Star. — London, England, 1825-03-02 00:00:00

abject.— D pic tir— o kind' of tebtiam 'Dishier lesitatio4 bs•c ROE COP. able Bo- sbsesved, Sider the r the I am Far rw•ar4.— lend my iich have eless con that an ng that it, this MI- A feeling , is alto ar, hear), the pre- Ita of the. dly it. Ica Iled upon) may 11:1••• look !or securityt 'rights and privileges ?-.47toap, hear) The oars pro bandi lies on the other side; on the side of those-who contend that they ought to be so excluded. Sir, it pears to me that the state describe.l by my ,Hon. Frynd, the Member for Air (tor whom I am sure 'entertain thegreatest respeet)when he declared that the present system was a century old. At least that was a fact, not an argument. But,goodGon, Sir, what is a century in religion ? lithe system be only a century old, then what we propose to do is not a change but a restoration. What I contend is this, that in the present, beyond all ocher questions, to remain where.we lire, is to alter ; to make a change, is to return to what at were. By this simple statement, I exclude from op position to me all the enemies of innovation; I press into my service all the topics which are familiar to them, ' , miles' they can shew that the change, however originally 'necessary (and that original necessity I do not deny), Vas become so inveteratez-that the continuation of its ' , original necessity had fixed it so irrevocably, that we tannest go back without the abdication of every principle 'which it is our duty to maintain. Sir, I feel myself much ttoo weak to follow the speech of my Hon.Friend,but there Vere'one two things In it which I cannot quite pass beer. My Hon. Friend said than was nothing so hos tile to the peace of mankind as the alliance of religion and politics. This was the subject which occupied the first half of my Hon. Friend's speech ; but how did he conclude? By a laboured eulogium on Church and State—(Hear, hear). I cannot imagine how it is that it never occurs to my Hon. Friend, on the many occa sions on which he is called to utter those mystic words, at more convivial moments than the present, to ask himself if Church and State is not a religious and poli tical alliance ?—(fear,•hear, and laughter) In one of my Honourable Friend's opinions I certainly do agree with him. I do think that all such alliances of religion and politics as may lead 'to a divergence of senti ment, and a doubtfulness of allegiance, are eminently objectionable. And here again I will look for an illlustration of that opinion in my Honourable Friend's own statement. My Honourable Friend tells us, and tells us truly, that there never was a period of the world in which the feelings of religious zeal were 60 paramount over feelings of political ambition, espe cially among the Governments of the Continent. In the accuracy of that statement, I perfectly agree. But what is my inference from it ? Mankind, Sir, are at present di vided into two classes, by distinct lines of demarcation: the line between the Protestant and the Catholic Church, and the line between British and Foreign influence. Let us efface the line which, in this Empire. ieparates the Protestant from the Catholic Church: and by so doing let us strengthen the other line of division between British and Foreign influence—(Loud cries of hear, hear).—These, Sir, are the principles on which I have always advocated the Catholic cause.; these are the principles on which I will always continue to advocate it. It must be quite unnecessary for me to say anything to my Honourable Friend, and to those Honourable Members who think with him, on the subject of their fears for the security of the Protestant establishment. I lately took occasion in my place in chi, House to declare, and to give a solemn pledge, that I would go as far as any man in support of that estab lishment. That declaration and pledge . I now repeat. Nay, more: I am ready to declare, that, if my reason were convince] that we must stand as we are, for that, by proceeding, we should risk that establishment, which is so interwoven with our happy Constitution, I would, at the hazard of being charged with inconsistency, contend against the Honourable Baronet's proposition. But it is because my reason is convinced of the con trary, that the Honourable Baronet's proposition re ceives my most cordial concurrence. I would have this count: y open its breast, and receive into its bosom those who not only live in its allegiance, but support its Government. To conclude, I give my cordial sup port to the motion, conceiving myself in no degree pledged to the details• of any measure that may be founded on it, but conceiving myself pledged not to sacrifice to that object any point which in my conscience I may believe not only hostile, but dangerous w the Protestant Constitution.