Compare Documents

Sir Edward Clarke instantly and with emphasis exclaimed, "If that had been done in the first instance I should have applied that the defendants should be tried separately. Of course I know my learned friend has the legal right to withdraw the counts at any stage of the case."

His Lordship said the evidence had suggested to his mind that the counts of conspiracy were really unnecessary, and

Sir Edward Clarke said that he must ask that a verdict of not guilty on the conspiracy counts might at once be taken of the jury.

His Lordship: I cannot say that. All I can say at the present stage of the trial is that I feel it my duty to accede to Mr. Gill's application.

Sir Edward Clarke: At some part of the case I shall claim that a verdict of not guilty be entered on these counts.

Before the sensation of this first surprise had died away Sir Edward Clarke was on his feet again. "Have you something more to say?" asked his lordship; and the

SENSATION WAS REDOUBLED

when Sir Edward Clarke replied, "No, my lord, I was about to address the jury," After the announcement that had just been made, he said, an announcement of the importance and significance of which he would have much to say later is the day, he was going to call Mr. Oscar Wilde before the jury as a witness! This decision had not been arrived at in consequence of the decision of Mr. Gill in regard to charges which, if they were not to be proceeded with, should never have been put into the indictment. And Sir Edward was fully alive to all the consequences of the course he had elected to take. To put Mr. Wilde in the witness-box would entitle Mr. Gill to the right of reply in the case, and expose him (Sir Edward) to the consequence of having that evidence and his own observations commented on and replied to. But he had never attached as much importance to "the last word" as the great advocate who taught him his profession used to do.

The court was very hushed and still when the full significance of Sir Edward Clarke's decision was realised. Wilde himself was least moved of anyone, sitting impassive and expressionless in his corner of the dock. But when Sir Edward had fully embarked on an eloquent and most impressive opening of the case for the defence, Wilde leaned forward as if irresistibly drawn out of his habitual attitude of insouciance by their fervor and

DEEP EARNESTNESS

of his advocate. Sir Edward first protected against the notion of Mr. Gill yesterday is insisting on reading, for the purpose of prejudicing Mr. Wilde, the cross-examination in the Queensberry case. I was a cross-examination upon his books and writings, and Coleridge had long ago said, "judge no man by his books. The man is more a greater than his books." But Mr. Wilde had been judged, not by his own books alone, but by articles written by other people which he had repudiated as horrible and disgusting. Sir Edward would not himself save the smallest hesitation about defending "Dorian Grey," a very simple story which appeared first in Lippincott's, a publication in the highest class of American periodical literature, and which, in book form, had since been in constant circulation and on sale in every English bookshop. As to Mr. Carson's cross-examination of Wilde as the French work, "A Rebours," Sir Edward described it as genuinely unfair, and a violation of every canon of justice. He described Wilde's responsibility for any of the views expressed in that book or in the story of "The Priest and the Acolyte," about which Wilde was one of

THE FIRST TO PROTEST.

Then, passing from the literary part of the case, Sir Edward pointed out that the latest date at which misconduct was charged against Wilde was September, 1893, 18 months ago, and that it was his own act in prosecuting Lord Queensberry which had brought this matter before the public and placed him in his present peril. Wilde had long been, and was now, a friend of Lady Queensberry and her son. Lord Queensberry had been divorced from his wife.

Mr. C.F. Gill interrupted that this was irrelevant and in no way material to the present case, and he should protest against any attack on Lord Queensberry, who was not represented here.

There was a laugh when Sir Edward replied that Mr. Gill rebuking irrelevance was rather amusing. He did not further describe Lord Queensberry's position, but proceeded that he, Sir Edward, was responsible for the advice given to Mr. Wilde in the Queensberry case, and it was partly because of that fact that he was here again on Wilde's behalf to meet an accusation which could not be properly tried then. Men charged with offences like those alleged against Mr. Wilde, he said, when they know themselves to be guilty, shrink from investigation. Men guilty of such offences suffer from

A SPECIES OF INSANITY.

What then would they think of the mental condition of a man who, knowing himself to be guilty, and that evidence of his guilt would be forthcoming from half-a-dozen different places, insisted on bringing his case before the world. On 30 March, before the previous trial, Mr. Wilde knew this catalogue of accusations against him. He nevertheless went into the witness box, as he would now go into the witness box again, to deny absolutely that there was the least truth in any of them.

