Page:Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866.pdf/18

13 ference to spend most of our time in evidence on this distressing subject forced upon us by the President. Towards the close of the second day's Conference the President remarked that they could not meet the evidence which had been brought forward, and it could not be expected that they should; and we were happily saved from going further into so painful a subject by the President's changing his mind as to the expediency of the course on which he had insisted, and by his subsequently expressing his desire in writing that all which related to Dr. Macgowan should be “consigned to oblivion;” to which we assented, with the reservation, to which his Lordship agreed, “that specific points in which Dr. Macgowan might appear to have injured the Rosenthals would be fitting matter for consideration,” and that “the members of Conference should not be debarred from following up a question which might directly affect the Rosenthal case, even if it should affect the character of Dr. Macgowan.” His Lordship, in effect, agreed to return to the position which the friends of the Rosenthals had originally taken up. And thus the matter, as it affects the late Dr. Macgowan, now stands. The proceedings having become free from the Macgowan interruption, we expected that the inquiry into the Rosenthal affair would at once proceed; but another irrelevant matter was now introduced by the President's vehemently insisting on bringing in his own short-hand writer, and making a speech on extraneous matter against which we protested in vain. The President has since printed and circulated that speech, notwithstanding his assurance at the first meeting of Conference that all that passed would be. This we have felt the more extraordinary as the speech so published contains an attack upon the Bishop of Rochester, to which the President demanded a written reply. The Bishop promptly sent in a written statement refuting the charges made. This we feel Lord Shaftesbury was bound to print, if he thought fit to publish his own attack; but not only has he omitted to do so, but he absolutely refused to receive the Bishop's written reply which he had himself demanded. We are therefore reluctantly compelled to print that statement and the accompanying documents in the Appendix. The following letter expresses what we all felt in regard to this departure from the subject matter of the Conference:–

19,, S.W. June 22, 1866.

I took early advantage of my release from the Railway Committee that had so long detained me, to ascertain what progress had been made in the proceedings of the Conference which I had been prevented from attending. I have perused a considerable number of documents, including correspondence with Lord Shaftesbury. I regret to find that there has been a departure from the original subject-matter of our Conference, and a lengthened digression in regard to the opinion of the late Dr. M'Caul, in which, I feel, I am not entitled to take any part. The tone and temper exhibited by the noble Earl has, however, caused me much pain. My unfeigned respect for Lord Shaftesbury, and my deep sense of the noble services he has rendered the public, make me regret that the ill-disposed should have such an opportunity of commenting upon the failings of the leaders of the religious world.

I can readily understand how anxious anyone who had undertaken the hopeless task of defending Dr. Macgowan must have felt, to escape from so