Compare Documents

One curious change of policy was observed during the trial of the Queensberry, Wilde, and Taylor scandals. In the early stages of these cases everybody seemed agreed that no names should be mentioned unnecessarily, and the evidence became a patchwork of naughts and crosses, dotted with X, Y, and Z, where proper names should have been. The blanks were at first numerous, and a full score of little pieces of paper, with mysterious names written upon them, were handed to the various Judges and Magistrates who have had a hand in this unsavoury stew. Then on the Wednesday Taylor was called into the box, and being pressed for the name of one of his associates at Little College-Street, asked, "Must I mention my friend's name? I would RATHER WRITE IT DOWN."

"No," said the Solicitor-General, "we will have no names kept, back!" and Mr. Justice Wills quietly added, "if you write it, I shall read it out. I do not approve of mystery in cases of this kind. It is sometimes done good-naturedly, and great mischief is caused. It is supposed that there is some kind of mystery, and that the Judge and everybody else are concerned in a kind of conspiracy. We will have nothing of that kind."

Now, if this is a good rule for one, it is a good rule for all, and the public may be excused for trying to fill up some of the blanks which remain. For example, the Star says, it would be interesting to know:-

1. Who is the Oxford undergraduate who created the Chameleon, and seduced the unsuspecting Wilde and the innocent Lord Alfred Douglas into contributing to pages.

2. Who wrote the story of "The Priest and the Acolyte," which so polluted said pages, that even Wilde - he says himself - protested?

3. Who was the "friend of Lady Queensberry" who first took Lord Alfred Douglas to Tite-street and introduced him to Wilde in 1891?

4. Who was the friend of the Marquis of Queensberry who accompanied him on his visit to Tite-street in 1894, when he threatened Wilde with condign punishment if he did not cease to associate with Lord Alfred? Wilde applied to this friend his perpertually reocurring phrase, remarking that "his name was of no importance."

5. Who was the "gentleman" who lived at Margaret-street, Regent-street, in whose house Wilde first met Atkins and Mavor? (It may have been Schwabe, whose name was in the early stages of the case treated as a profound mystery.)

6. Who is the gentleman "whose name it is not necessary to mention" in whose company Charles Parker on one occasion called on Wilde at the Albemarle Hotel?

7. Who is the gentleman who was blackmailed of £500 by Allen and Wood at their den in Regent-street on accusations of misconduct with Charles Parker?

8. Who is the musical composer with whom Charles Parker went to Paris for a month - according himself as valet - six months after he first met Taylor?

9. Who is the "Birmingham gentleman" whose name was handed to Atkins on a piece of paper with a suggestions that he tried to blackmail him at 124 Tachbrook-street, on the occasion when he and Burton were taken to Rochester-row Police Station?

10. Who is the gentleman the same scoundrel are scorned of having blackmailed of £200 at 35, Alderney-street, in August, 1892?

11. Who are the "two American gentlemen" they are accused of having trial to blackmail at the Hotel Victoria in Northumberland-avenue in 1893?

12. Who is the "foreign nobleman" whose yacht lay off Scarborough whom they are accused of blackmailing of £500?

13. Who is the "elderly City man" they are accused of blackmailing by picking his pocket of his papers at their lodging in Buckingham-palace-road, afterwards going to his office and threatening to expose him?

A STRANGE STORY.

We have received some information which clearly establishes the fact that Oscar Wilde had at no time any intention of endevouring to escape from the country. It appears that every night for a week or more, a yacht was waiting at Gravesend to convey him across to the Continent. But Wilde would have nothing to do with this plan of his friends. He was determined to resolutely face the trial and its consequences. We are of opinion, however, that if he had attempted to get away the Government would not have been sorry, and no obstacle would have been placed is his path.

LETTER FROM THE REV. STEWART HEADLAM.

The Rev. Stewart D. Headlam, writing in his journal, the Church Reformer, yesterday, says:-

"I think it due to my friends, to make the following statement:-

"I became bail for Mr. Oscar Wilde on public grounds: I felt that the action of a large section of the Press, of the theatrical managers at whose houses his plays were running, and of his publisher, was calculated to prejudice his case before his trial had even begun.