Mr. Grain said he would also call Taylor to give evidence on his own behalf, but he did not propose to make more than one speech to the jury.

Wilde was then called and sworn. He stepped alertly from the dock to the witness-box, and then, standing erect, or leaning in an easy attitude on the front of the box he

QUIETLY ANSWERED

Sir Edward Clarke's questions. He repeated once more the story of his classical distinctions at Dublin and Oxford, where he took his degree in 1878. Since that year, he said, he had devoted himself to literary work. Recently he had devoted himself specially to dramatic literature, and his first play, "Lady Windermere's Fan," was produced in the early part of 1892. He had since produced "A Woman of No Importance," "An Ideal Husband," and "The Importance of Being Earnest," and had also written "Salomé," a tragedy in French, and contributions for various magazines. In 1884 he married Miss Lloyd, and has two sons. His wife and sons have always lived with him at 16, Tite-st. He also had between October, 1893, and April, 1894, rooms at 10, St. James's-place. They were taken for literary work, and he very rarely slept there. His house at Tite-st. was very small, and he always found it most convenient to work elsewhere, that he might not be disturbed. It was entirely and solely for that purpose he took the rooms at St. James's-place. At his previous examination in the Queensberry case he denied every one of the charges made against him.

Was the evidence that you gave on that occasion absolutely true? - Entirely true evidence.

Is there any truth in any of the allegations made against you in the evidence in this case? - There is

NO TRUTH WHATSOEVER

in any one of the allegations. No truth whatsoever.

With this emphatic declaration the examination in chief was concluded, and Mr. C. F. Gill tose with the weightier purpose of cross-examining. He spoke first of "Dorian Grey," and the letters to Lord Alfred Douglas, the originals of which were handed to the witness. He reminded the witness that he had said Lord Alfred Douglas contributed two poems to the "Chameleon," and that they were beautiful poems. "Yes," said the witness. The first, Mr. Gill continued, was "In Praise of Shame," concluding, "Of all sweet passions, shame is the loveliest."

"May I---," said Mr. Wilde.

"No!" Mr. Gill sharply replied. "Kindly answer my questions!"

"Certainly," said Mr. Wilde; but Mr. Justice Charles interposed, "If you have any explanations to add to your answer you may do so."

"It is not for me to explain anyone else's work," said Mr. Wilde, "but the explanation given to me by the person who wrote that sonnet was that the word shame was used in the

SENSE OF MODESTY--

to feel shame, or not to feel shame. It seemed to me obscure."

The other sonnet was entitled "The Two Loves." It concluded, "'I am true love, I fill the heart of girl and boy with mutual flame.' Then, sighing, said the other, 'Have your will. I am the love that dares not speak its name.'"

Witness: That is clear.

Mr. Gill: Clear that it refers to natural love and unnatural love?

"Oh no," said the witness, "most certainly not," and entered upon the explanation which unfortunately was not at times perfectly audible. The love that dare not speak its name, he said, was the great affection between an elder and a younger man, as between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the basis of his philosophy, such as you find in the sonnets of Michael Angelo and Shakespeare, "and these two letters of mine." It was a love so misunderstood that it might be described as "the love that dare not speak its name." There was

NOTHING UNNATURAL

about it. It was beautiful, it was fine, it was noble, it was intellectual, this love between an elder man, with his experience of life and a younger with all the joy and hope of life before him.

This long explanation was delivered with a dramatic emphasis that drew a burst of spontaneous applause from the small public gallery, His lordship was deeply annoyed. "If there is the slightest manifestation of feeling," he said, "I shall certainly have the court cleared."

Mr. Gill tried to apply this definition to the two letters to Lord Alfred Douglas--the first containing the references to the slim gilt soul and the red rose-leaf lips, and the second saying, "You are the most divine thing I want," and describing Lord Alfred Douglas's letter as being "delightful red and yellow wine to me."

"There is nothing in that," said the witness, "of which I am ashamed. It is full of deep affection. The other letter was more of a prose poem, more of a literary answer to a sonnet he had sent me."

Passing to the incidents at the Savoy Hotel, Mr. Gill asked if the witness would contradict the evidence of the hotel servants. "It is entirely untrue!'' he replied, and with some temper added, "Can I answer for what hotel servants say years after I left the hotel?

IT IS CHILDISH.

