" ROME AND BERLIN," AND THE UNINTELLIGIBLE ENGLISH LIBERAL.
[TO THE EDITOR OP THE " SPECTITOB,.-]
SIR,—In your impression of June 29 you say, speaking of Prince Bismarck's policy, that " if the State can punish a Bishop for utter- ing an excommunication, it can punish a priest for giving advice, that is, it can terminate the religious freedom which the followers of this creed consider essential to their spiritual well-being. They are, in fact," you say, " ordered under penalties to believe as the State believes." You then ask, " How English Liberals, and particularly Liberals who deny the right of the State to profess a belief, can approve of such a policy, to you is unintelligible, or intelligible only on the ground that their hatred and dread of Catholicism overcome their political principles."
Permit me as one of the many Liberals to whom you allude, to say a few words on the subject. Aud first, let me invite your attention to the elementary distinction between isolated personal opinion and organised public action.
Ever since I was capable of making up my mind on any sort of reasonable grounds, I have, as well as I knew how, been a con- sistent advocate of religious toleration. In some long-forgotten article, entitled " The Sceptic and Infidel," written so many years ago that I should not know where to find it, I advocated religious toleration on the broadest possible grounds. Since then I am not aware that my opinions have changed in the least, unless it be in favour, if possible, of a broader toleration. And assuredly I would not have openly asked for the Atheist what I secretly grudged the Catholic. I then wished what I wish now, that Catholic and Atheist should enjoy personal freedom of opinion, as the only possible foundation of personal dignity and personal worth, and that their freedom in respect of opinion Should be equal and abso- lute, both socially and politically.
Having made this admission, let me return to the distinction between complete immunity of open personal opinion to any extent, and liberty of public action hostile to the State—especi- ally action, carefully calculated and scientifically organ- ised to supplant the authority of the State by the indirect creation of an imperium in imperio, spiritual or otherwise.
Equal personal liberty of opinion for all, as the only possible basis of equal civil and social dignity, that I have always advo- cated, and am prepared to defend ; obedience to two masters in one State—never. The word "spiritual" imported into the con- troversy will not, I think, deceive the real politician when trans- lated into political fact. It has not deceived Prince Bismarck. The story of England's early victory over the spiritual preten- sions of a foreign Pope was long ago to me the source of enthu- siastic delight, a delight shared by our Hallams and Macaulays, and by generation after generation of English Liberals no less than of English Tories. And I am unable to discover in what respect, as a matter of principle, Prince Bismarck and Liberal Germany's struggle with the Pope now, differs from those earlier struggles between our Kings and the Popes then, which are as Mount Ararat in the Englishman's political bible.
If one man professes himself unable to believe in the existence of an anthropomorphic creator, surely common morality requires that this man should not suffer socially or politically for his pro- fession. If another man believes in relics and the worship of the Virgin Mary for the salvation of his immortal soul, he is surely entitled equally to freedom of opinion without social or political disadvantage. But if either of these men sets up an authority, inside or outside the country, distinct from the State, and on the-
strength of that authority claims, directly or indirectly, to override or- evade the authority of the State, and, by acts such as Excommuni-
cation, Intimidation, Battening, et similia, to abridge the State
liberty of any of her Majesty's subjects, or class of subjects, then, it seems clear that the question with which we have to deal is no- longer one of moral and religions toleration, but of a duel between. the established temporal State and a new claimant to temporal. power,—a duel out of which only one can expect to emerge.
I, for my part, neither abhor, nor do I dread the Jesuits. Some of them are, to my mind, among the noblest men in existence. The rest, I apprehend, are as good and as bad as any set of men who- set themselves at the dictation of others, to accomplish certain ends by hook or by crook against all comers. But what, in: common I believe with the great bulk of English and German Liberals, I say is, that we have given our adhesion to the doctrine of a Civil State, with all its corollaries, whereas the Jesuits have de- voted their lives to obtain the supremacy of a Religious State over- the Civil State. Two polities are thus confronted, and we say that one must go to the wall. What is called a claim to spiritual liberty is in this case neither more nor less than a claim to temporal power. And if anybody doubts it, let him read the Pope's. addresses, and then turn to M. Veuillot's commentaries.
If a Catholic sets up a claim to upset the laws of the State, directly- or indirectly, on the authority, however pretended to be derived, of some man or set of men inside or outside the country, and pro- ceeds to act upon this claim, I hold it to be the duty of the State- to crush him, just as I would crush every Fenian for Fenian acts, and every Rattener for rattening, although I was and am a warm- advocate of the legal and constitutional disestablishment of the- Irish Church, as a tardy act of justice (to England), and although I have consistently been, and hope to remain, a warm advocate of- the legal, constitutional, and social rights of the working-classes„ whenever those rights are disputed. What is it in this you find unintelligible ?—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
