Compare Documents

Monday was the third day of the trial of Oscar Wilde and Taylor. When Mr. Justice Charles had taken his seat, Mr. Grain, addressing him, said he did not know whether his Lordship had on his notes, with regard to the witness Shelley, that he said Taylor was a stranger to him. The question was put to him at the police court, but not, he believed, at the trial.

Mr. Gill: Certainly there is no evidence that the prisoner Taylor ever knew Shelley.

Mr. Justice Charles: I ought not strictly to add it, because it has not been sworn here. But did he say so before the Magistrate?

Mr. Grain: He did, my lord.

Mr. Justice Charles: Very well.

Antonio Miggie, a masseur, Jane Cotter, a chambermaid, and Mrs. Perkins, formerly housekeeper at the Savoy Hotel, having given evidence as to Wilde's stay at the hotel.

William Harris, a detective sergeant, who obtained access by a subterfuge to Taylor's rooms at 13, Little College-street, in May, 1893, described the interior of the draped and artificially-darkened rooms. It was this officer who arrested Taylor at Denbigh-street, Pimlico, on the present charge.

Mr. Grain's cross-examination suggested that Taylor had heard a warrant was out, and was on his way to give himself up.

Detective-inspector Richards described again the arrest of Wilde at the Cadogan Hotel, Sloane-street, on the evening of the 15th ult., after the collapse of the case against Lord Queensberry.

Detective-inspector Brockwell proved receiving Wilde in custody at Scotland Yard, and conveying him to Bow-street, where he was searched. Among other things found upon him was a slip of paper in Taylor's handwriting. It was addressed to Sidney Mavor, Esq., and was as follows: "Dear Sid; -- I could not wait any longer. Come on at once and see Oscar at 16, Tite-street, Chelsea. -- Yours, Alf. Taylor." There was also found upon him a letter from Taylor, stating that he had left the above note at his rooms for Sidney Mavor, in case he should call, but on arriving home found that a police officer had called, and had been admitted, for the purpose of writing a letter. His (Taylor's) letter to Sidney Mavor had been opened, and a note had been left stating that Inspector Littlechild wanted to see him, and would look out for him at the Old Bailey on the following morning. The note was left on April 4.

In cross-examination the Police Witnesses admitted that Taylor as in attendance at the Old Bailey during the hearing of the Queensberry case.

Mr. Gill next read the papers found in Taylor's hat-box at Chapel-street, Chelsea. Most of them have already been published. Among the new ones was a New Years card from Mavor to Taylor:--

Always a bob in your pocket to spend, Always a good and trusty friend, Wishing you these I add one wish more, A happy and prosperous '94.

Mr. Henry Read, Clerk of Arraigns, formally proved the documents in the charge of libel against the Marquis of Queensberry, and added that the jury returned a verdict of "Not guilty" against the Marquis.

READING EVIDENCE GIVEN AT THE PREVIOUS TRIAL.

Mr. Gill then commenced reading the evidence given in cross-examination by Mr. Wilde as the prosecutor in those proceedings.

At half-past two Mr. A. Gill reached his seventy-third folio, and Mr. C.F. Gill took up the running. Wilde's description of Taylor is worth recording: "I do not call him an intimate friend. He was a friend of mine."

When the reading came to the question of the relations between Wilde and Taylor, Mr. Grain rose to object that Wilde's cross-examination in another case should not be made evidence against his client.

Mr. Justice Charles said he could not exclude it on that ground. It was evidence against Wilde, and that made it legal to read it. Whether it was also evidence against Taylor depended on a number of considerations, which he would take care were not lost sight of.

The ordinary time for adjourning the day's proceedings arrived, and still the reading went drearily on. Mr. Horace Avory had taken the place of Mr. Gill.

It was a welcome change when Sir Edward Clarke rose at a quarter-past four to begin his part of the weary business by reading the re-examination. And the court heard with gratitude his promise to cut it as short as possible. Sir Edward had the opportunity of reading the letters of Wilde to the Scots Observer, in which he wrote, "The criminal and illiterate classes do not read anything except newspapers, and they are certainly not likely to be able to understand anything of mine." Again, "as for the mob, I have no desire to be a popular novelist, it is far too easy."

