"The last memorable event in our artist's life," as Mr. _Walpole_ observes, "was his quarrel with Mr. _Wilkes_, in which, if Mr. _Hogarth_ did not commence direct hostilities on the latter, he at least obliquely gave the first offence, by an attack on the friends and party of that gentleman. This conduct was the more surprizing, as he had all his life avoided dipping his pencil in political contests, and had early refused a very lucrative offer that was made to engage him in a set of prints against the head of a court-party. Without entering into the merits of the cause, I shall only state the fact. In _September_ 1762, Mr. _Hogarth_ published his print of _The Times_. It was answered by Mr. _Wilkes_ in a severe _North Briton_.[62] On this the painter exhibited the caricatura of the writer. Mr. _Churchill_, the poet, then engaged in the war, and wrote his epistle to _Hogarth_, not the brightest of his works,[63] in which the severest strokes fell on a defect that the painter had neither caused nor could amend--his age;[64] and which, however, was neither remarkable nor decrepit; much less had it impaired his talents, as appeared by his having composed but six months before one of his most capital works, the satire on the Methodists. In revenge for this epistle, _Hogarth_ caricatured _Churchill_, under the form of a canonical bear, with a club and a pot of porter--_et vitulá tu dignus & hic_--never did two angry men of their abilities throw mud with less dexterity." The concluding observation of Mr. _Walpole_ is mortifyingly true. It may be amusing to compare the account given of this squabble, which long engrossed the attention of the town, with the narrative of it printed by Mr. _Wilkes_; who states the circumstances of it in the following manner: "Mr. _Hogarth_ was one of the first who, in the paper war begun by lord _Bute_ on his accession to the Treasury, sacrificed private friendship at the altar of party madness. In 1762, the _Scotch_ minister took a variety of hirelings into his pay, some of whom were gratified with pensions, others with places and pensions. Mr. _Hogarth_ was only made _serjeant-painter_ to his majesty, as if it was meant to insinuate to him, that he was not allowed to paint any thing but the wainscot of the royal apartments. The term means no more than _house-painter_, and the nature of the post confined him to that business. He was not employed in any other way. A circumstance can scarcely be imagined more humiliating to a man of spirit and genius, who really thought that he more particularly excelled in _portrait-painting_.