Now, this was quite indefensible. And the only excuse that can be made is that Mr. Cobbett had been gradually losing his habitual coolness and calmness in the face of calumny. Instead of his old habit of treating it with contempt, he had begun the practice of answering misrepresentation: the very thing that your scandal-monger likes. And, in this case, three thousand miles away, with at least three months’ interval between a calumny and the possibility of a retort; and with a growing habit of nursing political and personal grievances: it is no wonder that he flew into a passion; and, in the end, so exposed Mr. Cleary that many of the latter’s friends refused to have any more dealings with him, or even to hold discourse with him. So, upon Cobbett’s return to England, Cleary challenged him to fight; of course to no purpose. He then brought an action, laying the damages at two thousand pounds. The jury showed what they thought of the matter, by awarding him forty shillings.[14] A few days afterward, the case of _Wright_ v. _Cobbett_ was heard. This was a more serious affair. The imputations against Wright were quite needless, even if they could be justified. And the defendant, at the last moment, withdrew his plea of justification from the record, and based his defence upon the fact that his son (and not himself) was the present proprietor of the _Register_: that his sons were in the habit of altering his manuscript at their discretion. These technical pretences, so commonly resorted to, might have answered very well in the hands of a practised lawyer; but, with the “defendant in person,” it was like a child playing with edged tools. And against Scarlett, too, one of the cleverest counsel of the day; a man who hated the Reform set; and who had, in the House of Commons, alluded to Cobbett as a “contemptible scribbler,” and, on the present occasion, could go out of his way to say how much he approved of Cobbett’s early estimate of Paine, and his former writings generally. He maintained that the letter which Cleary read, and which had caused all the trouble, was one intended for publication, although the judge (at the former trial) had very strongly reprobated Cleary’s conduct. Whilst he, of course, enjoyed a complete triumph over the withdrawal of the plea of justification, and the clumsy efforts of the defendant to make his sons responsible. The folly and conceit of appearing “in person” was never more signally exemplified; especially as Mr. Cobbett had, just then, his hands full over the poor Queen,[15] and over his own chaotic pecuniary affairs; and it was sufficiently punished by the result. The jury deliberated for nearly two hours, and brought in a verdict of 1000_l._ damages. * * * * *