Report on the Conference upon the Rosenthal Case 1866

Front matter

REPORT

ON THE CONFERENCE UPON

THE ROSENTHAL CASE,

Introduction

This Report is presented by the Bishop of Rochester and his colleagues to the friends by whom they were appointed to represent them in the Conference, and to all members of the London Jews' Society who have the cause of Israel and the interests of the Society at heart, with the earnest request that they will carefully weigh its contents. Attention is called to the manner in which they have been met, and the way in which, by misrepresentations, personalities, the introduction of irrelevant matters, and, finally, by their departure from their own arrangement, the Managers of the Society have evaded the prosecution of this inquiry into the case of Mr. Rosenthal and its bearings upon their own conduct and that of their officials. In the Conference we established the following facts:

In 1849 Mr. Rosenthal was dismissed by the London Committee from a post of responsibility at Jerusalem which he filled with credit to himself and advantage to the Society, and the employment of himself and family forbidden, upon charges of embezzlement preferred against him by Dr. Macgowan.

Mr. Rosenthal made repeated efforts to vindicate his conduct. The accusation was inquired into at Jerusalem, and Mr. Rosenthal was acquitted. Dr. Macgowan evaded the consequences of the failure of his accusation by various unworthy means, and went off to London. Mr. Rosenthal followed him, and took legal steps to bring Dr. Macgowan to account. Dr. Macgowan, finding that no other shift would avail him, fled clandestinely to Paris, and thus again escaped for a time. He returned to Jerusalem, whither he was followed by Mr. Rosenthal, who still claimed redress. Dr. Macgowan, unable further to escape investigation, in November, 1853, withdrew the charges in the following terms:–

“Having read, for the first time, Mr. Simeon Rosenthal's defence before the Sardinian Consul (in 1849), and found on examination that the charges brought against him are not supported by the evidence adduced, and that the answers to them by Mr. S. Rosenthal are satis- factory, I feel bound to declare that Mr. S. Rosenthal is acquitted of the said charges, and cleared of the imputations which may have been cast on his character thereby.”

When the London Committee were informed that this man who had suffered such grievous wrongs for four years was declared innocent by his accuser, they neither offered him any compensation for the injury he had sustained, nor withdrew the prohibition against his employment, which had originated in false charges. A modified resolution was indeed subsequently entered upon their books, but it did not restore to Rosenthal what he had lost, nor was it allowed permanently to benefit him, owing to instructions sent from the London Committee, so that even in 1863 the Rev. Dr. Barclay, the present head of the Mission at Jerusalem, felt himself precluded from giving employment either to Mr. Rosenthal or to any of his family, quoting the original unrescinded resolution as preventing him.

The Bishop of Rochester and his colleagues would urge the Patron, Vice-Patrons, and Members of the Society to unite with them in having this matter thoroughly investigated, and in having some redress made by the Society for the grievous wrong that has been done. This the Reporters feel that the Society is bound to do, as its officials interfered to prevent the parties injured obtaining by law that redress from their calumniators to which they were entitled.

5, Montague Street, Bloomsbury, London. August, 1866.

REPORT.

The attention of the Bishop of Rochester and other friends having been directed to the distressed circumstances of the Rosenthal family, which they were painfully convinced had arisen from the conduct of certain officials of the London Jews' Society, his Lordship sought an interview with the Rev. C. J. Goodhart, Secretary of the Society, in the beginning of January last, on which occasion he also met the Rev. Dr. Barclay and Mr. Reichardt. After going into the matter at considerable length, Mr. Goodhart agreed to bring it before the Committee of the Jews' Society, and to lay before them for their adoption the following draft of a resolution proposed by the Bishop of Rochester:—

“Read a communication from the Bishop of Rochester, on behalf of himself and certain friends who were interested in the past history of the Rosenthal family, in connexion with the Mission to the Jews at Jerusalem, and were seeking assistance for the relief of the distressing and painful predicament in which they are now placed; and agreed that the Bishop be informed that it is not in the power of the Committee to appropriate any of the Society's proper funds in aid of the purpose recommended to their notice, but they are desirous to further the benevolent object now brought before them; and, in consideration of the favourable opinion which this convert family long enjoyed from IRev. Mr. Nicolayson, and of their present extreme difficulties, that £ be appropriated out of the Jerusalem Fund as a commencement of the contemplated subscription, and towards enabling Mrs. Rosenthal to establish herself in some business by which she may maintain her disabled husband and two afflicted sons. The Committee hope that by this step the subscription, which the Bishop and other friends have in view, may be raised to a satisfactory amount, and accomplish the desired object.”

