e found myself ill able to master
books of an abstract character, and I am far from pretending to be
competent at this time to form a judgment on the merits of any
propositions then at issue. I have learned, indeed, that many
things which, in the forward precipitancy of my youth, I should
have condemned, are either in reality sound, or lie within the just
limits of such discussion as especially befits an University. But
that which (after a delay, due, I think, to the cares and pressing
occupations of political life) brought back to my mind the
injustice of which I had unconsciously been guilty in 1836, was my
being called upon, as a member of the Council of King's College in
London, to concur in a measure similar in principle with respect to
Mr. Maurice; that is to say, in a condemnation couched in general
terms which did not really declare the point of imputed guilt, and
against which perfect innocence could have no defence. I resisted
to the best of my power, though ineffectually, the grievous wrong
done to Mr. Maurice, and urged that the charges should be made
distinct, that all the best means of investigation should be
brought to bear on them, ample opportunity given for defence, and a
reference then made, if needful, to the Bishop in his proper
capacity. But the majority of laymen in the Council were
inexorable. It was only, as I have said, after mature reflection
that I came to perceive the bearing of the case on that of 1836,
and to find that by my resistance I had condemned myself. I then
lamented very sincerely that I had not on that occasion, now so
remote, felt and acted in a different manner.

'I beg your lordship to accept this expression of my cordial
regret, and to allow me to subscribe myself, very respectfully,
your obedient and humble servant, W. E. GLADSTONE.'[97]

FOOTNOTES:

[81] Newman, _Essays_. ii. p. 428.

[82] See Sir Leslie Stephen's _English Utilitarians_, ii. p. 42.

[83] 'Nowhere that I know of,' the Duke of Argyll once wrote in friendly
remonstrance with Mr. Gladstone, 'is the doctrine of a separate society
being of divine foundation, so dogmatically expressed as in the Scotch
Confession; the 39 articles are less definite on the subject.'

[84] On this, see Fairbairn's _Catholicism, Roman and Anglican_, pp.
114-5.

[85] A little sheaf of curiou