"It was a surety, not for his character, but for his appearance in court to stand his trial. I had very little personal knowledge of him at the time; I think I had only met him twice; but my confidence in his honour and manliness has been fully justified by the fact that (if rumour be correct, notwithstanding strong inducements to the contrary) he stayed in England and faced his trial.

"Now that his trial is over, and Mr. Wilde has been convicted and sentenced, I still feel that I was absolutely right in the course I took, and I hope that, after he has gone through his sentence, Mr. Wilde may he able, with the help of his friends, to do good work in his fresh life."

TO THE EDITOR OF THE REYNOLDS'S NEWSPAPER.

SIR, - The Daily Chronicle has well said that the sentence on Oscar Wilde, "enforced, as it will be, by the severest rigours known to our abhorrent penal system, is virtually a sentence of death or of madness." And yet, notwithstanding this admission, the same journal, in a leaderette written two days after, refuses to publish any of the large number of letters addressed to it by "distinguished literary men" protesting against the severity, of the sentence--ergo, the Chronicle is content that Wilde shall suffer death for misdemeanour (not a crime or a felony, be it remembered), for which the law adjudges two years' imprisonment an adequate punishment.

The hostile attitude of the theatrical profession to the man who promised to be the greatest ornament to dynamic literature since the days of Sheridan is revolting. I know nearly all the artists in London from the highest to the lowest, and am sincerely attached to many of them; but their warmest admirers will hardly claim for them as a body a double dose of virtue. Yet managers have expunged Wilde's name from their avertisements, while pocketing the plunder attaching to his admirable work. I have no patience with the smug respectability which uses the work and disowns the workman. Why not mete the same treatment to Shakespeare, who has been directly accused--and by a well-known historian--of like sympathies, if not of like practices? Why not divorce Byron's name from "Childe Harold," and Marlow's from "Faustus," because both have been similarly suspected? Why not cloak the fact that Burns wrote "Tam o' Shanter," seeing that, in moral matters, we are told that he was "like a bull let loose on a herd"?

ADVOCATUS MISERICORDIA.

May 29, 1895. TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLDS'S NEWSPAPER.

SIR,--In your issue of May 26 in the article on "Male Prostitution," commenting on the recent trial of Oscar Wilde, the writer observes in references to the chief witnesses:--

"It is appalling to think that the conviction of any man should depend upon the testimony of such loathsome creatures. . . . Are the male strumpets who have given evidence in this case to go unpunished?"

Permit me through your columns to draw earnest attention to to your bold and salutary words. As one consequence as a result of this trial, we are menaced with a most serious social danger. Through the medium of Reynolds's Newspaper alone can the distateful topic be efficiently discussed. Elsewhere the Press appears to suffer from spurious delicacy.

See what has happened. Several persons, according to their own statements at the late trial, voluntarily committed, for payment, unlawful acts with Wilde. They are not put on their trail but Wilde is. Their evidence is accepted as proof of his guilt, and he is sentenced. But Shelley, the only "untrained" witness, is put aside, on the ground that his evidence is not sufficiently corroborated. To what class belong the others whose evidence was deemed satisfactory? To the most infamous and dangerous class with which Society is infested--the class of well-dressed "black-mailers." Thus "tainted" witnesses have secured a victory for the prosecution!

Now comes the question--Is this a victory for the prosecution alone? Is it not a victory for the black-mailing class also? What is to hinder these scoundrels from having imitators? Wilde suffers, not they. The results gives them a leverage with which to bear upon their future victims. You, sir, may well term this state of things "appalling."

Again, the evidence of confederates and black-mailers was admitted to be worthless. What turned the scale in the prosecution's favour? Corroboration. But if direct evidence is worthless, how can we be sure that apparent corroboration is not a mere concurrence of accidents, illusory as establishing Wilde's guilt?

"Oh, but," replied Sir Frank Lockwood, "what would you have? These vices are practised so secretly that full corroboration is difficut to get, it not impossible."

