LECTURE BY THE MOST REV. DR. MORAN. "THE BANKRUPTCY OF LIBERALISM."

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 105, 1 May 1875, Page 11

LECTURE BY THE MOST REV. DR. MORAN. " THE BANKRUPTCY OF LIBERALISM."

His Lokdshxp the Most Bey. Dr. Moran delivered Ms promised lecture in aid of the erection, of a church at Port Chalmers, on Tuesday evening, in the Temperance Hall, the subject chosen being " The Bankruptcy of Liberalism." A number of the clergy of the diocese were present, and occupied seats on the platform, amongst whom was the Very Rev. the Vicar-General. His Lordship said that the subject of his lecture was, as had been announced, " The Bankruptcy of Liberalism." By this was meant that in all the professions it had made, Liberalism had proved itself a failure. Everyone who had paid attention to the the history of the day would be aware that Liberalism was at present triumphant everywhere — it was unnecessary, then, to delay them in adducing proofs of this. It was in the name of Liberalism that they found all the old Governments of Europe had been revolutionised ; and the object professed by those who had done this was to improve the condition of humardty. It was only from the time that Bismarck, for example, placed himself at the head of the National Liberal party in Germany that he was enabled to date his triumph. It was in the name of Liberalism that the provincial liberties of the States of Austria had been all sacrificed to centralism. In Switzerland, the historic liberties and independence of the smaller cantons had been all sacrificed to centralism in the name of the same doctrine. Cast their eyes anywhere, and they would find that this principle was now triumphant, not only in States which made open profession of it, but in others. Even Russia itself felt the presence and acknowledged the power of Liberalism. They might, therefore, take it as a fact that it was triumphant everywhere, and they found evidences of its triumph in the laws, constitutions, and politics of the day of the nations of the world. At the same time anyone who would observe the matter closely must come to the conclusion that, notwithstanding its triumph, Liberalism was a failure, or, in the words in which the lecture had been announced, a bankrupt. They would ask him what was understood by Liberalism, and it was the more necessary to give a definition of it when it was borne in mind that statesmen of different politics acknowledged themselves to be Liberals. Gladstone, for instance, was a Liberal ; so was Bismarck; Minghetti, in Italy, was a Liberal. Those who brought back the kingly government in Spain for the most part called themselves Liberals. Many of the statesmen in France declared themselves to belong to the same party, and so it was everywhere. These men differed in politics, yet they were all Liberals. It was evident, therefore, that there were many shades of Liberalism, and this made it somewhat difficult to give a definition of it. At the same time it was not impossible to do so. They might in this instance do what certain philosophers did when they wanted to point out the characteristics of any race. They did not investigate mongrel races, but went to the pure stock, and studied there what were its characteristics. They were then enabled to say whether or not any other race, is allied to this pure stock, from the features they may discern in it common to the original race. If they adopted the same plan, and went to the real Liberal and studied him, they would be enabled to discern the principle that lay at the foundation of this doctrine. It appeared to him that if they made such an investigation they would find Liberalism might be defined thus : — That doctrine which, maintains the perfect independence of human liberty. Its charter may be considered to be the Declaration of Eights by the French Assembly of 1789. They would find these three principles laid down in three several articles : First of all, it was declared that man depended upon his reason alone, and was not responsible to any superior power ; secondly, that every man has the right to reject Christianity, and endeavor to cause others to reject it j and thirdly, it was declared that Christianity in the eyes of the State was no more than a mere opinion, and was placed upon a footing only of equality with all opinions and errors. As he said before, there were a great many shades of opinions amongst Liberals ; but he thought they all might be summed up in three divisions, and the race might be divided thus : — Radical Liberals, Moderate Liberals, and Catholic Liberals. He would speak of Liberalism so as to speak of the doctrine rather than of the men who professed it. Radical Liberalism was that which was straightforward and strictly logical — which avowed its principles, and did not tecoil before any one of their legitimate, logical consequences. In the intellectual order it was free thought— the doctrine which taught that human reason depended upon itself alone ; that a man was responsible only to reason, and not|responsible for his acts to any higher power. In the religious order it was pure individualism j that is, it was the negation of all dogmatic teaching and of all priesthood. In the political order it was demagogism — that is, the right of the masses to change or destroy at their will and pleasure political institutions. And in the religious-political order, it was the subjugation of religious society— or the Church — to the