—The Right Honourable Gen tleman was much applauded at the conclusion of his speech; shortly after which he left the House, appa rently overcome by indisposition. The SOJACITOR-GENERAL thought, that if con sistency of opinion was entitled to the attention of the House, he had some claim on their indulgence; and if there was any subject on which he could - give an im partial opinion, it was the present. He should, there fore, state briefly his reasons for giving a decided nega tive to the motion of the Honourable Baronet, *hich were chiefly founded on constitutional principles. His Honourable Friend (Mr. Foster) said, that the present time was inconvenient to discuss the subject, but he thought it was still more—it was improper. If the House adopted the proposition of the Honourable Ba ronet, it would appear to yield to menace—(Hear). — It would be said that through fear, on thevery Tuesday after suppressing the Catholic Association, Catholic Emancipation was granted. On that ground, as an in dependent Member of Parliament, he should oppose the motion. An Honourable Gentleman on the other side of the House (Mr. C. Hutchinson) bad expressly de ed, that, in a Parliamentary sense, he should terrify the House into these concessions. After such argu ments, openly avowed, lie put it to Honourable Gentle men, whether, if Emancipation were carried, it would not be considered the result of menace and intimida tion? He should now state more particularly why he would not agree to the motion of the Hon. Baronet. — He was told if these claims were granted the Catholics would be satisfied ; but, on the contrary, he believed if one.privilege were granted, it would only be made a stepping-stone to the acquirement of further.' His Right Honourable Friend, the Attorney-General for Ireland, had for some years laid it down that the Elective Fran chise nag political power, and that only an extension of the principle was then required. This to him was the difficulty; he saw no certain limits when concession was to stop, and therefore there was no chance of ob taining that peace and harmony which seemed to be the objects of those who supported the measure. Now .leafs in that House, in the other House, and en the' 'llench, were sought, but by and bye. when those privi rieges were granted to the laity, the Church would put rin its claim, and seek similar advancement in the State. The Catholic Association had voted that a Petition re 'spatting - Tithe should be entrusted to the Honourable Member for Aberdeen ; and why ? Because, to use - the • that- -- _ - ha the powei of the Priesthood- in Deland. Among the last actopots. rola - Ow 4 MARY.. it APPetero that in Kilkenny • a Paints -Of ehallanse or Magee,toldtho peo ple, that 'if' P.Mifflitenqat down the iristeleietioes be 'should aditaiicel,W. rent Go lot Should still.grasto . .the 'teni t • that hitt liingregation 'altar as the roe Of their redensesloak Anolbet reason why he Amid ob ject to go Name Committee *as, that on all for mer at; casionaksertsfogod impossible, even by the friends Of Emancipation, to propo s e it on term's acceptable to the Catholic Clergy. The Honourable Member here re ferred to the opposition which w as given - t 6 the Veto, and other dmilar provisions, at diffloint times. The 'Priests. in short, exercised not .a spirjtual, but a civil power over the people. With the Catholic Laity he (the Solicitor-General) could agree, because they had , no interest separate from that of the State—('Hear, hear)—but the Priests had an opposite interest. In this country, Parliament, in the reign of Charles the First, abolished the power even of the Protestant Clergy to coerce the people, and confirmed the principle after wards in the reign of Charles the Second. But the Catholic Clergy still retained that power, and that was a main objection to . the granting of Emancipation. The present measure, in short, would not place the Catholics on an equality with the Protestants, bet on a superior footing. His Right Honourable Friend, who, he re gretted to say, had been obliged to leave the House (Mr. Secretary Canning), objected that any reference should be made to the reign of William the Third but they were obliged to go back to that period, to fotos a correct judgment on experience. Upon these grounds be should give his Arm opposition to the motion. Ms. S. WORTLEY thought there could be no sub istantiai peace in the empire till the Catholics were ad mitted to all the privileges of the Constitution—(Heer). —The present was precisely the time for making the required concession. He wouldgo as far in favour of the Catholics as of any other class of Dissenters. No Government, since the death of Mr. Percival, could be formed on the ground of exclu - sion of the Catholics; and the question, though delayed, was virtually car tied. The Protestant Church was more in danger from that delay, than from any concessions to the Catholics.