In 1727, _Hogarth_ agreed with _Morris_, an upholsterer, to furnish him with a design on canvas, representing the element of Earth, as a pattern for tapestry. The work not being performed to the satisfaction of _Morris_, he refused to pay for it; and our artist sued him for the money. This suit (which was tried before Lord Chief Justice _Eyre_ at _Westminster, May_ 28, 1728) was determined in favour of _Hogarth_. The brief for the defendant in the cause, is preserved below.[24] In 1730, Mr. _Hogarth_ married the only daughter of Sir _James Thornhill_,[25] by whom he had no child. This union, indeed, was a stolen one, and consequently without the approbation of Sir _James_, who, considering the youth of his daughter, then barely eighteen, and the slender finances of her husband, as yet an obscure artist,[26] was not easily reconciled to the match. Soon after this period, however, he began his _Harlot's Progress_ (the coffin in the last plate is inscribed _September_ 2, 1731); and was advised by Lady _Thornhill_ to have some of the scenes in it placed in the way of his father-in-law. Accordingly, one morning early, Mrs. _Hogarth_ undertook to convey several of them into his dining-room. When he arose, he enquired from whence they came; and being told by whom they were introduced, he cried out, "Very well; the man who can furnish representations like these, can also maintain a wife without a portion." He designed this remark as an excuse for keeping his purse-strings close; but, soon after, became both reconciled and generous to the young couple. Our artist's reputation was so far established in 1731, that it drew forth a poetical compliment from Mr. _Mitchell_, in the epistle already quoted. An allegorical cieling by Sir _James Thornhill_ is at the house of the late Mr. _Huggins_, at _Headley Park, Hants_. The subject of it is the story of _Zephyrus_ and _Flora_; and the figure of a Satyr and some others were painted by _Hogarth_. In 1732 (the year in which he was one of the party who made _A Tour by land and Water_, which will be duly noticed in the Catalogue) he ventured to attack Mr. _Pope_, in a plate called "The Man of Taste;" containing a view of the Gate of _Burlington-house_; with _Pope_ whitewashing it, and bespattering the Duke of _Chandos's_ coach.[27] This plate was intended as a satire on the translator of _Homer_, Mr. _Kent_ the architect, and the Earl of _Burlington_. It was fortunate for _Hogarth_ that he escaped the lash of the former. Either _Hogarth's_ obscurity at that time was his protection, or the bard was too prudent to exasperate a painter who had already given such proof of his abilities for satire. What must _he_ have felt who could complain of the "pictured shape" prefixed to _Gulliveriana, Pope Alexander's Supremacy and Infallibility examined,_ &c. by _Ducket_, and other pieces, had our artist undertaken to express in colours a certain transaction recorded by _Cibber_?