We here subjoin an incontrovertible proof of Dr. Wilmot's being the author of the work alluded to:

This is a fac-simile of the doctor's hand-writing, and must for ever set at rest the long-disputed question of "Who is the author of Junius?"

The people were really in need of the advocacy of a writer like Junius, for their burdens at this time were of the most grievous magnitude. Although the country was not in danger from foreign enemies, in order to give posts of command, honor, and emolument, to the employed sycophants at court, our navy was increased, nominal situations were provided; while all the means to pay for such services were again ordered to be drawn from the people!

1771

was productive of little else than harassing distresses

[[51]]to the poor labourer and mechanic. At this period, it was not unusual to tear the husband from the wife, and the parent from the child, and immure them within the damp and noisome walls of a prison, to prevent any interposition on the part of the suffering multitudes. Yes, countrymen, such tyranny was practised to ensure the secrecy of truth, and to destroy the wishes of a monarch, who was rendered incompetent to act for himself.

Various struggles were made this year to curb the power of the judges, particularly in cases relating to the liberty of the press, and also to destroy the power vested in the Attorney-General of prosecuting ex-officio, without the intervention of a grand jury, or the forms observed by courts of law in other cases. But the boroughmongers and minions of the queen were too powerful for the liberal party in the House of Commons, and the chains of slavery were, consequently, rivetted afresh.

A question of great importance also occurred this year respecting the privileges of the House of Commons. It had become the practice of newspaper writers to take the liberty, not before ventured upon, of printing the speeches of the members, under their respective names; some of which in the whole, and others in essential parts, were spurious productions, and, in any case, contrary to the standing orders of the House. A complaint on this ground having been made by a member against two of the printers, an order was issued for their attendance, with which they refused to comply; a second order was given

[[52]]with no better success. At length, one of the printers being taken into custody under the authority of the speaker's warrant, he was carried before the celebrated Alderman John Wilkes, who, regarding the caption as illegal, not only discharged the man, but bound him over to prosecute his captor, for assault and false imprisonment. Two more printers, being apprehended and carried before Alderman Wilkes and the Lord Mayor, Crosby, were, in like manner, discharged. The indignation of the House was then directed against the city magistrates, and various measures adopted towards them. The contest finally terminated in favor of the printers, who have ever since continued to publish the proceedings of parliament, and the speeches of the members, without obstacle.