Compare Documents

The English files which came to hand yesterday give further particulars of the trial of John Sholto Douglas, Marquis of Queensberry, for alleged libel upon Mr. Oscar Fingal O'Flaherty Wilde. The case ended, as has been already stated in these columns, in a verdict of "Not guilty."

In re-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, Wilde said it was from certain letters produced that he gathered that Lord Queensberry objected to his friendship with Lord Alfred Douglas. The letters were as follows: - "Carter's Hotel, Albemarle street, Sunday, April 1, 1984[sic]. Alfred, - It is extremely painful to me to have to write to you in this strain. I must, but please understand I decline to receive any answers from you in writing in return. Any letters coming under a disguised handwriting, or in other people's, if opened by mistake, will be put in the fire unread. After your previous hysterical impertinent ones I refuse to be annoyed with such, and must ask you if you have anything to say to come here and say it in person. Firstly, am I to understand that having left Oxford, as you did, with discredit to yourself, the reasons of which were fully explained to me by your tutor, you now intend to loaf and loll about and do nothing? All the time you were wasting at Oxford I was put off with the assurance that you were eventually to go into the Civil Service or to the Foreign Office, and then I was put off by an assurance of your going to the Bar. It appears to me you intend to do nothing; in fact the important valuable time has passed, and it seems you are too late now for any profession. I utterly decline to supply you, however, with sufficient funds just to enable you to loaf. You are preparing a wretched future for yourself, and it would be most cruel and wrong of me to encourage you in this. Do you seriously intend to make no attempt to help yourself, and to go on with your present life, doing nothing? Secondly, I come to the more painful part of this letter - your infamous intimacy with this man Wilde. It must either cease or I will disown you and stop all money supplies, and if necessary I will go to him personally and tell him so. Also, he shall have a bit of my mind. I am not going to try and analyse this intimacy, and I make no accusation, but to my mind to pose as a thing is as bad as the real thing... I hear on good authority, but this may be false, that his wife is petitioning to divorce him. Is this true, or do you know of it? If so, what is to be your position, going about as you do with him." The letter was signed, "Your disgusted so-called father, QUEENSBERRY."

To this Lord Alfred Douglas telegraphed to his father: "What a funny little man you are! -ALFRED DOUGLAS." Lord Queensberry's next letter to Lord Alfred was in these terms: - "You impertinent little jackanapes, I request you will not send me such messages through the telegraph, and if you come to me with any of your impertinence I will give you the thrashing you richly deserve. The only excuse for you is that you must be crazy. I heard from a man the other day who was at Oxford with you that that was your reputation there, which accounts for a good deal that has happened. All I can say is if I catch you with that man again I will make a public scandal in a way you little dream of. It is already a suppressed one. I prefer an open one, and, at any rate, I shall be no longer blamed for allowing such a state of things to go on. Unless this acquaintance ceases I shall carry out my threat and stop all supplies, and if you are not going to make any attempt to do something I shall certainly cut you down to a mere pittance, so you know what you are to expect. -QUEENSBERRY."