State in everything. This was Radical Liberalism ; and now he came to consider what was Moderate Liberalism. This undertook to hold the middle place between pure Radicalism and pure Catholism, and rejected both equally. This Liberalism recognised, side by side with free thought, an authority which it called eternal reason, and it would not refuse to call this, if demanded of it, the reason of God, but, at the sane time, of a God who only reigned, but did not rule. It placed Him in the position of a Constitutional Sovereign, and gave Him a ministry which was responsible, not to him, but to humanity. In the religious order, it admitted of worship, but left to every man the right to select a form for himself. He was to be at liberty to worship God, not in the manner God has appointed, but in Che manner that recommended itself to his own judgment and reason. In the political order, this Moderate Liberalism recognised the necessity of authority to rule the mawes, but Landed orer the exercise of that authority to the enlightened daises, and taught that thie authority

•was to be exercised by means of Parliaments. But it was not satisfied with teaching that; Parliaments had the power to regulate liberty and the exercise of authority, but placed Parliaments over authority itself. In the religious political order, it would abstain from openly persecuting the Church — it would even favor her and endow her — but only on. condition that the Church would admit its superiority, even in things purely spiritual, or relating exclusively to the soul itself. Lastly, he lad to define what was meant by Catholic Liberalism; and here they found that it was not so much a doctrine as a tendency and a spirit. This did not deny any doctrines defined by the Church, or any clearly taught doctrine of Christianity ; but it considered that these were not applicable to human affairs, at least in the present day. Ifc professed a wonderful respect for the principles of Christianity — bo great a respect indeed that it thought they ought to be kept under lock and key — they ought not to be permitted to be sullied by the profane breath of the world or of human affairs — that they ought to be respected and cherished, but ought not to be brought out to interfere with the course of human things. The next consideration was : What is the profession of — what are the promises made by — Liberalism ? Liberalism commenced its career by promising a glorious future to its votaries. There was to be Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity; education was to be spread abroad, and the material interests of man were to be promoted wonderfully ; universal charity was to prevail ; nations were to become as brothers, and wars were to be at an end. A glorious prospect was held out before tlie eyes of humanity ; and now it was for them to' wee whether or not this had been realised. It struck him that anyone who had been an attentive student of Liberalism for the last Beventy or eighty years would go along with him to the following conclusions : — In the intellectual order — and now he would use an expression that might sound harsh, but still he was convinced it was applicable to Liberalism— it had led to the systematic brutalising of reason. In the second place it had led. to the degradation of science ; thirdly, to the decadence of literature and art j fourthly, to the mutilation of the soul and the destruction of liberty of thought ; and in the social and political order it had been the death of liberty. If these statements were true, it was clear that Liberalism was bankrupt, because it had been a failure in every promise and undertaking it had made. In the first place, then, Liberalism had led to the systematic brutalisation of reason^ All who had lived for half a century, and who had studied the history of their own period attentively, will call to mind the fact that about the time when they were young, Liberalism made popular a certain doctrine which could be only designated as an exaggerated Spiritualism. From the very first Liberalism rejected all mysteries in reference to religion. But the Liberalism of which, he now spoke, or that particular phase of it, was an exaggerated Spiritualism — a borrowed dream from Malebranche to the effect that reason was capable of a direct intuition of the absolute, and that by means of high, culture it could attain to a transcendental knowledge of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful ; it taught that Christianity had done its work well, but that the day of faith, ■was now past and should give way to the day of reason. As Christianity succeeded to Judaism, and. perfected and completed it, so this rational Spiritualism was to succeed Christianity to perfect and complete it. It was not to "be anything different in substance, "but only in mode — none of the truths hitherto accepted were to be rejected, but they were to be put in a new form and to be placed before humanity scientifically, so that the theologian was to be a.s_the philosopher and the scientist. Keason was to explain, evenin a scientific way, the sublime doctrines of the Unity and Trinity of Gtod, the Incarnation, and other mysteries — it was to ascend above faith, which had a humbler kind of mission. Faith only professed to see these truths through a veil — it acknowledged an obscurity which it could not penetrate, and it accepted teaching upon authority j but reason was to go above this, and to have an intuition of all these