So it comes to this, that a man may be charged with indecency, and pronounced guilty, on the evience of confessed participants, who are, as blackmailers to boot, more criminal far than he is. Further,corroboration in all such cases is necessarily imperfect.--

Respectfully yours,

SIDNEY FITZGERALD.

May 20, 1895, TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLD'S NEWSPAPER.

SIR,--Once more and for the last I feel myself compelled to write a few words in defence of the unfortunate Oscar Wilde. I have read the forcible leading article in the Sunday edition of May 26, and I agree with everything in it except certain remarks bearing upon Mr. Wilde himself.

Those remarks I never will agree with, because I do not believe him to be guilty, even now. I know of no words forcible enough to express my own loathing, my disgust, my horror of such vile and trashy counterfeits of men as Messrs. Parker, Wood, Atkins, and Co.

I do not not think that a colder-hearted nor a more selfish creature than I am ever stepped in shoe leather. I have never felt interested in anyone hitherto, and I never cared for anybody except myself. But I suppose there must be a spark of womanly feeling in me after all, and if there is it has been called into some sort of life by the unfortunate subjet of this letter. What little sympathy I can give I have given to him from the very first, and I shall give it still.

I have waded through the evidence over and over again, and I can't see a single instance in which Wilde has spoken one ill word against his accusers nor any other person who may have been concerned in bringing about his social ruin for purposes of their own. He seems to me a just-dealing man, and a man of principle also, and, as far as I can see, he has never been unkind in his acts, nor spoken unkindly to anybody at any time. Even if I could bring myself to believe him a guilty man, I should consider that his punishment had already far exceeded his wrong-doing.

I cannot close this letter without saying what I think of the creature who has flaunted about in and out of the Old Bailey with yellow roses in his buttonhole, and his hat stuck airily upon the end of his walking-stick. If I were a man I would meet him face to face, and give him his deserts with my own hands. God, I would! He is the most outrageous little snob it is possible for one to conceive.--Yours, very angrily,

"A WOMAN OF NO IMPORTANCE."

London, May 21.

The trial of Alfred Taylor in connection with the charges against Oscar Wilde was resumed at the Old Bailey this morning before Mr. Justice Wills. The Solicitor- General (Sir Frank Lockwood), Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. Sutton appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. J. G. Grain and Mr. W. Clark Hall for the defence.

Sir Frank Lockwood arrived, breezy and burly, before half past 10. Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory were already in their places, arranging with Mr. Cuffe, the Public Prosecutor, the last stages of their case. Wilde did not put in an appearance to-day, and when the proceedings began his counsel,who yesterday stuck to their places persistently, were not in attendance.

Mr. Justice Wills had no sooner taken his seat than Mr. Grain called "Alfred Taylor," and the prisoner, with an alert light step, left the dock and passed across to the witness-box, where he was sworn. He deposed that he was now 33 years of age, and was the son of the late Henry Taylor, who was a manufacturer of an article of food in large demand. Till the age of 17 he was at Marlborough School. After that he was educated by a private tutor at Preston, near Brighton. In 1882 he joined a militia regiment with the intention of seeking a commission in the army. In 1883 he came of age and succeeded under the will of his father to a fortune of £45,000. He thereupon abandoned his military ambition and began a life of pleasure in town, which ended in his being made bankrupt. In 1893 he was living in Little College-street, but it was absolutely untrue that there or anywhere else he committed any act of indecency with either Charles or William Parker; and he certainly did not procure either of these persons to commit indecencies with Oscar Wilde. All this he said in a clear, composed voice, standing with his hands on his hips, and his blue cloth jacket thrown open, in an easy unconcerned attitude. He did not change his position when Sir Frank Lockwood rose to cross-examine, but his utterance became more nervous and staccato, and he rocked uneasily from one foot to the other.