—. There had been of late a great change of opinion in favour of the Cktbulic clahns—(Hear, hear). Mr. G. BANK ES said, that tyre absence of Petitions against this. measure was owing to the shortness of the time. That, howeser, he did 'not lament, as less irri tation.had beert'etrited:` He could not conceive how the public opialioo;c0/eld hkvibeen changed in favour of the Cadiolica.;.,his.fearrwere chiefly for. the Protest ant Church of ,Ireland. " The Catholics had distinctly said, that they would not be contented with what was termed Emancipation, and that they had ulterior ob jects. The Honourable Member here proceeded to ' read an extract from a speed; of Mr. O'Connell, which melted, to a considerable degree, the risibility of the Heine, and prodused loud calls to the Hon. 13vinknian to continue tli read. He decidedly opposed the motion.. Mr. PLUNKETT was strongly disposed to give a silent vote, and but for the peculiar circumstances in which he wasplaced should have adopted that course. When.last he had the honour of addressing the Honse on this subject, he had also the honour of performing a similar duty to that which now devolved on the Honourable Baronet opposite (Sir F. Burdett). He trusted, however, that neither the Hon. Barmier, nor any one who heard him would suppose that his feelings would be warped by the accidental circumstance al luded to. He was anxious. inde'ed, to bear testimony to the temperate and discreet, as well as able manner in which that Honourable Baronet bad introduced the question that evening, and he should iu the few words he had to offer endeavour to follow his example. With respect to the time at which the measure was proposed, - although he felt that on this point there would always be difficulties to contend against, yet they did not seise from tidings regarding himself but others. With et deep and intense sense of the importance of the subject i to his own country and to Europe,he should not consider any time tooearly, nor any time such as not to call forth his /host anxious support. His Hon. and Learned Friend had, however, objected to the time, but he should be glad to know at what time he would be dis posed to vote for the Catholic concessions ?—(Hear). When the water was smooth—when the surface of affairs was unruffled—non pieta weveri—or when turbulence and rocking winds prevailed, he appre hended would seem equally unpropitious to his Hon. and Learned Friend for admitting the Catholics to the Constitution. He concurred with his Hon. and eloquent Friend, the Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Stuart Wortley), that he thought there was a peculiar grace and fitness in bringing forward the motion at the present time. After having adopted a measure calculated to irritate the feelings of the Catholics, their friends who joined in that proceeding were naturally glad of an opportu nity to shew that their opinions on the general question had, notwithstanding. undergone no change. He also felt a degree of confidence on this occasion which he had not before experienced—for during the last three or four years he was never able to meet any person in England w ld say that he believed Emancipation would ii,o( bercoe one dayk.be carried. There were also those who h d opposed the measure, and who, from the tem per, talent, and liberality which distinguished their op position, were its most alarming enemies, but who had more than once declared, that if they believed it would impart tranquillity to Ireland, they should support it. Now, he did got think chat persons who spoke so felt in their hearts that Catholic Emancipation was incon sistent with the Constitution—(Hear). To his own heart the measure was as dear as it could be to any one's. But, added he, o.so help me GOD, I would re sist it witb all the energy I possess, if I thought it por- tended danger to the Protestant Establishments of the United Kingdom." The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then proceeded to shew that in the Bill introduied by him in 1821, as well as in those prepared by Mr. Grattan, the permanent inviolability of the Protestant Church of Ireland was a fundamental basis of legislation.— This claim on the part of the Roman Catholics of Ire land was a claim to be members of a free representa tive. Government : to be admitted to those institutions which belonged to every member of it. He _considered them entitled to those natural rights, but admitted the granting of those rights might be controuled. Neces sity, however, ought to be clearly proved for such con wool. It appeared to the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that individuals in a free State had the same degree of right to the privileges of the Constitu tion that they had to personal liberty. Both tights 'ible ' - . odd - ' - necessit - 111.edi of deposing the Monarch himself, and of releasing his subjects from theft allegiance. The Legi , lature, by. the Act of Unifortnity,,pomred tl a teli s ion of the State. All they dangers of that das -swig ati an end. The fears of the Rdormationowere iet. at rest, When ./antes the Second came to the Moon,. he set the laws at defiance; the Parliament mild the people then drove from the throne and made the Chinch Govern client inviolably Protestant. The lx.t danger was the claim of the Pretender, but that was sue mounted. In 1'798 they found the people of Ireland so sunk and restricted, in consequence of their attachment to their religious faith, thapit was necessary to resort to lenient measures, which made the reign of his late Majesty the brightest part of our history. A system of lenity during forty years had raised the Roman Catholics to. a situation in