Compare Documents

At the Old Bailey, London, yesterday, before Mr Justice Charles, the trial was resumed of Oscar Wilde, 40, author, and Alfred Taylor, 38, of no occupation, on an indictment charging them with certain misdemeanours.

Mr Gill, on behalf of the Crown, formally withdrew the counts of the indictment alleging conspiracy, and said he did this to avoid any difficulty in calling prisoners into the witness box.

Sir Eward Clarke asked that a verdict of not guilty on the conspiracy counts be at once returned, but his Lordship did not assent to this.

Sir Edward Clarke began his address for the defence of Wilde. He accused the public press of having imperilled the interests of justice.

Oscar Wilde was called and sworn. He described his academical and literary career. Sir Edward Clarke—In cross-examination in Wilde v. Queensberry you denied all the charges against you? Was that evidence absolutely and entirely true? Witness—Entirely true evidence. Is there any truth in any of the allegations of indecency brought against you in this case?—There is no truth whatever in any one of those allegations.

Mr Gill, in cross-examination, quoted from a sonnet of Lord Alfred Douglas, Wilde replied that the love there spoken of was the love of David for Jonathan—the passion described by Plato as the beginning of wisdom, a deep spiritual affection as pure as it was perfect. In this century it was misunderstood, and a man was put in the pillory for it.

Counsel then called the attention of witness to the statements of Parker, Shelley, and Atkins, to which he gave a general denial.

At the close of his examination Wilde again took his place in the dock, and Alfred Taylor, his co-prisoner, entered the witness box. He said he was educated at Marlborough, and was formerly in the Militia. In 1883 he came into £45,000, and had since lived a life of pleasure. The allegation brought against him by Charles Parker was absolutely untrue.

Sir Edward Clarke again addressed the jury. He said the Crown rested their case upon the tainted evidence of a band of blackmailers, and had Mr Oscar Wilde been a guilty man he would have avoided the ordeal of the witness box. He trusted to letters of the witness Edward Shelley to erase impressions created by his evidence.

Mr Grain addressed the jury for Taylor, and Mr Gill then replied an the whole case. At the conclusion of his address at seven o'clock, the court adjourned until this morning, when Mr Justice Charles will commence him summing up.

London, Tuesday Evening.

On the trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor being resumed today at the Central Criminal Court, London, Mr Gill, on behalf of the Crown, formerly withdrew the counts of the indictment alleging conspiracy, and said he did this to avoid any difficulty in calling the prisoners into the witness box.

Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of not guilty on conspiracy counts be at once returned, but his lordship did not assent to this.

Sir Edward Clarke replied that he did not wish to appear tenacious, and he would at a later stage of the case ask for a verdict of not guilty upon those particular counts. Sir Edward at once began his address for the defence of Wilde. Having at the outset given on his client’s behalf an absolute denial to the charges brought against him, the learned counsel animadverted on the conduct of a large section of the Press, which, he alleged, was such as to prejudice his client and imperil the interests of justice. He assured the Crown counsel of having yesterday read the cross examination of Wilde in the action brought against Lord Queensberry for the sole purpose of inducing the jury to believe that the man who wrote "Dorian Grey" was likely to commit indecency, but, as Coleridge said, a man should be regarded as superior to his books. There was no single page in "Dorian Grey" where the statements made of any person being guilty of abominable sin. From "Dorian Grey" Sir Edward passed on to comment on the "Chameleon," many of the passages in which, from Wilde’s pen, he described as smart phrases in that magazine. It had bee said the story of the "Priest and the Acolyte," was a production which was a disgrace to the man who write it, to the editor who accepted it, and to everybody concerned with it, and Mr Wilde became so indignant that he wrote to the conductor of the magazine declining to be longer associated with it. The literary controversy had nothing whatever to do with the questions before the jury. The controversy as to the morality of Shakespeare’s sonnets was likely to last as long as the question of who wrote the Letters of Junius or as to the character of certain sonnets of Michael Angelo to one of his friends. He, therefore, asked the jury altogether to discard what had been urged against the prisoners in relation to "Dorian Grey'' and "The Chameleon." Coming to Wilde’s association with the Queensberry family, he observed that the prisoner was still a friend of Lady Queensberry, was divorced her husband.

Mr Gill — I protest against any attack upon Lord Queensberry, who is not now represented. It is altogether irregular to say here that Lord Queensberry was divorced.

Sir Edward Clarke said that to bear his learned friend rebuking irrelevance was rather amusing (laughter). In the case o’ Wilde v. Queensberry: he (Sir Edward) and he learned counsel acting with him for Wilde, took the responsibility of accepting a verdict of not guilty. It was perfectly clear that the jury then sitting would not have found Lord Queensberry guilty of a criminal offence. For the course then adopted he (Sir Edward) was responsible, and he was here again to meet on his client’s behalf a case which could not be properly tried at the former trial, but which could now be determined upon a proper issue. If Mr Oscar Wilde has been guilty of the charges against him would he have provoked investigation, as he did by bringing an action for libel? It was said there was a species fo insanity which caused men to commit unnatural crime; but what would they think of a man who, if he had been guilty of such offences, insisted on bringing then before the world. He was confident that the evidence of his client would be a complete answer to the allegations against him.

