31
I read entirely.” Whereas the letter which should have been read entirely was the very one which was given piecemeal; it was the letter on which everything turned! If it had been read in full, it would have appeared that the Bishop was defending his own course of conduct, and was not attacking that of Lord Shaftesbury.
Attention is also called to the perversion of the order of things and of dates in the printed speech. Thus, the Bishop's two letters of June 11 and 12 are cited first, p. 11, and then, p. 15, follows the partial and convenient extract from the Bishop's letter of May 14th. So again, from the introduction to the printed speech, any ordinary reader would infer that it had its origin in the resolution of the Bishop's colleagues, passed on 29th June; whereas the speech was delivered on the 16th June, thirteen days before the Bishop's colleagues in the Conference gave in the paper of the 29th June, which had been rendered necessary by the noble Earl's speech and subsequent conduct in regard to it.
It is also to be remarked that, in desiring his speech to be read to the Committee of the Society on the 22d June, Lord Shaftesbury did so without respect to the challenge which had been given to the Bishop to qualify or answer it, and the assurance made to Mr. M'Caul, that “before publishing it, he should have a copy, with power to criticize whatever had been said "– so that the ex parte statement, by itself, was laid before the Committee, commented on by its chairman, and deliberated upon, before a word of the counterstatement from either party affected by it had been seen, a proceeding which we feel to be the more extraordinary when we consider the Bishop of Rochester's position in the Church, and the many years that he has taken an active interest in the Promotion of Christianity amongst the Jews.
The part of the proceedings in conference which relate to the M'Caul family, and to their alleged attack upon Lord Shaftesbury, had been deliberately declared by the Bishop and his friends at the Conference to have no connexion with, or relation to, the Rosenthal affair, which it was the special object of the Conference to consider.[1] The Bishop stated this in writing to his Lordship on 15th June. He denied that any such charge as that alleged by Lord Shaftesbury had been made by him, and he affirmed that it was only by an erroneous inference that this could be imagined.
Deeply regretting the necessity occasioned by the publication of Lord Shaftesbury's pamphlet, and by the course persevered in by the Committee of the Jews' Society, we now submit the Bishop of Rochester's letter of the 14th May, and the other documents which follow:–
Letter from the Bishop of Rochester to the Earl of Shaftesbury.
My Lord,–
I acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's letter of May 11th. My deliberate judgment on the chief matters it contains had been expressed to your Lordship previously.
- ↑ This is now admitted by the Committee of the Jews' Society in their Secretary's Letter of Aug. 3. See p. 25.
