“THE FOLLY, COMMON TO ALL TYRANTS, IS THAT THEY PUSH THINGS TOO FAR.” On the 15th June, 1810, the Court of King’s Bench was at last prepared to hear the Attorney-General’s story. Mr. Cobbett, Mr. Budd, Mr. Bagshaw, and Mr. Hansard accordingly appeared, to answer the charge of writing, printing, and publishing a seditious “libel.” Stern Ellenborough presided within, and a deeply-interested public waited without, the Court. Withal,--Mr. Attorney-General, Lord Ellenborough, and the expectant public, each and every one knew, in his heart, that Mr. Cobbett was about to be tried for exposing the king’s ministers; for his sarcasms over the Duke of Clarence and “Mother Jordan;” for showing up Mrs. Clarke; for his discoveries in political corruption; aye, and for quarrelling with the _Morning Post_. Mr. Attorney-General’s story, however, dealt with none of these topics. The burden of his tale was, that the defendant charged the Government with cruelty, and suggested to the wicked mutineers the cruelty and injustice of their punishment. That certain brave and honourable men had been driven from their own land, and had “sought shelter in ours;” and had offered their blood for the glory and safety of their adopted country. That the defendant’s paper was a libel on the brave and honourable men; while its obvious tendency was to deter the common people from entering the militia. The speech of the defendant was temperate, even to tameness. The opportunity of accumulating fire and passion, in support of unwelcome truth, was thrown away. But there is little doubt that Cobbett had some faith left in the honesty of a jury; besides a fallacious belief that the ostensible cause of the prosecution was the real one, and that the matter would be decided upon its merits. Had he, rather, boldly scorned the adversary, and dared him to disprove that the present was an episode in political warfare, which gave undue advantage (for the time) to the cause of might against right: at the same time, reiterating his wish to excite the public indignation against amateur tyranny, had kept up an attitude of defiance,--the foe would have been cowed, although, perhaps, not made more relenting. There was no mercy in Vicary Gibbs, nor in Lord Ellenborough, toward the champions of the press; and Mr. Cobbett, as champion for the day, should have recollected that the cause itself was again on its trial. The day would be certain to go against him; it was notoriously a personal attack; but, had he chosen to disregard his own personality, and to hurl back in the Attorney’s face the persecuting character which that worthy had given to his office,--he would have dealt that stroke at licensed hypocrisy which was left for the task of William Hone. * * * * *