Page:Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866.pdf/43

38 do them injustice.” I should not have consented to his Lordship presiding over his side of the Conference if I had thought so. I never have said or thought what is set forth in these words.

Lord Shaftesbury's quotation of my name from Mr. Reichardt's letter to him about aiding the Rosenthals, goes far to establish the opinion I have always entertained on this subject. It has never altered.

That I was formerly disturbed in my feelings of allegiance towards the Jews' Society by what Dr. M'Caul had told me from time to time is also proved by the letter last named. Mr. Reichardt writes: “The Bishop of Rochester has lately rejoined the Society.” Whether I had actually separated from it or not, is not clear to my mind, but, after I had preached both its anniversary sermons (the Society's and the Operatives'), and repeatedly attended the Operative examinations, and had preached and baptized six of its adult converts in the chapel at Palestine Place, I know that I did then think of leaving it. And I know also that my subscription to the cause has been left unpaid for some years past.

Lord Shaftesbury repeatedly attempted by his letters, to separate and dissociate me from my present colleagues. It may be that his Lordship thinks there is not a sincere principle of alliance which underlies our proceedings. But other tokens besides the above show that we are of one mind, and many other of my friends are intimating to me, from time to time, their warm sympathy in what I have done and am doing in this matter.

P. 25. An attempt has been made twice by Lord Shaftesbury (though the topic is much the same in each case) to confound my testimony by showing that my statements do not hold together and agree; thus

P. 22. I am charged with contradicting myself by stating that “Dr. McCaul was silent as to Dr. Macgowan's alleged delinquencies because of my Lord Shaftesbury's coolness.” “This statement is withdrawn,” he says, and then I substituted another averment, viz. “that Dr. M'Caul was ignorant of the matter.” I have done nothing of the kind. Where are the words of withdrawal? Where the words which make the substitution?

P. 25. “Which of these statements will I take ?" he asks. My reply is, I take both. They are perfectly consistent.

The coolness of Lord Shaftesbury towards Dr. M'Caul related to his Lordship's judgment on the topic of greatest concern, “Israel and its Interests.” That topic continued supreme in Dr. M'Caul's mind, apart from all considerations about Dr. Macgowan. But another cause of silence was also in operation, of which I only knew very lately: Dr. M'Caul had agreed with his daughter at Jerusalem that she should not write to him on such subjects any more. She ceased to communicate them. And so, while Dr. M'Caul's principles and policy as to Jewish matters remained, he really was not in a condition to write or speak with any confidence about Dr. Macgowan.

P. 25. I am then shown to have said,

“The grave charges against Dr. Macgowan were not commonly raised till lately,” that is, of course, “of late years,”—not with earlier manifestations of Dr. Macgowan's infirmities. No, I believe they were not, and they could not be raised publicly at first. It was by accumulation of reluctant witnesses that they came out to general view.