truths — to see them directly and scientifically, and to demonstrate them as one would a proposition in Euclid. Some of them were old enough to remember when this was the fashion. Of course they would understand him as sp \king not in ref erence to any particular country, but of the "wfc \world. It was necessaryin discussing a subject of this sort ix> take a very comprehensive view, and to generalise very much. He might say at the same time that he had principally in. his mind France — the theatre in which this doctrine had been freely developed. At the same time bis remarks were applicable to the other countries of Europe, in so far as they embraced Liberalism. Let them go from that state of things to what they found at present. Now, all that reverie was passed away, and it was not a question upoa which reasonable men cared to waste a moment's thought. And what had succeeded to it ? Pure Positivism. This was the doctrine which rejected all philosophy and reason itself, and which was the only doctrine outside of Christianity which had any power or influence at the present day. They would bear in mind that he had said Liberalism, rejected mystery. This was a fundamental principle. Jouffroi, one of the most illustrious disciples of its first masters, saw he was obliged to declare that mystery lay at the foundation of philosophy. His words were — " We believe—that is a fact. Put the question is, whether is our belief well founded or not." He, however, was sufficiently a Liberal to reject all the mysteries of Christianity ; but he accepted as absolutely necessary the mysteries of reason. He recognised the existence of God, of a Providence, of a Creation, and of a soul, the union of the soul and body in the one personality, and of eternal rewards and punishments, and these he held— he (Bishop Moran) took him asa type of his school — as truths of natural religion — truths which he said reason itself established. After him came a» representative man of another class — Littre, at present one of the memberß of the French Academy, who was raised to that position through what were considered his literary gifts. Littre" said they could not admit the mysteries of reason, and he would have them no more than the mysteries of revelation. And what was the answer of Jouffroi to him P He admitted the difficulty, but could

not meet the logic of Littre. His only answer was that if they did I not admit these mysteries of reason, then they destroyed philosophy and reason. So that in a word the position was this : mysteries had disappeared from the teachings of Liberalism — mysteries of every order. At last they came to this, that Liberalism taught that man was nothing more than a well developed monkey, and that reason was nothing more than' a well developed instinct of the beast.* That was the position to which Liberalism had brought humanity, that is^'th'afc portion of humanity that had rendered itself subject to iti' He (the lecturer) thought, therefore, they would see — though they might not accept all he put before them — that the expression he had made use of was' not without reason, namely, that this Liberalism' had led to the systematic brutalization of human reason. 1 It had led to the denial of reason itself. In the second place, he maintained that Liberalism had led to the degradation of science. Here was a remarkable fact. No sooner had these men. who called themselves philosophers succeeded in withdrawing philosophy from the guidance of faith, than philosophy ceased to |be considered as a science, and the word, became appropriated to the knowledge merely of the relation of numbers, and the laws of matter, so that the philosophers degraded the very idea of philosophy in withdrawing from it the title that it had for so many centuries, of science. This, to his mind, was a degradation. Well, having done this, the State at their "bidding liberally endowed colleges, museums, &c, for the promotion of scientific knowledge. For more than half a century, science, if he might use a common expression, had its fling, it was triumphant, it had its own way. It was to have a great future. What did they find, as a matter of fact ? On the 6th March, 1871, M. Saint Claire Deville presented a memorial to the Academy of Sciences which proved that Liberalism had been the ruin of science, and that to the progress and influence of Liberalism must be attributed the doivnfall of France, and its present lamentable condition. This memorial was discussed before the society, and there was no one to raise his voice in condemnation of these views. These statements were afterwards discussed by a committee presided over by the celebrated G-uizot, and the report of that committee, presented to the Government, was that the University of France had been tbe destruction of scientific studies, and that centralisation had been an efficient instrument in working this degradation. There were many other testimonies to the same effect. The University of France was ths creature of Liberalism, and had been emphatically its instrument As to centralisation, wherever it took place, no matter in what order, they would find the Liberals applauding. They hailed with rapture the unification of Germany, the destruction of the liberties of the Provinces of Austria, the tyranny over the Catholic Cantons in Switzerland, the dethronement of the Princes of Italy, and the robbery of the Church. The Liberals had been applauders of centralism, everywhere, and it was, he