actors of this law, but all such who shall continue it by giving their negatives to the repeal.
Page 19, he says, "The truth is, the imposition of the test, and continuing it in such a state of the kingdom, appears (at first sight) so great an absurdity in politicks as can never be accounted for."
Who are these absurd politicians? Are they not the majority of both houses of parliament?
But, to strengthen his reflections, page 26, he gives the whole legislature to understand, "that continuing the test does not become the wisdom and justice of the legislature, under the pretence of its being for the advantage of the state, when it is really prejudicial to it;" and farther tells us, it infringes on the indisputable right of the dissenters."
Page 57, he says, "The gentlemen of the house of commons, who framed the bill to prevent the farther growth of popery, instead of approving the test clause, which was inserted, publickly declared their dislike to it, and their resolution to take the first opportunity of repealing it, though at that time they unwillingly passed it rather than lose a bill they were so fond of. This resolution has not been as yet fulfilled, for what reasons our worthy patriots themselves know best."
I should be glad this author would inform us, who and how many of those members joined in this resolution to repeal the test; or where that resolution is to be found, which he mentions twice in that same paragraph: surely not in the books of the house of commons!
If not, suppose some few gentlemen of the house
