the favors of
the State lay in Bute's hands they would only be given to Tories, and
more especially to Tories who were also {52} Scotchmen. If Bute could
have known, it would have been a happy hour for him which had seen
Wilkes starting for the Golden Horn or sailing for the St. Lawrence.
But Bute was a foolish man, and he did his most foolish deed when he
made Wilkes his enemy.

The appearance of the _North Briton_ was an event in the history of
journalism as well as in the political history of the country. It met
the heavy-handed violence of the _Briton_ with a frank ferocity which
was overpowering. It professed to fight on the same side as the
_Monitor_, but it surpassed Entinck's paper as much in virulence as in
ability. Under the whimsical pretence of being a North Briton, Wilkes
assailed the Scotch party in the State with unflagging satire and
unswerving severity. In the satire and the severity he had an able
henchman in Charles Churchill.

[Sidenote: 1731-1764--The poet Churchill]

Those who are inclined to condemn Wilkes because for a season he found
entertainment in the society of a Sandwich, a Dashwood, and a Potter,
must temper their judgment by remembering the affection that Wilkes was
able to inspire in the heart of Churchill. While the scoundrels of
Medmenham were ready to betray their old associate, and, with no touch
of the honor proverbially attributed to thieves, to drive him into
disgrace, to exile, and if possible to death, the loyal friendship of
the poet was given to Wilkes without reserve. Churchill was not a man
of irreproachable character, of unimpeachable morality, or of
unswerving austerity. But he was as different from the Sandwiches and
the Dashwoods as dawn is different from dusk, and in enumerating all of
the many arguments that are to be accumulated in defence of Wilkes, not
the least weighty arguments are that while on the one hand he earned
the hatred of Sandwich and of Dashwood, on the other hand he earned the
love of Charles Churchill.

Churchill's name and fame have suffered of late years. Since Byron
stood by the neglected grave and mused on him who blazed, the comet of
a season, the genius of Churchill has been more and more disregarded.
But the Georgian epoch, so rich in its many and contrasting types {53}
of men of letters, produced few men more remarkable in themselves, if
not in their works, than Charles Churchill. The cleric who first
became famous for most uncl