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.

London, Friday.

The trial of Oscar Wilde was resumed today at the Old Bailey, before Mr Justice Wills. In view of the possibility of the case being concluded today, the public gallery was again packed with a crowd of spectators eager to witness the final scene. The Solicitor-General and Mr C F Gill were early in court. The prisoner, who arrived shortly after ten, stood in the well of the Court and had a long consultation with Mr Travers Humphreys. He looked extremely unwell, and his whole appearance and demeanor betokened the keenest anxiety. Shortly before half-past ten Sir Edward Clarke, Q C, entered the court, and joined in the conversation.

The prisoner afterwards proceeded to the foot of the jury box, and talked for some time with the Rev Stewart Headlam and Lord Douglas of Hawick. As soon as his lordship has taken his seat, the prisoner resumed his seat in the dock.

The Solicitor-General again raised the question of the withdrawal of the case as regarded the witness Shelly. He pointed out that in 1894 Mr Justice Collins laid it down that there was no law by which a case could be withdrawn from the jury on the ground that the evidence of an accomplice was uncorroborated.

His lordship said he preferred to adhere to the course which he had taken as the result of very deliberate consideration. One strong reason he had for doing so was that it was contrary to the practice of the law for the judge to allow the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice to go to a jury. He did not see any use in that if the jury were to have the liberty of deliberately disregarding that direction. When an opportunity arose he should be glad to have the question settled authoritatively.

Sir Edward Clarke then rose to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He said he had to deal with that demand of this case, but he should not detain them long now, and he did not think it needful for him to address them at any great length hereafter. The case before them was now very limited, and the witnesses upon who they were asked to rely were few in number. He was painfully conscious of the manner, he had almost said the unjustifiable manner, in which the case had been conducted on the part of the Crown. He should call Mr Wilde into the witness-box again to state for the third time in that court that there was no truth whatever in these accusations which were made against him, and to face for the third time, and now with a new assailant the cross-examination might be administered to him with regard to these accusations. As counsel for the defence, he (Sir Edward) might do something to sustain the traditions of public prosecutions and induce his learned friend to remember that which he feared that for a moment yesterday he seemed to forget that he was there not to try and get a verdict of guilty by any means he could, but to lay before the jury for their consideration and judgment the facts upon which they were asked to give a very serious determination. The jury must give their decision, not on suspicion and innuendo, but upon the evidence of the facts. Broken as Mr Wilde was with the anxiety of these successive trials, he might well be spared the indignity of again going into the witness box. But he would be into the witness box, because otherwise, he (counsel) knew what the Solicitor-General would say, and he Sir Edward would have no opportunity of reply. He contended that Mr Wilde’s conduct throughout had been that of an innocent man. He had courted every inquiry and had surrendered to meet these charges confident in the hope that as examination and examination went on these accusations would break down, as they had been breaking down there five weeks, and that at last he would get his vindication from the judgement of the jury upon the facts of the evidence before them. In conclusion, he submitted that on the evidence the jury could only return a verdict of not guilty. He then called upon Wilde.

The prisoner then entered the witness box, and was allowed to be seated while giving his evidence. He said that his was the third time he had gone into the witness box. He described the nature of his acquaintance with the Queensberry family and Lord Alfred Douglas, and stated that after Lord Queensberry left a card with an offensive inscription, he at once instituted proceedings. In the course of his evidence in the Queensberry libel case, he was asked certain questions with regard to Parker and Wood, in answer to which he made certain statements.

Sir E Clarke — Are all these statements absolutely true? Entirely.

Have you any qualification or alteration to make in regarde to those statements? No; I have no observation to make.

Is there any truth whatever in the accusations made against you in this indictment? None whatever.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General — He said he first made the acquaintance of Lord Alfred Douglas in 1893, and when Lord Queensberry objected to the intimacy between Lord Alfred Douglas and himself, he was quite ready to cease the acquaintance. Lord Alfred, however, desired the acquaintance to be continued. Lord Alfred Douglas was now in Paris, where he went at witness’s desire. Witness had been in communication with him.

Do you frequently correspond with Lord Alfred Douglas? Yes.

Are the two letters that have been read samples of the styles in which you addressed him? I do no think I should say they were samples. The letter written from Torquay was a prose poem in answer to his poem.

"My own boy." Is that the way in which you usually address him? I do not sat usually, but often. He was much younger than I was.

"Your sonnet is quite lovely. It is a marvel that those red rose leaf lips of yours should be made no less for the music of song than for the madness of kissing." Now I ask you this, Mr Wilde, do you consider that was a decent was of addressing a youth? It is like a sonnet of Shakespeare. It was a fantastic, extravagant way of writing to a young man.

Was it decent? Of course it was decent; it is a beautiful way for an artist to write to a young man who has culture, charm, and distinction — decency does not come into the question.

Do you understand the meaning of the word, sir? Yes.

Then I ask you whether you consider it a decent mode of addressing a young man? I can only give you the same answer. It was a literary mode of writing to another intended to be a prose poem.

Do you consider it to be decent phraseology? Oh, yes.