Mr. Goodhart, having submitted the resolution to the Committee, wrote, the 12th January, 1866, that he was instructed to say, “that it was with sincere regret that they could not at once accede to the Bishop's suggestions,” until Mrs. Rosenthal had set herself right with the Committee in respect of her pamphlet.

The Bishop expressed his disappointment, and asked “specifically ” what passages of the pamphlet were referred to. Mr. Goodhart sent the following reply:—

London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews.

16, Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.C. January 30th, 1866.

My Lord,

Referring to your Lordship's letter of the 13th instant in reply to mine of the 12th, in which your Lordship expresses disappointment with the Committee's resolution, and requests to know “specifically what passages in Mrs. Rosenthal's pamphlet are referred to, and what the disclaimer or apology which it is expected she shall make,” I am directed briefly to draw your Lordship's attention to the following facts, which must, the Committee think, satisfy your Lordship that they cannot justly be charged with undue harshness to Mrs. Rosenthal, or as being the cause of the ruin of the family, as expressed by Mrs. Rosenthal in her pamphlet.

In November, 1853, Dr. Macgowan, whose character though dead has been cruelly assailed, while his interposition on behalf of Mr. Rosenthal was fully taken advantage of, was prevailed upon to withdraw the charges made against Mr. Rosenthal, which was notified to the Parent Committee by the end of December, 1853. At this time Mr. James Graham, the newly appointed Lay Secretary to the Jerusalem Mission, arrived in the Holy City, and employed Mr. Rosenthal in the responsible position of dragoman and agent to the Mission. On the 24th May, on representations from the Jerusalem Committee on the subject, the London Committee saw good to pass the following resolution:— “The Jerusalem Committee having again strongly urged the removal of the restriction upon Mr. Rosenthal's employment— that the Committee be authorized to employ him as occasion may require, under careful supervision, but not in permanent connexion with the Society,” which was communicated to Mr. Graham with the words, “Thus you see the Committee leave the responsibility of Simeon's occasional employment with the Local Committee. You will, of course, exercise all due control over Simeon while employed.”

From January, 1854, until the 30th June, 1856, when Mr. Graham's connexion with the Society ceased, Mr. Rosenthal continued to be employed in connexion with the Mission at Jerusalem either as superintendent or dragoman, on a salary of 40l. per annum, while at the same time he was employed by Mr. Consul Finn as his official dragoman. On Mr. Nicolayson resuming the office of Secretary, as well as that of the head of the Mission, in July, 1856, having, from his knowledge of the native languages, no need of the services of a dragoman or interpreter, no provision was made for it in the estimates, and Mr. Rosenthal ceased to be further employed in that capacity.

Besides the aforesaid 40l. a year paid by the Society to Mr. Rosenthal, from January, 1854, to June, 1856, Mrs. Rosenthal was paid from the Jewish Converts Relief Fund, out of an average income of 50l. per annum, the sum of 23l. per annum, from September, 1853, to December, 1856, at which time Mrs. Rosenthal's circumstances began greatly to improve, and as she writes at page 20 in her pamphlet, “Her hotel so prospered as to enable her to pay off some of her debts.”

Further, in 1854, a Fund having been raised in England which amounted to 800l. to relieve the great distress amongst the Jews arising out of the existing drought and famine, Mr. Rosenthal was employed by Mr. Graham in its distribution, and received the following sums therefrom for his own benefit—

30th June, 1854, grant to himself of Ps. 1,000, or about 9l. 25th June, 1855, as remuneration for personal services, 10l.

Also a loan of Ps.8,000, or about 72l. of which sum only Ps.6,000 was repaid by 1857, and of the remaining Ps.2,000, or 18l. only the moiety was received in 1861, and the remaining moiety was remitted him by Captain Layard, as he pleaded poverty and inability to pay.

In addition to which, the late Rev. H. Crawford, one of the Society's Missionaries, in August, 1852, advanced as a loan to Mr. Rosenthal, out of his own pocket, the sum of Ps.2,000, or 18l. of which only Ps.800, or 7l. was ever repaid, the promissory note for the same being now in the hands of the Society; all tending to show that, until the unhappy differences which arose between the Missionaries and Mr. Consul Finn, in the autumn of 1857, in respect to Mr. Rosenthal, there was no disposition wanting on the part of the Mission, or the Missionaries, to help the Rosenthal family as occasion served, without any consideration of the question of their worthiness or the contrary, having respect only to their temporal necessities.

