7
this appointment. It was not my fault if my sentiments were not clearly understood. The following language is, I apprehend, very unambiguous.
After fully detailing the proceedings of Bishop Gobat, in his own words, I thus conclude:—
"As it has been my lot, in the course of Divine Providence, to declare to three of the Patriarchs, and other distinguished Prelates of the Orthodox Churches of the East, the good faith of our own Metropolitan, and the friendly disposition of the Anglican Church, it is my duty to enter my protest, valeat quantum, against this aggressive policy, as a direct violation of the terms on which the Anglican Bishopric at Jerusalem was established."—Holy City, vol. ii. p. 616 (note on p. 596).
I had no right to suppose that a fresh avowal of opinions, which I had expressed so plainly and decidedly in my published writings in 1849, and which were not held to disqualify me for an appointment in 1850, would be made the ground of my removal in 1853. It might have been anticipated that I should avail myself of every opportunity of repeating—especially to the aggrieved parties—my sense of an injustice, which I was known to feel so keenly, and with such good reason.
Your Grace is aware that I was appointed by the late Archbishop of Canterbury to accompany Bishop Alexander to Jerusalem. I had an opportunity of learning his Grace's sentiments with reference to this question of aggression on the Dioceses of the Oriental
