I presume he found the addresses of Sir John and Lord Polwarth more effective on their side the question than more classical and elaborate harangues. The truth is, that so far as the great majority of his audience was concerned, he had blocks to cut, and he chose a fitter instrument than a razor to cut them with. "They thought of dining;" and he first convinced, and then dined with them; and in those days no doubt the dinner was a powerful instrument in facilitating the conviction of country gentlemen.

You draw a parallel between the characters of Strafford and Walpole, manifestly, and, I think, in an undue degree, to the advantage of Strafford.

No doubt there is much more of romantic interest in the history of Strafford than of Walpole. The personal qualities of Strafford would probably have made him, under any circumstances, stand out in bolder relief; but it appears to me that in estimating the character and the actions of the two men, you overlook the marked difference of the times in which they lived, and of the circumstances in which they acted.

You speak, by way of contrast with Walpole, of the heroic contempt of danger manifested by Strafford; of his unconquerable courage in death; of the firmness with which he executed his designs; nay, you have even some admiration to spare for his bold aggressions on the Constitution.

But surely Walpole was a brave man. Surely that man who withstood for twenty years, and maintained his power against the attacks of such formidable opponents as those who were arrayed against him; who

never once quailed before an antagonist; who, when conquered, retired fighting alone, with his face towards his enemies, with all his wounds, like the Roman soldier's, adversá fronte,―surely he must have had courage, and resolution, and contempt of danger, which, had circumstances required the romantic exercise of such qualities, would have shone forth with the same lustre which gilded the decline of Strafford.

You contrast the qualities of Walpole with those of Strafford, in the same spirit with which you contrast the scaffold on which the one died by a violent and unjust death with the bed in which the other, full of years, lay suffering by the stone. You might also contrast the armour of Strafford with the velvet waistcoat of Walpole, or the helmet of one with the full-bottomed wig of the other. No doubt the qualities displayed in the time of fierce civil contention,-in the revolution of opinions and forms of government, are much more interesting, much more captivating in description, than the qualities by which a new dynasty is to be gradually confirmed, and by which peace at home and abroad is to be secured. No doubt the cumbrous dress in which a corpulent Minister sweats at a Levee in the dog-days is a much worse subject for a picture (particularly when one is by Kneller, and the other by Vandyke) than the flashing armour in which a statesman goes to the council in order that he may be ready for the field. But in estimating the characters and conduct of men living at different periods, in apportioning to each their respective merit or blame, justice cannot be done unless due allowance be made for the difference of cir

cumstances imposing different duties, and calling into action different qualities.

You must have a new test by which to try the conduct of public men, varying with the lapse of time, with the altered character of events, and with the changes of public opinion.

In my opinion men, and the conduct of men, are much more the creatures of circumstances than they generally appear in history. Infamous as Robespierre and Marat unquestionably are, it would be no easy matter to assign to each their due share of infamy without a very dispassionate inquiry into many minute events which contributed to shape their course, and into the degrees of conflicting dangers between which they had to choose.

Try Walpole and Strafford by the result of their counsels, by their result to the Monarchs whom they served, and how powerful would the contrast be in favour of Walpole! The test would be an unfair one; but not so unfair as the adventitious circumstances which you have enlisted in aid of Strafford. Desertion in extreme peril by the Prince whom he had faithfully served, an unjust sentence, death on the scaffold, endured with the most becoming and affecting courage: these things naturally attract the sympathies of mankind around the person and the memory of the sufferer. Lips compressed in iron resolution, and glances of fire, are very becoming to a hero; they suit the iron times in which Strafford lived; but why not let Walpole "laugh the heart's laugh, and nod the approving head," if the heart's laugh was not out of place, and if, in spite

of his enemies, he kept a head wherewith to nod his approbation?

Can you justly say of Walpole, "that his defects were low and common; that no enthusiasm was ever felt for his person, none ever kindled by his memory ?"-of that man of whom Speaker Onslow said "that on his retirement from office, his retreat was entire from the concerns of government, but not from the following estimation of almost every man of those that had surrounded him when in the height of power;" that "he was a wise and able Minister, and the best man, from the goodness of his heart, to live with and live under, of any great man I ever knew."

You mention the cost of his buildings at Houghton,— of his splendid collection of pictures,-of the meetings at Houghton by which he kept together his political friends.

You say that the admitted cost of these things (some of them, by the bye, betokening no vulgar tastes or absorption in sensual pleasures) may perhaps be reconciled with honesty, but hardly with disinterestedness. Hardly with economy, perhaps hardly with a provident care for his successor;-but how do they impeach his disinterestedness?

If he derived emoluments from his offices to which he was not entitled, he was dishonest; but if he employed the fair emoluments of office in the erection of a palace, and in adorning it with the finest works of art, his extravagance may not be reconciled with prudence, but it may with both honesty and disinterestedness. If you quote Coxe for authority that the rental of the family

estate did not exceed 21607. in the year 1700, ought you not to quote him also for the statement which he makes in express reference to this subject, that the estate could not be at the time of Walpole's resignation less than between 4000l. and 5000l. a year?

But I must have done, or I shall write a pamphlet instead of a letter, and deter you from ever communicating with me again on subjects so attractive.

ROBERT PEEL.

Lord Mahon to the Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel.

[Extract.]

Bromley Hill, Dec. 27, 1833.

On several points, such, for instance, as my parallel of Lord Strafford, I am convinced at once by the force of your remarks of the erroneous view which I had taken. To the others I shall devote both reflection and reading, and I have no doubt that with such a pilot as I have now obtained I shall not be found, as might otherwise have been the case, steering far from the right harbour.

I must own that when I look at Walpole's moderate inheritance, I still feel some difficulty in satisfactorily accounting for his lavish expenditure. Even at that period it was not very easy to become much richer in high office. Lord Chesterfield, I think, says of one of Walpole's successors, the Duke of Newcastle, that he