I am also instructed to forward for your Lordship's information, copy of an extract of the Rev. J. Nicolayson's Journal, dated December 25th, 1841, —two years after Mr. and Mrs. Rosenthal's baptism; and in the confident hope that the explanation now briefly given will be sufficient to satisfy your Lordship of the groundlessness of the charges made in Mrs. Rosenthal's pamphlet to the prejudice of the Committee and the Missionaries, the Committee feel that it would not, on their part, be demanding too much of Mrs. Rosenthal that she should withdraw from sale or circulation all the remaining copies of the pamphlet in hand, and that she express in writing her deep regret at having caused the same to be printed and circulated.

I have the honour to remain,

My Lord,

Your Lordship's obedient humble Servant,

(On behalf of the Committee) Charles J. Goodhart,

Secretary.

To the Right Hon. the Lord Bishop of Rochester, &c. &c.

Mr. Goodhart's communication having been considered at a meeting called by the Bishop of Rochester on the 22d of February, and it having been ascertained by unquestionable evidence that the greater part of the representations made in it by the Committee of the Jews' Society were incorrect, and that all were calculated to mislead, it was resolved, “That the explanation offered by Mr. Goodhart is wholly unsatisfactory, and that the condition with which his letter concludes is unreasonable, under the circumstances in which the writer was placed.” And on the 13th of March, the Bishop of Rochester sent to the Jews' Society a Statement of Facts on the subject, with a request that the President and Committee would appoint some members of their Committee to meet an equal number of the Bishop's friends in conference upon it. That statement was adopted as the basis of conference, and is as follows:—

STATEMENT OF FACTS CONNECTED WITH THE CASE OF THE ROSENTHAL FAMILY.

1. The case of Mr. Simeon Rosenthal and his family was brought under the notice of several friends of the Jewish cause, and supporters of the London Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews, at a Meeting held at the Bishop of Rochester's House on Thursday, February 22d, 1866, when it appeared, that Mr. Rosenthal had at one time been in the employ of the Society, that Mrs. Rosenthal opened a shop under the sanction of the Society in Jerusalem; that Dr. Macgowan, the Physician of the Society, became hostile to the family, and endeavoured to ruin them by bringing unfounded charges against Mr. Rosenthal, and especially one of embezzlement, whilst Mr. Rosenthal was in the employ of the Society as Clerk of the Works.

This case being heard in the presence of the Rev. J. Nicolayson, head of the Mission in Jerusalem, a complete acquittal was the result, but before the case was finished in Jerusalem there arrived from London a Resolution passed by the Society, dismissing Rosenthal from the employ of the Society, and forbidding him to be ever employed again by their agents.

2. An order was also sent to Mr. Nicolayson, directing him to turn the Rosenthals out of the house occupied by the mother and her young children. Both Simeon Rosenthal and his family were thus plunged into the deepest distress. At this time, and in fact till his death in 1856, the Rev. J. Nicolayson manifested the truest sympathy, asssisted them himself, and at last obtained help for them from the Temporal Relief Fund.

3. This conduct of Mr. Nicolayson's entirely disposes of that part of Mr. Goodhart's letter of January 30th, 1866, to the Bishop of Rochester, in which he refers to the unfavourable opinion expressed by Mr. Nicolayson (25th December, 1841) concerning Rosenthal and his wife, which was subsequently entirely removed.

4. Mr. Nicolayson frequently expressed his perfect confidence in Rosenthal's integrity, and his approval of the patience he had shown. In corroboration of this fact, it may be stated, that Mr. Nicolayson, early in 1853, helped in drawing up a compromise by which Dr. Macgowan was to give Mr. Rosenthal 150l. as compensation, and the Rev. H. Crawford approved the compromise and carried it to Dr. Macgowan, who refused to accede to the proposal, which included a full public examination.

5. On the 7th of November, however, in that year, Dr. Macgowan, in the prospect of legal proceedings, withdrew the charges he had made in the following terms:– “Having read, for the first time, Mr. Simeon Rosenthal's defence before the Sardinian Consul (in 1849), and found on examination that the charges brought against him are not supported by the evidence adduced, and that the answers to them by Mr. S. Rosenthal are satisfactory, I feel bound to declare that Mr. S. Rosenthal is acquitted of the said charges, and cleared of the imputations which may have been cast on his character thereby.”