"Since you left the militia," asked the Solicitor-General "have you had any fixed occupation?" No; Taylor had done nothing but spend his money. At Little College-street he had only one bedroom. He had a good many visitors there. Boys of 16? I don't remember anyone as young as 16, except Mrs. Grant's children who brought up my milk in the morning. Did Charles Mason stay with you? Yes ; about a week, when I first went there, in 1892. He is now 26 or 27. Did he sleep in the same bed? Yes. Were you on terms of affection with him? I don't understand your question. If you mean did I commit acts of indecency, I did not, I knew him very well. He was a great friend of mine. How did you address him? As "dear Charlie." In writing to him did you send him your love? Yes; I generally do. When you are writing to a young man ? It depends who the man is. If he is a great friend of mine, I might say "with love," "Yours affectionately," or something of that kind. And that is how Mason would address you ? I suppose so. Do you remember going through a form of marriage with Mason? No, never. Did you not tell Parker you had? Nothing of the kind. No burlesque ceremony? No, nothing. Had you articles of women's dress there? Only an Eastern costume. A woman's costume? It was made for a woman. I wore it. On what occasions? At fancy dress balls, at the carnivals at Olympia, at Covent Garden, and at Queen's-gate Hall. You dressed as a woman? Hardly that. I wore knickerhockers and stockings under a long open cloak. And a woman's wig? No; the wig was made for a ball to which I went dressed as Hick Whittington. Women's stockings? Yes.

Asked how many different men had shared his bedroom, the witness with some hesitation recalled the names of Mason, the two Parkers, and Sidney Mavor. Then he stopped. Being pressed by the Solicitor-General he added the name of Harrington. Sir Frank Lockwood continued to urge him to disclose a complete list of his acquaintance, and he asked, "Must I mention my other friend's name?" "Yes," said the Solicitor-General, in a tone which showed he meant it. "May I not write it down on a piece of paper?" "No! We will have no names kept back." "I would rather write it down."

His lordship here quietly interposed, "If you write it I shall read it out. I don't approve of mystery in cases of this kind. It is sometimes done good-naturedly, and great mischief is caused. It is supposed that there is some kind of mystery, and that judge and everybody else are in a kind of conspiracy. We will have nothing of that kind."

The witness next succeeded in remembering the name of Ernest Macklin. He met him first at his mother's house. Must he mention where it was? "No," said the Solicitor-General, "we will spare her that."

Macklin had slept at Little College-street. So had Freddy Atkins. So had Harrington. And Martin? No, never. Can't you remember any others? I'm trying to think. Perhaps you can assist me if you have the names. Harrington introduced the Parkers to you? He did. Is he here? I don't know.

"Call him," commanded the Solicitor-General with his finest brigadier-general air, and the shouts of the ushers promptly evoked a dark, good-looking young fellow with crisp black hair and a small moustache. Yes, that was Harrington, said the witness, who seemed more surprised than pleased at seeing him. He first met Harrington at the house of a man named Court in July, 1892.

Did you take him the same night to a restaurant in Victoria-street? Not the same night, I never took him at all. It was my friend. Who is your friend? Must I mention his name? Yes, you must. Schwabe. That is the person you say introduced Wilde to you? Yes. Was it not a man named Harold Henry? I think you are right. It was. I had dined with Schwabe and Harrington, but it was on another occasion. Who is Henry? A musician; a clerk in a music publisher's. Have you slept with him? Yes; he was staying with me at that time. He was in your bedroom? Yes; whenever my friends came to see me they always saw all the rooms because they were rather interested in them. The witness denied positively that he had been guilty of impropriety with Harrington.

Mr. Grain took objection to the question being raised with regard to a man who had not been called in the case, but his lordship held that as cross-examination to character the question was relevant.

Taylor adhered to his story that the Parkers were introduced to him by Harrington in the St. James's Restaurant bar, and that he invited them to his rooms because he found them "very nice."

In what way were they "very nice"-nice-looking? No; pleasant-spoken and amusing. When you first met them did you mention the name of Oscar Wilde? No; not on that occasion. Did you say that Oscar Wilde had lots of money? Not then. When? Nor at any other time. Because I don't think he had. Did you say he was fond of boys? I may have said he was fond of young people--that he liked their society. I did not put it in the way you mean.

