Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1825-06-03
BRITISH PARLTAMEMT.
MIR. CANNING,S SPEECH.


numerous occasions which it had fallen to his lot
10 address the house the subject now before them
ou' from the low tone In which the right hon. gen.
AN delivered his FIRST two or three sentences it
was impossible 10 collect their precise import in
the gallery Often as he had spoken upon the question
ne could not approach at the present crisis with
out oeep anxiety; and yet he met it under some cir
cum's'ahces which were both cheering and extra
ordinary. Whether not the opinions of the
country were strongly pronounced in opposition
to the Catholic claims now as they Ind been former
ly' ne would not undertake TO say; but of this he
was certain, that among the petitions which had
oeen presented against those claims how ever per
iect their zeal and sincerity, there had been some
winch displayed an extreme ignorance-he meant
10 use the expression without disparagement--of
the state of the existing law and the merits of the
general question. He felt, he should ev err feel that
inc opinions of the country should be received BIZ
me house with open doors. They deserved 10 be
considered, whatever their effect with the ut
mostrespect and deliberaton. But after bestoyving
ths consideration upon public opinion as presented
20 H. the duty OF the house was to proceed and
nriniy, upon its own Judgment. Hear, hear
w ih respect, therefore, to any class OF persons
VINO imagined themselves more particularly in
'erested on the present occasion and placed in the
auEahce, as 1t were, as guardians, in a religions
point OF view of the rights of the constitution
WIN respect 10 the clergy of England he gave
mem not only federation but praise when thew
came forward with the fair expression of their
opinions; but, even in the petitions presented by
that body, he had found some portion of the uuat
10 which he had already alluded I's Hear and
laughter some ignorance, in fact of the real state
IN winch the law as affecting the Catholics stood at
present. Hear, hear. The ignorance which lie
was now describing, he imputed as no blame The
individuals in whom he discovered it shared it, per
maps, with many members of that house who had
not the same excuse OF professional avoca,ions 10
divert their attention from such topics But the
TACT was as ne stated it; and the charge applied
peculiarly 10 one petition, which he would not
mention by the name of The place from whence il
came; but which opposed the measure now pendinp
upon so en're mistake as TO the purpose meant to
ne effected by IT, that it actually prayed the house
not TO grant to the Roman Catholics priyileqes
and lmnhnties which not enioyed by anv
other class oil Dissenters Upon the very words
oil this petition he would contend, that there
was nothing which if taken In their literal mean
ing could initiate against the bill before the
mousse Inc Dissenters had voice in the leais-
latlon They had facilities of access to seats
In that house, of which the Roman Catholics ,vere
deprived, and yet they sought TO exclude otbers
from advantages which they themselves enioved
NOW II the house could act on this petition. il
Moaid place the Catholic Dissenters, on the same
too.inS as other Dissenters, and TO that the PRAYER
OF the petitioners was addressed The petition did
no go TO the removal of all political differences on
account OF relisioa On this he would rest. He
-~-NSate sHr- ahlie bod cL,,roL - l .
would not sanction any means, which even in nariie
would appear hostile TO that establishment unless
1t was shown that it was necessary to the
removal OF practical grievance. What was the
fact here! 1t was, that men who sat with them
and shared their councils called upon them 10 con-
Time the exclusion of Others who were no greater
)IsS q
petition come before the house, he was induced 10
pass it by, not with disrespect, but certainly not
with any very great degree of attention Looking
at some OF the petitions which had ccmc before
them from Dssenters, he was struck forcibly with
the language which they conveyed on the subject
OF religious differences the more so as coming from
men who themselves differed 30 widely from the es
tabIished church; and the present debate had
more than usual turned upon theological questions,
he would say two words upon it. 1t was
strange that such sympathy should be felt for one
class Of Dssenters, and not for another The SYM
patty he thought, should in many instances be the
other way. What was it which kept the r. Catholics
from taking their seats in that house? The oath
against transubstantiaion But did the house forge,
there might be men amongst their members who
believed in con-ubsantiation the doctrine which
had been avowed ard taught by Luther Did they
believe that man traitor whose creed embraced
the one, but rejected the other! He did not saw
there was difference between the two opinions,
but was that difference OF nature 10 Justify the
political distinction? The man who could make il a
ground for exclusion from political power, who
should contend that the one er was 10 be admit
ted, and the other excluded from a seat in tina,
house, must have minute perception Of the nceties
OF rauocinauon, for which he might be enved as a
a logician, but which wholly useless for the
purposes OF common life. TIIear, hear The mex;
of bat y. I III
the doctrine Of exclusive salvation. Why, al
most all the churches were exclusive on some art;.
Giles; and let not 1nourable members who urged
this objection forget that the Church of England
held the Athanasian Creed---a human exposition OF
the great mysteries OF Christianity CHEERS land
held 1t with the expressed declaration that they
who differed from it could not be saved With
this fact before them, could the Catholics with any
fairness be excluded from the enjoyment OF their
civil rights on the ground OF believing in the
doctrine Of exclusion! The doctrine of absolution
was the next ground on which the opponents of the
bill rested. he would admit, that i'm the abstract
that doctrine was absurd; but the evidence before
the committee OF the House Of Lords went 10 ~ Owe
that the dissolution depended on the IN position oi
the party receiving it, and not az The abstract
power OF tho person giving 1t depended on the
sincere repentance OF the party who received it, on
his disposition to amend, and on his resolution to
repair as lar as he could, any injuries be might have
inflicted. Was this an opinion confined to the
Roman Catholicl Let any man read the in
structions for the visitation Of the SICK as directed
by the Church of England, and nc would find that
the power OF absoiving might he exercised, and
was resored TO, when the sick party desired it,
There werep points in which, essentially, there was
very slight difference between the two religions.
He did not mean TO say there were 10 important
distinctions between the Protestant and Catholic
Crecds. There were, he admitted, many dsiinc-
tons, and they were such as made hnheartly GLAD
that the latter had separated from them; bat they