6. From the above statement, it appears that Dr. Macgowan, in 1853, admitted he had never taken the trouble to read the defence offered by the man against whom he had made very serious charges, although that defence had been made four years before. That Mr. Rosenthal was condemned by the Society at home unheard, and forbidden to receive any employment from any connected with them; whilst the charges against him were so false, that even his inveterate persecutor, Dr. Macgowan, was compelled entirely to withdraw them.

7. At this very time also, and whilst the Society at home, instead of giving him employment as stated in Mr. Goodhart's letter, of January 30th, 1866, was writing to Jerusalem to continue this persecution, there was not only not a whisper against the character of Mr. Rosenthal in Jerusalem, but he was sufficiently respected to warrant the Committee in Jerusalem in recommending him for employment to Mr. Graham, and the Rev. H. Crawford's proposing that he should be appointed sexton to Christ Church. 8. Mr. Nicolayson having died, and Mr. Graham having left in 1857, when this poor family of converted Jews were struggling hard for existence, and beginning a little to prosper, the Chairman of the Society's Committee in Jerusalem, with Dr. Macgowan, now head of the Mission, and two other members of the Committee, Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Bailey, protested against Mr. Rosenthal's being employed by Mr. Finn, the Consul, as one of his three Dragomans, who represented him during his temporary absence, at the same time attacking Rosenthal's character.

9. On his return to Jerusalem, Mr. Finn asked to be furnished with, 1st, All the protesters personally knew to Mr. Rosenthal's discredit. 2dly, all they had heard from others, giving their authority for each case.

10. This request was refused, but Mr. Finn was referred to the Resolution of 1849, passed by the Society, and to a letter of the Prussian Consul. Mr. Finn applied for the Resolution, but this was refused. Mr. Rosenthal then himself applied to know if the protesters were acquainted with anything to his discredit; but neither could he obtain a reply.

11. The Chairman of the Committee at Jerusalem and Dr. Macgowan and the other two protesters then sent the case as a formal complaint to the Foreign Office in London, supporting it by—

The Resolution of the Society.

A private letter of the Prussian Consul to the Bishop.

A letter of Rosenthal's brother-in-law.

An unsigned statement in Mr. Hefter's handwriting.

12. The first document forwarded in this monstrous proceeding was the unwarranted, unjust, unrescinded Resolution of the Society at home.

13. The second document was a remarkable letter of the Prussian Consul, which may be really taken as a certificate of Mr. Rosenthal's character in Jerusalem at that time: since nothing more could be urged against him by one who evidently wished to say all he could against this unfortunate man.

The Consul states that—

“The Public does not ascribe to him the character of a man deserving confidence.”

That—

“He showed a covetousness bordering on the incredible.”

That—

“He was a being, selfish in the highest degree, sacrificing everything to his own interest.”

That he had

“Great natural cunning.”

In this letter there is not one distinct, tangible charge ventured on, affecting the character of Rosenthal.

14. The third document was a letter of Rosenthal's brother-in-law, a rival hotel-keeper, containing a paltry, unfounded insinuation, which the writer afterwards regretted having written, but which had been extracted from him by Dr. Macgowan and most unfairly used.

15. The fourth document sent to the Foreign Office was worthy of being fastened to the letter of the Prussian Consul. It was in Mr. Hefter's handwriting, but he had not signed it; and feeling, upon further enquiry, that his statement had been made under an erroneous impression, he endeavoured to get it back, but Dr. Macgowan refused to return it, and sent it on with the other papers.

16. Mr. Bailey, one of the protesters, stated that he was most unhappy at having signed the protest, that he had no peace since his doing so, that he repented the moment he had signed the paper, and that he had been praying that no harm might result from it.

17. In February, 1858, the decision of Lord Clarendon arrived. His Lordship declined to act upon unsupported accusations, and authorized Mr. Rosenthal to go to law for the vindication of his character. Mr. Rosenthal reluctantly commenced proceedings. The Prussian Consul, at the instigation of the Bishop, the Chairman of your Committee in Jerusalem, interfered, and first threatened and then imprisoned the poor man.

18. Mr. Rosenthal was now fast on the way to ruin. His life during these few years was a continual struggle to maintain himself and his family honestly, frustrated by false accusations, unjust resolutions, and illegal imprisonments. His hotel, which at one time was flourishing, now began to fail, a placard, advising travellers not to go there, having been printed at the mission press, and circulated at the neighbouring sea ports. He had no other employment, and could get none, being himself in a feeble state of health from a bodily injury, and suffering mentally from the effect of the stigma which attached to him in consequence of all these proceedings. At this time, when prostrated by all he had undergone, and the treatment he had experienced at the hands of Christians, this unhappy man relapsed into Judaism for a few days; but in 1861 the Rev. J. Barclay, now head of the Mission, re-admitted Mr. Rosenthal to the Holy Communion, and up to this time no charges have ever been substantiated against him; yet the Resolutions of 1849 and 1854 have continued in force.