which they felt they ought to took up to all the privileges of the Constitution. They were good and loyal subjects, entitled to participate in the, benefits of the Constitution. Six, or four millions of his Majesty's subjects—h e - w o u ld take either number, came year after year to claim the privilege of sharing in the benefits of the Constitution, and year after year they were refused that boon. They had been thus dis appointed, and this country had to contend with the danger which` might mite from their dis setisfaction. The Honout able Member for Louth bad said they should not look at present danger, but consider the danger which led to the restrictive laws. He (Mr. Plunkett) was of opinion present danger only ' ought to be regarded. It was said they might admit the Roman Catholics to civil rights, but it was another thing to admit them to political power. Was the elective franchise political power? Was the station of Magistrate political power ? Thee might be civil rights ; and he .might ask what part of the Constitution laid down a line between civil rights and political power ? He knew of no such thing. It was a mockery to say mob had Constitutional rights whilst they were shut out from the most valuable privileges of the Constitutioa? The right of holding offices was considered by an Honour able Friend a mere bagatelle, and he would like to hear from that Honourable Friend how he would like to be in the situation of the Roman Catholics? The llouse would have to decide whether any class of men ought to be represented without their walls. —lf shut out of Parliament, the Roman Catholics must go to some illegal and unconstitutional remedy. So long as these persons were denied the privileges of the Constitution, much was to be feared. He should take the liberty of stating what he thought ought to be done. First, to take away all grounds of complaint, he would 'put all parties, Clergy and Laity, on the same footing. Secondly, he would make provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy. He was inclined to think the Hierarchy of Ireland was in danger of being pulled down, but. not superseded. He hoped that would never klippen; but if the Protestant Hierarchy were pulled down, arid the Church property was offered to the Ca ah,,lic Clergy, they would not accept it—(Expressions if doubt and dissent). The people of Ireland would never consent to have the property of the country given to Priests.. The Roman Catholics were tranquil and loyal. They remained firm to the Constitution ; and i d the Government of France were to speculate upon Ortivadiag Ireland sad receiving aid from the Roman Catholics, they deceive themselves. If the time should ever come for 'evasion, they would rally round the State, and skew their loyalty and affection for the House of Brunswick. Mr. Secretary PEEL—.The Honourable Baronet has introduced this question for discussion on its true grounds, and rested his proposition upon three points: 1. Positive Treaty-2. Natural Rights--S. Prudence and Policy. The Honourable BiVonet, and I believe the Petition he presented, demand the fulfilment of a treaty,. 'I have, on previous occasions, considered the effect of the treaty to which they allude, and I beg again to express my total dissent. lam prepared to deny that the Roman Catholics can claim any privi lege on the foundation of the treaty of Limerick. tis no doubt important for the House to consider whether, in withholding what is now required at its hands, it is violating the terms of a solemn treaty ; and I beg to ask the Hon. Baronet whether he has referred to the articles of that treaty, and whether he really thinks, not that it has been infringed at any former period of our his tor y,but whether any privilege is refused in defiance of it? The Hon. Baronet will find, that by the first article, the Roman Catholics were entitled to be exempted from all molestation on account of their religious tenets : by other articles, certain persons might claim the privileges of personal property on taking no other oath but that of allegiance. Now, the Hon. Baronet extends this right to a claim, that the Romati Catholics shall be entitled to the enjoyment 6f civil office on taking the oath of alle giance only. That I beg leave to deny, and lam con tent to rest my denial upon the speech of Sir Theobald Butler, who was employed by the Roman Catholics to speak in the House of Lords against the passing of the Bill against the growth of Popery. Sir T. Butler says, and most justly, " that it is unfair to debar Roman Ca tholics the possession of their property, unless they take the oath of supremacy, because it ikexpreesly provided, by the treaty of Limerick, that they shall take the oath of allegiance only e. but when he comes to speak more particularly of the measure under consideration, he ob serves, " the six next clauses of the Bill relate to civil office; as to attaching the oath of supremacy to the taking of civil office, these clauses only affect the Roman Catholics of Ireland in the same degree to which they affect the Dissenters:" and the whole of his argument goes to thew that these six clauses