Canon  Kingsley  and  Cardinal  Newman.  I  am
sorry  to  mention  the  name  of  Kingsley  in  the
series  of  persons  who  have  chosen  to  accuse
Catholics  of  uiitruthfulness,  for  I  believe  he
was  a  well-meaning,  and  naturally  an  honest
man.  But,  following  the  fashion,  he  had
flippantly  committed  himself  to  a  misstatement
regarding  his  opponent's  teaching ;  and  when
this  was  pointed  out  to  him  he  had  not  the
moral  courage  to  retract  it,  but  attempted  to
justify  it  by  means  more  censurable  than  his
first  statement.  Who  can  forget  the  terrible
list  of  "  blots  "  proved  against  Canon  Kingsley
in  his  attempt  to  support  that  statement  ?  Blots
comprising  equivocations,  misstatements,  fabri
cations,  and,  to  use  the  words  of  his  great
opponent,  exemplified  as  often  as  this  question
occurs,  "  So  we  come  back  once  more  to  the
theme  of  every  satirist,  from  Juvenal  to  Sir
Walter  Scott — preaching  without  practising."
Dr.  Kenealy  renewed  the  controversy  in  his
defence  of  the  Claimant  at  the  Tichborne
trial.  He  hoped  to  discredit  the  evidence  of
priests  and  other  Catholics  by  playing  on  the
foible  of  English  -prejudice,  as  had  been  done
when  Dr.  Achilli  was  forced  so  much  against


EQUIVOCATION.  145

his  will  to  prosecute  Dr.  Newman.  But  the
days  of  Lord  Campbell  had  passed  away ;
another  Chief  Justice  felt  himself  bound  to
lay  down  the  law  of  common-sense,  and  so
reverse  the  judgment  of  two  at  least  of  his
predecessors,  and  the  most  unblushing  im
posture  of  our  acre  failed  to  obtain  countenance

*     •

either  from  English  law  or  public  opinion,
although  recommended  by  the  fascination,  to
the  English  mind,  of  strong  denunciations  of
evidence  given  by  Catholics  in  Courts  of  Justice.