Shortly before five the last folio had been read, and Mr. C.F. Gill announced that the case for the

PROSECUTION WAS NOW CLOSED.

When the prisoners had left the dock Sir Edward Clarke handed to his lordship a written statement of the objection he had taken at the opening of the case to the charges under the Criminal Law Amendment Act and those for conspiracy against the accused being joined in one indictment, and he had to ask that a case might be stated.

Mr. Justice Charles said he was under the impression that if there was anything substantial in the point that it should be raised by a case stated for the Court of Crown Cases Reserved. He would, however, take time to consider the matter.

Mr. Justice Charles did not take his seat till eleven o'clock on Tuesday. By that time all the counsel engaged in the case--and half a hundred who only wished they were--had taken their seats. A few of the briefness ones, however, lounged about on the staircases.

THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE CONSPIRACY CHARGES.

Mr. Gill said: My lord, I have had an opportunity of considering the indictment since the case for the prosecution was closed, and, in consultation with my friends Mr. Avory and Mr. Gill, I have come to the determination not to ask for a verdict on the counts of the indictment charging conspiracy. Of course I do that having in my mind that no evidence has been given here at all which was not directly material to the other charges.

Subdued expressions of surprise were audible in the public gallery when Mr. Gill delivered himself of the announcement.

Sir Edward Clarke said that if that had been done in the first instance he should have asked for the charges against the two prisoners to be heard separately. Of course, Mr. Gill had a legal right to withdraw the counts at any stage of the case.

Mr. Justice Charles said the evidence had suggested to his mind that the conspiracy counts were unnecessary.

Sir E. Clarke: I ask that a verdict of the jury of "Not guilty" shall be taken at once.

Mr. Justice Charles: I cannot consent to that.

Sir E. Clarke said he must ask that such a verdict be taken at some time.

Mr. Justice Charles said all he would say now was that he accepted to Mr. Gill's application.

Sir E. Clarke: I shall claim a verdict of "Not guilty," and I shall probably find it in my duty to comment upon the course taken by the Crown later in the day. It was, he continued, a very remarkable incident in a very remarkable trial. He intended to call Mr. Wilde. His decision to do so had not been arrived at in consequence of the statement just made by Mr. Gill. These charges of conspiracy, if they were not to be proceeded with, ought not to have been put in the indictment. He was aware that his putting the prisoner into the box entitled Mr. Gill to the right of reply, and exposed him to the penalty of having the evidence commented upon. But he never attached so much importance to

THE LAST WORDS

as some of the advocates who taught him his profession used to do. With regard to the literary part of this case, he was obliged to make some observations. Mr. Gill, in opening the case, urged upon the jury that it was their duty to dismiss from their minds all they had heard elsewhere. The case had been commented upon by a large section of the Press, which was disgraceful. Such comments were calculated to imperil the administration of justice, and was in the highest degree injurious to the interests of his client. He did not think it quite fair of Mr. Gill to have insisted upon reading Wilde's cross-examination upon his books and writings. It was not fair to judge a man even by his books, but the prosecution had gone further than that, and had sought to judge Wilde by books which he did not write, and by an article which he had repudiated as horrible and disgusting. He pointed out that the latest date at which misconduct was charged against Wilde was eighteen months ago, and that it was his own act in prosecuting Lord Queensberry that brought the matter before the public. He (Sir E. Clarke) with the counsel acting with him was responsible for the advice given to Mr. Wilde in the Queensberry case, and it was partly owing to that fact that he was there again on Mr. Wilde's behalf to meet the accusation which could not properly be tried then. Men charged with offences alleged against Mr. Wilde shrunk from investigation, and he submitted that the fact of Mr. Wilde's taking the initiative of a public trial was evidence of his innocence.

EXAMINATION OF OSCAR WILDE.

Sir E. Clarke having called out his name, the defendant Oscar Wilde stepped lightly from the dock, walking erectly to the witness-box, and, leaning across the rail in the same easy attitude that he assumed when he was examined by Mr. Carson in the previous case, quietly answered the questions addressed to him by Sir Edward Clarke, which in the first place dealt with his earlier career. In 1884 he married Miss Lloyd, and from that time to the present he lived with his wife at 16, Tite-street, Chelsea. He also occupied rooms in St. James's-place, which he took for the purposes of his work, it being out of the question to get quietude at his own house when his two young sons were at home. He had heard the evidence in this case against himself, and asserted that there was no truth in any one of the allegations of indecent behaviour.