19. If there is any inaccuracy in the above statement, it most intimately concerns the honour and interests of the Society to prove it. We forbear to enter into the charge made against Mrs. Rosenthal in Mr. Goodhart's letter, of having “cruelly assailed the character” of the late Dr. Macgowan, but we feel that, under the circumstances of the case, she could not have remained silent; and we regret to be obliged to inform the Committee that we have ample and specific evidence to prove that the conduct of their representative at Jerusalem was calculated to injure the cause of religion and the interests of the Society.

20. If, however, the statement above made with regard to the treatment of the Rosenthals cannot be disproved, what is the painful conclusion forced upon the friends and supporters of the Society viz. that the Committee have acted unjustly and oppressively, through their agents, towards those who had every claim to their sympathy, counsel, and support; that they accepted and acted upon unproved charges; that they refused to take notice of retracted charges, or to do tardy justice to those they had injured; that they closed their ears to the cry of one of their own children, and shut the door in the face of a starving and distracted mother.

21. It is generally acknowledged that men will do in their corporate capacity what they would hesitate to do individually; but surely it must be most damaging to a religious Society to refuse redress for a proved wrong, or to shrink from inquiry lest it should be inconvenient.

22. It is most desirable, if possible, in order to prevent these matters coming again before the public to the prejudice of the Society, to have a Conference of the friends of Israel, of those who are fully acquainted with the facts, and of those who shall represent the Society itself. With, therefore, a prayerful desire to ascertain the whole truth, to do what is wise and just, to re-establish the confidence of those whose allegiance to the Society has been disturbed, to pave the way to a removal of many causes of dissatisfaction and to increase the prosperity of the Society, we request the President and Committee of the Society for Promoting Christianity amongst the Jews to appoint four or five gentlemen, members of their Committee, to meet an equal number in Conference.

23. It is evident that such an enquiry cannot be satisfactorily conducted without full and free access to Official Documents. We shall, therefore, be prepared to furnish you, in due time, with a list of Documents in the Society's possession which are essential for the elucidation of the truth, in regard to the matters above mentioned.

On the 19th of March Mr. Goodhart wrote to the Bishop, stating that the Earl of Shaftesbury requested him to write at once and ask the Bishop who was the person intended in the nineteenth paragraph of the statement by the periphrase “their representative at Jerusalem.”

The Bishop, as had been previously stated to Mr. Goodhart, replied, “Dr. Macgowan.”

Mr. Goodhart answered, on 28th of March, that the statement contained some matter new to their Committee, and that without making further inquiries, it was out of the power of the Committee to reply.

At the request of his friends the Bishop reminded Mr. Goodhart that a friendly Conference had been applied for, and that any written answer that might be in the course of preparation would not meet their wishes. His Lordship concluded his letter, dated 31st March, in the following terms:—

“I beg, therefore, for an early answer to the query just stated; do your Committee entertain the request which has been made for a Conference ?”

To this Mr. Goodhart sent the following reply:—

16, Lincoln's Inn Fields, London, W.C.

April 6, 1866.

My Dear Lord,

I received, on the 2d instant, your Lordship's letter of the 31st ult. The absence of the President of our Society, Lord Shaftesbury, in communication with whom every step in the matter has been taken, has prevented my writing to your Lordship sooner. Much of the matter in the statement received from your Lordship, as I believe I have before remarked, was quite new to our Committee. It was indispensable that we should communicate with some of the persons who may yet be living, as to the circumstances stated in the document, before we could hold any conference with the parties from whom that document originated. The President and Committee will, however, have no objection to meet the gentlemen your Lordship refers to, as soon as they are in a position to meet them, and of this I will duly apprise your Lordship, confiding, notwithstanding some parts of the statement, that your desire, as mentioned in your letter, is really to meet the parties who may be selected for the Conference, in a friendly spirit.

I remain, &c.

