Page:Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866.pdf/14

9 8. Mr. Nicolayson having died, and Mr. Graham having left in 1857, when this poor family of converted Jews were struggling hard for existence, and beginning a little to prosper, the Chairman of the Society's Committee in Jerusalem, with Dr. Macgowan, now head of the Mission, and two other members of the Committee, Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Bailey, protested against Mr. Rosenthal's being employed by Mr. Finn, the Consul, as one of his three Dragomans, who represented him during his temporary absence, at the same time attacking Rosenthal's character.

9. On his return to Jerusalem, Mr. Finn asked to be furnished with, 1st, All the protesters personally knew to Mr. Rosenthal's discredit. 2dly, all they had heard from others, giving their authority for each case.

10. This request was refused, but Mr. Finn was referred to the Resolution of 1849, passed by the Society, and to a letter of the Prussian Consul. Mr. Finn applied for the Resolution, but this was refused. Mr. Rosenthal then himself applied to know if the protesters were acquainted with anything to his discredit; but neither could he obtain a reply.

11. The Chairman of the Committee at Jerusalem and Dr. Macgowan and the other two protesters then sent the case as a formal complaint to the Foreign Office in London, supporting it by—
 * 1) The Resolution of the Society.
 * 2) A private letter of the Prussian Consul to the Bishop.
 * 3) A letter of Rosenthal's brother-in-law.
 * 4) An unsigned statement in Mr. Hefter's handwriting.

12. The first document forwarded in this monstrous proceeding was the unwarranted, unjust, unrescinded Resolution of the Society at home.

13. The second document was a remarkable letter of the Prussian Consul, which may be really taken as a certificate of Mr. Rosenthal's character in Jerusalem at that time: since nothing more could be urged against him by one who evidently wished to say all he could against this unfortunate man.

The Consul states that—

 “The Public does not ascribe to him the character of a man deserving confidence.”  That—  “He showed a covetousness bordering on the incredible.”  That—  “He was a being, selfish in the highest degree, sacrificing everything to his own interest.”  That he had  “Great natural cunning.”

In this letter there is not one distinct, tangible charge ventured on, affecting the character of Rosenthal.

14. The third document was a letter of Rosenthal's brother-in-law, a rival hotel-keeper, containing a paltry, unfounded insinuation, which the writer afterwards regretted having written, but which had been extracted from him by Dr. Macgowan and most unfairly used.

15. The fourth document sent to the Foreign Office was worthy of being fastened to the letter of the Prussian Consul. It was in Mr. Hefter's handwriting, but he had not signed it; and feeling, upon further enquiry, that his statement had been made under an erroneous impression, he endeavoured to get it back, but Dr. Macgowan refused to return it, and sent it on with the other papers.

16. Mr. Bailey, one of the protesters, stated that he was most unhappy