Oscar Wilde was then called from the dock and sworn. He answered the questions of Sir E Clarke in subdued tones. The learned counsel first took him through his academical career at Dublin and Oxford, and passed from this to his career as a dramatist and playwright.

Sir Edward — In cross-examination in Wilde v. Queensberry you denied all the charges against you. Was the evidence then given by you absolutely and entirely true evidence?

Witness — Entirely true evidence.

Sir Edward — Is there any truth in any one of the allegations of indecency which has been brought against you in this case?

Witness — There is no truth whatever in any one of the allegations.

Mr Gill began in cross-examination much on the lines adopted by Mr Carson in the former trial. The learned counsel quoted from a sonnet of Lord Alfred Douglas, to which occurred the line — "I am that love, but dare not speak its name." What was the nature of the love represented in that poem?

Wilde now gave with marked deliberation and emphasizes the following answer: — It is a love which is not understood in this century. It is the love of David for Jonathan, such love as Plato described in his philosophy as the beginning of wisdom. It is a deep spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect, and has dictated the greatest words of art. It is in this century much misunderstood. It is an intellectual affection between an older and a younger man. The elder man has the knowledge of the world, the younger has the joy, the hope, the glamour of life. It is something which this age does not understand. It knocks at it, and it sometimes puts one in the pillory for it (cheers in the gallery).

His Lordship — I shall have the court cleared if there is again the slightest manifestation of feeling.

Mr Gill took the witness through the evidence of the staff from the Savoy Hotel and the masseur, Mr Biggs. He denied there was a word of truth in it.

Wilde also gave the same general denials to the evidence of Charles Parker and Shelley. The latter, he said, used to write him morbid religious letters. The witness Atkins had also given a wrong account of the circumstances under which they met. It was true that Atkins and Schwabe went with him to Paris, but the account given of what took place there was untrue; it was grotesque and monstrous. Taylor’s rooms in Little College street, near the Houses of Parliament, were Bohemian. Taylor burnt pastilles there. He (Wilde) went there to smoke, chat, and amuse himself. Actors came there. Taylor was an accomplished pianist. Mavor was a pleasant, agreeable young man and was his guest at Albemarle Hotel in an ordinary way. Taylor was a young man of private means. He took the boy, Alphonse Conway, whom he met at Worthing, a trip to Brighton. Conway slept in a room off his, divided by two doors.

Did you feel the affection you have described for these youths? Oh, certainly no.

Further examined — He knew that men dressed in women’s clothes went to certain rooms in Fitzroy street, and that Taylor was once arrested there. He (Wilde), knowing that men sometimes dressed as women on the stage, could not imagine what the police were at Fitzroy street for.

Mr Gill — And you saw no reason why the police should see observations on Taylor’s rooms in Little College street?

Witness — I saw none.

Sir Edward Clarke elicited in re-examination that Atkins desired to go on the music hall stage. He communicated that wish to Wilde and obtained an engagement, the defendant purchasing for him his first song. The Allen letters he did not regard as of any importance.

Sir Edward — They were not prose poems?

Witness (smiling) — Oh, no; they contained some slighting allusions to other people which I should have been sorry to see published. I know nothing of the "Chameleon," except that I was told it was to be a literary and artistic magazine.

Wilde then returned to the dock.

The prisoner, Alfred Taylor, was then called and examined by Mr Grain. He said his age was 33, and his father formerly conducted a wholesale business which had now been turned into a limited liability company. He was educated at Marlborough, and was for some time in the militia intending to pass on to the army, but after one training he resigned his commission. In 1883 he came into possession £45,000, and had since lived a life of pleasure about town. The statements of Charles Parker alleging against witness an attempted abominable crime were absolutely untrue.

Cross-examined by Mr Gill — He never went through a sham form of marriage with a man named Charlie Mason. He had never accosted men at the Empire and at the Alhambra. He denied the statements of the Brothers Parker as to what took place in his rooms.

Mr Gill next questioned Taylor as to the incidents of the police raid in Fitzroy street. You were of one the men arrested? I was.

And you had with you Charles Parker? Yes.

How was Parker, getting his living? I understand he was receiving money from his father.

You and Parker were discharged, some were fined and some were bound over? Yes.

Questioned as to the appointments of his apartments at Little College street Taylor said he had a censer there in which he burnt pastilles.

Re-examined — The garment taken from the rooms by the police was an Oriental costume which had come from Constantinople, and had been obtained by him for a fancy dress ball at Covent Garden.

