New-York tribune., 1888-03-25
wilkes AND LIBERTY"
THE AUTHOR OF THE NORTH BRITAIN
NO AZ.

BY PERCY FITZGERALD, NJ A.. r. s A. WIN ,o"'
Illustrations In two volumes, 12mo PIP VII
3s:-327. seribner Wexford
Mr. Fitzgerald cannot be considered a too partial
biographer. In following the career OF the great
demagogue John Wilkes he nothing extenuates,
and II he cannot be accused Of setting down
aught In malice it 10 open to question whether DO
deals fairly by his subject In emitting such
survey of the times in which Wilkes lived as
would enable his readers to form q comparative
estimate of the man. There can be no doubt that
II John Wilkes Ia Isolated from his time and thus
brought into direct comparison with u later ano
cleaner generation, he must appear prodigious
rascal and prohigate. That be really was man
Of the most plastic and accommodating principles
o persistent self-seeker, loose liver snd sys|'n-
atically irroverent will have to be admitted at
once It Ia not less true that he was destitute OF
that regard for exactness in financial matters
which constitutes the honor Of commerce. On the
other hand, it Is necessary In considering his
course to remember that no lived In period OF
prevalent corruption; that the whole continent OF
Europe had for years Deen dcbsuched by the evil
communications Of the French Court and
sristocracy: that the English nobility presented
an unprecedented number Of shocking examples;
that Parliament WINS o gathering OF venal place
hunters supplied from rotten boroughs; and that
the head Of the Government King George the
Third had In him all the elements of O tyrant,
and WAS encouraged In his unconstitutional despot
ism by the sycophancy Of most Of bis ministers
There are two episodes in the life Of Wilkes
which have been employed against him perhaps
over zeslously We refer to the Monks Of Med
menham and to the Essay on Woman. Now il is
q rather remarkable fact when we consider the
extent and rigor Of the denunciations heaped upon
Wilkes in connection with these two episodes,
that no certain knowledge exists, ever has been
accessible, concerning either Of them The Monks
Of Medmenham quite possibly were not worse than
the Hell Fire Club and other rakdsb associations
Of the period We have little evidence TO go
upon, and that doubtful Johnston In Chrysol,
or the Adventures Of Guinea purported to give
some account of the doings at Medmenham. But
Johnston never was a member of the Brotherhood,
and the Brothers were all sworn to secrecy. In
short the historian has no such material before
him in this case warrants concurrence In the
sweeping judgments which have been passed on
Wilkes In the matter. As regards the Essay on
Woman there Is indeed more substantive evidence,
but it Is by no means complete. In the first place
it is anything but certain that the production in
question has been seen by one Of the critics who
have descanted upon it. Wilkes himself stated
that no more than fourth Of 1t had been printed
There is nothing to show that single one of the
thirteen copies which were partly printed were
preserved Wilkes claimed that In the prose-
cution . gross forgery was palmed of for the
original. Certainly Wilson was not a scrupulous
man when he had an end to serve, but no one
who Is acquainted with the character of his
enemies In the Government will believe that the
substitution Of forgery would have been too
base sn act for either Castent Webb, Kidgell
Lord Sandwich, or the Earl of March.
In 1e71 what purported to be q fac-simile Of
the sole surviving genuine copy of the Essay on
Woman was issued from private press in Lon
don But no evidence whatever substantating
is that it corresponds with the extracts which
were read By Sandwich in the House of Lords, and
also with those which Kdgell printed in his
Narrative OF course this correspondence can
have no weight as against the theory that the
Essay Wilkes was accused Of was forged or
garbled Nor is the testimony which aHilistes
the authorship on Wilkes much sounder or
stronger We know that common report at the
time ascribed the authorship not to Wilkes, but
to Potter son Of the Archbishop Of Canterbury
and we also know that Wilkes alleged the poem
to have been written fifteen years previously and
some drawing-rooms We may conclude that the
partial admissions made by Wilkes In his address
to the Aylesbury Electors fastens strong pre-
sumption of the authorship upon him. But We
must also admit II We are candid, that we have
no assurance as to the actual substance OF wlst
he wrote; and II we accept his own declarations
we must believe that what he did write was
something quite diff erent from the matter handed
Aaxx 70 all l.. L. .;.l.
benefit of the doubt and Mr.. Fitzgerald ought
to have conceded SO much to him, though he has
not done 80.
Wilkes had one great advantage over his
enemies In this affair He was no hypocrite and
they were notoriously canting hypocrites Lord
Sandwich, who made the charge public had him
self been one of the Monks of Medmenham
boon companion Of Wilkes, and WIS notoxiously
one Of the most proaigate noblemen then living
His appearance In this role so disgusted those
who knew him that another fast man, Lord
le Despencer. after hearing the mock-virtuous
speech Of Sandwich. exclaimed that 1t was " the
FIRST time the Devil had been heard to preach
against SIM The extraordinary baseness Of the
means employed by the Government to get pos
session Of the peccant writings moreover, operated
TO obscure the moral delinquency of the defendant,
and the revelation which 1t had been thought
would crush Wilkes reacted upon the regulations
Of his opponents. Mr.. Fitzgerald is never tired
Of talking about the good fortune and the
" luck Of his subject. This Is a shallow way of
speaking. The fact is that John Wilkes was
born politician; that his judgment in politics was
remarkably sound that he knew exactly when
and how to move: and that the successes he OBJ
tained were the results Of his courage, prudence
and penetration, and not Of any fortuitous occur
rences to be registered in the chapter Of accidents
1t is indeed true that Wilkes owed much to the
fatuous laundering Of the Government, and espe-
cially to the despotic tendencies Of the King who
was constantly endeavoring to break down con-
stitutional barriers But the merit of Wilkes
was that he knew how TO take advantage of these
orenings. Other men had been affor led similar
itins md Lad lat Ill.