thought, strictly right to attribute this degradation of science to Liberalism, since it owed its origin to that creation of Liberalism — the French University. In the third place, "he had stated that Liberalism had led to the decadence of literature and of the arts. In reference to literature, he might refer to the authority of Lacordiare, an ecclesiastic and churchman no doubt, but nevertheless a man of brilliant intellect, lofty genius, high cultivation, and abounding learning ; a man who filled the first pulpits in France with ecldt, and who was acknowledged to be the first orator of the ' age. He was a man of high literary attainments, and his authority could not be considered as worthless. Then they had the authority of Montalembert, another man of high literary attainments. Not only this, but what was the lament of France at present ? That the country could not produce a single author — and he did not except any order in the State, or any party in the State — who could be placed side by side with Bossuet, or Chateaubriand. Not to speak of the great men of the last century, there was not one equal to those who wrote after the restoration of the monarchy, which took place after the downfall of the first Empire. So much was this recognised as a fact, that the greatest difficulty is now experienced in France in. finding men worthy to succeed to the vacant seats in the French Academy, and the Government was obliged, and the Academy itself was obliged, to cast about and accept as its members fourth ana fifthclass literary men. Another proof might be adduced, and it was this : While it is extremely difficult to get sale for a really good book, and •whilst authors of merit are on the verge of starvation, the proprietors of Figaro and JLe Petit Journal are building palaces. This showed the taste of the people, and the taste of the people was always a good indication of the state of the nation's literature. Then, as to the fine arts, he would refer them to the JR evue des Deux Mondes. There the art critic — himself a Liberal, and a very staunch one — in reviewing the works at the last exhibition in Paris, confessed with ! deep regret the decadence of the fine arts. No work was produced above mediocrity, and hardly any attained even to that height. This was acknowledged by Liberalism itself, and he thought for his purpose any further proof was unnecessary. But, he might add that they could not expect anything else, because high literary merit and high art could never exist without high and noble principles and aspirations j and they could never have these except by faith. If men were taught by the philosophy of the day that man was no more than a well-developed beast, and reason no more than the well developed instinct of a mere brute, their minds would be rendered unfit for noble, lofty, and generous ideas, and how, therefore, could they have types for art, or have anything to inspire high literary genius. He had also said that Liberalism had led to the mutilation of the soul, and to the destruction of liberty of thought. With regard to the first, he would not say much, because the question was one that had been discussed largely of late, and no doubt would be discussed still more largely in the immediate future. When he spoke of the mutilation of the fioul, what he meant was this : That the education established and patronised by Liberalism had led to a division in the soul ; and whilst cultivating the least important powers, absolutely ignores

the higher and more important. The education of Liberalism was purely secular. It aimed — at all events it professed to do so — at the development of the intellect ; the heart and feelings were left -without culture under it. It was from the State that the school--master was sent forth to teach, but this was illogical — unphilosophic. How could a man teach when he had no doctrine ? Teach* ing and doctrine were correlatives, and the State having no doctrine could not teach. The State had nothing but an opinion, and it placed all opinions on a footing of equality. It knew nothing for certain, and how could it become a teacher ? Again, Liberalism destroys all respect and love of truth. How was this? Liberalism placed truth and falsehood upon a perfect footing of* equality; placed in. its educational establishments men of all faiths and of all opinions or of no opinions, and placed them all' oil a footing of equality. What were the pupils brought up in such -. institutions to think ? Could they have any respect for truth ? He thought they could not. Their teachers had none, and the taught could have none. A priori, therefore, it was evident that this system of Liberalism could do nothing but destroy love of truth and respect for it ; and they knew, as a matter of fact, that such had been the result, for those brought up in such schools — and he still alluded chiefly to France — were notorious for their want of steadiness in any cause, and for the levity of their character in every sense. He maintained also that Liberalism had actually destroyed liberty of thought. According to Liberalism, man was responsible to reason alone, and independent of all higher authority. This principle, therefore, constituted him a sovereign, and gave him a right to pronounce sovereignly upon each and every topic that might come before him. Would he forego that right ? Woidd he be content to pronounce no opinion ? Certainly not — because he was sovereign, and had the right to pronounce his