He met the young fellows afterwards-at the Alhambra, the Empire, the Pavilion, and the St. James's Restaurant. The Solicitor-General did not ask how it came that valets and grooms out of place could afford to frequent such places, but he asked, "Who paid? These are not free institutions!" "We all paid for ourselves," Taylor replied. "I was not in a position to pay for other people."

At this stage in the proceedings the Marquis of Queensberry came into court for the first time since his own acquittal. He was given a seat in the pew reserved for friends of the Corporation.

As to the charge of procuring the Parkers, the Solicitor-General cross-examined closely to show that Wilde had never set eyes on the lads till Taylor took them to dine with him at the Soho restaurant.

There were four of you at table, Oscar Wilde, yourself, the ex-groom, and the ex-valet? Yes. Why did you take them? It was my birthday. They were my friends. Charlie Parker wanted to go on the stage. I thought Oscar Wilde would be a useful man to help them. Your friends of a fortnight? "You might say three weeks," said the witness, who added that the birthday party was of a convivial character. They all laughed a good deal. At the humours of the Parkers? No, the humours of Mr. Wilde. It was he who was amusing? I supposed it amused him to amuse us. Did you hear him say that Charles Parker was the boy for him? No, I did not. Did Charles Parker leave the restaurant with Oscar Wilde? No. Up to that point the story of the Parkers is true? Yes, up to that point. And from that point? The Parkers went in with me into the St. James's and had drinks, and then both went with me to Westminster and slept at my place. You say that distinctly? I do.

Taylor repeated his former story of the Fitzroy-square affair, and admitted that at the police-station on that occasion he saw Marling, whom he had known for some months. He did not think that it was Marling who introduced Scarfe to him. He (witness) introduced Scarfe to Oscar Wilde at St. James's-place. He never mentioned Wood's name to Wilde until he knew that they were acquainted.

Sir Frank Lockwood then read a letter from Charles Mason to the prisoner, which contained the phrase, "Come home soon, dear."

He examined witness, who said he saw nothing extraordinary in the letter about the choice of this phrase.

Sir Edward Clarke (interrupting): My lord------ Sir Frank Lockwood (turning round): You are not in this case.

In re-examination by Mr.Grain the prisoner repeated his denial of all the charges.

Mr. Grain, on behalf of the prisoner, maintained that Sir Frank Lockwood had elicited from him nothing whatever that could in any way discredit his evidence. He went carefully through the evidence, of the other witnesses with a view to showing that a great deal of it was tainted. He alluded to the introduction of Harrington as merely a dramatic incident which could have no possible object, except to imply that offences had been committed by him and Taylor, and so to discredit Taylor's evidence in the minds of the jury. He pointed out that Taylor had had ample reason during the past two years to know that he was under suspicion, and was being watched by the police. He had nothing to keep him in England, and he could not, had he gone abroad, have been extradited on any of the charges now brought against him. But instead of doing that he had preferred to await his trial, and had elected to-go into the witness-box, and to submit to the searching cross-examination of the counsel for the Crown.

Sir Frank Lockwood, in reviewing the case for the prosecution, referred to Mr. Grain's contention of yesterday, that there was a complete absence of corroboration. He pointed out that corroboration in a matter of this kind could not possibly be of a direct nature; and short of that, he contended, there was quite sufficient corroboration to support the evidence. The truth of the evidence of the Parkers, he said, had to be admitted by Taylor in everything short of the actual commission of the offences charged. What better corroboration could there be than that? The general mode of living and the associations of Taylor were also matters which threw the clearest light on his conduct. Dealing with the names mentioned by Taylor, in the course of his evidence, he said that they were all those of young men who were without occupation. He commented on the discovery of female attire in Little College-street, and on Taylor's explanation of that. Dealing with the visits which Charles Parker said he had made to the Savoy Hotel, he pointed out that although a waiter appeared and said he had served supper there to Wilde and a young gentleman, there was no attempt made to prove that that young gentleman was not Parker, although his visit was so strongly denied. That, he said, was corroboration of the story which both the Parkers told of that visit to the Savoy Hotel. In the case of the Parkers alone there was corroboration both of procuration and of the subsequent commission of the offence for which the procuration was carried out. The suggestion was made that Parker was not to be believed because he was accused of having accepted money from blackmailers. Wood was suggested as the person who had actually conducted the operations. And Wood was a welcome visitor to Taylor at Little College-street. It was not suggested that Parker had ever attempted to blackmail either Taylor or Wilde. It appeared that he had cut himself adrift from his former surroundings. So that be had nothing to gain and very much indeed to lose by telling the story which he had told in the witness-box.