I am not responsible for hotel servants." He denied that Charles Parker ever went with him to the Savoy Hotel at all, while admitting that he had lunched at St. James's-place. Edward Shelley's accusations of impropriety were equally untrue.

"Did you see no impropriety is kissing him?" asked Mr. Gill, and the witness replied, "I certainly do not think that one should kiss a young man." It was true that the lad Atkins went to Paris with him, but quite untrue that that any impropriety occurred, as was suggested, there. Schwabe was certainly there, but there were three bedrooms.

Atkins never tried to blackmail you in any way? - No.

And you have no complaint to make of Barton? - No.

Do you know him? - No.

Apart from the suggestions of indecency Atkins's statements were in the main true, and the same remark applied to Wood's evidence. He was introduced to Taylor by Schwabe, and at his rooms in Little College-st., met actors and singers, chiefly young men. the only men ever introduced to him by Taylor to whom his had given money were Charles Parker and Ernest Scarfe.

A rather

CURIOUS ESTABLISHMENT,

wasn't it, Taylor's? - I didn't think so. I thought it Bohemian.

Not the sort of place you usually visit at? You had no other friends in that street? - Of no; merely a bachelor's place. Did you notice that no one could see in through the windows? - No, that I didn't notice.

He burned incense, did he not? - Pastilles, I think.

What did you go there for? - To amuse myself sometimes--smoke a cigarette--music--singing--chat--nonsense.

What was Taylor's occupation? - I understood he had private means.

Then I may take it that you never saw anything at Little College-st. to excite suspicion? - The witness nodded.

And up to the time of the trial nothing had occurred to shake your faith in Taylor? - Nothing.

Mr. Gill now introduced

A NEW NAME

to the case. He asked, "After the Queensberry case was committed for trial did you not see, at Calais, a boy named Tankard, who used to be page at the Savoy Hotel?" "Yes," said the witness, that was when Lord Alfred Douglas and he were going abroad for a few days (the occasion of the flying visit to Monte Carlo) and before the plea of justification, which introduces Tankard's name, had been put in. As to Alphonso Conway, the boy of the beach at Worthing, he was such a happy, bright boy, it was a pleasure to talk to him.

Did you feel this deep affection of an elder man to a younger man towards all these boys?" asked Mr. Gill, and the witness replied with a kind of exaltation. "Certainly not! one feels that once in one's life, and only once, towards anyone."

This practically concluded the cross-examination, which had not been very fruitful of results. Sir Edward claim briefly re-examined. The witness explained that passing through the Calais he recognised the boy Tankard, who was doorkeeper at the buffet. He merely asked him how he was getting on, and he replied that he was learning French. At that time witness knew nothing of the plea of justification. Taylor was an

ACCOMPLISHED PIANIST,

and there was always music at his rooms. When the witness heard that Wood had letters of his he communicated with Sir George Lewis, and Taylor arranged a meeting at his rooms. Witness was anxious to get back those letters (which have not been produced) because they contained some slighting references to other people, which he would not have liked to have published. Then he received an anonymous letter saying that Wood had other letters, and intended to try and extort money by means of them. Witness did not give any money for them at all, but he gave Wood money to enable him to go to America.

In reference to the two poems by Lord Alfred Douglas in the "Chameleon," the witness denied that he had anything to do with their publication, and this concluded his re-examination.

"Alfred Taylor," cried Mr. Grain, whose client changed places with Wilde, nervously struggling to get off his right glove for the purpose of being sworn. Hitherto little has been heard of Taylor's antecedents. He now described himself, in a clear and not unpleasant voice, as 33 years of age, and the son of a manufacturer whose business was now being carried on as a limited company. Up to the age of 16 or 17 he was

EDUCATED AT MARLBOROUGH

School, afterwards going as a private tutor to a house at Preston, near Brighton. He afterwards entered the militia, 4th Batt. Royal Fusiliers, City of London Regiment, with the idea of going into the Army. On coming of age in 1883 he came into a fortune of £45,000, and since that time had had no occupation, living a life of pleasure. The charges of gross misconduct being put to him seriatim, he denied them categorically as "Certainly not true," "Absolutely untrue."

Cross-examined by MR. C. F. Gill, he admitted that the witnesses who had sworn to it had slept at his rooms at Little College-st., and that he had there certain articles of female apparel.

At the time you were living at Chapel-st., were you in serious money difficulties? - I had just gone through the Bankruptcy Court.