opinion. Ninety-nine in every hundred men who professed Liberalism wexe perfectly incapable themselves of pronouncing any opinion on social and religious matters, without mentioning purely scientific subjects. Would the Liberal be content to pronounce no> opinion ? Certainly not — he will not forego his right. Would he be content to take his opinions from the Church ? No; to do that j would be to abandon his liberty. Therefore he would pronounce I an opinion, and as he could not pronounce one for himself he has to take that of his newspaper. He thought, therefore, as his newspaper, or more correctly, he did not think at all. It is therefore by means of journalism that Liberalism has destroyed liberty of thought. The Liberal professed Free Thought, but none, or verylittle, actually existed among Liberals. This man must pronounce an opinion because he was determined to exercise his sovereign rights, but has no means of knowing the grounds on which the opinion ought to be pronounced. He took the newspaper, and he I read it — there was his opinion — so that he had no freedom of ! thought. He only took the opinion of the paper he patronised,. 1 and he abandoned liberty of thought. They might think that all this was an exaggeration. But really it was not. Liberal newspapers themselves of high character acknowledged this. It was not long ago since an article appeared in the Saturday Review, I which stated everything that he now said. In this article the writer stated that the reading of newspapers was really, the destruction of freedom of thought. He said the reading of them corrupted the judgment, prevented the intellectual initiative, * destroyed the mental powers, and that even among the cultivated classes this effect was produced, though not to the same extent as among the masses, and that a man who read nothing but the newspaper thought no more than a man putting on his clothes. They saw, therefore, that he did not exaggerate. What he perceived to be fact from his own reason and experience had been corroborated, and more than corroborated, by the acknowledgment of Liberals themselvee. Then if they would consider the matter a little further, they would see what were the great evils that came from this. The writers for the newspapers — and he supposed they were all very worthy men — nevertheless must all write at a red heat. The public was inexorable in its demands, and must have its daily paper and its weekly, its monthly and its quarterly, no end of periodicals ; and the exigency was that they must have profound and original articles on every given subject in heaven and earth ! The newspapers must supply them with information on every conceivable topic. Men must write in a hurry, very little time for study or reflection, or weighing of arguments was given them. The article must be written by morning, and must be spicy. And these were the teachers of the masses of men 2 Heneed not state the consequences. They could see them themselveseasily. But not only had. Liberalism effected all he had stated, but even in the political and social order it had actually been the destruction of liberty, Here it attacked liberty on every side. It took away from it its essential guarantee by suppressing the very idea of duty. It destroyed authority which was ' its only efficacious protection, and it completed its ruin by the establishment 'of despotism. Now, let them ask themselves what did they mean by liberty in the social and political order? It is the right that he (the lecturer), for example, had of exercising his faculties and disposing of his goods without obstruction. That right imposed a correlative duty on every man to respect his (the lecturer's) liberty. For of what use would be his liberty if others were not bouud to abstain from interfering with the exercise of it ? Now, Liberalism withdrew the essential protection from this ; its essential condition ceased the moment Liberalism was established, because Liberalism repudiated the intervention of God, and by doing so took away its essential guarantee, and destroyed the basis of right and duty. For how could duty bind the human will unless there ' be another will which had a right to impose upon it ran obligation and to punish disobedience ? But if a man be under his own reason alone, and not responsible to any higher authority, man then 1 becomes a legislator to himself,' and, like' every other legislator, he might dispense with his own laws— with the laws he imposed on

himself. "What was there to coerce Mm, for example, to respect the liberties of otlier men, when that liberty interferes with the exercise of his own ? The. policeman ; but the policeman was not always present. Therefore the essential guarantee— the idea of duty — was withdrawn by Liberalism from political and social liberty. If ot only that, but it destroyed authority, which was really the only protection that liberty had. Anyone who had read the history of this doctrine would know this ; for if there were anything more certain than another in Liberalism, ifc was the principle that authority and liberty were antagonistic. And the consequence was that, in the various constitutions established since the spread of Liberalism, in to adjust the claims of both, Liberalism had, in fact, suppressed one of them — authority. Now, what was authority? It differed from mere force in this, that it acted upon the human will, and regulated the exercise of liberty in order to protect it. The old Christian principle