A third letter was written to Mr. A. Montgomery, the father of the Marchioness of Queensberry, who had obtained a divorce from the Marquis, in which, dating from Maidenhead, he said: - "Sir, - I have changed my mind, and, as I am not at all well, having been very much upset by what has happened the last ten days, I do not see why I should come dancing attendance upon you... Your daughter is the person who is supporting my son to defy me. She won't write, but she is now telegraphing on the subject to me. Last night, after hearing from you, I received a very quibbling, prevaricating sort of message from her, saying the boy denied having been at the Savoy for the last year, or with Oscar Wilde at all. As a matter of fact he did, and there has been a scandal. I am told they were warned off, but the proprietor would not admit this. This hideous scandal has been going on for years. Your daughter must be mad in the way she is behaving. She evidently wants to make out I want to make out a case against my son. It is nothing of the kind. I have made out a case against Oscar Wilde, and I have to his face accused him of it... It now lies in the hands of these two whether they will further defy me. Your daughter appears to me now to be encouraging them to do so, although she can hardly intend this. I don't believe Wilde will now dare defy me. He plainly showed the white feather the other day when I tackled him - a damned cur and coward of the Rosebery type. As for this so-called son of mine, I will have nothing to do with him. He may starve as far as I am concerned after his behaviour to me. His mother may support him, but she shan't do that here in London with this awful scandal going on. But your daughter's conduct is outrageous, and I am now fully convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone-Royal insult that came to me through my other son, that she worked that, I thought it was you... It shall be known some day by all that Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen, which she knows, which makes her as bad as him and Gladstone, but also made a life-long quarrel between my son and I." Witness stated there was no truth whatever in the statement in Lord Queensberry's letter, that witness's wife was going to petition for a divorce. Mr. Carson, Q.C., read the following postcard, addressed by Lord A. Douglas to Lord Queensberry: - "As you return my letters unopened, I am obliged to write on a postcard. I write to inform you that I treat your absurd threats with absolute indifference. Ever since your exhibition at O.W.'s house I have made a point of appearing with him at many public restaurants, such as the Berkeley, Willis's Rooms, the Café Royal, etc., and I shall continue to go to any of these places whenever I choose and with whom I choose. I am of age, and my own master. You have disowned me at least a dozen times, and have very meanly deprived me of money. You have, therefore, no right over me, either legal or moral. If O.W. was to prosecute you in the Criminal Court for libel you would get seven years' penal servitude for your outrageous libels. Much as I detest you I am anxious to avoid this for the sake of the family; but if you try to assault me I shall defend myself with a loaded revolver, which I always carry; and if I shoot you, or if he shoots you, we should be completely justified, as we would be acting in self-defence against a violent and dangerous rough, and I think if you were dead not many people would miss you. -A.D."

After conferring briefly with his counsel, Sir Edward Clarke, at the Central Criminal Court on Friday morning, April 5, Mr. Oscar Wilde proceeded, in company with Lord A. Douglas and two other men, to the Holborn Viaduct Hotel. The party remained in conference in a private room until one o'clock, when they partook of luncheon. At a quarter past two the four men drove off in Mr. Wilde's brougham, which had been waiting outside the hotel for a considerable time. Their destination was a bank in St. James', where a large sum of money was drawn out. After the finding of the jury in the libel action the whole of the documents, with proofs of the evidence upon which the defence had intended to rely, were forwarded to the Public Prosecutor. Later in the day Mr. C.F. Gill, Mr. Angus Lewis, and Mr. Charles Russell waited upon Sir John Bridge at Bow-street and obtained a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Oscar Wilde, who was subsequently arrested by Inspector Richards at an hotel in Sloane-street. Mr. Wilde had with him two friends. The party at once drove to Scotland Yard to meet Inspector Brockwell, who had the warrant. The warrant was read to the prisoner, who made no reply; after some delay he was brought to Bow street. Mr. Wilde was the first to alight and walked straight