was not confined to that house. It was avowed by a reverend gentleman high in the catholic church in Ireland, and had been followed by the declarations of several lay writers of that religion, who all concurred that emancipation ought to be attended with temporal grants, which would be inconsistent with the existence of the Irish established church. It was said, that this question should be carried sub modo; but when once men were put into a new situation, it would be difficult to be accountable for their actions in that situation. He was prepared to contend, that emancipation, if it were followed, as it was expected to be, with a permission to the professors of one religion to administer a government essentially connected with another, would be against the spirit of the constitution, and that it would leave no means by which to decide which religion should predominate. It was to be regretted, that, in advocating the question, on many occasions, attempts should be made to disparage the established church in Ireland. Its clergy were described as orangemen as men without property or influence but what they derived from the church. Great stress was also laid, in this question on the numerical strength of the catholics. That, he conceived, had nothing to do with the merits of the question; but the number of the protestants, which had always been under-rated, was of importance with reference to it. The latter were always described as a very few compared with their catholic fellow-subjects in Ireland. If the protestant clergy lost their flocks, it was not to their misconduct, but to their misfortune it

was to be attributed. But the fact was, the number of the protestants was by no means so small in Ireland as was generally urged. Gentlemen at the other side were in the habit of stating the numbers of both religions in Ireland, and they were not contradicted on his side, because there were until very lately no certain date to go upon.' Lord Charlmont had said in Ireland, that it was impossible that two millions of catholics could be held down by one million of protestants. But that noble lord was mistaken in the actual numbers of the Irish population at that time. In the year 1788 there were more accurate data to go upon, and, from what had been collected by Mr. Bushe, it appeared that the population at that time did not exceed 4,400,000. From that time there was no glimmering of what was the real state of the population till the year 1821, and the census in that year showed that it was 6,800,000. But it was most unfairly assumed that the catholics had increased, and that the protestants had ceased to multiply. The house had, therefore, often heard of six millions of catholics, and but one million of protestants. The hon. member here entered into a detail of calculations of the number of protestants and catholics in the several counties in Ireland. The result was, according to the honourable member's showing, that there was in the parish of Ulster a population of 1,968,000, of which, the protestants amounted to 1,170,000. In Leinster the population 1,757,000, of which 370,000 were protestants. In Munster, 1,935,000, of which about 200,000 were protestants; and in Connaught there were 1,100,000, of which about 120,000

were

were protestants. In the four provinces, then, the number of protestants was 1,860,000, and that of the catholic 4,900,000, being numerically in the same ratio as Sir W. Petty stated in his account of Ireland. It was asserted that the protestants of Ireland were almost all presbyterians. He denied the fact. The moderator of the presbyterian church in Ireland has reckoned the number of presbyterians at 560,000; he believed it, however, to be nearer to 620,000. To this number he would add 45,000 as the number of other dissenters from the church, including quakers, anabaptists, seceders, &c.; and there would thus be a total of 665,000 protestant dissenters from the church of Ireland. The whole number of protestants in Ireland he had before shown to be 1,860,000, so that it was clear that a large majority of them were members of the established church. He had not made this comparison of numbers invidiously; but he thought that he was fully justified in making it, after the manner, in which the advocates of that side of this question which he espoused, had been taunted with the overwhelming numerical superiority of the catholics. He knew that those who opposed him were aware of the accuracy of his statement, and he believed that they would be the most unpalatable truths that had been offered for their consideration during the whole of the stormy period of the last twenty years. He should say no more on the point of numbers. He must now proceed to another point, which he considered of considerable importance. Some years ago, the house was asked, on the subject