At this point the court adjourned for luncheon.

After the adjournment Sir Frank Lockwood went on to deal with the incidents which were alleged to have taken place, as a point on which Parker's evidence was as fully as possible corroborated. Passing on to the case of Wood, he admitted that Wood was a man who had fallen low enough to be a blackmailer and the associate of blackmailers--and yet he was the intimate friend of Alfred Taylor and stayed with him at his rooms.

His lordship, in summing up, began by laying before the jury a distinction between the different charges on which Taylor was being tried. He pointed out that a prisoner was never convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of persons who were his accomplices in the crime with which he was charged. He said that in the charge of procuration with regard to Wood there had not been corroboration, and on that charge he advised the jury to find a verdict of not guilty.

The second charge against Taylor, his lordship continued, was one of the commission of deeds revolting to human nature. Taylor under examination had given corroborative evidence as far as corroborative evidence could go in the direction of proving such an act. It was clear from his own statements he had sunk much lower than the level he had been associated with when a public schoolboy. The description of Taylor's rooms pointed to an unhealthy effeminacy, which in itself alone might be nothing, but the visits of the young men of questionable character to those rooms was something which the jury could not overlook.

But this was a very different charge from that made by Mr. Justice Charles. Throughout, his lordship seemed to be going directly in support of a verdict of guilty, not only against Taylor, but also, by very broad complication, against Wilde. He frequently contrasted sharply "the scholar and the gentleman" with "that ex-valet whom you have seen, and with whom yon can tell how far you would yourselves like to consort." In speaking of Taylor's admissions, too, that he had allowed the two Parkers to share his bed, he described them as "living as three decent people ought not to live, especially people in Taylor's position of life." Frequently he referred to Taylor's bringing up, his education at Marlborough, and the feeling of repugnance he ought to have felt; but then it was evident that he had sunk much lower than he was when he came into that fortune which was his ruin. He had never tried a case which gave him so much pain; but if they felt that the story of the prosecution was proved they must give their verdict fearlessly. If they fell short of that, then the defendant was entitled to acquittal.

At 3.20 the jury retired to consider their verdict.

At four p.m. the judge returned into court, and said he had received a communication from the jury which he did not understand, and the jury returned into court at 4.7 p.m.

The communication from the jury was a question, whether, in the event of their returning a verdict of guilty on the count of procuration, the verdict would carry with it a decision that Wilde was guilty of indecency, because, though they found Taylor guilty of procuring Charles Parker and Alfred Wood for improper purposes, they found no evidence to prove that Wilde had committed indecency with either.

Before attempting to answer the query, his lordship thought it well to ask for the verdict of the jury as to the charges of committing acts of gross indecency with Parker.

The jury replied that they found the prisoner guilty of acts of gross indecency.

The first count, as to procuration, became under those circumstances, his lordship decided, immaterial.

The jury's verdict of guilty was accepted, and they were discharged from further consideration of the question of procuration.

The Solicitor - General agreed, and Mr. Grain said he saw no advantage to his client in raising any objection.

Taylor was then told to stand down, sentence being deferred.

Sir Edward Clarke desired the charge against Wilde to be proceeded with at once, if a decision in respect of Wilde could not be taken in respect of the finding of the jury that Wilde was not proved to have committed the acts of indecency.

The Solicitor-General rose angrily and said he quite expected something of that kind. His learned friend had no doubt asked for a separate trial in order to avail himself of any such position which might arise.

Mr. Justice Wills terminated the dispute by deciding to take the Wilde case first thing to-morrow, and said he considered a fresh jury desirable under the circumstances.