28
been dead some years, and many offensive remarks have been made as to our attacking the character of one who could not defend himself. We are therefore obliged to point out that a use has been made of our reference to that individual, which is not only unwarranted, but disingenuous and unfair. Whatever mention of him was made by us, was made to his friends and supporters in a strictly private and confidential Conference. We made it with no ill-feeling, for we could have none; we made it for no other purpose than to show how deeply the interests of religion and the Society had suffered, and how disastrous had been and still were the consequences to a poor Israelitish family. We had no expectation of the matter being made public, and are not responsible for any consequences resulting from a different course pursued by others, which we considered at the time very objectionable.[1] We felt, and we feel still, that a great wrong had been done to the Rosenthals by our Society, which was bound on every account rather to cherish than to crush a poor family—the first-fruits of its mission in Jerusalem. We were compelled to set forth all the grounds upon which our conviction rested, and the character of the agent who systematically persecuted this family. In our attempt to do this we have been interrupted by the introduction of one irrelevant topic after another. The controversy between Lord Shaftesbury, the Bishop of Rochester, and the Rev. Joseph B. M'Caul had no connexion with the inquiry in which we were engaged. It arose apparently out of a misconception on Lord Shaftesbury's part as to the purport of certain expressions, he regarding them as charges affecting his fitness to act as an impartial member of the Conference; but such meaning was promptly disclaimed by those who used them.
The Bishop of Rochester, addressing Lord Shaftesbury, said, “You have given us an assurance of your perfect impartiality in the Rosenthal matter, and we are entirely satisfied. In my recent letter I denied having made, or intended to make, any such imputation as you refer to.”
This disclaimer by the Bishop, in which his colleagues concurred, should, we feel, have been accepted at once. No one ever considered his Lordship to be hostile to the Rosenthals. On the contrary, we knew that Lord Shaftesbury, as well as the Chevalier Bunsen, had applied to the Society on their behalf, and the former had recently subscribed to the Rosenthal Fund. With regard to the other point, upon which Lord Shaftesbury was labouring under a misconception:—the Bishop of Rochester and the M'Caul family knew that, in spite of great differences of opinion between Lord Shaftesbury and Dr. M'Caul about the Society and the state of things at Jerusalem, the latter retained an affectionate regard for his lordship to the last; of this Lord Shaftesbury has been assured by the Bishop and the Rev. J. M'Caul.
We deeply regret, therefore, that these matters should have been so unnecessarily brought before the public, and though obliged to notice the statement, in which our names have been mentioned and our conduct commented upon, we do it with extreme reluctance, and with no desire to prolong a painful controversy.
We have only to add that the attempt to obtain justice for the Rosenthals, come to an agreement in friendly conference with the Society, has failed.
- ↑ The Bishop of Rochester and his colleagues, in the Conference, in their Report (see pp. 12, 13), and the Bishop of Rochester, in his letter of 14th May to Lord Shaftesbury (see p. 31), have shown that the investigation into Dr. Macgowan's private character apart from his conduct to the Rosenthal's, was Forced upon us by the noble Earl and his eolleagues.