(Signed) Chas. J. Goodhart

Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

On the 19th April Mr. Goodhart applied for the names of those who would represent the Bishop and his friends in the Conference. Our names were accordingly sent, and on Saturday, the 28th April, the Conference met in the Society's rooms, 16, Lincoln's Inn Fields. The Society was represented by their President, the Earl of Shaftesbury; the Chairman of their Jerusalem Section, Mr. Strachan; their two Secretaries, Mr. Goodhart and Captain Layard; their Solicitor, Mr. Wizard; and the Rev. Mr. Cohen. We at once took special objection to the presence of their solicitor, but that gentleman stated that he was there not in his legal capacity but as a member of the Committee, and the President gave his assurance that the Conference would be strictly friendly and sacredly confidential.

The following extract from a Protest, which we felt bound to send in, will show the difficulties we had to contend with from the very commencement of the Conference:–

“Immediately after prayers, and to the amazement of the Bishop and his friends, the President of the Society ppened the Conference by charging them, in harsh terms, with constituting themselves the public assailants of the late Dr. Macgowan's character after he had been six years in his grave, describing the charges he referred to as ‘heinous charges,’ ‘beastly offences,’ and ‘disgusting’ accusations. No charges could have been more groundless than those adduced by Lord Shaftesbury, and no occasion for making them would have been less suitable; and it could not be otherwise but that this remarkable opening to a ‘friendly' Conference should cause both pain and astonishment to the gentlemen who had come to meet the Committee.

The Bishop and his friends had desired a Conference on the basis of the statement which had been submitted to the President and Committee of the Society, and had believed that they had, in good faith, accorded such a Conference on the stipulated basis.

Had the Bishop and his friends responded to the noble President's personal attack upon them in the same tone in which unhappily his Lordship indulged, there must at once have been an end to the Conference, for Lord Shaftesbury delivered his attack before one word affecting the case had been uttered on the Bishop's side.

In mild and suitable language, becoming the gravity and emergency of the occasion, the Bishop, firmly but courteously, on his own behalf and on behalf of his friends, repelled the groundless charge which had been made against them, reminding the Conference that the written statement forwarded to the Committee and acknowledged by them, formed the exclusive basis of its deliberations. And they had hoped, by their conciliatory tone, and by confining themselves strictly to the simple matter in hand, they might have succeeded in eliciting, by sound evidence on both sides, the real merits of the case at issue.”

The President then stated that he would insist that the allegation in the last clause of the nineteenth paragraph of our statement should be disposed of in the first instance; a course which we altogether deprecated, as we had intended to take up the different points in the statement of facts seriatim as they occurred; and it not only disturbed our whole course of procedure, but it was foreign to our purpose, and nothing was further from our wishes than to bring up unnecessarily anything injuriously affecting the memory of the dead. The President was, however, so peremptory in his requirement that the conduct of Dr. Macgowan should be at once gone into, not only as regarded his treatment of the Rosenthals, but as regarded his private character, that we had no alternative but to comply with the demand of the President. We were thus obliged during the first two days of the Con- ference to spend most of our time in evidence on this distressing subject forced upon us by the President. Towards the close of the second day's Conference the President remarked that they could not meet the evidence which had been brought forward, and it could not be expected that they should; and we were happily saved from going further into so painful a subject by the President's changing his mind as to the expediency of the course on which he had insisted, and by his subsequently expressing his desire in writing that all which related to Dr. Macgowan should be “consigned to oblivion;” to which we assented, with the reservation, to which his Lordship agreed, “that specific points in which Dr. Macgowan might appear to have injured the Rosenthals would be fitting matter for consideration,” and that “the members of Conference 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.” His Lordship, in effect, agreed to return to the position which the friends of the Rosenthals had originally taken up. And thus the matter, as it affects the late Dr. Macgowan, now stands. The proceedings having become free from the Macgowan interruption, we expected that the inquiry into the Rosenthal affair would at once proceed; but another irrelevant matter was now introduced by the President's vehemently insisting on bringing in his own short-hand writer, and making a speech on extraneous matter against which we protested in vain. The President has since printed and circulated that speech, notwithstanding his assurance at the first meeting of Conference that all that passed would be SACREDLY CONFIDENTIAL. This we have felt the more extraordinary as the speech so published contains an attack upon the Bishop of Rochester, to which the President demanded a written reply. The Bishop promptly sent in a written statement refuting the charges made. This we feel Lord Shaftesbury was bound to print, if he thought fit to publish his own attack; but not only has he omitted to do so, but he absolutely refused to receive the Bishop's written reply which he had himself demanded. We are therefore reluctantly compelled to print that statement and the accompanying documents in the Appendix. The following letter expresses what we all felt in regard to this departure from the subject matter of the Conference:–