New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, MAY 8,1875. BISHOP MORAN'S LECTURE AND THE PRESS.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume II, Issue 106, 8 May 1875, Page 10

New Zealand Tablet. Fiat Justitia. SATURDAY, MAY 8,1875. BISHOP MORAN'S LECTURE AND THE PRESS.

We have now before us the opinions expressed by four of our cor.lcmporaries on Bishop Moban's lecture, which we published in our last issue. Three of them, viz., the 'Daily Times,' ' Guardian,' and our old friend the ' Bruce Herald, entertain great contempt for it— so great, indeed, that our greatest wonder is they deemed it worth their while to take any notice whatever of it. According to these hitrh authorities, its assumptions are merely gratuitous, its looic faulty, and its tone intolerant. The"' Evei-ing Star' does not agree with their criticism. m The ' Daily Times' says, "In every argument, however, m every syllogism, in every; division of his lecture, the Bishop assumed, as the basis of his deductions, certain statements which might well be met with a flat contradiction." But our contemporary does not point out the statements which he maintains he can contradict. What are they ? Why did not the ' Times' state some of them at least as specimens, so that the people might know what it meant ? Our contemporary must have been aware that it was very probable some one, ourselves for example, would defend the lecture from its assaults. Perhaps, indeed, this was precisely the reason why our contemporary indulged in an unmeaning negative. But the 'Times' has committed a greater mistake than this, and attributed to Bishop Moran words he did not utter, and on which untrue words it has built up a baseless superstructure of indignant censure " Liberalism," so writes the ' Times,' " the lecturer defined as born in 1796, with the charter of « Liberty, Fraternity and Equality." The Bishop did nothing of the sort, as everyone who has read our report—which is most accurate, indeed it may be said to be a verbatim report— cannot fail to perceive: the Bishop's words are : — " Liberal, ism might be defined thus— That doctrine which maintains the perfect ir dependence of human liberty. Its charter may be considered to be the declaration of rights by the French Assembly ia 1789." This is a small matter, no £oubt, m itself, but it is important in the circumstances because it shows the inaccuracy of the • Times,' and is the foundation of a mild Phillipic against the lecturer for not going back to the real author of Liberalism. The Bishop stated the doctrine, and pointed out what might be considered its charter— he did not undertake to give the ancient history of it. Had, he done so, he should have gone back a long way— to Lucifer himself, the first rebel, the first who endeavored to emancipate himself from the yoke of the Almighty. Liberalism is his legitimate descendent. But for Ihe object he had in view, the Bishop said as much as was necessary. • But the 'Times' says the lecturer "gave repeated eviaence in his lecture of being ill-read in the arguments pi his opponents, we do not give him credit for never hayV&j? ea^° f the supposition fathei of the devolution of 1/96. What causes led to it ? What were the conditions under which it grew ?" It is a pity our contemporary has neglected to give at least one or two specimens of the ill reading of Bishop Mora* in the arguments of Liberals. Ana this is the more to be regretted, inasmuch as he was Aery particular to give the very words of representative m en of the party of Liberalism. (

The public, much as they admire the ' Times;' will hardly take all its mere assertions as undoubted truths, more particularly as the Bishop's words are now accurately placed before them in our columns. Out contemporary tries hard to raise another issue, but for what purpose we are unable to say. The Bishop's object was to point out the failure of Liberalism ; the ' Times' finds fault with him because he did not discuss the -causes that led to the Revolution of 1796, or state the conditions under -which it grew. These are altogether another question, and would afford a fine subject for a lecture. We should very much like to hear the Editor of the ' Times' deliver a lecture concerning them, provided, of course, he would confine himself to his thesis, and not wander away in to foreign, topics. Again our contemporary says, " 3?or good or evil, the hatred of her priests, both in 1796 and more lately under the reign of the Commune, give evident proof that the Liberalism of the day was as much a ' struggle against despotism in Church as in State, and that the Latin Church and her extortionate requirements must be held responsible for these excesses which were in effect mere reactions." The ' Times,' then, is of opinion, that the uufortunate victims of the Commune deserved their fate, that the fact of their having been murdered by wild inhuman Liberals, is a proof of their tyranny, and that after all, the Communists are not so much to blame as the men. they slaughtered. The ' Times ' has a new decalogue and new readings of history. "We were under the impression that the victims of the Commune were worthy citizens of all classes and orders who had been seized upon as hostages for the purpose of saving the lives ' of the Communists who fell into the hands of the besieging army, and that they were killed out of mere spite -and revenge. The victims of the Commune were not all priests, nor were they all Catholics. Again, the ' Times ' says :— " The University of Prance, which, he told us, was the creation of Liberalism, is, after all, the mere coping of that denominational system which, but a few months ago, Bishop Moran admired so heartily I and so publicly." We beg to assure our contemporary I that he is laboring under a hallucination on two points, first in reference to the University of France, and I secondly as to Bishop Mokajt's words. The University of France was not the coping of a purely denominational system of education. This is a matter of fact, and any one acquainted with the case knows that the University of France is not only not denominational, but the very opposite of denominational. We are more than surprised that any one having the least pretension to learning could be found to make such a statement. Why, the great boast of the University of France has been throughout I that it is not denominational, but a home for all denominations. Then, as to what the ' Times ' says ia reference to Bishop Moeajt, there is no truth in it. But the way to test this is for the * Times ' to point out the words in which Bishop MobjOT " has admired so heartily and so publicly that purely denominational system of which the University of France is the coping." We ought to know something about the Bishop's utterances on this subject, and we affirm that his Lordship has never spoken words conveying the meaning attributed to him by the 'Times.' J The ' Times ' charges the Bishop with citing, as another proof of the bankruptcy of Liberalism, the fact of the unifi cation of Germany, and the dethronement of the Italian Princes, as well as the robbery of the Church." The ' Times ' is in error. The Bishop did nothing of the kind, as may be seen by reference to the lecture itself. Our contemporary totally misapprehends not only the drift, but even the words of His Lordship. Here are his own words: "As to centralization, 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 the 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." The Bishop's object in this particular passage, then, was to show that Liberalism and Centralism are bound up together, and not to adduce proofs of the bankruptcy of Liberalism. The ' Guardian ' begins its criticism of the lecture with

