Page:Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866.pdf/44

39 Mr. Reichardt said, when he witnessed them first, “I was staggered," they were in antagonism with everything he expected to find or see. He was in no position to bring a substantive charge against their medical officer before the Society in Londom or elsewhere. This was natural and proper, though he has been called a shuffler, and been otherwise calumniated for the course he took. Then Dr. Simpson saw them. Afterwards Mr. Graham. Afterwards others, who have tendered to me their knowledge of the same things.

All of these might very properly, on their first knowledge or suspicion of such evil, refrain from speaking, and they did so. But intercourse with each other, and natural causes operating on the people around, occasioned the facts to be talked of and brought to light.

But, though it was so at Jerusalem, it was not so with Dr. M'Caul in London. This has been explained. The return of Mr. and Mrs. Finn from Jerusalem brought everything before the view of Dr. M'Caul, and stirred up afresh, in the latter period of his career (his last few months), all the painful feelings which had oppressed him before, and haunted him to the last, respecting the failure of that system of dealing with the cause of blinded Israel which he had given his life to promote.

Lord Shaftesbury's statements altogether pass over the great and notorious facts with regard to the policy of the Jews' Society in the conduct of their mission-work on behalf of Israel.

The London Jews' Society has the unhappy peculiarity of having the friends of its cause at issue as to the line of policy, which it should pursue.

Dr. M'Caul's policy existed soon after that good man joined it, and, in the days of “The Old Paths,” and of the Operative Society, and of Bishop Alexander (Dr. M'Caul's great friend in respect of this policy), and it then had Lord Shaftesbury's co-operation and cordial support.

That policy was gradually changed after the appointment of Bishop Gobat; foreign and new principles were introduced. Dr. M'Caul openly and continuously by word of mouth and in print protested against the system newly substituted for the old one. Lord Shaftesbury retained his regard and affection for Dr. M'Caul—the feeling was reciprocal. Dr. M'Caul never ceased to speak well or feel well and affectionately towards one to whom on public and on private grounds he was greatly a debtor. But Lord Shaftesbury held on with the Society under the new policy which it had adopted.

The state of things which was so strangely commented upon in the speech of the 16th is owing to the change here referred to. The real grounds of Christian alliance between the two, who had been chiefs and leaders in the cause of Israel under the former state of things, remained. That godly alliance was never disturbed. It was manifested by deeper interest as Dr. M'Caul's removal from this world drew near; but, in the prospect of his departure hence, the distress of Dr. M'Caul's mind increased concerning the great and lasting interests of Israel.

The interview of Dr. McCaul with Lord Shaftesbury respecting Bishop Gobat, and the result of it, are perfectly explicable when due regard is paid to the preceding remarks. The testimony of witnesses exactly agrees:– 1. The date of the interview for which Lord Shaftesbury specially asked me, is the same as that which his Lordship has subsequently assigned. 2. Lord Shaftesbury says, “Dr. M'Caul was not pleased with what I said to him on that occasion.” And Miss M'Caul says: “My father was dissatisfied and displeased (no ex-