The Sun.
London, England, 1868-01-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 28, 1868.

refer the matter to the courts of law, which he
said were open to us, if we felt ourselves ag-
grieved. He knew very well all the time that
it is as impossible to meet legally as logically
a vague charge, in which neither the names
of those by whom, nor the places where, nor
the dates when, the alleged atrocities are as-
serted to have been committed. Mr. Good-
man, however, to his great honour, refused
to let Mr. Gutteridge off on so obviously un-
just a pretext. Mr. Goodman pinned Gut-
teridge to a proposal he had imprudently ac-
ceded to, that the charge should be investigated
by a committee consisting of several Protestant
gentlemen, and one, only one, Catholic. Our
friend boggled very much about preliminaries;
and thus gave everybody who watched (as
we did) the progress of the affair, a tolerable
certainty that lie knew his case to be rotten.
A drowning man will catch at a straw. He
rejected one of the committee whom he had
himself nominated, and selected another.
Amongst his final contortions, lie said that
the point to be tried was, not whether what
he had asserted was true or no, but whether
or no he had at the time good reason to think
it true. This explains the severe but just im-
putation in the Report that Gutteridge made
no effort to test the truth of any of his state-
ments.

We are not disposed to apply harsh terms
to Gutteridge. We feel how completely they
are unnecessary. What rhetorical amplifica-
tion could do anything but diminish rather
than augment the effect which the collapse
of a calumny like this ought to produce and
will produce in all minds not absolutely en-
crusted with bigotry? What that any Catholic
writer can say could intensify the disgust which
just and kind English people must feel at
an attempt to serve the ends of a base faction
by arousing public indignation against innocent
persons ? Neither are we ignorant of the ex-
cuses that may be made for Gutteridge from
the necessities of his position. If a man will
be an aggressive, intolerant Protestant, he
is perforce driven to calumny as his only
resource. If he looks into solid controversy
he finds his cause without a leg to stand
upon. It is literally impossible to interest a
Protestant audience in the rationalistic subtle-

ties of Chillingworth, or the historical per-
versions of Moslieim. But a good rattling
accusation against a nunnery in the town itself,
or neighbourhood, is a telling thing, and never
fails to arouse attention and bring pennies at
the doors. Murphy has dealt largely in the
article, and has reaped large gains from the
business. But Murphy always had the dis-
cretion to keep to safe generalities. His
wretched imitator, with all Murphy's ma-
lignity, possessed none of his astuteness, and
has been accordingly squelched. He has, how-
ever, done us good, and not harm, and, in
gratitude, we are bound to render him some
acknowledgment. We will confer renown
on his patronymic, cacophonous though it be.
Henceforward, whenever an anti-Catholic
calumny of more than ordinary vileness is
exploded, let it be denominated a guttericlge.
Ugly word for ugly thing; the inherent fitness
of the term will ensure for the new coinage an
universal adoption.—Westininster Gazette.

ARE AMATEURS INJURIOUS TO THE