Alluding to the depraved life of certain lads, Mr. Gill asked, "You know what I mean?" and the witness replied, "Yes, I thoroughly understand," but

ABOSLUTELY DENIED

that he had been in any way associated with them.

Did you know Wilde well? - Yes.

Did you ever tell them he was fond of boys? - No, never.

Do you know that he is? - I believe he is fond of young people.

Taylor corroborated the story that it was to celebrate his birthday that Wilde invited him to dine at Kettner's, and bring any friends he liked. He took the Parkers, but there was no impropriety of any kind. Asked if he knew a man named Marven who was concerned in the Fitsroy-st. raid, Taylor said yes. Whether he knew what Marven was, that he had "heard a good deal." Witness and Parker were both captured in that raid, but were discharged from custody. Taylor described with every appearance of candor the way in which he made the acquaintance of the various lads who had given evidence in the case, and the tea parties in which they indulged at Little College-st. The cross-examination did not materially advance the case or evoke any kind of damaging admission.

The Court was adjourned for lunch.

Having forfeited the last word, sir Edward Clarke was now required to address the jury on behalf of Wilde. It was so close upon the usual time of adjournment however, that his lordship suggested luncheon first and speech afterwards. Breathing space was very welcome, and gave people

TIME TO REALISE

1. That the withdrawal of the conspiracy indictment has solved the difficulty in regard to which Sir Edward Clarke last night lodged his demurrer.

2. That the defendants, contrary to expectation, had not suffered, even if they had not gained, by going into the witness-box, while they had disarmed the obvious criticism which would have been passed had they not given evidence.

Sir Edward Clarke began in measured terms a careful analysis of the case for the prosecution. Appealing to the jury to set aside prejudice, and regard only the evidence which had been laid before them, he asked if they could possibly find Wilde guilty of the terrible offences with which he was charged. He complained of the embarrassment caused by the action of the Crown in allowing the conspiracy counts of the indictments to stand till late in the case, and pointed out what he said was the cruel hardship of trying the prisoners conjointly on charges, many of which affect them individually only. Taylor, for example, could not possibly be concerned in the charges made by Edward Shelley against Wilde, nor Wilde in the misconduct alleged to have taken place in Taylor's rooms. Dealing then with the evidence, Sir Edward pointed out that in cross-examining Mr. Gill had dealt, not with Wilde's own writing, but with two

POEMS WRITTEN BY LORD ALFRED

Douglas, with which Wilde had no more to do than Sir Edward--or the jury.

The case is proceeding.

The trial of OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, and ALFRED TAYLOR, 33, upon an indictment charging them under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with committing acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of those acts, and other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of those acts, was resumed.

Mr. C. P. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended

Wilde; and Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor; Mr. Leonard Kershaw and Mr. A. F. S. Pasmore held watching briefs.

Mr. GILL said that he and Mr. Avory had had an opportunity of considering the indictment, and had come to the determination not to ask fora verdict on the counts charging the prisoners with conspiracy.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE said that if those counts had been withdrawn in the first instance he should have asked that the prisoners be tried separately. Of course, his learned friend Mr. Gill could say at any time that there was no evidence of conspiracy--that was all he could do.

Mr. JUSTICE CHARLES.--After the evidence had been given it occurred to my own mind that the counts for conspiracy were really unnecessary counts altogether.

Mr. Gill said that was the conclusion which was arrived at on going through the evidence.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE said he wanted know what exactly was position. Would his learned friend to adopt the course of asking his Lordship to strike out the conspiracy counts from the indictment?

Mr. GILL said he was adopting the course of not asking for a verdict on the conspiracy counts, because it would be suggested that there would be a difficulty with regard to calling the prisoners in consequence of the conspiracy counts being in the indictment, and that he himself might take advantage under the conspiracy counts of cross-examining to matters outside the specific charge. For that reason he desired to take the course of not asking for a verdict on the conspiracy counts to avoid any difficulty being placed in the way of the prisoners giving evidence.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said that Mr. Gill was entitled to take that course.

Sir EDWARD CLARKE.-- I ask for a verdict of not guilty at once on those counts.

