Page:Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866.pdf/40

35 The above was construed by Lord Shaftesbury into an attack upon himself. But neither in the above letter nor in any of his other communications with Lord Shaftesbury had the Bishop of Rochester the smallest idea of making any such attack upon the noble Earl, and nothing could be further from the wishes of the members of the McCaul family, who all thoroughly appreciated the kindness shown to themselves personally by the noble Earl, and his zeal in the promotion of every good work. It was, therefore, with the more pain that the Bishop of Rochester witnessed the manner in which Lord Shaftesbury's mind had been influenced, and the Bishop in writing to his lordship on the 15th June endeavoured to put the noble Earl right, and denied that any such charge had been made by him, and affirmed that it was only by an erroneous inference that it could be imagined.

The Earl of Shaftesbury, however, persisted in ascribing to the Bishop of Rochester and to the McCaul family motives and feelings which they utterly disclaim, and at the meeting of Conference on the 16th June his lordship, in opposition to our protest (see ante, p. 13), made the speech which he has published, and at the meeting of Conference on the 20th June he handed copies to the Bishop of Rochester and the Rev. Joseph M'Caul, demanding that they should give “written answers,” and the Conference was adjourned to the 23d to receive the same. The following replies and statement, and Lord Claud Hamilton's letter (see ante, pp. 13, 14), were read :—

Reply read by the Bishop of Rochester at the Meeting of Conference on the 23d June, 1866, in answer to the Earl of Shaftesbury's speech of the 16th June.

Speech of Lord Shaftesbury on the 16th, and the demand which he made upon myself and Mr. M'Caul to justify what had been stated as the opinions of the M'Caul family, cannot be taken apart from the case before the Conference, although the matter was not proper for consideration by the Conference. This is obvious (1) from the account given in my letter of May 14th,–(2) from the statement sent in by the members of my side of the Conference on 14th June,—and (3) from the concluding words of the speech of June 16th, respecting Dr. Macgowan. And it is necessary, because the introduction of the name of Dr. M'Caul into the business, did not arise from the cause which has been assigned,—and the comment which has been made on Dr. M'Caul's alleged statements perverts entirely the sense which his testimony conveys. It is necessary also, as will appear, to refer to myself (as the speaker on the 16th did to himself and his acts). The course which I adopted depended entirely upon the position into which I was forced; and my position might have created a necessity for bringing forward some matters which at first might appear irrelevant.

I have felt aggrieved from the beginning of this business by the course Lord Shaftesbury has taken, and the personalities which have been introduced into these proceedings. I have been forty-four years, as a clergyman, before the public at St. James's, Westminster, with the National Society