ur enemies.

[Sidenote: 1797--Death of Wilkes]

On November 38, 1797, the old, worn, weary man, who had worked so hard
and done so much, welcomed, in his capacity of Chamberlain of the City
of London, Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson to the honorary freedom of the
City. The setting star saluted the rising star. Nelson was then
thirty-nine. He had been at sea since he was twelve. He had voyaged
in polar seas and tropic waters. He had fought the Americans. He had
fought the French. "Hate a Frenchman as you would the devil" was his
simple-minded counsel of perfection. He had fought the Spaniards. He
had lost an eye at Calvi. He had lost an arm at Santa Cruz. He was
ten years married. His love, his error, his glory, Emma Hamilton,
Carracioli, Trafalgar, were yet to come.

Less than a month later, in the late December, 1797, John Wilkes was
dead. He was seventy years old. For nearly forty years he had lived
unknown, unheeded. For {140} ten years he was the most conspicuous man
in England, the best hated and the best loved. For twenty years more
he was an honored public and private citizen. He will always be
remembered as one of the most remarkable men of a century of remarkable
men.

{141}

CHAPTER LI.

CHARLES JAMES FOX.

[Sidenote: 1749-1768--A champion of popular rights]

One of the most immediate results of the Wilkes controversy in the
House of Commons was to draw attention to a young man who had entered
Parliament at the General Election of 1768 while he was still
considerably under age. The young member for Midhurst made himself
conspicuous as the most impassioned opponent of Wilkes. A strenuous
supporter of Luttrell outside the walls of Westminster, inside those
walls the boy who represented the fictitious constituency of Midhurst
distinguished himself by the easy insolence with which he assailed
Wilkes and the popular cause which Wilkes represented. He delighted in
informing the delighted majority in the House that he, for his part,
"paid no regard whatever to the voice of the people." When Burke
condescended to notice and to rebuke the impertinence of a youth of
nineteen, he little thought that the lad whom he reproved would come to
be a far more extreme advocate of popular rights than he himself, or
that the chronicle of the century in recording the names of those who
made themselves prominent for the utterance of democratic opinions
should place the name of John Wilkes far below th