M. d'Aguesseau, informed of this affair, instructed the Attorney-

General of the Parliament of Bretagne to continue the prosecution. The lawsuit, at every turn hindered by means of the money of the Jesuits, dragged on till the year 1736 (21 years). At that period, Father Chauvel, the actual principal in the robbery, having become old and infirm, felt smitten with remorse. He wrote from Chauvel's La Fleche, where he was gone to end his days, all that had passed confession. at Brest, and sent this declaration to Marshal d'Estrees. The King having thus acquired certain knowledge of the robbery, delivered a judgment proprio motu, which condemned the Jesuits to restore to the heirs of Guys eight millions. The Fathers were sufficiently cunning and sufficiently powerful to hinder the execu- tion of the judgment. The money was never paid."
Such deeds as these led the King and the Parliaments of France* to be watchful and anxious observers of a conspiracy, which in its
* There were eleven Parliaments in France, besides the Parliament of Paris. These provincial Courts assembled at the various provincial capitals of Languedoc, Guienne, Burgundy, Normandy, Provence, Bretagne, and of five other provinces. Their power was very extensive, and generally used on the side of liberty and justice. They were not so much legislatures as courts of justice. The Parliament of Paris seems to have had more exten- sive authority than the others. We find from the wording of its decrees that it was composed of princes, nobles, and eminent judges and others. The Decree of 1st December, 17(34 (respecting the Jesuits), begins: " This
9
Ixxviii
The Jesuits and Trading.
burial refused.
Paris banished.
recklessness and confidence had scorned all the dictates of true religion and morality.
About the year 1753, all France was in a tumult, because the
;Unigenitus" Ultramontane clergy, under the influence of the Jesuits, refused to bury those persons whose friends could not produce certificates from their confessor, that they had died acknowledging their belief in the dogmas proclaimed by the Bull " Unigenitus." The matter had been brought before the Parliament ; and the members of Parliament, who complained of this tyranny and bigotry, were accused, and imprisoned, or banished. The struggle continued
Archbishop of with varied success, till the Parliament sent the Archbishop of Paris into banishment at his brother's estate in Perigord. There was, then, a lull in the storm.
All these wrongs remained unredressed till the frauds of the Jesuits stirred up the mercantile community. Men often bear with a deal of tyranny and robbery ; but their endurance will not stretch beyond a certain point. This point was reached in France, when her commerce received a heavy blow through the frauds committed by the Society in connexion with the bankruptcy of Lavalette, a member of the Company of Jesus.
Father Lavalette, Procureur of the Jesuit establishment at St. Pierre, in Martinique, traded very extensively and in a very speculative manner; and it is remarkable, that both M. Sauvestre and M. Cayla shew in the works, from which we have quoted, that the Jesuits in Paris are still largely, though secretly, connected with trading operations. By his daring and ingenious speculations, Lavalette had increased his trade to such a decree as to excite the jealousy of the merchants and inhabitants of the colony ; who saw an ecclesiastic accumulating merchandise and produce, and pouring into his treasury gold and coin of all kinds ; intercepting
day, the Court in full assembly, the princes and peers sitting here, and all the Chambers," etc. These words point out in some measure the con- stitution of the Parliament. There were also in France " assemblies " called " States-General," which comprised clergy, nobles, and the " tiers etat," or bourgeois. The "nobles" comprised ail who were of noble extraction, " whether of robe or sword," that is, whether lawyers or knights ; provided they were not magistrates elected by the people. The "tiers etat" were deputies of the people. Those who held high legal offices assisted at the meeting of the States as commissioners of the king, and were distinguished above the ordinary nobility.
Lavalette 1756.
con-
The Jesuits and Trading. Ixxix
the circulation of money, in order to make himself the exclusive dispenser of it in the island. Complaints of his proceedings were sent to the French Government, and it was thought necessary to recall him to Paris.