Sir Edward Clarke, on behalf of Wilde, then addressed the jury on the evidence as distinct from topics prejudicially imported into the case." He did not remember the markable course adopted early in the day by Mr Gill to have been followed in any previous case. In a case so important as this the counsel for the Crown ought to have made up their minds as to whether they would proceed for conspiracy or not, and he complained that by the action of the Treasury the defence had for three days been embarrassed. There was a cruel hardship in Mr Oscar Wilde being tried in conjunction with Taylor upon separate and distinct charges, upon which he should ask the jury to give a separate and independent judgement. He pointed this out without desiring in any way to prejudice Mr Grain’s client. It was monstrous to assume that because Lord Alfred Douglas might have — he did not say that he — published certain poems which irritated, annoyed, and outraged the moral view which the jury might apply to literary subjects, therefore Mr Oscar Wilde was to be held responsible. It was with amazement that he (Sir Edward) was forced to discuss the poems of Lord Alfred Douglas. He might as well be ask to defend a poem written on Rizzio, murdered at the feet of Mary, Queen of Scots. He could not refrain from expressing his astonishment that Mr Gill should have in that part of his cross-examination devoted to literature questioned Wilde, not upon his own works, but upon the poems of Lord Alfred Douglas. Denouncing the witnesses for the prosecution as a bend of blackmailers, Sir Edward urged that had Wilde been guilty of the charges he would have recoiled from the ordeal of the witness box. It was upon tainted evidence that a conviction was asked for. Blackmailers flourished in their frightful trade, because ant man drawn into any sort of guilty would rather exile himself than suffer his name to be mentioned in relationship with them. There was an instinctive shrinking of the guilty man; not so with Mr Wilde. He had courageously gone into the witness box to dispose of and defeat the accusations against him. He (the learned counsel) turned to the letters of the witness, Edward Shelly to erase the impressions created by his evidence. Certain portions of the correspondence (which Sir Edward read) could not possibly have been written a sane man, and it was upon the evidence of a witness who admitted that his mind had been deranged that the jury were asked to convict the accused. The jury would have to consider how they would test the evidence from the Savoy Hotel. How could Mr Wilde answer it, after a period of two years, except by a denial? There was not the smallest corroboration of the Savoy case. The jury were asked to accept the view that Mr Wilde had made the wildest and most wanton exhibition of himself. It did not require the experience of the blackmailers who appeared in this case that if they came into court with a statement wholly invented their position would be hopeless. They, therefore took the part that was true, and upon it built all the rest. Charles Parker, Wood, and Atkins were three young men who had appeared in this case under circumstances which should disentitle their evidence to the regard of any jury that ever sat. Anonymous lettre sent by persons who did not wish to be mentioned in connection with these proceedings had enabled him to drag out of Atkins the story of shameful deeds, one of which was the entrapping of a gentleman into a house at Pimlico. It deepened one’s horror that those arranging the prosecution must have had in their knowledge the deeds to which Atkins had confessed, and by which Atkins had been wholly discredited. Sydney Mavor had said absolutely nothing against Mr Wilde. The testimony against him was that of the three blackmailers, Parker, Wood, and Atkins alone. The sensitiveness of art to flattery was proverbial, and several young men did, no doubt, seek one of the most brilliant talkers and thinkers of the day as one likely to help them to a career. He asked the jury not to convict unless they found the evidence overwhelming and convincing, to guard themselves against prejudices, to fix their minds on the tests which ought to be applied to evidence, to gratify a thousand hopes, and to liberate from this terrible position one of the most renowned and accomplished men of letters. In clearing him they would clear society from a stain (applause).

Mr Grain followed by addressing the jury on behalf of Taylor, and endorsed all the observations which had fallen from his learned friend. He frankly admitted that Taylor, as a young man about town, ran through £45,000, and was in 1891, on the petition of creditors, adjudicated a bankrupt. But the jury could not for a single moment thick of convincing a man of the crime of being a common procurer upon the uncorroborated evidence of such persons as the brothers, Chas and Win Parker. Having commented on the absence of proof that nonet had ever been received by Taylor for his alleged services as procurer, the learned counsel claimed a verdict of not guilty. The evidence was tainted from beginning to end. However suspicious the case might be the Crown had failed to carry conviction, and his client was entitled to the benefit of any doubt which might exist in their minds.

Mr Gill replied on the whole case. After the learned advocate had occupied the attention of the jury for some time.

His Lordship asked did Mr Gill propose to deal with the charge against Taylor and Wilde as it affected Atkins.

Mr Gill replied that his contention in regard to that would be that Atkins was "procured" for the journey to Paris at a London restaurant, where the three dined together. It was a remarkable fact that after introductions had been given these parties were always found sleeping in adjoining bedrooms.

Mr Grain and Sir Edward Clarke interposed by pointing out that no charge remained on the record with regard to Mavor.

His Lordship endorsed this view, and Mr Gill resumed his address on another part of the case. He was still proceeding with an exhaustive review of the whole issues when six o’clock was reached, and the court adjourned.