The first is ascribed to the pen of a _Pere de l'Oratoire_, the other announced as the work of _M. S***, Ancien Magistrat_. A perusal of these tracts," continues sir John, "and especially the brief of Pius VII, will lead to the discovery, whether the society have been most successfully attacked or defended by the French writers or by Mr. Plowden."