Miss Travers admitted that Dr. Quilp was intended for Sir William Wilde; indeed she identified Dr. Quilp with the newly made knight in a dozen different ways.  She went so far as to describe his appearance.  She declared that he had “an animal, sinister expression about his mouth which was coarse and vulgar in the extreme:  the large protruding under lip was most unpleasant.  Nor did the upper part of his face redeem the lower part.  His eyes were small and round, mean and prying in expression.  There was no candour in the doctor’s countenance, where one looked for candour.”  Dr. Quilp’s quarrel with his victim, it appeared, was that she was “unnaturally passionless.”

The publication of such a pamphlet was calculated to injure both Sir William and Lady Wilde in public esteem, and Miss Travers was not content to let the matter rest there.  She drew attention to the pamphlet by letters to the papers, and on one occasion, when Sir William Wilde was giving a lecture to the Young Men’s Christian Association at the Metropolitan Hall, she caused large placards to be exhibited in the neighbourhood having upon them in large letters the words “Sir William Wilde and Speranza.”  She employed one of the persons bearing a placard to go about ringing a large hand bell which she, herself, had given to him for the purpose.  She even published doggerel verses in the Dublin Weekly Advertiser, and signed them “Speranza,” which annoyed Lady Wilde intensely.  One read thus:—­

    Your progeny is quite a pest
    To those who hate such “critters”;
    Some sport I’ll have, or I’m blest
    I’ll fry the Wilde breed in the West
    Then you can call them Fritters.

She wrote letters to Saunders Newsletter, and even reviewed a book of Lady Wilde’s entitled “The First Temptation,” and called it a “blasphemous production.”  Moreover, when Lady Wilde was staying at Bray, Miss Travers sent boys to offer the pamphlet for sale to the servants in her house.  In fine Miss Travers showed a keen feminine ingenuity and pertinacity in persecution worthy of a nobler motive.

But the defence did not rely on such annoyance as sufficient provocation for Lady Wilde’s libellous letter.  The plea went on to state that Miss Travers had applied to Sir William Wilde for money again and again, and accompanied these applications with threats of worse pen-pricks if the requests were not acceded to.  It was under these circumstances, according to Lady Wilde, that she wrote the letter complained of to Dr. Travers and enclosed it in a sealed envelope.  She wished to get Dr. Travers to use his parental influence to stop Miss Travers from further disgracing herself and insulting and annoying Sir William and Lady Wilde.

The defence carried the war into the enemy’s camp by thus suggesting that Miss Travers was blackmailing Sir William and Lady Wilde.

The attack in the hands of Serjeant Armstrong was still more deadly and convincing.  He rose early on the Monday afternoon and declared at the beginning that the case was so painful that he would have preferred not to have been engaged in it—­a hypocritical statement which deceived no one, and was just as conventional-false as his wig.  But with this exception the story he told was extraordinarily clear and gripping.