The dissenters seemed more resolute now than ever, to have the Test repealed, especially when his Excellency had declared from the throne, “that they were neither to be persecuted nor molested.”  For they who had all along called the Test Act a persecution, might reasonably conclude that grievance would be removed; when they were told by the chief governor, that they were not to be even “molested.”  But to their great confusion, they were soon undeceived, when they found upon trial, that the House of Commons, would not bear the least motion towards it.

Their movements to repeal the Test Act being stopped this way; the managers were obliged to take several other ways to come at it:  And at the time, that some pretended to soothe, others seemed to threaten even the legislature, with a view, (as must be presumed) that those, whom they could not cajole, might be frightened into it.[5]

[Footnote 5:  Scott omits the words from “with a view” to the end of the paragraph. [T.S.]]

There happened about the time, when the project of the expedient was on foot, an excellent occasion, to express their resentments against this law, and that was, when great numbers of them refused the oath of allegiance, and to oppose the Pretender; insisting upon a repeal of the Test Act, as the condition of their arming in defence of their Queen and country.

The government was not reduced to such straits, as to submit to that condition; and the Test stood firm, in spite of both the dissenters and the Pretender, until the latter was driven from our coasts:  And then, one would have thought the hopes of the former, would have vanished with him.

But it proved quite contrary:  For those sons of the earth, rebounding with fresh vigour from their falls, recovered new strength and spirit from every defeat, and the next attempt was bolder (considering the circumstances they were in) than any they had made before.

The case was this:  The House of Lords of Ireland had accused them to the Queen of several illegal practices, which highly concerned the safety of our constitution, both in church and state:  The particulars of which charge, were summed up in a representation from the Lords to this effect: 

“That they (the dissenters) had opposed and persecuted the conformists, in those parts where their power prevailed, had invaded their congregations, propagated their schism in places where it had not the least footing formerly; that they were protected from a legal prosecution by a noli prosequi in the case of Drogheda.”

“That they refused to take conforming apprentices, and confined trade among themselves, exclusive of the conformists.”

“That in their illegal assemblies they had prosecuted and censured their people for being married according to law.”

“That they have thrown public and scandalous reflections upon the Episcopal order, and upon our laws, particularly the Sacramental Test, and had misapplied the royal bounty of L1,200 per annum, in propagating their schism, and undermining the Church:  And had exercised an illegal jurisdiction in their Presbyteries and Synods,” &c.