New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, MAY 15, 1875. LIBERALISM.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 107, 15 May 1875, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, MAY 15, 1875. LIBERALISM.

Sevebali of our contemporaries have, in one way or another, in leading type, through correspondents, or by publishing letters, taken notice of Bishop Mohan's lecture on the Bankruptcy of Liberalism, and generally in an unfavourable sense. This is very surprising, for the definition of Liberalism given by the Bishop has not been pronounced untrue or incorrect. On the contrary, this definition has been accepted, either expressly or tacitly, by all who have written in condemnation of the lecture. Neither have the facts stated in it been denied. "Why, then, it has occasioned so much warmth, we are at a" loss to' understand. Having laid down the definition of Liberalism, which the Dunedin ' Evening Star,' for example, declares to be a fair one, Bishop Mohan went to show the legitimate and logical consequences of the principle of Liberalism ; and, as we think, proved clearly that the calamities, political, social, and religious, which are at present desolating Europe, are entirely due to the spread of this doctrine. What is its principle ? The perfect independence of human liberty, the all-sufficiency of reason, and the denial of responsibility to any superior authority. Push this principle to its consequences, and it must necessarily lead to the destruction of all religion and civil government. Under it, rebellion ceases to be a crime, and insurrection becomes the right of each individual. Human liberty is perfectly independent ? if so, what is to bind man to man in civil society ? There is no authority, according to Liberalism, superior to reason, and consequently Government can only make itself respected by force. But it will be said, men agree to the civil compact, and hence arises an obligation. What men consent ? Do all?— and if not all, where is the obligation? As the liberty of each individual is perfectly independent, two men, or two millions, agreeing together, cannot impose an obligation on a third withholding consent. Is it not clear that there must be some authority, superior to man, imposing an obligation on citizens, for example, to obey the State, or there can ba no security or stability for the State. One man, according to Liberalism, has no authority to bind another, and certainly one generation, on the same principle, cannot impose a duty on another. For human liberty, we are told, is perfectly independent. A minority, then, in a society, which has never consented to a social compact, or which chooses to withdraw from it, has the right to dissolve the compact ; nay, even one individualhas the right to do this. If all power be derived from the people, all power totters ; and such as rise up in insurrection, so far from doing wrong, are only exercising their undoubted rights. The people are the masters, and those -who are the depositaries of power their mere servants, from whom they can withdraw this power when they please. Liberals of the moderate school reply, "We do not say this ; on the contrary, we hold that such doctrine would

be destructive of religion and civil society, and lead touniversal ruin. You moderate Liberals cannot play with sharp-edged tools, and expect to escape unhurt. You endeavour to make a compromise between the principle of" Liberalism and the results of Christianity. You try to> spread amongst the masses your unsound and wicked principle, and yet to secure practically for civil society theblessings of Christian civilisation. This fascinating principle of Liberalism, so flattering to human pride and passions, helps you to emancipate yourselves from theauthority of revealed religion ; you use it against tileChurch ; and to secure allies you teach it to the peopleT But this done, obedience to the State is insisted on. It is impossible, however, to repeal the law of the^ inclined plane ; or to prevent the masses from drawing a> ; logical conclusion from a principle when to do so accords)with their interests or* their passions. Moderate liberty* i say you, may go thus far on the inclined plane, but no farther : here you must stop. It is impossible. The ball once set in motion, will find the bottom, unless arrested in its course by violence. The masses taught that human liberty is perfectly independent, will not long rest satisfied, with applying the principle to religious subjects only; they will soon see that it is equally applicable to the rights of" property, and will fail to understand how sovereign man. irresponsible to any authority higher than his own reason,, should be bound to grovel in the midst of society wheremen no better than himself possess wealth and wield power. It is in vain to point out to him that his reasoning I leads to the ruin of society. His answer is, lam perfectly independent ; I have sovereign rights; society is a tyranny j. the present distribution of property a robbery. All this iai strictly logical— the inevitable outcome of the fundamental principle of Liberalism. On this principle, therefore, man* life becomes a wild, maddening struggle against sheer force,, and the existence of society endangered every moment. ' History shows that such is in reality the fact. Whereever the ruling classes in a State have succeeded in throwingoff allegiance to the authority of revealed religion — that is, wherein they have asserted the perfect independence or human liberty, and thus got rid of the direction of religion, the masses have soon learned to use this principle to establish their own right to emancipate themselves from theobligation of submitting to the civil government, and to* refuse to recognise the rights of property. But it will be said, as has been already said, that England is perhaps the most liberal nation in the world, and yet none of these alarming consequences are to bediscovered there. We are not quite so certain of this : on the contrary, is it not \a fact that Communistic principles are gaining ground rapidly amongst the English masses ?' And in] addition it may be answered that in the main the English are rather a practical than a logical people ; and that the English nation has, in her legislation and domestic life, retained more Catholic principles than many nation* which call themselves Catholic.