in _this_ outbreak, he fully establishes his claim to the signature he
adopts. I quite agree with him that monumental inscriptions are not always
remarkable for their truth, and that the one in this case may possibly be
somewhat tinged with popular prejudice or strong parental feeling; but, at
all events, there can be but little doubt that poor Allen, whether guilty
or innocent, was shot by a soldier of the Scotch regiment, be his name what
it may; and further, the deed was not the effect of a random shot fired
upon the mob,--for the young man was chased into a cow-house, and shot by
his pursuer, away from the scene of conflict. {333}

Noorthouck, who published his _History of London_, 1773, thus speaks of the
affair:--

"The next day, May 10. (1768,) produced a more fatal instance of rash
violence against the people on account of their attachment to the
popular prisoner (Wilkes) in the King's Bench. The parliament being to
meet on that day to open the session, great numbers of the populace
thronged about the prison from an expectation that Mr. W. would on that
occasion recover his liberty; and with an intention to conduct him to
the House of Commons. On being disappointed, they grew tumultuous, and
an additional party of the third regiment of Guards were sent for. Some
foolish paper had been stuck up against the prison wall, which a
justice of the peace, then present, was not very wise in taking notice
of, for when he took it down the mob insisted on having it from him,
which he not regarding, the riot grew louder, the drums beat to arms,
the proclamation was read, and while it was reading, some stones and
bricks were thrown. William Allen, a young man, son of Mr. Allen,
keeper of the Horse Shoe Inn in Blackman Street, and who, _as appeared
afterwards, was merely a quiet spectator_, being pursued along with
others, was unfortunately singled out and followed by three soldiers