were an infraction of the rights—not of the Roman Catholios, but of the Dis senters. He thus abandons all claims to civil office. Yet he was Solicitor to James IL—was employed in drawing up the. Treaty of Limerick, and was engaged by the Catholics against the Bill in the reign of Anne. Next the Hon, Baronet, and my Right Hon. Friend, rest this claim upon the . ground of natural t lgt ; and here again I directly join issue with them : this is one of the material points en which I have the misfortune to differ from some of the friends with whom I am in the habit of acting. : It involves a great constitutional question, and my Right Hots. Friend goes even so far as to argue that we have no more right to exclude Roman Catholics from civil office, than to divest them. -of their property : he _places the spoliation of property, and the exclusion from civil office, on precisely the' same footing ; but he admits that bo th may be sacrificed , to paramount considerations of necessity ; but then that 'necessity must be established. I cannot allow that the ''ens of this country have any such claim as an ab lst, and I do not believe that the doctrine was I ent moment, that oath has been enforced, and has operated to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics My Right Hon. Friend, the Secretary for Fofeigir Affair's, ssid that the taw of exclusion had its origin (all about 110 years ago, but I ,'eny the position; it h4d itsorigin With the 6rs4 rise of dissent to matters of religion.-4a What, let me inquire, has been the duct one maintained by public men on the subject of civil office-? 1 have had imeestsion before to refer to opinions entitled to the highest respect, especially from those IL nourable Metribers to whom lam particularly addle-sing myself. A conference was held respecting the Bill of occa sional conformity, and the Lords who conducted it, had objected to a measure which subjected to the penalty of perpetual forfeiture of office those who were guilty of the crime of occasional conformity. At the conference they stated this important doctrine The Lords look on the fixing s. , f the qualification for 'lace to be a thing so entirely lodged in tire , Wm that, without giving any reason for it, on any ap prehension of danger, however remote, every Govern ment may put such rules, restraints, and conditions on all who serve in places of trust, as t hey shall see cattle for; but penalties and punishments are of a different nature." Can anything be more clearly laid down than the distinction here taken between exclusion and penalty? And who were the Lords that presided at the con fttrence?—the Duke of Devonshire, the Earl of Peter. `borough, Bishop Burnett, Lord Halifax, and lastly, tord Somers himself—(Hear, hear). Next let mt ask my Right Honourable Friend what he says to that article in the Scotch Act of Union, which perma nently excludes Roman Catholics from certain offices? If there be this natural right, and if that-natural right be correspondent with the right of property, is it possible to suppose that the great men who adjusted the articles of the Scotch Union would have allowed this permanent exclusion of the Roman Catholics ? But coming to periods nearer our own times, when the dangers from Popery may be supposed to have had less influence, I would call the.atteption of the House to the debates of 1771 and 1774, on the subject of the Quebec Act s let us look at the doctrine maintained by Lord Chatham and Lord Camden regarding the Oath of Snpre. misty. Both these distinguished men asserted that the Oath of Supremacy was as sacred and as obligatory as Magma Charta itself, and how can these opinions be reconciled with the claim of natural right? I very freely admit, that at the conference to which I have referred, the Peers who managed it, allowed that ex clusion from office by law was a punishment of the se. verest kind: but at a still more reßent period, 1790, tubes the repeal of the Test Laws was -under con•idera tion, did Mr. Pitt admit the doctrine now Contended Lt.? Certainly not. Mr. Burke's dissent at thit time was on the score of danger from the Unitarians; but Mr. Pitt, a warm supporter of the Roman Catholics, di rectly contradicted the position of the Honourable Baronet, and my Right Hon.. .Friend. It should be recollected that the Test Laws then under discussion, were enacted with a view to the defence and preserva tion of the Constitution; and Mr. Pitt told the House that "he hesitated not to say, that if distrust were entertained of any one of the three branches of the Constitution, it ought to be directed against the exe• cadre power. The persons excluded by the Test Laws, laboured under no kind of stigma; but it was the po licy of private life not to allow any man to manage your affairs, whose principles you did not like; but the exclusion of Dissenters could be looked upon as nos punishment." I go further, and 1 maintain that if the doctrine be correct, the exclusion from Parlia ment, and the refusal of the elective franchise, cannot be justified. It seems to me that the power of sitting here, or of voting for Members, is just as much