in this manner: "Why should we make the choosing of a speaker a party cause? Let us fix upon one, who is well versed in the practices and methods of parliament." And I believe, there are too many who would talk at the same rate, if the question were not only about abolishing the sacramental test, but the sacrament itself.
But, suppose the principles of the most artful speaker would have no influence, either to obtain, or obstruct any point in parliament; who can answer what effects such a choice may produce without doors? It is obvious how such a matter serves to raise the spirits and hopes of the dissenters, and their high flying advocates: what lengths they run, what conclusions they form, and what hopes they entertain. Do they hear of a new friend in office? that is encouragement enough to practise the city, against the opinion of a majority, into an address to the queen for repealing the sacramental test; or issue out their orders to the next fanatick parson, to furbish up his old sermons, and preach and print new ones directly against episcopacy. I would lay a good wager, that if the choice of a new speaker, succeeds exactly to their liking, we shall see it soon followed by many new attempts, either in the form of pamphlet, sermon, or address, to the same, or perhaps more dangerous purposes.
Supposing the speaker's office to be only an employment of profit and honour, and a step to a better; since it is in your own gift, will you not choose to bestow it upon some person, whose principles the majority of you pretends to approve, if it were only to be sure of a worthy man hereafter, in a high station, on the bench, or at the bar?
I confess