THE CROSS-EXAMINATION

Mr. C.F. Gill rose to cross-examine; and after reference to "Dorian Gray," he said: Lord Alfred Douglas contributed two poems to the Chameleon, and they were beautiful poems? - Yes.

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

Witness: I will merely say this, my lord. It is not for me to explain the work to anybody else. It does not belong to me. But the word "shame" used in that work is a word used in the sense of modesty. I mean I was anxious to point out that "shame that burns cold lips"--I forget the line exactly--"to fire" is a quickened sense of modesty.

Mr. Gill: Your view, Mr. Wilde, is that the shame mentioned there is that shame which is a sense of modesty?

Witness: That was the explanation given to me by the person who wrote it. The sonnet seems to me obscure.

During 1893 and 1894 you were a good deal in the company of Lord Alfred Douglas? - Oh yes. He read that poem to me.

The next poem is one described as "Two Loves." Was that poem explained to you? - I think that is clear.

There is no question as to what it means? - Most certainly not.

Then what is the love described?

Witness: The "Love that dare not speak its name in this century" is such a great affection of an elder for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the very basis of his philosophy, and such as you find in the sonnets of Michael Angelo and Shakespeare--that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect, and dictates great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Michael Angelo and those two letters of mine, such as they are, and which is in this century misunderstood--so misunderstood that on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. It is intellectual and it repeatedly exists between an elder and a younger man when the elder man has intellect and the younger man has all the joy, hope, and glamour of life. That it should be so the world does not understand. It mocks at it, and it sometimes puts one into the pillory for it.

At this stage there was loud applause and hisses in the gallery of the court, and the learned judge at once said, speaking very sternly, "I shall have this court cleared if there is the smallest manifestation of feeling. There must be complete silence preserved."

Cross-examination continued: You were staying at the Savoy Hotel with Lord Alfred Douglas at the beginning of March, 1893? - Yes.

And after that he went into rooms? - Yes.

I understand you to say that the evidence given in this case by the witnesses called in support of the prosecution is absolutely untrue? - Entirely.

Entirely untrue? - Yes.

Did you hear the evidence of the servant from the Savoy? - It is absolutely untrue.

Had you a little quarrel with Lord Alfred Douglas in that week? - No; we never did quarrel--perhaps a little difference. Sometimes he said things that pained me, and sometimes I said things that pained him.

Had he that week said unkind things? - I always make a point of forgetting whenever he says anything unkind.

Mr. Gill then read the letter written by the witness to Lord Alfred Douglas which was produced in the Queensberry case--the first containing references to the slim gilt soul and the red rose-leaf lips, and the second saying, "You are the 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 entirely contradict the evidence of the hotel servants. "It is entirely untrue!" he replied, and with some temper added, "Can In answer for what hotel servants say years after I have left the hotel?

IT IS CHILDISH.

I am not responsible for hotel servants."

You had an opportunity of seeing the plea of justification in the Queensberry case, and you saw the different names? - Yes.

At the hearing of that case before Mr. Justice Collins, except the hall porter of your club and yourself no other witness was called? - No.

You had seen Taylor within a few days of the trial? - Yes.

He was not called? - No, he was subpoenaed by the other side. I knew that he was here.

And you knew that while the counsel for Lord Queensberry was addressing the jury the case was interrupted, a verdict of "Not Guilty" was agreed to, and the jury found that the justification was proved and the libel published for the public benefit? - I was not in court.

But you knew it? - No, I did not. I knew my counsel had considered it would be impossible to get a verdict on the question as far as the literature went, and it was not for me to dispute their superior wisdom. I was not in court, nor have I ever read any account of that trial.