Lavalette was not long in France, before the Jesuit Society, who thought him worthy of reward instead of censure, sent him back with the title of General Superior of the Windward Islands. Title The credit and influence of the Society calmed the alarm of ferred- the Government ; the royal authorities consented to his return, and, moreover, invested him with the rank of Visitor-General and Apostolic Prefect of the missions in that part of the world. He renewed his speculations. Establishments were formed in all the neighbouring islands. He organised offices in St. Domingo, Granada, St. Lucia, St. Yincent, etc., and drew bills of exchange on Paris, London, Bordeaux, Nantes, Lyons, Cadiz, Leghorn, and Amsterdam. His vessels, loaded with riches, crossed the sea continually. The Jesuits traded on their credit, Jesuit trading, pretending that the property of their whole body was answerable as security. They disregarded treaties which other merchants obeyed. Neutrality laws were nothing to them. They hired ships which transported merchandise ; which were used as privateers privateers. when it suited them, and sailed under any flag that was convenient. The Government of France took no notice of all this, till at last, the English Admirals, Hawke, Boscawen, Howe, and Anson, settled the matter by taking these privateers. The credit of these Jesuit traders was injured, and the French Provincial refused to pay their creditors on pretence that the Society was not liable as a whole, though they had acted together.
The Brothers Lioncy and Gouffre, very extensive merchants of Marseilles, were the agents and correspondents of Father Lavalette. They had accepted bills to the extent of a million and a half of livres ; to cover these, two vessels had been despatched from Martinique with merchandise to the value of two millions. These vessels were captured at sea by the English.
The house of Lioncy and Gouffre, pressed by want of money, asked the Superior of the Jesuits at Marseilles, for four hundred thousand livres, out of their million and a half, in order to avoid bankruptcy. A Jesuit Superior, named Sacy, who had, till then, Sacy.
Ixxx
Dtath of the General, and results.
Masses and Money.
Louis XV.
Lioncy and Gouffre.
1760.
Cause
been the direct and recognised agent of Lavalette, declared that the Society was not answerable as a whole ; but that they offered the aid of their prayers to the Brothers Lioncy and Gouffre, and were about to say masses for them. The masses and prayers of the Jesuits did not fill the chests of the merchants which their commercial speculations had served to empty. Messieurs Lioncy wrere obliged to lay a statement of their case before the tribunals, and appeal to Parliament for a decree that their debt might be paid.
The Jesuits wished to stifle the matter. But the Duke de Choiseul, Prime Minister of that period, persuaded the king, Louis XV., to allow the appeal, and the Jesuits were condemned to honour the bills drawn by their agent. The house of Lioncy was the most distinguished in the great city of Marseilles. Their yearly returns were thirty millions of livres. They saw themselves sud- denly reduced from opulence to danger of bankruptcy by Jesuit dishonesty, and they had the additional sorrow of enveloping in their misfortune their connexions in all parts of France.
Fortunately for mankind, unfortunately for the Great Secret Society, their General died at this critical period. Delay was inevitable, and this was fatal to the Jesuits. The new General saw the necessity of keeping the matter as quiet as he could, and gave orders to send all the funds that could be raised to Messieurs Lioncy and Gouffre. The courier reached them on the 22nd Feb., 1756, five days too late. The bankruptcy had taken place on the 17th.
From that day the proceedings of the Jesuits were reckless. Finding that publicity was inevitable, they withdrew their help from those whom they had ruined. They had the impru- dence to allege that they were protected from the claims of their creditors by their Constitutions. This plea was a most disastrous one for them. They were condemned by the Parlia- ment of Paris.
Yet so late as on the 17th August, 1760, they had influence enough to obtain letters patent, to carry their cause to the Great Chamber, on appeal from the Parliament of Paris. This was their last effort at that time. A decree was passed that the cause should be publicly heard.
Extinction of the Order in France, 1762. Ixxxi
At first they only pleaded that the creditors of Lavalette had Special no claim, except on the house of business at Martinique. They Pleadm£- then had recourse to a singular subterfuge. They said that Jesuits were forbidden to trade, by their Constitutions ; that having trading transactions was a dereliction of duty on the part of Lavalette ; and the fault of an individual could not be visited on the Order. The crime was personal, they said, and the Society had given no guarantee. They wished the payment of a just claim to be considered in the light of a punishment ; thus endeavouring so to confound two distinct matters, as to escape from their dilemma.
The judges were too acute to be led away from the straight course. Their creditors urged, that as their government was Pros. & cons, despotic, their General could dispose of their whole property as he thought best ; that no individual could do anything but as the agent of this chief; that it was contrary to reason for the Order to profit by the good luck of their agent, and escape all participation, in his misfortune.
The Jesuits replied to this, that their Society had no common property ; but that each house was a separate corporation. They referred, in proof of their plea of exemption, to the Constitutions Constitutions of their Order.