into the station, followed by the detectives. He did not appear to be at all affected by the circumstances of his position. He was at once placed in the dock, and stood there with his hands in his pockets while the charge was taken down by Inspector Digby. When the charge had been entered Mr. Wilde was taken to the cells. Later Lord Alfred Douglas visited Bow-street in order to see whether he could bail out Mr. Wilde, and appeared much distressed when he was informed that on no consideration could his application be entertained. He then offered to procure extra comforts for the prisoner, but this also was not allowed by the officer on duty. At the same police court on Saturday, April 6th, Oscar Wilde, described as a gentleman, was placed in the dock, before Sir John Bridge, charged with offences under the 11th section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Mr. C.F. Gill, instructed by Mr. Angus Lewis, of the Treasury, prosecuted. At the commencement of the hearing the prisoner was defended by Mr. C.O. Humphreys, the solicitor who conducted the proceedings at the police court when the Marquis of Queensberry was prosecuted by Wilde for libel. At a later stage the prisoner was represented by Mr. Travers Humphreys. Mr. Gill said that the precise nature of the charges he should ask the magistrate to commit Wilde upon, would depend on the evidence disclosed on the depositions after the matter had been thoroughly inquired into. The case he proposed to proceed with in the first instance related to Wilde's conduct with regard to a young man named Charles Parker. Wilde would also be charged with conspiring with Alfred Taylor. Mr. Gill then explained the circumstances under which Parker was brought into contact with Wilde. Parker was a valet out of place. He had a brother named William Parker, who was a groom. At the end of February or the beginning of March the brothers went to the St. James' Restaurant. They were there approached by Taylor. He supplied them with drink, and got them to write down their names and addresses. He then gave his own address, and said that Oscar Wilde was a man who would give them money. After one or two interviews between Taylor and the lads, the prisoner Wilde being in communication with him by telegraph, they were invited to go to Kettner's Restaurant. They went, accompanied by Taylor. When they arrived they were shown into a private room, where dinner was laid for four. Soon afterwards the prisoner arrived, and the boys were entertained to a sumptuous repast provided by him. After dinner Wilde took Charles Parker to the Savoy Hotel, where he had a suite of rooms. He plied the lad with drink, and subsequently gave him £2. They met again on several other occasions. Wilde gave the youth money, a gold ring, and a silver cigarette case. There were, counsel added, a number of cases against the prisoner. Wilde had already had an opportunity of explaining these matters, and if he chose, he could get into the witness-box and give any explanation he liked. It was an unpleasant case, but it was one of enormous importance. It was of enormous importance to show that people who committed these offences were bound to be brought to justice. Charles Parker was the first witness. Whilst he was giving evidence, Alfred Taylor, alluded to by Mr. Gill in his opening statement, was placed in the dock and charged with conspiring with Oscar Wilde. Parker, in the course of his further evidence, said that on several occasions he visited Wilde at the Savoy Hotel and had champagne and chicken. Wilde gave him money to buy clothes with and made him other presents. The last time he saw Wilde the latter, who was in a cab in Trafalgar Square, told him he was looking as pretty as ever. William Parker, brother of the previous witness, gave corroborative evidence. Mrs. Ellen Grant, Little College-street, Westminster, proved that Taylor occupied rooms there, for which he paid £3 a month. Daylight was always excluded from the rooms. She understood that Taylor was a bachelor. She had heard him speak of "Oscar," but she had never seen Wilde. There were a number of visitors. Alfred Wood, formerly a clerk, spoke of his acquaintance with Wilde, and said he went to America to get rid of "these people" - that was, the people who went to Taylor's tea parties. Sidney Arthur Mavor and some other witnesses were then examined, and the case was adjourned till next day. Mr. Travers Humphreys applied for bail for Wilde on the ground that he knew the warrant was being applied for on Friday afternoon, but made no attempt to leave London. He had no intention of leaving the country, and he was the only person who could properly instruct solicitor and counsel. Sir John Bridge said it was not a case for bail, and the prisoners were removed in custody.

