LONDON LETTER
257
as communicants of the Church of England, the jury would react
strongly to an attack on the marriage contract. "This conduct
between a married woman and a married man," huffed Mr. Grif–
fith-Jones; "Is there really anything else in the book except adul–
tery?" puffed Justice Byrne. There was even a suggestion that
if
Lady Chatterley had to sin, at least she needn't do it with the game–
keeper. (The secretary of the British Association of Gamekeepers
wrote to the papers explaining that Mellors' behavior was
not
typical. )
The jury didn't respond to these class stimuli. And they may
have been put off by the prosecution's constantly reminding them
they were not intellectuals. They may not have been grateful to Mr.
Griffith-Jones for explaining who Abelard was and they may have
resented his description of them as "twelve men and women from
ordinary life." (One suspects that The Average or Common Man
thinks of himself-rightly-as peculiar and uncommon.) "You are
not experts," said Justice Byrne in his summing up. "You are a
cross section of the community." But perhaps the jury rather fancied
themselves as experts.
"In deciding whether publication is for the public good," the
judge said at another point, "you must consider not so much the
student of literature who may read the book under the guidance of
a tutor at a university, but the person who perhaps knows nothing
about literature but who buys this book for 3s. 6d. and reads it
during the lunch-time break at the factory.... I would repeat the
observation of Mr. Griffith-Jones, who said, 'Keep your feet on the
ground.' In other words, do not allow yourselves to get lost in the
higher realms of literature, education, sociology and ethics." Fatal
words! It is precisely in those higher realms that the Common Man
now feels it
is
his democratic right to roam.
Justice Byrne's impeccably unilateral conduct of the trial may
also have been a factor. Except that his costume and accent were
more impressive, he was blood-brother to any Tammany magistrate
who's gotten the word. His summing-up appealed to prejudice ("Is
it rightly or is it wrongly said that in these days our moral standards
have reached a low ebb?") and defied grammar: "It is for you to
say is it or is it not described in the most lurid way and the whole
sensuality and passion of the various occasions of sexual intercourse
