One of the most knavish attempts in the whole speech, to take advantage of the jury, was exhibited in his description of the operation. How different from the clear, perspicuous, and candid narrative of Sir James Scarlett. You are told, says Wakley, that the stone was shelved _above_ the pubes and _behind_ the pubes; but, continued he, (placing a pelvis in the position in which it is during the operation,) a stone cannot be lodged above the pubes, because, you see, the pubes is above the bladder! This was, indeed, calculated to confuse men unaccustomed to the subject, and who did not probably reflect that above and below are merely relative terms, which must change with every change of position, and that it was not meant that the stone was between the pubes and external integuments, which, in the position for lithotomy, would be the literal meaning of _above the pubes_, but that it was in such a situation as, in the ordinary position of the body, was above the pubes. But Wakley assured the jury that it was impossible for any stone to be _above_ the pubes, for there was a tendon to prevent it which no force could overcome; and he affected to ridicule the idea of there being anything unusual, any extraordinary shelf behind the pubes, in which the stone could have been lodged. "Had there been a shelf here," said he,--"had there been a crooked passage--had there been a cavity, or any place for the deposition of the stone, do you suppose that shelf would not have been produced? Had there been any thing particular in the formation of the pubes, would they not have cut out the man's bone as well as the bladder?" It is probably impossible for any but medical men to appreciate fully the impudent imposition--the fraud of this statement,--this knavish artifice to mislead the jury. No attempt was made in any part of Mr. Cooper's case to show that there was such malformation, or that the stone was in the position which Mr. Wakley demonstrated it could not occupy--_thus answering an argument which had never been advanced_. The following is a good specimen of sophistry and stupidity. Finding it proved that there was no opening between the bladder and rectum, Wakley wanted to make out that he never had said otherwise, having stated the cellular membrane to be _lacerable_, and therefore not _lacerated_. And then, forgetting the nature of his argument, immediately added, "remember this; the gorget is not as wide as the finger, and that it is not an uncommon thing for an unskilful operator to drive the gorget in between the bladder and rectum." Thus insinuating what had been proved to be false, and what he had just argued, from the words of the libel, he could not have meant.