had created. The surface of his mind was eminently
conservative, adamantine in texture, impenetrable,
invulnerable; but its depths were stirred by the
volcanic forces of a masculine and unbiassed reason,
combined with an unswerving and even passionate
regard for the public welfare. Hence he was little
qualified by nature to be the leader of the party of
resistance. No man could resist up to a certain point
more stoutly than he; no politician was ever more
ingenious, plausible, and fertile in upholding the accom-
plished fact. But with Peel resistance always began to
end at the point where his mind had ceased to be
convinced. He might still fight on for a time on grounds
of expediency and opportunism, but it was certain that
sooner or later his action would follow his conviction.
Intellectual conviction was "the immediate jewel of his
soul." He would not barter it for the plaudits of a
party, or for the blandishments of power. He would be
minister of England, as he scornfully said on the eve of
defeat, "on no servile tenure he would only hold that
office "on the condition of being unshackled by any
other obligations than those of consulting the public
interests and of providing for the public safety."

The historian cannot hesitate to say that, judged by
the high standard of public welfare and enlightened
policy, Peel was right in this controversy, and his party
wrong. It is quite a different question, and one more
difficult to resolve, whether the party system of govern-
ment is consistent with the unshackled right claimed by
the minister to give advice irrespective of party pledges
and party obligations. That, however, is a question
which can more easily be decided when the circumstances

-176-