Nor was Mr. Gladstone's course in the case of Mr.
Maurice himself lees noble, while it was much more hazardous to his own political interests. For when this question about Mr. Maurice's orthodoxy was first raised, Mr. Gladstone had lately shown his questionable Conservatism by joining the Aberdeen Ministry, and his seat for Oxford was in the greatest peril. High-Church friends were already alienated, and his stand on behalf of Mr. Maurice (inculpated for an opinion which Mr. Gladstone never seems to have shared) offended High-Church and Low-Church supporters alike. Dr. Jelf, the Principal of King's College, and a Canon of Christ Church, who brought those charges, was one of his own staunchest Oxford adherents, and bad stood by Mr. Gladstone when other friends deserted him. Indeed, Dr. Jeff's was the first vote given for Mr. Gladstone at the Oxford election preceding the deprivation of Mr. Maurice of his professorship in King's College. There was no tie of friendship •and no theological sympathy to actuate Mr. Glad- -stone in his stand for fair play, so that his resistance to the oppres- sive act of the King's College Council was an act of political courage as well as equity dictated by firm principle alone. The Liberals who quarrel with what they call the casuistry of Mr. Gladstone should remember these things.
Previous page
