Page:Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866.pdf/21

16 Right Reverend Chairman, whose singleness of purpose and dignified forbearance throughout, they cannot but express themselves most grateful for.

(Signed)

On the 23d June, the Society's Representatives again proposed that the remainder of the inquiry should be conducted by the aid of a short-hand writer; and, on the 29th, we agreed to the proposal under the conditions set forth in the following paper:—

Friday, 29th June.

“The proposition for introducing a short-hand writer, which was made at the last meeting, being of a nature to alter materially the character of the proceedings, and almost unavoidably to throw a shade upon the evidence which has been already taken, we feel it necessary to state that the consent which we give to the proposition must be dependent, (1) Upon the nomination of a Chairman of the Conference, to whose impartial decisions both parties can appeal with equal confidence. (2) Upon our retaining a right, if we deem it needful, in acting under the provisoes of June 16th, to recall witnesses whom we have already examined, and subject them to further questions to be then taken down in short-hand.

In claiming these conditions we consider that the office of Chairman has hitherto been practically assumed by the Earl of Shaftesbury, and we deem these conditions to be the more necessary because his Lordship has expressed a decided feeling of sympathy with the chief promoter of the troubles of the Rosenthals, by assuring us, in his letter of June 2d, that he shall ever retain the opinion he has expressed of Dr. Macgowan's entire innocence of the charges advanced against him in evidence in order to the defence of the Rosenthals, and of the present transaction in which we have been engaged, which he has described in terms that it is needless to repeat, but which he informs us in a letter of June 14th, he will neither qualify nor withdraw.”

To this proposal Lord Shaftesbury and his friends, after a short deliberation, returned for answer—

“Having heard the paper read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester, and having deliberated on its contents, we come to the conclusion to accept the proposition. But we are disposed to think that the ends of justice will be better attained by the constitution of an entirely new tribunal, on which neither functionaries of the Society nor parties connected with the Rosenthal affair should be allowed to sit.

It is desirable that persons impartial, not only in fact but in public opinion, should be selected.” June 29, 1866.

To which we also agreed in the following terms:— “After deliberation, we report that we all along felt that the constitution of this Conference was open to objection; but the names not having been submitted to us, we had no opportunity for expressing our opinion on the