With regard to the amount of damages, we certainly should have been better pleased had it been larger; but we did not expect that it would--nay a reference to our number which was published while the trial was going on, will shew that we were even doubtful of the verdict, because we know how extremely difficult it is for a jury to comprehend such a complicated question--how easy for a knave to impose upon their ignorance by misrepresentation and falsehood. It is quite obvious that if the jury had believed one syllable of the evidence of Wakley's witnesses, they must have given the verdict in his favour. In a case like this, where _one individual only_, and he the plaintiff, can be fully aware of the difficulties which had to be overcome, it is almost impossible to bring evidence into a court of justice capable of satisfying the minds of twelve unprofessional men. From this circumstance alone it was that we expressed a doubtful opinion of the result. But besides all this, it is well known to all--_that one talesman might go determined to starve out the rest--that ten special jurymen might wish to give 500l. and yet that, by the absurd constitution of the English law, their verdict might be thus controlled by one individual friendly to the defendant_. Most fortunately for the cause of truth, Wakley had the vanity and folly to conduct the defence himself, and, judging of other men's estimation of moral character by his own, he did not hesitate to place in the box witnesses whom no counsel would have suffered to go there, and who, being unable to stand the cross-examination, led to what must have been to Wakley a most humiliating exposure. Next to this, the most beneficial effect produced was that of the defendant's cross-examination of his opponent's witnesses: it was amusingly absurd, and shewed a lamentable want of tact, always eliciting something which he ought to have avoided. Lastly came the reply, of which he tells us he is himself ashamed--"We may state most unfeignedly," says he, "that we look back with regret to our errors in point of omission." Nor is this the only part of it for which he has cause to blush, for any thing more miserably deficient we never heard: it was a mass of confusion throughout--a repetition of the same ideas and expressions--and a most injudicious betrayal of rancorous feeling, at the very moment he was profanely invoking heaven to witness that he bore enmity to no man. In speaking of his reply in our last number, we declared it to be "false in statement--sophistical in argument--coarse in language--and diabolical in tendency;" and we now proceed to illustrate these several qualifications, in doing which little more will be necessary than to select a few passages, and arrange them under their appropriate heads.