Mr. JUSTICE CHARLES.-- I cannot assent to that course.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE.--I am entitled to a verdict of not guilty at one time or other because the prisoners have been given in charge.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES.-- I think at the present stage of the trial it is my duty to say that I accede to Mr. Gill's application.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE.-- Then I say that at some stage of the case I shall ask for a verdict of not guilty to be entered on those counts.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE then opened the case for the defence of Wilde. He said that the announcement which had been made by Mr. Gill was one on which he should think it his duty to comment later on in the day. At that moment he thought it better to say nothing about it, as he should like to weigh the observations which he desired to make on that very remarkable incident in a very remarkable trial. He was going to call Mr. Oscar Wilde as a witness. That decision to call him as a witness had not been arrived at in consequence of the statement made by Mr. Gill--but he certainly felt strengthened in that resolution to call Mr. Wilde by the fact of this tardy withdrawal of charges which, if they were not intended to be proceeded with, ought not to have been put into the indictment--nor in consequence of the statement which his learned friend Mr. Gill had made with regard to what he felt to be the proper limits of cross-examination--limits which, if they had been applied at the beginning of yesterday instead of to-day, would have saved the trouble of reading a good deal of the cross-examination which was read yesterday. That cross-examination had been read, and there were some topics in it upon which he must address some observations. He trusted that the calling of Mr. Wilde would not materially lengthen the trial. On a consideration of the notes of the cross-examination read yesterday it became very clear to him that in justice to Mr. Wilde he should have asked that some notes of his examination in chief should be read before the jury. But then it occurred to his mind that the jury would naturally prefer to hear Mr. Wilde's statement made in the witness-box before them instead of being asked to rely on the evidence given at the hearing of the charge of libel. If the evidence in chief were to be read at all, he came to the conclusion that the jury would prefer to hear to-day Mr. Wilde's denial on oath. He was aware that that would entitle Mr. Gill to the right of reply, and that it would expose himself to the necessity of having that evidence and his own observations upon it commented upon by his learned friend and criticized by him after his mouth was closed. But he never had at any time during his professional life attached nearly half so much importance to what was called the last word that some great advocate who taught him his profession had attached to it. The conduct of a portion of the Press in reference to the ease had been disgraceful--it was conduct calculated to imperil the administration of justice and was in the highest degree prejudicial to the interests of the prisoners. Mr..Gill asked the jury to dismiss from their minds anything which they might have seen in newspapers. Mr. Gill in saying that was quite fair, but it was not fair for him to have insisted upon having the cross-examination of Mr. Wilde on his writings which they had heard. It was not fair to judge of a man by his own books. Coleridge said long ago, "Judge no one by his books. Man is more and greater than his book." The strange unfairness in the case had been that an attempt had been made, and that attempt was repeated by the reading of the cross-examination yesterday, not to judge Mr. Wilde by his own book, but by books which he did not write and to judge him by an article which he did not write and which he repudiated as horrible and disgusting. He himself should have no difficulty in defending the story of "The Picture of Dorian Gray " if it was necessary. Of all strangely unfair cross-examinations which were ever addressed in a Court of justice the cross-examination addressed to Mr. Wilde on literature with which he had nothing to do was the most unfair, and now that cross-examination was dragged in again for the purpose of biasing the minds of the jury against Mr. Wilde. He himself denounced that as violating every canon of fairness. The question of the literature was an entirely different question from that which the jury had now to determine. The last date mentioned in the indictment was 18 months ago.The jury would, no doubt, ask themselves how it was that this question now arose. The reason was that Mr. Wilde insisted on having it investigated before the public. It was Mr. Wilde's act and his act alone in charging Lord Queensberry with libel which had brought the matter before the public. Mr. Wilde's counsel and not Mr. Wilde were responsible for the course taken in withdrawing from that charge of libel. If Mr. Wilde were a guilty man, would he have provoked this investigation? It was a remarkable fact that there was only one statement in Mr. Wilde's evidence which the prosecution had called a witness to contradict--that was, the statement that he had never been to see Charles Parker at Park-walk, and the prosecution had called a witness who said that one night she was looking out of the window and saw a gentleman, whom she recognized as Mr. Wilde, getting into a hansom cab.. He should call Mr. Wilde, who would deny on oath that there was any truth in the allegations made on the part of the prosecution.

Mr. GRAIN said he should also call the prisoner Taylor, but he only proposed to make one speech.

