Page:Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866.pdf/26

21 which had been made on the part of your friends to mine, for the future conduct of the business in hand, in which, with certain modifications, I and my colleagues concurred. It then gives a Resolution which, it says, “adopts at once the requirement made by me and my colleagues, that the ultimate appeal should be to a single individual, if needed;”—and this Resolution resolves the whole proceedings of the newly formed Conference or tribunal, and the Conference itself, into “the appointment of some eminent legal man who shall hear evidence and give judgment in the Rosenthal matter.”

Now, you know that the conditions which were finally agreed to, respecting the re-formed Conference, were taken down and copies exchanged on either side by the members of the old Conference ; you know also, that by the mention of an eminent individual for reference, if the re-formed Conference under a proper Chairman could not come to a friendly decision, never could have meant “a legal man who should hear evidence and give judgment;” and you know further, that after Lord Shaftesbury and his colleagues had accepted our last conditions, Lord Shaftesbury said he indorsed them, and he requested the Bishop and his friends to send their resolutions to the Jews' Society, and communicate with the Committee in order to the re-opening of the Conference. The first proposal from your side—

Viz. –“That an entirely new tribunal should be constituted, in which “neither functionaries of the Society nor parties connected with the Rosenthal affair is to be allowed to sit,” was accepted by my side, ON CONDITION that certain provisos which follow should be maintained; and the following conditions should be acted on throughout; yhey were the following:—

“That we, the presenters of THE FIRST STATEMENT, should not relinquish, in any manner, the position which we originally took up when we presented the paper which was the basis of the Conference:— and,

“That, specific points in which Dr. Macgowan might appear to have injured the Rosenthals should be fitting matter for consideration; and,

“That we 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, and in addition to these provisos, it was formally agreed,

“That a right of challenge of all parties selected to act on the re-formed Conference should be allowed on either side.

“That a Chairman should be nominated for the Conference, to whose impartial decision both parties could appeal with equal confidence; and,

“If needful, reference for final decision should be reserved for some eminent person, to be previously chosen for the purpose; and, that a right should be retained on our side, if we deemed it needful to recall witnesses whom we had already examined, and subject them to further questions, to be taken down in short-hand.”

You assure me that the Resolution which you communicate satisfies “the conditions first proposed with the modifications which I and my colleagues concurred in for the future conduct of the business in hand,” and on the same page you resolve the whole of the arrangements into the “legal gentleman who is to hear evidence, and give judgment.”

What such a course of procedure may be designed to accomplish, it may not be for me to affirm, but, looking back on what has passed, I cannot but imagine that your friends desire again, by delay, and the introduction of irrelevant matters, to obstruct the inquiry which the Conference was specially formed to promote. For, at present, after six long months of delay, when we have accepted your own terms for proceeding with it, we