What is there untrue in the evidence of Shelley? - I say his account of what happened is entirely untrue. It is true that he came to the Independent Theatre with me, but it was in a box with some friends. Witness added that Shelley was in the habit of writing him morbid letters, which he tore up, and in which he said he was a great sinner and anxious to be in closer communication with religion. Proceeding, he denied emphatically that Parker had ever been to the Savoy with him. Atkins had never tried to blackmail him. He found him bright and amusing, and invited him to go to Paris because he (witness) did not care to travel alone. Atkins had given a grotesque and monstrous account of the dinner party at the London restaurant. It was also entirely untrue that Wood ever went to Tite-street. Wood was introduced to him by Lord Alfred Douglas and Taylor by Mr. Schwabe. He went to Taylor's rooms because he there met actors and singers of many kinds.

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

Did it strike you that this place was at all peculiar?--Not at all. I thought it Bohemian.

Not a sort of street you would usually visit in. You had no other friends there? - No. This was merely a bachelor's place.

Rather a rough neighbourhood? - That I don't know. I know it was near that Houses of Parliament. I went there to amuse myself by smoking cigarettes, singing, chatting, and nonsense of that kind.

Did you see a boy named Tankard at Calais? - Oh, no.

Think.--Do you mean after the plea of justification was issued?

You were at Calais about that time? - Yes. I remember I saw Tankard. That was before the plea was put in.

Tankard was employed at the Calais Hotel, and you were going abroad with Lord Alfred Douglas? - Yes.

Did you know last year of Taylor's arrest? - Oh, yes; I read it in the papers.

You knew the circumstances? - Yes. I saw that the charge was dismissed by the Magistrate.

That satisfied you? - What satisfied me was that I did not see on what grounds the police went there at all.

I may take it, Mr. Wilde, that you see no reason why the police should keep observation at Little College-street? - No.

With regard to your friendship towards the persons I have mentioned, may I take it, Mr. Wilde, that it was as you describe, the deep affection of an elder man to a younger? - Certainly not. One feels that once in one's life, and once only, towards anybody.

In re-examination by Sir F. Clarke, Wilde said he became aware at one time that Wood had some letters, and he communicated with Sir George Lewis.

Wood returned them? - He gave me three letters back. They were not what I would call matters of great consequence, but no one likes their private letters read. They contained some slighting allusions to other people which I should not have liked made public.

Wilde then left the witness box.

TAYLOR IN THE BOX.

"Alfred Taylor" was called by Mr. Grain. He described himself as thirty-three 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 sixteen or seventeen he was educated at Marlborough School, afterwards going to a private tutor at Preston, near Brighton. He afterwards entered the militia, 4th Battalion 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-street, and that he had there certain articles of female apparel. The dress came from Constantinople, and was obtained for use at a fancy dress ball.

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

Did you know Wilde well? - Yes.

Did you tell certain lads he was fond of boys? - No, never.

Do you know that he is? - I believe he is fond of young people. He had introduced Charlie Parker to Mr. Wilde because he thought the latter might use his influence to obtain for him some work on the stage.

SPEECH FOR THE DEFENCE.

After the luncheon adjournment, Sir E. Clarke addressed the jury on behalf of Wilde, and again referred to the tardy withdrawal of the charge of conspiracy. Had the prosecution evidence which made them put that count upon the indictment? If they had not, why was the count of conspiracy put on the record, and why were the counsel for the defence placed for three days under the embarrassment of meeting an indictment with regard to part of which they could call evidence and with regard to another part of which they could not? He contended that counsel for the Crown ought to have made up their minds on the point at the outset, and that a cruel hardship had been inflicted on Mr. Wilde. Continuing, Sir Edward said he could not help expressing astonishment that after he had protested as he did in his former speech against the way in which public feeling had been excited and fanned against Mr. Wilde by the quotation of passages in literature for which he was not responsible, his learned friend should have devoted the whole of that part of this cross-examination which dealt with literary questions to interrogating him regarding two poems of which he was not the author. Again, he asked, had Mr. Wilde not been innocent would he not have recoiled from going into the witness-box, which he had entered fearless as to what might be produced againt him. Adverting to the letters about which so much had been said, Sir Edward remarked that Mr. Wilde was not an ordinary man. He was a man who had written poetry and prose, brilliant dramas and charming essays—a man who from his youth upwards [...] world—not of this England of ours alone, but of those Empires whose glories were to us only now a name. They must bear in mind, therefore, that when he wrote a letter in a tone which might to others seem highflown, exaggerated, and absurd, and when that man came forward and said, "I do not shrink from the judgement of the world upon these productions," they could not say that

SUCH A MAN WAS NOT TO BE BELIEVED.

