to a majority in the House of Commons, and consequently make themselves
the national religion, and have a fair pretence to demand the revenues
of the Church for their teachers. I know it will be objected, that if
all this should happen as I describe, yet the Presbyterian religion
could never be made the national by act of Parliament, because our
bishops are so great a number in the House of Lords, and without a
majority there, the Church could not be abolished. But I have two very
good expedients for that, which I shall leave you to guess, and I dare
swear our Speaker here has often thought on, especially having
endeavoured at one of them so lately. That this design is not so foreign
from some people's thoughts, I must let you know that an honest
bellwether[13] of our house (you have him now in England, I wish you
could keep him there) had the impudence some years ago, in Parliament
time, to shake my Lord Bishop of Kilaloe[14] by his lawn sleeve, and
tell him in a threatening manner, "that he hoped to live to see the day
when there should not be one of his order in the kingdom."

[Footnote 13: Supposed to be Mr. Broderick. [F.]]

[Footnote 14: Dr. Lindsay, afterwards Lord Primate. [S.]]

These last lines perhaps you think a digression; therefore to return: I
have told you the consequences we fully reckon upon from repealing the
Sacramental Test, which although the greatest number of such as are for
doing it, are actually in no manner of pain about it, and many of them
care not threepence whether there be any Church, or no; yet because they
pretend to argue from conscience as well as policy and interest, I
thought it proper to understand and answer them accordingly.

Now, sir, in answer to your question, whether if an attempt should be