The Daily Telegraph - Monday, May 27, 1895

LONDON, Friday Night.— The trial of Oscar Wilde was continued at the Central Criminal Court to-day. He is charged with offences under the 11th section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Wilde to-day gave evidence on his own behalf. He was allowed to be seated in the witness-box, and appeared to be very weak. He gave a general denial to the whole of the charges. He said he always understood Taylor to be a respectable man; and in referring to the station in life of the young men with whom he had associated, he said the reason of his friendship with them was that he personally liked praise, and to be lionised was delightful.

Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., in addressing the jury on behalf of Wilde, declared the witnesses to be blackmailers, whose evidence it was impossible to believe.

LONDON, Saturday Night.— The trial of Oscar Wilde concluded to-day.

The jury, after an absence of two hours, returned into court with a verdict of guilty on all the counts submitted to them.

Wilde and Alfred Taylor (his associate, who was found guilty on two charges on Tuesday) were then brought up for sentence.

In passing sentence, Mr. Justice Wills was deeply affected. He spoke with great emotion, and evidently experienced some difficulty in restraining his feelings. He said that the verdict was correct beyond the shadow of a doubt, and it was useless to address the prisoners at any length, as they were dead to all sense of shame. It was the worst case he had ever tried, and he must pass the severest sentence the law permitted. He regretted that this was totally inadequate for their offence. He then sentenced Wilde and Taylor each to two years' imprisonment, with hard labor.

Taylor left the dock with a firm step, but Wilde had a haggard look, and appeared to be dazed. He gazed in a despairing manner at the judge, and was apparently horror-stricken at the sentence. In a weak voice he muttered a request to be permitted to address the judge, but this was unheeded, and the warders immediately called upon him to leave the dock.

After sentence had been passed upon Wilde and Taylor, the jury asked whether it was intended to arrest Lord Alfred Douglas.

Mr. Justice Wills replied that he was not aware of what was intended to be done, but pointed out that Lord Alfred Douglas was not affected by the present trial.

The jury contended that if the letters addressed by Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas showed Wilde to be guilty, the guilt applied equally to Lord Alfred Douglas.

Mr. Justice Wills concurred in this remark, and added that any suspicion that might exist that Lord Alfred Douglas would be allowed to escape owing to his high family connections, was not only unfounded, but impossible.

LONDON, Sunday.— The Marquis of Queensberry and his son, Lord Douglas of Hawick, witnessed the end of the trial.

Sydney Evening News - Tuesday, May 21, 1895

London, May 20.-- Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor were this morning again placed on trial at the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, charged with offences under the 11th section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Mr. Justice Wills presided, and in his charge to the Grand Jury suggested that the cases should be taken separately.

The Grand Jury having found true bills against both accused, it was decided to take the case against Taylor first.

Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., who with Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared for Wilde, opposed this course, but subsequently asked that Wilde's case should be postponed until the next sessions, which commence on June 17.

Mr. Justice Wills said that before deciding he would wait to see the result of the trial of Taylor.

It afterwards transpired that counsel for Wilde had asked that the cases might be tried separately, but the Crown favored a joint trial.

The trial of Taylor was then proceeded with.

Charles Parker and Alfred Wood, two young men, gave evidence similar to that given by them at the previous trial as to the conduct of Wilde, to whom they were introduced by Taylor at the latter's rooms in Little College-street, near the Houses of Parliament, and their evidence was unshaken on cross-examination.

Highlighted DifferencesNot significantly similar