Had the defendant in this case not given the jury the best proof of his innocence? Innocence, he declared, had courage and faith in the ultimate judgement of mankind. Having laid stress on the fact that all Wilde's movements had been open and submitted, that the evidence called for the prosecution was not reliable testimony, that the principal witnesses for the prosecution, whose evidence was wholly uncorroborated, belonged to a wretched gang of blackmailers, and that Shelley had admitted that his mind was disordered at the time he wrote some of the letters that had been produced. He concluded his address thus: "I know with what extreme difficulty it is that juries are able to efface from their recollections things that bias their judgement, and to address themselves only to that evidence which is sound and true. Before you deal with this case, therefore, I implore you to make that effort and only your judgments to be affected by those witnesses with regard to whom you can say with a clear conscience that you, as honourable and right judging men, are entitled to be guided by true, and honest, and honourable testimony. If you guard yourselves from these prejudices which have floated about, and which have been dissipated to some extent by the incidents of the last few days, but from which it is impossible that this atmosphere should be absolutely clear, then I trust the result of your deliberations will be to gratify those thousands of hopes which hang on your decision, and will clear from this fearful imputation one of the most renowned and accomplished men of letters of to-day, and in clearing him, will clear Society from a stain."

An outburst of applause followed the conclusion of counsel's speech, which had occupied two hours, but the demonstration was at once silenced. Mr Wilde, who was visibly affected, wrote a brief note, which was handed down to the learned counsel.

Mr Grain then replied to the charge against Taylor. He said that all the resources of the Crown had been unable to produce any corroboration of the charges made by the two Parkers. Taylor, he added, having run through his money, had been living on an allowance made by members of his late father's firm.

Mr. Gill replied in a speech which occupied two hours in delivery for the Crown. When commenting upon the evidence of Sydney Mavor, his lordship interposed, and said although the witness's evidence was important, he had denied that he had been guilty of impropriety, and he did not think the count in reference to Mavor could stand. After some discussion, this count was struck out of the indictment. Before concluding, Mr. Gill went on to deal in detail with statements made by the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, remarking that there was nothing to support the suggestion of Sir E. Clarke that Shelly, who had shown himself to be an absolutely respectable and trustworthy witness, was in a disordered state of mind; while for those witnesses who had been described as blackmailers they could have had no conceivable object in bringing the accusations against the accused unless they were true in substance and fact.

Counsel did not conclude his address till seven o clock, at which hour the Court adjourned.

JUDGE'S SUMMING UP.

The trial was concluded on Wednesday. On the prisoners being placed at the bar, Mr. Justice Charles proceeded at once to sum up. He commenced by expressing his surprise that conspiracy count had been joined in the indictment; and upon them, as also upon two other counts, he directed a verdict of acquittal. They were fully aware, he was sure, of the solemnity of the occasion. They were trying two men of education--one of high intellectual gifts. As to the witnesses called by the prosecution, his Lordship laid it down that persons who proved acts of indecency committed upon them, but not against their will, were accomplices in those wicked acts; and by a wholesome practice of the law of England, for certainly 200 years, no person could be convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice. Otherwise innocent persons might be exposed to terrible danger by designing or spiteful people. In this case, therefore, had there been no corroboration of the young men to whom the jury had listened, he should have at once directed an acquittal; but he was clearly of opinion that

THERE WAS CORROBORATION

in the sense that the law required--not corroboration by eye-witnesses, for that could not be expected, but corroboration as to acquaintanceship, and to many of the incidents arising out of it. The witnesses were not accomplices, but in the case of Charles Parker, Wood, and Atkins they were blackmailers, and to the jury should remember what they had admitted against themselves. His lordship then shortly sketched the proceedings which led up to the present trial, making the point that Wilde, on his own initiative, had challenged inquiry into the accusation made against him in the Queensberry suit libel. Passing on to what Sir Edward Clarke had styled "the literary part of the case," the Judge said he did not think that in a criminal case the jury should draw any favourable inference from the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorian Gray." It was, unfortunately, true that some of their most distinguished and noble-minded writers, who had spent their lives producing wholesome literature, had given the world books which were

