44
depart, leaving the one object of his holy life frustrated, as far as human means could reach.
But of Lord Shaftesbury's own personal kindliness to himself he never doubted, much as he deplored that there should have sprung up, in later years, a difference of opinion upon a matter so near at heart.
Feeling the greatest repugnance to enter into any relations with the executive of the Jews' Society, I considered the Earl of Shaftesbury's presence the single element of hopefulness to the cause of the Rosenthals which we had taken up. In the name of my whole family, I had rejected the proposed attendance of any deputation from the Jews' Society at my father's funeral; but any overture of a similar kind from the Earl of Shaftesbury would have been respectfully and joyfully received. I can say on behalf of my entire family, that we cordially rejoiced when we learned that the Earl of Shaftesbury was willing to preside over the Society's delegates in the present Conference. We trusted that such evidence as has been produced, and we have yet to produce if needful, would have convinced his Lordship that Dr. Macgowan's antipathies and asseverations were no safe basis upon which to proceed against any person whatever, when personal integrity and the means of livelihood were at stake.
I trusted that justice would have been secured for the Rosenthals. The Earl's earlier letters to your Lordship are full of assertions to the effect, that “an eager public panted ” for an explanation of the frightful charges brought against Dr. Macgowan; but now, after two days of the most damaging evidence have been produced, the noble Lord challenges us in writing, and verbally at last Saturday's Conference, to “consign Dr. Macgowan's case to oblivion.”[1]
His Lordship is now strangely forgetful of the “wretched widow’s”[2] claims to a public vindication of her deceased husband.
I can only come to the conclusion, that we have so effectually established our case against Mr. Rosenthal's chief persecutor, Dr. Macgowan, that to “consign to oblivion,” or to intimidate by personalities (with threats of the publication of these personalities), is the only (but most mistaken) course remaining to the defenders of a series of oppressive acts, as unchristian as they have been hurtful to the Jerusalem Mission.
Statement read and put in by the Colleagues of the Bishop of Rochester at the Conference with Lord Shaftesbury and his supporters, on Friday, June 23, 1866.
At a Meeting of the Conference in the Rosenthal matter, held on Saturday, the 16th June, 1866, the Earl of Shaftesbury complained that, in a correspondence he had had with the Lord Bishop of Rochester, his fitness to sit as a member of the Conference had been called in question, and he claimed to
