37
business more easy. In aid of this my object, I had sent Lord Shaftesbury a copy of Dr. M'Caul's published letters, with, important passages marked in it.[1] The title of that Letter is “The Conduct of the London Society,” &c. Its receipt was acknowledged by his Lordship May 11th. Pages 21 and 28 were specially noted in the copy sent.
Notwithstanding this,–and I challenge any intelligent person to read my letter of May 14th, and say that any other object was in my view than the defence of the cause which I had taken, and a desire to justify it in the mind of Lord Shaftesbury—this letter has been treated by his Lordship as if it contained charges brought forward on Dr. M'Caul's testimony against Lord Shaftesbury's personal character and integrity. And yet, while this is done, the pretended charges against Lord Shaftesbury are declared to be so “obscure,”—“the statements so vague,”—“the testimony of Dr. M'Caul so very indefinite,” that “I (Lord Shaftesbury) feel embarrassed as to the terms of a reply.” Well might he so feel if he regarded them, as he said he did, as an attack upon himself.
But this was his Lordship's conclusion, though my friends had assured him, in their remonstrance, that, so far from charging him with any such intent (as he supposed Dr. M'Caul's evidence to be meant to support), they were convinced “he must be biassed by information from other sources than what they had made the basis of their proceedings.”
Nevertheless, in haste and with vehemence, Lord Shaftesbury assumed that my references were so intended, and he has called me in consequence “the organ of the M'Caul family against himself,” and has spoken of “Dr. M'Caul's statements made against me,” in reference to my conduct in the Rosenthal affair—the M'Caul budget against me,– “the M'Caul family record their testimony to my dishonour,” that is, not to the dishonour of my judgment concerning the policy of the London Jews' Society, but my personal honour and character for fairness and uprightness;–a charge which was never intimated, which I had assured him was never intended, and which, if fairly deducible from my expressions, was by a mistake for which I would amply apologise. But they were not open to such construction.
P. 15. In accounting for the position which I had taken up, in the letter referred to, it was said that Dr. M'Caul believed that an appeal to Lord Shaftesbury would be useless, if made upon what he (Dr. M'Caul) believed to be a most objectionable state of things. This is coupled with his opinion that Lord Shaftesbury did not know the true state of things, that he was kept in the dark. Was this of the nature of a charge from Dr. M'Caul against Lord Shaftesbury's principles or character?
P. 16. I am asked, Can I give the words of such conversations with Dr. M'Caul as I refer to, and the dates? No. I keep no daybook of such matters. But the substance I remember well, and Dr. M'Caul has published as much and more than I have attributed to him on these matters. Again, I am asked, “Did Dr. M'Caul mention those things in connexion with the name of the Rosenthals?” “My statement was not clear on that point.” Well might it not be clear;—that was not the object I had in view while making it.
P. 16–18. Lord Shaftesbury is “surprised that he is charged with enmity to the Rosenthals by me.” Where is he so charged? The allegation is untenable; and much less is the exaggerated statement justifiable, that I intimate that “he is a man at enmity with the Rosenthals, and prepared to
- ↑ Jerusalem, &c. a Series of Letters by the Rev. A. M'Caul, D.D. Trübner and Co. 60, Paternoster Row, 1866.
