The Brisbane Courier - Friday, April 5, 1895

The trial of the Marquis of Queensberry on a charge of criminally libelling Mr. Oscar Wilde was commenced to-day, and created a great sensation, the court being thronged by an immense crowd of people.

Mr. Oscar Wilde declared that he had paid heavy blackmail to recover some "gushing" letters he had written to Lord Alfred Douglas, the son of the Marquis, and which letters had been found in Lord Alfred's old clothes when they were given away. The defence that the Marquis was justified in leaving the alleged libellous card with the hall porter at Mr. Wilde's club with a view to bringing matters to a head, and, as he stated, saving his son, was based on the revelations said to be contained in these letters.

Mr. Wilde, after giving his evidence, was subjected to a stringent cross-examination with a view to showing that his book, "The Picture of Dorian Gray," and certain articles published in the magazine "Chameleon," with which he was connected, were inspired by criminal practices. Mr. Wilde, however, insisted that they were merely an expression of the artistic faculty; and, further, that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas were prose poems - of an extraordinary character, perhaps, but not justifying any immoral interpretation. He admitted that he gave one of the alleged blackmailers £21, and entertained him at lunch afterwards in a private room. He also admitted that he had been on terms of intimacy with two lads who were not his social equals, and he gave them considerable sums of money and expensive presents because he liked them.

Mr. Wilde's epigrams, paradoxes, and general extravagance of demeanour during the progress of the case caused much amusement in court.

The case was eventually adjourned, the Marquis of Queensberry being admitted to bail.

The Star - Friday, April 5, 1895

LONDON, April 2.

Mr Wilde explained the effusive language of the letters addressed to Lord Douglas as the natural expression of an artist attracted by a beautiful personality. The Marquis of Queensberry visited his residence and threatened Mr Wilde, to which that gentleman responded with, "You are the most infamous brute in London."

Mr Wilde was subjected to a stringent cross-examination with a view to showing that "Dorian Grey" and some articles in the magazine Chameleon with which he is connected are of an immoral tendency. Mr Wilde insisted that they are merely an expression of the artistic faculty. His letters to Lord Douglas were prose poems, extraordinary, perhaps, but not justifying an immoral interpretation. He admitted that he gave one of his alleged blackmailers twenty-one pounds and lunched with him in private rooms afterwards.

The case has been adjourned. The defendant has been admitted to bail.

In cross-examination Oscar Wilde admitted that he was acquainted with young men named Taylor, Parker and Atkins. Taylor had introduced him to five young men on separate occasions, to whom witness had given money, but he was not aware that any of them were gentlemen's servants. He said he derived pleasure from being in the company of bright and happy people. Witness had frequently been in Taylor's room. He was aware that both Taylor and Parker had once been arrested, but continued their friendship. Once he took Atkins and a youth named Price to Paris, and introduced them to another youth named Ernest Scarp, who became acquainted with Lord Douglas when making a voyage to Australia. Wilde said he had made presents to Scarp and Mabor because he liked them. Letters read in Court proved that the Marquis of Queensberry was endeavouring to stop his son from visiting Wilde. The son wired back to his father that Wilde was a funny little man. The Marquis subsequently called at Wilde's house, where a furious scene took place. The latter denied the charges levelled against him, and showed the Marquis the door. Witness wrote to the Marquis complaining that his wife encouraged his son's visits. Wilde's friendship with Lady Queensberry and her sons remained unbroken. Certain letters from the youths already named showed that the writers were poverty stricken, some imploring assistance or employment.

Highlighted DifferencesNot significantly similar