The Parliament naturally demanded the production of these Revelations documents. They were produced on the 16th April, 1761 ; and 1^61- this disclosure not only lost the Jesuits their cause, but brought upon them a greater condemnation than they at all looked for. Till then their Constitutions had remained secret. The publication of them shewed the alarming pretensions, the organi- sation, and the power for evil, of an order bound together for the sole purpose of their own aggrandisement. The Abbe The Abbe Chauvelin, Counsel to the Great Chamber, denounced these Chauvelin. rules before the Parliament, and the Constitutions became one of the principal foundations of the accusation, which ended in the decrees for the extinction of the Order in France, in 1762.
The Parliament of Paris appended numerous extracts from these Constitutions to their decree, in justification of their rigorous action against the Order. These extracts, verified and collated by the Commissioners of the Parliament, in compliance with a requi-
Ixxxii The Parliament of Paris, and Jesuitical teaching.
A Judge.
A Mouk.
Servants.
Theft.
Theft.
Adultery.
sition dated the 31st August, 1761, fill not less than four volumes. These authentic documents exist in the public libraries, and in Extracts from many private ones. From these extracts we present one or two examples of the Jesuit teaching, which, so alarmed and disgusted the Parliaments and people of France.
"In his 'Essay on Public Theology,' published in 1736, Father Taberna maintains that :*
"If a judge has received money to give an unjust judgment, it is probable that he ought to keep the money ; for this is the judgment of fifty-eight Jesuit doctors.''
In answer to the question,
" On what occasions may a monk leave off his monk's dress without incurring excommunication?"
The reply is,
" He may leave it off if it is for a purpose that would cause shame, as that he may go on a swindling excursion : or in order to go incognito into places of debauchery. Si habitum dimittat ut furetur occutte vel fornicetur."-\-
Another question :
" May servants who complain of their wages, increase them by laying hands on something that belongs to their masters, so as to make them amount to what they think they deserve?"
Is thus answered :
"They may in certain circumstances: as when they are so poor when applying for the place, that they are obliged to accept the offer made to them, and provided other servants of their sort are receiving more elsewhere. "J
According to the " Treatise on Penitence " of Father Kaleze Reginald,
" Domestic servants may take secretly the goods of their masters by way of compensation, under the plea that their wages are too small ; and they are not to be compelled to restore them."
Father Henriquez thus expresses himself : §
" If an adulterer, even though he be an ecclesiastic thoroughly aware of the danger, goes to the house of an adulteress, and if
* Father Taberna's " Essay on Public Theology." 1736.
t " Praxis ex Soc. Jes. Schola," Fr. 7, ex 6, nolo 3.
I " Soinrne de P. Bauny," p. 213, 6th edit,
$ " Moral Theology." P. Henriquez. vol. i., bk. iv., ch. 10, No. 3. p.
The Jesuit system still extending among us. Ixxxiii
being surprised by the husband, he kills him, in defending his life or limbs, the fault does not seem to be on his side."
According to the Moral Theology of Father Anthony Escobar,* " It is allowable to kill by treachery one who is proscribed." " It is equally allowable to put to death those who injure us Assassination in the estimation of princes, and persons of distinction."! Murder.
The doctrines of the Jesuits on the subject of luxury and loose living, as contained in these " extracts," are too vile to place before decent people. Luxury.
It was no wonder, therefore, that the Parliament of Paris drove the enemy from the country, as far as they had the power. Nor is it wonderful that the example was followed by the other Parlia- Expulsion, ments of France. But before passing on to the consideration of this Report, we wish to direct the reader's attention to the curious fact that the Oratorians, the Order of St. Philip Neri, who took the place of the Jesuits when they were expelled, urged the same plea of a non-community of goods among the members of their order, as the Jesuits did in the case of Father Lavalette. And it is remarkable, that this plea of a non-community of goods was advanced only five years ago, by the Oratorians before the Par- liament and Courts of Italy, who decided that it was an evasion, and suppressed the Order. The same plea has been still more Oratorians recently advanced by the Oratorians of Brompton and of Syden- ham before the Courts and Parliament of England. This fact, with many others, proves that the system of the Jesuits has been, up to the present time, and still is, extending its ramifications
among us.
Nothing can be more instructive, than the account given by