First, by addresses artificially (if not illegally) procured, to shew the miserable state of the dissenters in Ireland by reason of the Sacramental Test, and to desire the Queen’s intercession that it might be repealed.  Then it is manifest that our Speaker, when he was last year in England, solicited, in person, several members of both Houses, to have it repealed by an act there, though it be a matter purely national, that cannot possibly interfere with the trade and interest of England, and though he himself appeared formerly the most zealous of all men against the injustice of binding a nation by laws to which they do not consent.  And lastly, those weekly libellers, whenever they get a tale by the end relating to Ireland, without ever troubling their thoughts about the truth, always end it with an application against the Sacramental Test, and the absolute necessity there is of repealing it in both kingdoms.  I know it may be reckoned a weakness to say anything of such trifles as are below a serious man’s notice; much less would I disparage the understanding of any party to think they would choose the vilest and most ignorant among mankind, to employ them for assertors of a cause.  I shall only say, that the scandalous liberty those wretches take would hardly be allowed, if it were not mingled with opinions that some men would be glad to advance.  Besides, how insipid soever those papers are, they seem to be levelled to the understandings of a great number; they are grown a necessary part in coffee-house furniture, and some time or other may happen to be read by customers of all ranks, for curiosity and amusement; because they lie always in the way.  One of these authors (the fellow that was pilloried I have forgot his name)[4] is indeed so grave, sententious, dogmatical a rogue, that there is no enduring him; the Observator[5] is much the brisker of the two, and I think farther gone of late in lies and impudence, than his Presbyterian brother.  The reason why I mention him, is to have an occasion of letting you know, that you have not dealt so gallantly with us, as we did with you in a parallel case:  Last year, a paper was brought here from England, called, “A Dialogue between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Mr. Higgins,” which we ordered to be burnt by the common hangman, as it well deserved; though we have no more to do with his Grace of Canterbury[6] than you have with the Archbishop of Dublin[7]; nor can you love and reverence your prelate more than we do ours, whom you tamely suffer to be abused openly, and by name, by that paltry rascal of an Observator; and lately upon an affair wherein he had no concern; I mean the business of the missionary at Drogheda, wherein our excellent primate was engaged, and did nothing but according to law and discretion.  But because the Lord Archbishop of Dublin hath been upon several occasions of late years, misrepresented in England, I would willingly set you right in his character.  For his great sufferings and eminent