Two men, little, if at all inferior to Pitt in powers of mind, held, like him, subordinate offices in the Government.  One of these, Murray, was successively Solicitor-General and Attorney-General.  This distinguished person far surpassed Pitt in correctness of taste, in power of reasoning, in depth and variety of knowledge.  His parliamentary eloquence never blazed into sudden flashes of dazzling brilliancy; but its clear, placid, and mellow splendour was never for an instant overclouded.  Intellectually he was, we believe, fully equal to Pitt; but he was deficient in the moral qualities to which Pitt owed most of his success.  Murray wanted the energy, the courage, the all-grasping and all-risking ambition, which make men great in stirring times.  His heart was a little cold, his temper cautious even to timidity, his manners decorous even to formality.  He never exposed his fortunes or his fame to any risk which he could avoid.  At one time he might, in all probability, have been Prime Minister.  But the object of his wishes was the judicial bench.  The situation of Chief justice might not be so splendid as that of First Lord of the Treasury; but it was dignified; it was quiet; it was secure; and therefore it was the favourite situation of Murray.

Fox, the father of the great man whose mighty efforts in the cause of peace, of truth, and of liberty, have made that name immortal, was Secretary-at-War.  He was a favourite with the King, with the Duke of Cumberland, and with some of the most powerful members of the great Whig connection.  His parliamentary talents were of the highest order.  As a speaker he was in almost all respects the very opposite to Pitt.  His figure was ungraceful; his face, as Reynolds and Nollekens have preserved it to us, indicated a strong understanding; but the features were coarse, and the general aspect dark and lowering.  His manner was awkward; his delivery was hesitating; he was often at a stand for want of a word; but as a debater, as a master of that keen, weighty, manly logic, which is suited to the discussion of political questions, he has perhaps never been surpassed except by his son.  In reply he was as decidedly superior to Pitt as in declamation he was Pitt’s inferior.  Intellectually the balance was nearly even between the rivals.  But here, again, the moral qualities of Pitt turned the scale.  Fox had undoubtedly many virtues.  In natural disposition as well as in talents, he bore a great resemblance to his more celebrated son.  He had the same sweetness of temper, the same strong passions, the same openness, boldness, and impetuosity, the same cordiality towards friends, the same placability towards enemies.  No man was more warmly or justly beloved by his family or by his associates.  But unhappily he had been trained in a bad political school, in a school, the doctrines of which were, that political virtue is the mere coquetry of political prostitution, that every patriot has his price, that government can be carried