of the catholic emancipation. "What are you afraid of? You have an enemy on the throne of France, who is an enemy of all ́ religion: you have a pope so far divested of all power as to be absolutely a prisoner; you have got rid of the bug-bear which you once found in the jesuits; you hear no more of the infallibility of general councils; you have indeed, a Roman-catholic religion, but of a very different character from that by which it was formerly distinguished;-of what then are you afraid?" The very mode in which this argument was put, showed that the parties who used it at that time thought that there might be just ground of alarm in a king of France who was a firm friend to the Roman-catholic creed, in a pope who was firmly established in his chair, in the existence of the jesuits as a religious body, and in the restoration of the catholic religion to all its old superstitions. Now let the house consider how the case stood at present. The royal family of France could not be taunted even by their bitterest enemies with being sndifferent catholics. It had been iaid that the head of that family cast an eye upon Ireland; if he did so, it was an eye of religion, and not of politics. He firmly believed that the granting an indemnity to the emigrants was the third, the upholding the principle of legitimacy the second, and the re-establishment of the catholic religion in all parts of the world where it had once been professed, was the first and leading passion of his mind. The chair of St. Peter was at present filled with a worthy successor of the Gregories and the Clements, and he really

believed

believed that his equal had not been vested with the tiara for many centuries. It was, however, known, that he was exerting all the powers of his great mind to regain the influence which had formerly belonged to his station. The jesuits were again established, not only abroad, but also, he believed, at home-not merely in France and Spain, but also in England and Ireland. The catholic religion was again dealing out its miracles and indulgences, and displaying a spirit of intolerance and persecution which could only be equalled by that which it had displayed in the 17th century. Now when such was admitted to be the fact, he could not see the consistency of the logic, which called upon the house to make concessions which were questionable when there was no danger, under circumstances which the very advocates of emancipation admitted to be full of danger. But, overlooking that inconsistency, he would say that, even if the circumstances he had just mentioned did not exist, the present was not a time to concede any thing to the catholics. The present was one of those epochs in which there was much religious excitement abroad, and in which religious zeal was even paramount to political ambition.

This was

proved by the numerous bible societies, missionary societies, &c., which now existed in England, and by the proposition of a law of sacrilege in France, which one could easily suppose to have been enacted in the most intolerant period of the reign of Louis XIV. That law was the manifest progeny of religious zeal, and was so opposite to the spirit of the French

nation, that if ever an attempt were made to act upon it, it would cause greater trouble to the dynasty of Bourbon than any which they had hitherto experienced. The present was, therefore, in his opinion, the very last moment when any change should be made at all affecting religious opinions. He was hostile to such change, because he saw the catholics mixing up politics with their religion, and because he knew that the alliance between religion and politics was always dangerous. Gentlemen had formerly said to him, "You object to this change, but why? Do you think that things can ever revert to their old situation?" He would tell them that he did not merely think that they would revert to it, but that he knew that they had so reverted already. That afforded him a subject of consideration before he gave up. any of the principles of the British constitution. He had always been led to consider the compact between church and state to form one of those principles. To any measure, therefore, which tended to weaken that compact, he should always oppose the most strenuous resistance, regardless of all the reproaches which might be heaped upon him for so doing. The hon. gentleman, after eulogizing the union between church and state at some length, sat down amid considerable cheering, declaring that he could by no means give his assent to the proposition of Sir F. Burdett.

Mr. Canning then rose to address the house. It was not his intention to trespass long upon the indulgence of the house, nor if it had been his intention, was it now in his power. He had,

however,

however, attended in his place that evening at considerable personal inconvenience to himself; and the same reason which induced him to be present at this discussion, induced him not to give a silent vote upon it. He rose at this early period of the debate, because he was apprehensive that if he did not take that opportunity of addressing them, he should not have strength at a later period to address them at all. He praised the moderation with which the honourable baronet had brought forward his proposition, and expressed his intention of following his example. He should, therefore, not enter into any controversy, nor touch upon any topics calculated to create an irritating discussion, as, perhaps, he might not be present at the conclusion of it. He confessed that his opinion on this question was the same which he had usually expressed on other occasions when it had come before the house, and which he should always be ready to support under any circumstances, from whatever quarter the support of it might be claimed. When he said "from whatever quarter it might be claimed," he begged the hon. baronet not to suppose that he used the words out of any disrespect to himquite the reverse he had often had the honour of the hon. baronet's co-operation, although on the majority of occasions they usually differed from each other. Undoubtedly, if his opinion and advice had been taken-and he by no means complained that it had not he should have said that he did not conceive the present to be a favourable opportunity of bringing on this question. But

