in part.
"It is for you, gentlemen of the jury, to draw your own conclusions
from his omission to do what one would have thought would be an
honourable man's first impulse and duty."
Finally it was for the jury to consider whether the letter was a libel
and if so what the amount of damages should be.
His Lordship recalled the jury at Mr. Butt's request to say that in
assessing damages they might also take into consideration the fact
that the defence was practically a justification of the libel. The
fair-mindedness of the judge was conspicuous from first to last, and
was worthy of the high traditions of the Irish Bench.
After deliberating for a couple of hours the jury brought in a verdict
which had a certain humour in it. They awarded to Miss Travers a
farthing damages and intimated that the farthing should carry costs.
In other words they rated Miss Travers' virtue at the very lowest coin
of the realm, while insisting that Sir William Wilde should pay a
couple of thousands of pounds in costs for having seduced her.
It was generally felt that the verdict did substantial justice; though
the jury, led away by patriotic sympathy with Lady Wilde, the true
"Speranza," had been a little hard on Miss Travers. No one doubted
that Sir William Wilde had seduced his patient. He had, it appeared,
an unholy reputation, and the girl's admission that he had accused her
of being "unnaturally passionless" was accepted as the true key of the
enigma. This was why he had drawn away from the girl, after seducing
her. And it was not unnatural under the circumstances that she should
become vindictive and revengeful.
Such inferences as these, I drew from the comments of the Irish papers
at the time; but naturally I wished if possible to hear some
trustworthy contemporary on the matter. Fortunately such testimony was
forthcoming.
A Fellow of Trinity, who was then a young man, embodied the best
opinion of the time in an excellent pithy letter. He wrote to me that
the trial simply established, what every one believed, that "Sir
|