these words : — " "We do not know whether to admire most the charming paradoxes or the logical fallacies with which Bishop Mohan's lecture on ' The Bankruptcy of Liberalism ' abounded." "Well, see how doctors differ. The ' Evening Star ' is of a different opinion altogether, and says : — " But we are prepared to go even further than this, and admit that the discourse was thoroughly logical — that, in short, it is impossible to avoid coming to the same conclusion as his Lordship did, if only we can be induced to give our assent to his premises." The writer in the ' Guardian ' -cannot have either heard or read the lecture, for, had he, it is inconceivable he could have written the following words : — "He waxed eloquent over the growth of Secularism and the ignoring of the Catholic Church as a ruler of the State. If Catholcism had not lost its power wars would have ceased, and the peace and happiness for which Liberals longed been accomplished facts." There is not •one word of truth in this sentence. From the beginning to the end of tho lecture the Bishop did not say this or anything like it ; it is a pure invention. After this untrue statement the ' Guardian ' indulges in a most extraordinary species of argumentation, and begins it thus — " Now, there is one fallacy that runs all through his speech, and one which we are surprised at his not seeing. Post hoc, ergo propier hoc. This was the burdeu of his lecture: Liberal ideas sprang up in France ; Frauce has suffered ; ergo, Liberalism has caused the suffering. Surely this s very foolish." Certainly it is, and it is supremely idiotic in a writer in a public newspaper, in the face of a public who have the lecture before them, to state that this is its argument. The rest of the article in the ' Guardian/ is of a piece with this, and needs no further comment. Before concluding, we wish to correct some mistakes into which the ' Star' has fallen. Our contemporary seems to thiuk that there are no liberals in Spain. Our contemporary says : "It has never been infected with heresy for the last three centuries, or with liberalism," — and then he asks, is not Spain bhe most backward country in Europe, are there not at this moment two Catholic Sovereigns engaged in carrying on a destructive war withiu it ? Where is its literature ? Can Bishop Mohan point to one eminent scientific scholar ? It is evident that the gentleman who wrote this has never been in Spain, and that whatever knowledge he possesses of it, must have been derived from books written a long, long time ago, and the modern publications of Liberals. The fact is, that ever since Napoleon -the Ist., placed his brother Joseph on the throne of Spain, in the beginning of this century, there have been liberals of the genuine stamp in Spain, 'and that unhappily for the last forty years, this country has been governed almost exclusively by liberals. Espabteeo, who banished Bishops, Priests and Nuns, destroyed convents, confiscated the property of the Church, and cast out religion, was a liberal; and he ruled the country for years with a rod of iron. Queen Isabella was a puppet in the hands of the liberals, as her son is now. They used her and then cast her aside, as they are now using her son, whom they will certainly cast aside should they succeed in conquering Don Carlos. It is Liberalism that has brought all its calamities on Spain. And not only are there Liberals in that country, but there are Red Republicans, who only lately endeavoured to enact scenes similar to those of the Commune in Paris. These are [notorious facts, and our surprise is great at seeing a writer in the ' Star ' stating that Spain has never been infected with heresy for the last three centuries, or with Liberalism. Our contemporary asks where is its literature ? Why, Spain has the noblest literature perhaps in Europe. She has produced the greatest theologians, philosophers, dramatists, and historians j and even in recent times, in the midst of conflicts engendered by Liberalism, she has produced writers of the greatest eminence. The name of Balmez alone would redeem the character of a nation or age. It is asked, can Bishop Moban point out one eminent scientific Spaniard ? It is very likely he can, and we beg our contemporary not to imagine that there are no names eminent in science but those that he happens to know of. As to the ' Bruce Herald,' nothing need be said further than that its remarks upon the lecture are of such a character that a decent man ought to feel ashamed of them.

Subscriptions have poured in for the Paris municipal loan until the amount has reached to forty times the sum required.