The prisoner Wilde was then called as a witness, and, in reply to Sin EDWARD CLARKE, he said he was married and had two sons. He had the rooms in St. James's-place because he wanted to be quiet for literary purposes. His own house was small, and his two sons were not at school, so he took the rooms in St. James's-place in order to be able to write there without being disturbed. In his evidence given at the trial of Lord Queensberry on the charge of libel he gave a denial to all the charges, and that evidence was entirely true.

Being asked by SIR EDWARD CLARKE,-- Is there any truth in any one of the allegations of indecent

conduct made against you? Wilde replied.-- There is no truth whatever in any one of those allegations.

In cross-examination by Mr. GILL, Wilde repeated that there was no truth whatever in the allegations, and said that the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution who made any allegation of indecency against him was entirely untrue.

The prisoner Taylor was then called as a witness, and in answer to Mr. GRAIN he said that his father, who was now dead, carried on a large business which was now a limited company. He was educated at Marlborough, and then went to a private tutor at Preston, near Brighton. He afterwards entered the Militia, with the intention of going into the Army, but he gave it up. In 1883 he came into a sum of 45,000. He lived in town, and had no occupation. There was no truth whatever in the allegations made against him on the part of the prosecution.

Taylor was cross-examined by Mr. Gill, and reiterated his denial of the allegations.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE, addressing the Jury for the defence of Wilde, said that the question which the Jury had to decide as to Mr Wilde was in a great degree distinct from the question which they had to decide with regard to Taylor. He said he would make some observations on the remarkable course taken by the prosecution in this ease, which he did not remember to have been taken in any other case. The jury would recollect that he himself made an objection to the indictment on the ground that in the indictment there were two sets of counts, one set of counts charging offences on the part of the defendants and the other set of counts charging conspiracy between the defendants, and that on one set of counts the defendants could be called as witnesses and on the other set of counts they could not. The learned Judge recognized the inconvenience of the way in which the law now stood, but said that the indictment containing those counts might be put before the jury. He himself accepted his Lordship's expression of opinion on the point loyally. But what about the prosecution? Had the prosecution evidence which required the counts for conspiracy to be put in the indictment or not? If they had not, then why were those counts put in the indictment, and why were the prisoners to be put to the embarrassment of having to meet an indictment upon part of which they could give evidence and on part of which they could not? He did not make any complaint against his learned friends. If there was any point of law on the indictment it still remained in spite of the course taken by the prosecution of withdrawing the counts charging the prisoners with conspiracy. But counsel for the Crown ought to have made up their minds whether they were going to allege conspiracy or not. His Lordship would tell the jury that the conversation alleged to have taken place between Taylor and the Parkers at the St. James's restaurant when they first met was no evidence at all against Mr. Wilde.

Mr. Justice Charles said it was evidence against Taylor only.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE, continuing, proceeded to refer to the evidence of the witnesses called out on the part or the prosecution. With reference to the witness Shelley, he pointed out that Shelley himself stated that when he wrote the letters which were read to him in cross-examination he thought that people were under the impression that his mind was disordered. William Parker and Mavor stated that no impropriety took place between Mr. Wilde and themselves. The only witnesses who said anything against Mr. Wilde were Atkins, Wood, and Charles Parker. Sir Edward Clarke contended that Atkins had been concerned in blackmailing, and that Wood and Charles Parker had participated in a sum of money which had been obtained from a gentleman by means of blackmail. Atkins, Wood, and Charles Parker, three blackmailers, were the only persons who said anything against Mr. Wilde. To support the charge the evidence ought to be convincing--evidence which the jury believed to be honest; untainted, and in all degrees true. Could the jury say that with regard to any one piece of the evidence which attacked the conduct of Mr. Wilde that those epithets could be applied? The jury were dealing with matters which were alleged to have taken place a long time ago, and consequently it was impossible that witnesses could be called by Mr. Wilde, who could only meet the allegations by the statement that they were false. The reason why Mr. Wilde was introduced to the young men was that he liked the society of the youthful. Sir Edward Clarke asked the jury to fix their minds firmly on the tests which ought to be applied to the evidence, and that he trusted that the result would gratify those thousand hopes which were waiting upon their verdict and to clear one of our most renowned and accomplished men of letters from the charge made against him.

Mr. GRAIN then addressed the jury for the defence of Taylor. He contended that the evidence against Taylor was uncorroborated.

Mr. GILL replied on the part of the prosecution.

The hearing of the case was adjourned until to-morrow.