Page:Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866.pdf/51

46 instance of the noble Earl, a short-hand writer's report of that attack was presented for the approval of the meeting, without waiting for the reply for which the Conference was adjourned to the 23d.

And on the 23d, in perfect accordance with such questionable antecedents, the noble Earl discourteously refused to receive the very replies which he had so peremptorily demanded.

This produced the following remonstrance:–

June 29, 1866.

, the undersigned, are surprised to find that the speech of Lord Shaftesbury, in defence of certain charges which, he stated, had been imported into the case against him, without the written statement in reply of the Bishop of Rochester and the Rev. Joseph M'Caul, had been read, at Lord Shaftesbury's instance, to the Committee of the Jews' Society.

We would, therefore, call for a copy of any Resolution passed in consequence, and also an account of the proceedings of Committee in reference thereto.

We now send copy of the Bishop's reply, and the three papers that were sent with it, with the request that they may be read at the next meeting of the Committee. And we also request that the names of the members of Committee present when Lord Shaftesbury's speech was communicated may be forwarded to us, as this is the first instance known to us of any matter having been made known to others than those who were actually parties to the Conference, the words of the President of the Society having been that the proceedings of the Conference were private and perfectly confidential. (Signed)

Since the above was in type the following letter has been received by the Bishop of Rochester from the Earl of Shaftesbury, and forwarded by the Bishop with his reply. It gives another specimen of the tone adopted by Lord Shaftesbury throughout this Conference:—

July 21, 1866.

Your Lordship's Chaplain, the Rev. J. B. M'Caul, has published a letter to the “Standard ” of the 19th of this month, containing very defamatory statements against the character of the late Dr. Macgowan.

He asserts that these statements are founded on evidence taken before the Conference.

Your Lordship will remember, no doubt, that I and my friends proposed, “with a view to peace,” a cessation of the needless, and, as we urged, offensive, inquiry into the history of the deceased physician.

Your Lordship, after deliberation, assented; and we, on our side, forbore to adduce the strong and abundant testimony that we possessed, both oral and documentary, in defence of the memory of that excellent man.