a natural right as that for which my Right Hon. Friend contends. I then come to what, in fact, is the main point, and which has reference to the circumstances of lteland ; and I ask first, whether the power sought can safely be granted ; and whether, if granted, it will conduce to tranquillity ? I must own that if I were perfectly sa. tisfied that concession would lead to the restoration of peace and harmony ;if Ithought it would put an cad to animosities 'the existence of which all lament, I for one would not oppose the measure on a mere theory of the Constitution, when consent would secure such im mense practical advantages. But because I doubt whether the removal of disabilities on the condition proposed, will pi omote tranquillity in Ir eland, or less re ligious animosities ; and because I think you cannot safely remove the disabilities, I am dispoied to continue the exclusion. Now let me ask, are these , civil tits, abilities the cause of the disorders in Ireland ?—(Near). If you trace back these disorders as far as actual com motion is concerned, you will fins that they have no. such origin. How. happens it otherwise that in the Province of Ulster, where the number s of Catholics and Protestants ate nearly balanced, the Insurrection Act has sot been in a single instance ea - ot ced?—( hear). .—.How happens it otherwise that the partial removal of disabilities has not been attended with any beneficial effect? In 1792, the Roman Catholics came forward, and asked to be rendered capable of holding the office of Magistrates, and of enjoying the elective franchi e. They wanted, they said, notl.ing more, and those grossly maligned them who said their wishes went fur then. The elective franchise was conceded even more fully than • they requested it, and Catholics were permitted to tetra as well on Grand as on Petty Juries, Since these con cessions, has there been any diminution of party feeling and factions animosity ?—(Hear).—Do tie Protestants and Catholics live upon better terms than before 1793 ?, —(Hear) —I think not ; but the answer of the sup. potters of this proposition will be, 0. While you retails anything—a hile you refuse to put both protass twos an entire equality, the evil will continue; but as swot as they are equal, it will cease." Admitting this, for the sake of argument, for a moment, will the conces sion now claimed put them on an entire equality ? What is claimed is a mere capacity or eligibility to office, and after you have granted that, asaD you be able to concede what the man Catholics oos.l I consider a just distribution of ce ?—(Hear. hear). — Would not the distinction s necessarily draws, infinitely more galling and mortifying. since it would be reduced to a mere personal exclusion ?—(Hea).-- When vacancies occurred, if a Protestant were pre. I l ierred to a Catholic, would it not constantly expose the Government to jealousy and reproach? Without re civing painful recollections of past rebellions, let us 'consider, after the removal of the disabilities, the very anomalous situation of Ireland. It appears to me that they always act unfairly who connect these disabilities with Penal opinions, .the words of that bo-ly, the Honourable Gentleman had were liable to be defea;ed by the necessity or ezi.edi- sttyct tight, and I do not believe that the doctrine was tney always act vitality V. MP WINGIPUILICS I cannot 'taken the Church under his especial care. But how ency of affording protection to t he State. Tne Right tWiwed or maintained until recent times; I mean 1790. with the enal Laws whist the Catholics; no mast [sire why 141 d he Liken it into his holy keeping? By moving Honourable and Learned Ge n tl e man adverted to the I say that the last 900 years have afforded a practical holds in greater detestation than Ido those Penal Laws; teig . o. all 'twenty or thirty —nos sit or teven—(4 leugh)—ltesolu. dangers which threatened Chu rc h and Side at the contradiction of the doctrine laid down by the supporters Ido not mean to inquire whether they Were necessary her in 11W - • tions, the object of whi c h wax it, slice, and slash, and Reformation. The Church of Rome had bhewo a of the claims of the lt•rman Catholics. At the time of by way of retaliation; but, as I before stated, I draw a us kindly Aare the property of the Church, as if it wcre one 01 dibposition to interfere with and contronl the religion the Reformation, the Oath of Supremacy was adutiais• clear diatinction between disability and ponishmina. of Chris.- the new ~a —dog - Co/oleic% Ile should next adiert to of the State. They laid claim to benefices, the right tered; and from the reign of Elisabeth up to the pre- But look at the anomalous state of Ireland in respect to tof equal • • • • f '‘• V - (f. ' ler us 1 -,..ts tage r of nself coed. Ihoult e op- 2nge wing tnant d, he* nd in r the pima. ust fe• luntry, never lerhaps lately d from testant Co; the rly the census. 32,000, Flom I onour nts - iR nholics embers . He wining s filled egorie.. ()re the It of the i of the my vat 'his was alliance iew and t a choice evolution n a tone - _ ap. in which Ireltitia fwirjestly _ . Lout'