PAINFUL TO PERSONS OF ORDINARY MODESTY

and decency to read. In dealing with the association which it was attempted to prove of Wilde with the magazine called the Chameleon, his Lordship described the story of "The Priest and the Acolyte" as filthy and disgusting--a story of which the author ought to be thoroughly ashamed; but he pointed out that with that story Wilde had nothing whatever to do. Of "The Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young," by Wilde, which prefaced the magazine, it was sufficient to say that they were amusing, cynical, and, if he might criticize some of them, silly. Without much comment, his Lordship declaimed Lord Alfred Douglas's two poems, "In Praise of Shame" and "The Two Loves," and then read the two celebrated Wilde letters to that personage, known as "the yellow wine" and "the red rose-leaf lips" letters. Proceeding with the consideration of the charges contained in the indictments, his Lordship dealt first with Shelley, who was

NOT A TAINTED WITNESS

like Wood, Atkins, Parker. Shelley, when he appeared in the witness-box, was certainly in a very excited state, and his testimony rather indicated that the acts he alleged against Wilde were committed against his will; but on that point it would be the anxious task of the jury to reconcile his subsequent letters to "My dear Oscar" and the positive denials of Wilde with such a suggestion. The Judge then carefully went through the evidence of Atkins--the most reckless witness who had proved himself to be unscrupulous and untruthful. He put it to the jury, could they rely on his testimony? Next in order, his Lordship dealt with the evidence from the Savoy Hotel, pointing out that if the witnesses on that head were speaking the truth, then the denials of Wilde were false. It was for the jury to say on which side the balance of credibility lay. In like manner, Mr. Justice Charles submitted the cases of Wood and the two Parkers. In conclusion, his Lordship observed that undoubtedly this was

A VERY IMPORTANT CASE--

important to the community at large. If they found that the charges against the defendants had been proved they should fearlessly say so. On the other hand, it was of the greatest importance that innocent persons should not be convicted of crimes they had not committed. He committed the case to the jury with the utmost confidence. The Judge left the following questions to the jury:--

(1) Do you think that Wilde committed indecent acts with Edward Shelley and Alfred Wood, and with a person or persons unknown at the Savoy Hotel, or with Charles Parker?

(2) Whether Taylor procured or attempted to procure the commission of these acts, or any of them?

(3) Did Wilde or Taylor, or either of them, attempt to get Atkins to commit indecencies?

(4) Did Taylor commit indecent acts with Charles Parker or with William Parker?

THE JURY DISAGREE.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at twenty-five minutes to two. They lunched in their room, and did not return to court till 5:12.

The Judge: I have received a communication from you to the effect that, with the exception of the minor question I put to you in regard to Atkins, you are unable to arrive at an agreement.

The Foreman: That is so, my lord. We cannot agree upon three of the questions you submitted to us. The Judge: Is there any prospect that if you retired to your room--you have not been inconvenienced, you know, because I ordered what you asked--and continue your deliberations a little longer, you would be able to come to an agreement at least on some of the questions?

The Foreman: I put that also to my fellow jurymen. We have considered the questions for three hours, and the only result we have come to is that we cannot agree.

The Judge: That being so, I do not feel justified in detaining you any longer.

Sir E. Clarke asked for a verdict of "Not guilty" on the conspiracy count and two other counts, and after some demur on the part of Mr. Gill the jury, under the direction of the judge, formally returned that verdict.

The jury were then discharged.

Sir E Clarke: I have now to make an application that Oscar Wilde be admitted to bail. I should think that after what has taken place the Crown would make no objection.

Mr Clarke Hall made the same application on behalf of Taylor.

The Judge: I do not feel I am able to accede to the applications.

Sir E. Clarke: I suppose that I may renew the application, on other material, to a Judge in chambers.

The Judge: Yes, I think the application must be renewed in the ordinary way to a Judge in chambers.

Sir E. Clarke: I don't think such a trial as this ought to take place again immediately. The burden and pressure on those engaged in the case has been very great. The Treasury, too, I should think would like to have an opportunity of considering what they will do.

Mr. Gill: The case will certainly be tried again; but whether at the next session or not will depend upon which is the most convenient course. Probably the most convenient course will be that it should be taken at the next sessions.

