ach a great view, through stumbling at
little ones. Walpole loved power so much, that he would not endure a
rival: Pelham loved it so much that he would endure any thing. Walpole
would risk his administration by driving every considerable man from
court, rather than venture their rivalry: Pelham would employ any means
to take able men out of the opposition, though he ventured their
engrossing his authority and outshining his capacity; but he dreaded
abuse more than competition, and always bought off his enemies, to avoid
their satire, rather than to acquire their support.

The historian, on the whole, regards Pelham's conduct on this point,
though the less bold, as the more prudential. He acknowledges that the
result of Sir Robert's driving away all able men from him was, to gain
for himself but weak and uncertain assistance, while he always kept up a
formidable opposition. But he might have grounded Sir Robert's failure,
on insulted justice, as well as on mistaken policy; for, by depriving
able men of their natural right to official distinction, he did more
than enfeeble himself,--he deprived the country of their services.
Walpole's was the more daring plan, and Pelham's was palpably and
abjectly pusillanimous; but the result of the one was, to reduce the
government to a solitary minister, while the result of the other was
always to form an effective cabinet. The former plan _may_ subsist,
during a period of national peril; but the return of public
tranquillity, which, in England, is always the severest trial of
governments, invariably shows the superior stability of the other.

Both were valued in private life. "Walpole was fond of magnificence, and
was generous to a fault: the other had neither ostentation nor avarice,
and yet had but little generosity. The one was profuse to his family and
friends, liberal indiscriminately, and unbounded to his tools and spies:
the other loved his family and his friends, and enriched them as often
as he could _steal an opportunity_ from his extravagant bounty to his
enemies and antagonists." Walpole was "forgiving to a fault, if
forgiveness be a fault. Pelham _never_ forgave, but when he durst not
resent! The one was most appreciated while he was minister; the other
most, when he ceased to be minister. All men thought Pelham honest,
_until_ he was in power. Walpole was never thought so, until he was
out." Such is the lecture which this dexterous operator gives, knife in
hand, over