Page:Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866.pdf/15

10 at having signed the protest, that he had no peace since his doing so, that he repented the moment he had signed the paper, and that he had been praying that no harm might result from it.

17. In February, 1858, the decision of Lord Clarendon arrived. His Lordship declined to act upon unsupported accusations, and authorized Mr. Rosenthal to go to law for the vindication of his character. Mr. Rosenthal reluctantly commenced proceedings. The Prussian Consul, at the instigation of the Bishop, the Chairman of your Committee in Jerusalem, interfered, and first threatened and then imprisoned the poor man.

18. Mr. Rosenthal was now fast on the way to ruin. His life during these few years was a continual struggle to maintain himself and his family honestly, frustrated by false accusations, unjust resolutions, and illegal imprisonments. His hotel, which at one time was flourishing, now began to fail, a placard, advising travellers not to go there, having been printed at the mission press, and circulated at the neighbouring sea ports. He had no other employment, and could get none, being himself in a feeble state of health from a bodily injury, and suffering mentally from the effect of the stigma which attached to him in consequence of all these proceedings. At this time, when prostrated by all he had undergone, and the treatment he had experienced at the hands of Christians, this unhappy man relapsed into Judaism for a few days; but in 1861 the Rev. J. Barclay, now head of the Mission, re-admitted Mr. Rosenthal to the Holy Communion, and up to this time no charges have ever been substantiated against him; yet the Resolutions of 1849 and 1854 have continued in force.

19. If there is any inaccuracy in the above statement, it most intimately concerns the honour and interests of the Society to prove it. We forbear to enter into the charge made against Mrs. Rosenthal in Mr. Goodhart's letter, of having “cruelly assailed the character” of the late Dr. Macgowan, but we feel that, under the circumstances of the case, she could not have remained silent; and we regret to be obliged to inform the Committee that we have ample and specific evidence to prove that the conduct of their representative at Jerusalem was calculated to injure the cause of religion and the interests of the Society.

20. If, however, the statement above made with regard to the treatment of the Rosenthals cannot be disproved, what is the painful conclusion forced upon the friends and supporters of the Society viz. that the Committee have acted unjustly and oppressively, through their agents, towards those who had every claim to their sympathy, counsel, and support; that they accepted and acted upon unproved charges; that they refused to take notice of retracted charges, or to do tardy justice to those they had injured; that they closed their ears to the cry of one of their own children, and shut the door in the face of a starving and distracted mother.

21. It is generally acknowledged that men will do in their corporate capacity what they would hesitate to do individually; but surely it must be most damaging to a religious Society to refuse redress for a proved wrong, or to shrink from inquiry lest it should be inconvenient.

22. It is most desirable, if possible, in order to prevent these matters coming again before the public to the prejudice of the Society, to have a Conference of the friends of Israel, of those who are fully acquainted with the facts, and of those who shall represent the Society itself. With, therefore, a prayerful desire to ascertain the whole truth, to do what is wise and just, to re-establish the confidence of those whose allegiance to the Society has been disturbed, to pave the way to a removal of many