is : that both authority and liberty came from Gl-od. It consecrated liberty in the subject, and authority in the superior. They had both the same origin — they had the same guidance — the Divine law ; and they had the same sanction — eternal rewards and punishments. Liberalism taught diametrically the opposite of this, and maintained that they were antagonistic and mutually destructive ; and the consequence was, that they saw Constitution after Constitution raised up to adjust their conflicting claims, and to establish some order in the world. Authority is the supremacy of the moral order ; it falls, not on the person to coerce it, but on liberty to bind it to duty. Liberty could only exist in a society when its members recognised in those who held authority a true superiority to which they were bound to subordinate the exercise of their individual liberties. Otherwise society would be governed, not after the manner of freemen, but after that of beasts. And it is to the latter that Liberalism leads. Its fundamental dogma is, that society depends entirely on itself, is iinder no superior atithority, consequently, those who exercise power in it, as receiving it only from those over whom it is exercised, are at the mercy of their caprices. Thus Liberalism mates inferiors 'superiors, and superiors inferiors. For is it not clear that he who accepts the mandate to govern is subject to those who gave it, and can withdraw it at their pleasure. The only power, therefore, which governments have to cause law to be respected, is that of the sword. This was well exemplified in the j various revolutions of the last three-quarters of a century. What was the result in France, which had been its home, and from which it had spread to the other civilised nations. First, they had the revolution, then the days of Robespierre ; after that the Directory, then the Consulate, the Consitlate for Life, the Empire, which vent down before indignant Europe, then the Monarchy, the 100 days, and the other changes, down to the time of the Commune, when the sovereign people rose, and there being no authority to bind them, each did what he pleased, and the result was the conflagration of Paris. It might bo said that in every form of Government, you must liave /force. True : they must have force everywhere, in order to cause authority to be respected ; but if they had the Christian principle recognised by the people, very little force would be necessary. Liberalism promised a discontinuance of force ; wars were to be at an end, nations were to come into accord, and liberty, equality, and fraternity, were to prevail everywhere. Now, after three-quarters of a century, what was Europe? Oneenormous camp; armies more numerous than ever; less security for any right; despotism established everywhere — f or Liberalism, by disorganising society, by letting loose the passions, by rendering insecure every interest, led inevitably to the establishment of despotism, and consequently to the destruction of individual liberties. Ao-ain and again they had seen all this exemplified in France, and in other countries. It was unnecessary to argue the question,- it was a patent fact. Instead of armies of 25,000 or 50,000 men which were considered large a century ago— they now had armies of ono and two millions of men, and more. Everyone arrived at man's estate, and who had not fallen into decrepitude by age, was a soldier. A nation was now a standing army, and the people were oppressed by taxation. And this was the great future that had come out of Liberalism. Let the Christian principle be established of a superior power— of a duty that we owe to an authority emanating not from man or reason, but from a higher power— let that principle be recognised by the nations and acted upon, and then they would see, in place of what they now deplored, something similar to what might be witnessed even at present in the Catholic cantons of Switzerland and the North of Spain, There, it is only necessary to raise a pole as an emblem of authority, and it is efficacious to keep the peace and protect life and property. But why ? Because the people are imbued with the principle that they are responsible to a higher power, and that each of them is not a sovereign in himself. He thought he had now said sufficient to -justify himself in entitling his lecture "The Bankruptcy of Liberalism." He had pointed out what it is ; what it promised, and he had tried to show that it had failed in every one of its promises, and that it ■was in reality a bankrupt. On the motion of Mr. J. Scanlan, a hearty vote of thanks was accorded to the right rev. lecturer.

,v 3 5??,. 0l ?F OE * a IIT THE Aemt.— A correspondent of Ino 'Dublin Eremng Post' writes from Paris .— « The army is organising steadily, and some promotions among the officers show that men of talent are obtaining the rank their merit alone won for them.: Among the new colonels is one of the descendants of the soldiers of the Irish Brigade, a scion of a noble family that already gave JTrance two marshals. Lieutenant-Colonel O'Brien has been promoted colonel of the 12th Chasseurs. A finer specimen of a soldier and a gentleman does ■ not exist in the French army. Lieutenant-Colonels MacDewnott, Sweeny, and O'Neil are among the officers whose services ensure them also preferment before long." TheVendome Column, minus its statue, has "been released »5 1 £ scaffolding, and once more lifts itself to the admiring gaze pf the Parisians. 6 6