From beginning to end of this trial, it was a manifest error. Denman began with the ridiculous statement that “he understood” that the defendant had “entered the court at the head of a large number of persons whom he had called together by notice;” and proceeded to exhort the jury “to yield to nothing like menace or intimidation, which conduct so improper is calculated and probably intended in some degree to produce.” And his whole speech was one long, groundless imputation, unsupported by a shred of evidence; and based on the fact (which nobody denied, for it was indisputable) which the defendant had clearly pointed out: the close connexion between the reckless conduct of the labourers, on the one hand, and the cause of that conduct; and its results (such as the cheapening of food, and the sudden reduction of the tithes) on the other. The “extract” from the offending number of the _Register_, which formed the basis of the indictment, did not include those parts of the essay, which said that the acts of the labourers were unlawful; which quoted the current newspaper stories about the Suffolk clergy who could not get in their tithes: which reminded the Whigs how their praises had been derived from yet-unfulfilled promises: which hit at the newspapers and the borough-mongers; which quoted Bacon and Blackstone; which advocated honesty and freedom of election; which proclaimed, “I am for a Government of King, Lords, and Commons; but, let what else will come, I am for the freedom, the happiness and greatness of England; and, above all things, for the good feeding and clothing of those who raise all the food, and make all the clothing!” No: these would have been the remainder of his argument, and would have enabled a jury not only to understand its whole drift and tenour, but to pronounce the writer a truly wise and patriotic man. Some of the jury did, evidently, consider the matter a gross absurdity; for, being locked up all night, the twelve were unable to agree to a verdict, and they were forthwith discharged.[12] Mr. Cobbett’s long speech, in his defence, must have made some of his audience feel grievously uncomfortable. No one was spared; not a soul, whose delinquencies could possibly illustrate the case. There were the Cabinet Ministers sitting in a row before him (including the Chancellor, Brougham), being scolded for their perfidy toward the people; there was the Attorney-General himself, whose promotion in his profession had actually been retarded, on account of his firm adherence to the Whig cause--now prosecuting the press with greater zeal than his Tory predecessor; there were the magistrates who had extorted or invented Goodman’s confession; and there were the party newspapers, with their transparent falsehoods, weather-cock principles, and questionable motives: all scolded anew. All who had contributed, in any degree, to the climax which ended in this trial, were covered with deserved ridicule.