The Central News says: - "Lord Queensberry states that as soon as the trial ended on April 5th he sent this message to Mr. Wilde: - "If the country allows you to leave all the better for the country; but if you take my son with you I will follow you wherever you go and shoot you."

LONDON, April 5.

The hearing of the charge against the Marquis of Queensberry of criminally libelling Mr. Oscar Wilde was resumed this morning at the Central Criminal Court, before Mr. Justice Henn Collins. The defence was a justification of the libel. The counsel for the prosecution were Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys. Mr. Carson, Q.C., Mr. C. F. Gill, Q.C., and Mr. A. Gill appeared for Lord Queensberry; while Mr. Besley, Q.C., and Mr. Monckton watched the case for Lord Douglas of Hawick, the eldest son of the Marquis.

The public galleries were again crowded, the greatest interest being shown in the proceedings. His lordship took his seat at half-past ten. Mr. Oscar Wilde was not present when Mr. Carson rose to resume his speech for the defence.

Mr. Carson said that at the adjournment yesterday he had dealt as fully as he intended to deal with the question of Wilde's connection with the literature that had been produced in this case, and also with the two letters that had been read, and he almost hoped that he had sufficiently demonstrated upon these matters, which were not really in dispute, that Lord Queensberry was absolutely justified in bringing to a climax, in the way that he did, the question of the connection between Mr. Oscar Wilde and his son. He had, unfortunately, a more powerful part of the case now to approach. It would be his painful duty to bring before the jury those young men, one after another, to tell their tale. It was, of course, even for an advocate, a distasteful task; but let those who were inclined to condemn these men for allowing themselves to be dominated, misled, and corrupted by Oscar Wilde remember the relative position of the two parties, and that they were men more sinned against than sinning. He was not going in great detail to criticise the evidence of Wilde with regard to the several transactions as to which he crossexamined him. There was a general observation applicable to all the cases. There was a startling similarity between each of them, on Wilde's own admission, which must lead the jury to draw the most painful conclusions. There was the fact that in not one of these cases were the parties upon an equality with Wilde in any way. They were not educated parties such as he would naturally associate with, they were not his equal in years, and there was a curious similarity between the ages of each of them. Mr. Wilde said that there was something beautiful and charming about youth that led him to adopt the course he did, but was he unable to find more suitable companions who were at the same time young among the youths of his own class? The thing was absurd. His excuse in the box was only a travesty of what was the reality of the matter. Who were these young men? They were out of employment, and of their antecedents Wilde professed to know nothing. All of them were from 18 to 20 years of age, or thereabouts, and in the manner of their introduction to Wilde and his subsequent treatment of them all were in the same category, leading to the same conclusion, that there was something unnatural and what might not ordinarily be expected in the relations between them. Parker was a gentleman's servant out of employment. He and his brother were in a restaurant in Piccadilly and were met by Taylor, and when a day or two later Wilde gave Taylor a dinner on his birthday, telling him to bring any friends he liked, what an idea he must have had of Wilde's taste when he brought a groom and a valet! If that one fact was true-and the main features had been admitted by Wilde-why did Taylor speak to those young men at all, and why did he bring them to dine with Wilde? There could be no explanation of these matters but the one that Taylor was the procureur for Wilde. They would hear from Parker, when he came to tell his unfortunate story, that he was poor, out of place, and fell a victim to Wilde. He would tell them that on the first evening they met Wilde addressed him-the valet-as Charlie, and that he addressed this distinguished dramatist, whose name was being spoken everywhere in London as the author of a most successful play, as Oscar. He did not wish to say anything about Wilde's theories of putting an end to social distinctions. It might be a very noble and generous instinct in some people to wish to level down all social barriers; but one thing that was plain in this case was that Wilde's conduct was not regulated by any very generous instincts towards these young men. If he wanted to assist Parker was it of benefit or a man in Wilde's position in society and literature to take him to a magnificent dinner and prime him with the best champagne? All the ridiculous excuses of Wilde would not bear a moment's examination. Wilde pretended that, the whole of these dinners and lunches were mere generous actions on his part. He gave no explanation of why he had that suite of rooms at the Savoy Hotel. It was a large hotel, and Wilde had no difficulty in taking Parker into his rooms, where he treated him with whiskey and sodas, and some of that iced champagne which his doctor forbade Wilde to have, and so worked him up to what followed. There had been no open scandal at the Savoy Hotel; but a man could not live that kind of life without gossip going abroad, and reports being circulated in the circles in which he mixed. After they had heard the evidence from the Savoy Hotel they could wonder, not that the gossip reached Lord Queensberry's ears, but that the man Wilde had been tolerated for years in Society as he had. He referred to the youth Parker, who was coming there with the greatest reluctance, and was now earning for himself a good character in the country, and Wilde's dealings with the boy Conway.

Here came a sensational surprise. Sir Edward Clarke plucked Mr. Carson by the gown, and the indulgence of the court was craved while counsel consulted. Sir Edward and his junior, Mr. Mathews, had both been out of the court for an interval before this surprise came. After a few moments whispering Mr. Carson retained his seat, and Sir Edward Clarke rose and said: Will your lordship allow me to interpose and make a statement, which is, of course, made under a feeling of very grave responsibility? My learned friend Mr. Carson yesterday addressed the jury upon the question of the literature involved in this case, and upon the inferences to be drawn from admissions made with regard to the letters read yesterday my learned friend began his address by saying that he hoped the need of having the jury deal with those details could be avoided. I think it must have been present to your mind that the representatives of Mr. Oscar Wilde have before them in this case a very terrible anxiety. They could not conceal from themselves the inferences which might be drawn might not improperly induce the jury to say that when Lord Queensberry used the words "posing as a --" he was using words for which there was a sufficient justification for a father to use. That in our view might not be an improbable result of that part of the case. I and my learned friends who are with me had to look forward to this-that a verdict given in favour of the defendant upon that point might be regarded as a finding with regard to all parts of the case. The position we stood in was that, in view of the finding of a verdict, we would be going through long evidence dealing with matters of a most appalling character. In these circumstances, I hope your lordship will think I am taking the right course of action. Having regard to what has been already said in respect of the literature and of the letters, I feel that I could not resist a verdict of not guilty in this case-not guilty, that is, having reference to the words "posing as --." In these circumstances I hope your lordship will think that I am not going beyond the bounds of duty, and that I am doing something to save and to prevent what would be a most terrible task, however it might close, if I now interpose to say that, on behalf of Mr. Oscar Wilde, I would ask to withdraw from the prosecution. If your lordship does not think that at this time of the case, and after what has taken place, I ought to be allowed to do this, I am prepared to submit to a verdict of not guilty, having reference-if to any part of the particulars-to that part of the particulars which is connected with the publication of "Dorian Gray" and with the publication of the Chameleon. I trust, my lord, that that may make an end of the case.