In regard to other portions of the letter, witness said he referred in it to Hyacinthus, who was madly loved in Greek days. The letter was signed "Always with undying love, yours, Oscar." Witness was devoted to Lord Alfred Douglas. He had a refined and intellectual love for him. The other letter was not a prose poem. It was written after there had been a quarrel about something. The letter contained the following: — "Your letter was delightful—red and yellow wine to me; but I am sad and out of sorts. You must not make scenes with me. They kill me. They wreck the loveliness of him. I cannot listen to your curved lips saying hideous things to me. Do not do it, you break my heart. The letter continued — You are the diving thing I wanted thing of grace and genius, but I do not know how to do it. Shall I come to Salisbury."

Witness said an artist in literature, a man of letters always looks for literary expression, and that leads one to certain expressions. Lord Alfred Douglas had stated with hi three times at the Savoy Hotel. Their bedrooms adjoined, and the approach to witness’s room was though Lord Alfred Douglas’s room. After the committal of the Marquis of Queensberry witness and Lord Alfred Douglas left the country together.

You two alone? Yes. Witness further admitted that he had visited Taylor at Little College street, and had met a number of young men there. He could not remember their names. He had never met Parker there.

Did Taylor strike you as being a pleasant companion? Yes; I thought him very bright.

Pleasant? Yes.

Did you know what his occupation was? I understood he had none.

Had any of these persons you met any occupation? I did not ask them.

The Solicitor-General next proceeded to cross-examine witness as to his relations with a man Scarfe.

Sir E Clarke objected on the grounds that it was not relevant.

The Solicitor-General said he had a right to treat the witness as any other witness for the purpose of discrediting them.

His Lordship overruled the objection, but said that if the bounds of fair play were overstepped the consequence would recoil on those who overstepped them.

Witness said Scarfe had visited him at 10 St James’s street, and had lived with him alone in a private room at an hotel. Witness also said that he med a boy named Conway on the beach at Worthing, and took hi moo Brighton for six weeks. He had also met a man named Herrington. With regard to Alfred Wood, he met him at the Cafe Royal. He had been asked to give Wood assistance.

Why did you not give it to him? I did.

Why prolong the interview? If you mean taking him to supper, I wished to be kind to him.

Did you take him to dinner alone in a private room? Yes. Witness added that he afterwards met Wood at the Cafe Royal. He was asked to interest himself in Wood. He was asked to interest himself in Wood. It was after that second meeting he learned that Wood was known to Taylor. He was afterwards told that Wood was minded to extort money from him on account of some letters which witness had written to Lord Alfred Douglas having come into his possession. Witness afterwards met Woods, and the latter gave him the letter.

What did you give him? Ultimately I gave him £15.

What for? Because he wished to go to America.

Do you mean to state that your payment of that money had no relation to the delivery of those letters? None whatsoever.

You paid your money and you got the letters? Yes.

Where are the letters? I tore them up.

You had gone to buy? No, to bargain.

To bargain for what? For these letters.

And you took money for this purpose? Yes.

You paid the money? Yes.

And you got the letters? Yes.

When did you destroy the letters? I tore them up two or three days afterwards. Witness added that on the next day he gave Wood a lunch at the Florence and an additional sum of £5. Wood afterwards went to America.

This concluded the cross-examination, and the Court adjourned for lunch.

On the Court resuming the prisoner, who had entered the dock, was again called into the witness box. In re-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, he said Lord Alfred Douglas was in London during the Police Court proceedings. Until the proceedings in these trials he certainly had no reason to believe that Taylor was a disreputable or immoral person. At the tea parties at Taylor’s rooms the conversation was about the stage, music, and other things of that kind. Witness was perfectly well known at Kettner’s and the other hotels that had been mentioned. The first money he gave Wood was not from himself, but from Lord Alfred Douglas.

With regard the letters you obtained from Wood, did you read them and find that they were of no importance? None whatever.

Is there any presence for saying that you gave £15 as the purchase money for these letters? None whatever.

Was there anything in the letters which you objected to being published? Nothing whatever except perhaps they were a little flippant and trivial.

The prisoner, who during his examinations, had stood in the box with one foot on the seat of the chair and his arms resting on his knees, then again stepped into the dock.

Sir Edward Clarke the had addressed the jury on behalf of the defence. He laid great stress upon the fact that Wilde had three times submitted himself to a searching and formidable cross-examination, and submitted that that fact alone was a strong assertion of innocence. He claimed that in all the pages of evidence given by Mr Wilde in the Queensberry case there was not one statement — except auto the alleged visit to Park walk, which an independent witness had contradicted. He asked the jury to compare the manner in which Mr Wilde had given his evidence and the way in which Wood gave his testimony. And to say that they believed that Mr Wilde was honestly telling them what was in his mind. The duty of the jury was a simple and clear one. A man who was assailed by tainted evidence and gave to them clear, coherent, and lucid account of the transactions in respect of which guilt was alleged against him, was entitled to be believed by the jury, and have his word accepted against a words of blackmailers. If the word of these blackmailers was to be accepted against the defendant, then the profession of the blackmailer might become a more deadly mischief and danger than it ever had been before. He urged that the fact that neither Wood nor Parker ever made a charge against the defendant until the Queensberry was heard and had never tried to get money out of him, was powerful evidence in Wilde’s favor.

Having claimed a verdict of acquittal Sir Edward resumed his seat amid the outburst of applause, which was quickly subdued.

The Solicitor-General then commenced his reply for the prosecution, and had not included when the court adjourned until tomorrow.

(CENTRAL NEWS TELEGRAM.)

Paris, Friday. The Figaro publishes a telegram from Lord Alfred Douglas demanding an apology for statements in that paper, but regretting that it was not he who had corrected his father.