having said that, he should pursue the topic no further, because if he gave any reasons for it, he might appear not so much to be expressing an opinion upon it, as endeavouring to throw a doubt which he did not feel on the justice of the cause. The question was, however, before them, and being before them, it was their duty to consider how they would deal with it. He would deal with it now as he had upon every other occasion, and would not hesitate to give it his most cordial and most conscientious support. Although there were circumstances which made him consider the present as an unfavourable time for the discussion of these claims, personally he was not sorry that they had been brought forward. After having recently lent his aid to restrain and suppress the irregular zeal of some of the catholic body, he was not sorry to have an opportunity of showing that it was only to the zeal which had been superinduced on this question that he objected, and that his opinions and feelings regarding the merits of it were, at the bottom, not only unaltered, but also unalterable. The principles upon which this proposition appeared to him to be worthy of the consideration of the house were so plain and simple, that he could hardly imagine on what grounds it could be opposed. He could easily understand the reason, why any person who was called upon to vote in favour of it, might demand that many modifications should be made in it, many concessions qualified, many difficulties solved, many inconveniences provided for, and many dangers-some of them, in his opinion, imaginary, and others real,

guarded

guarded against; but he could not, by any process of reasoning, understand why all the subjects of the same kingdom, all the inhabitants of the same soil-those who lived in the same country, mingled in the daily offices of life, and professed a common christianity, should be excluded from the common benefits of the constitution of their country. If it were determined to exclude them, he thought that the onus probandi, the necessity of making out the reasons for their exclusion, was thrown upon the other side. It appeared to him that the state in which they now stood had been justly described by an honourable friend of his (Mr. L. Foster), for whom he felt a most sincere respect, though he now differed from him, as a state which was now a century old. But, had not the honourable gentleman in another part of his speech sufficiently answered himself? Had he not said "what is a century in the age of religion?" It was not an argument, but a fact, that by altering the present system, we restored it to that which had a still longer age in its favour. If the argument of age were of any value, why did they hesitate to restore the catholics to that state in which they were placed before the passing of the penal laws? He contended, upon this occasion, as he should upon every other, that to stand where they then were was to alter; and to make a change, was to return to the old system. By this statement he pressed into his service all those topics which arose from the abhorrence of change; he claimed them as his own, unless it could be shown that the change, though new was inveterate was fixed in so strong a

necessity, and was so irrevocably rooted by the continuance of that necessity, that it could not be abandoned without an abdication of principle, or an abandonment of honour. He was too weak to enter deeply into this question. One or two topics, however, had been urged by his hon. friend, which he could not bring himself to pass over in silence. His hon. friend had set out by saying, that nothing was so dangerous to the peace of society as the alliance between politics and religion; and how did he conclude his speech? By a laboured eulogium on the alliance between church and state. There was an inconsistency in this which he could not reconcile. He could not see how the mystic words "church and state," which his hon. friend was more accustomed to hear in his convivial than in his sober moments, could be construed in any sense which did not countenance the alliance of politics and religion. He concurred, however, up to a certain point, with the opinion of his hon. friend. He did think that the alliance of politics and religion, where it led to a divergency of sentiment, and to the doubtfulness of allegiance, was to be denounced as eminently objectionable and here, again, he must look to his honourable friend's speech for an illustration. His hon. friend had told them, that never at any time was the feeling of religious zeal so paramount over political ambition of the governments of the continent. He believed that to be the case; but what was the inference he drew from it? Why, mankind were divided into two classes, by two lines of demarcation. There was one line between the protestant and the catholic churches,