Mr. Carson: I do not know that I have any right whatever to interfere in any way with this application my learned friend has made. I can only say, as far as Lord Queensberry is concerned, that if there is a plea of not guilty, a plea which involves that he has succeeded in his plea of justification, I am quite satisfied. Of course my learned friend will admit we must succeed upon the plea in the manner in which he has stated, and that being so, it rests entirely with your lordship as to whether the course suggested by my learned friend is to be taken.

His lordship: Inasmuch as the prosecutor in this case is prepared to acquiesce in a verdict of not guilty against the accused, I do not think it is any part of the function of the judge or jury to insist on going through prurient details which can have no bearing upon a matter already concluded by the assent of the prosecutor to an adverse verdict. But as to the jury putting any limitation upon the verdict of justification, the justification is one which is a justification of the charge, which is "posing as - -." If that is justified, it is justified-if it is not, it is not; and the verdict of the jury upon it must be guilty or not guilty. I understand the prosecutor to assent to a verdict of not guilty. There can be no terms, and no limitations. The verdict must be guilty or not guilty. I understand him to assent to a verdict of not guilty, and of course the jury will return that.

Mr Carson: Of course the verdict will be that the plea of justification is proved, and that the words were published for the public benefit.

Sir E. Clarke: The verdict is not guilty. His lordship: The verdict is "not guilty," but it is arrived at by that process.

The jury then returned a verdict accordingly, that the justification was proved, and that it was published for the public benefit, and that the accused was not guilty.

The verdict was received with applause, and becoming known in the streets, there was a demonstration of approval on the part of a large crowd.

Mr. Carson: The costs will follow. May I ask that Lord Queensberry should be discharged? His lordship: Certainly.

When the formal announcement of his discharge was made the Marquis left the dock amid a salvo of applause, which the officials of the court only half-heartedly attempted to stop.

Mr. Wilde left the Old Bailey a few minutes before sir Edward Clarke made his withdrawal. He drove in his carriage, drawn by a pair of horses, to the Holborn Viaduct Hotel, where he has been lunching daily during the trial. Here Mr. Wilde, Lord Alfred Douglas, Mr. Wilde's solicitor, and one or two other gentlemen remained for some time in consultation.

On leaving the court Lord Queensberry's solicitor addressed the following letter to the Public Prosecutor:-

37, Norfolk-street, Strand. To the Hon. HAMILTON CUFFE, Director of Prosecutions. DEAR SIR,-In order that there may be no miscarriage of justice, I think it my duty at once to send you a copy of all our witness's statements, together with a copy of the shorthand notes of the trial.-Yours faithfully, CHARLES RUSSELL.

The Marquis of Queensberry said to a Press representative this afternoon:--

"I have sent a message to Oscar, saying: 'If the country allows you to leave, all the better for the country; but if you take my son with you, I will follow you wherever you go, and shoot you.' "

Letter from Oscar Wilde.

The Evening News states that it has received the following letter from Oscar Wilde, written on the notepaper of the Holborn Viaduct Hotel:-

"TO THE EDITOR- "It would have been impossible for me to have proved my case without putting Lord Alfred Douglas in the witness-box against his father. "Lord Alfred Douglas was extremely anxious to go into the box, but I would not let him do so. "Rather than put him in so painful a position, I determined to retire from the case, and to bear on my own shoulders whatever ignominy and shame might result from my prosecuting Lord Queensberry. OSCAR WILDE."

"An Ideal Husband," Oscar Wilde's society play, comes to a timely finish at the Haymarket to-morrow evening, and it is understood that the project for reviving it at the Criterion has been abandoned.

The name of Mr. Oscar Wilde has been removed from the playbills and programmes of the Haymarket and St. James's Theatres.