Wilde and his fellow prisoner were conveyed, as before, to Holloway, in the prison van. The next session of the Central Criminal Court commences on May 20.

BAIL FOR OSCAR WILDE

The question of bail for Oscar Wilde in connection with the charges still pending against him was tentatively settled yesterday. An application was made before Mr. Baron Pollock on the previous day, when his lordship expressed his willingness to accept bail, but declined at the time to fix the amount, although Mr. Charles Mathews, who appeared for Wilde, suggested that two sureties in £1,000 each would be forthcoming. Yesterday the legal representatives of both sides were present in Mr. Baron Pollock's private room, and his lordship announced that he had decided to fix the amount of bail at £5,000. The prisoner would gave to give his personal security for £2,500, and two other sureties in £1,250 each. Mr. Mathews, hearing this, intimated that there might be some difficulty in finding two sureties for the amount fixed, but said he should have no difficulty finding one surety for a much larger sum. Mr. Baron Pollack replied that, in that event, another application had better be made on Monday. Detective-inspector Brockwell was present in chambers, and Mr. Humphreys, Wilde's solicitor, informed him who the sureties would in all probability be, but formal notice of this fact will gave to be given to Bow-street in order that the police may make the usual inquiries. At present no application has been made of Taylor. It is said that Oscar Wilde's liberation is not likely to take place before Tuesday.

From numerous letters we have received dealing with the morals of Society to-day we select typical views: T. St. John Murray, of 21, Ampthill-square, N.W., after suggesting satirically that a Bill may be brought into Parliament shortly to annul the Act against unnatural offences, states that the police in their action against immoral practices are paralyzed by orders from above to see that nothing is done, otherwise many now held in high respect would be regarded as the scum of the earth. There are, he believes, members of Parliament, Judges, artists, actors, others guilty of such offences, and that propensity is as widespread now in England as it was in Rome at the time of Juvenal.

"A Woman of No Importance," writing from Holloway, makes a vigorous plea for mercy to Wilde on the score that a man so gifted, however excessive his eccentricities, could not possibly be really guilty of the odious vices laid to his charge. The world hates genius, she adds, and this accounts for the ferocity with which it is pursuing Wilde, who, in her opinion, is the most pathetic figure of the age

"One of the Masses" writes from Teignmouth repudiating the statement of Mr. Palmer that the masses indulge in sexual vices even more than the leisured and privileged classes. The propensities of the people as a whole, he believes, run in a natural direction, and not to loathsome practices.

The Marquis of Queensberry met with an accident on Monday while cycling, and is now confined to his room.

The trial of Mr. 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 these acts, and other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of these acts, was resumed.

The counts in the indictment charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of the acts complained of were withdrawn by counsel for the prosecution yesterday.

Mr. F.C. 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 A.F.S Pasmore held watching briefs.

Mr. Justice Charles now summed up. He said that the prisoners stood indicted before the jury--firstly, for having committed certain offences; and, secondly, the prisoner Taylor was charged with having procured the commission of these acts by Wilde. As the charges were originally framed, the indictment also contained counts against the prisoners for conspiring and agreeing together that these acts should be committed. At the close of the case for the prosecution, however, the learned counsel who conducted it informed him that he did not propose, having regard to the evidence which had been given, to insist on the charges of conspiracy. He himself thought that tho learned counsel took a wise course, inasmuch as it relieved the Court and relieved the jury from a position which might have been an embarrassing one; for as long as the counts for conspiracy stood in the indictment along with the other counts, this curious state of things resulted from the present state of the law--that the prisoners were competent witnesses and able to be put into the witness-box before the jury on certain charges made against them, but not on others. The result would have been that, had counsel for the prosecution not adopted the course which they did when the defendants were called before the jury yesterday, they would have been able to give evidence on certain counts, but not on others. Therefore, he thought that the prosecution were well advised in not proceeding with the charges of conspiracy. Having listened to the evidence, he did not know why the charges of conspiracy were inserted in the indictment at all. It was a highly inconvenient course to join in the indictment counts upon which the defendants could be called to give evidence and counts upon which they could not. Sir Edward Clarke asked him at once to deal with the matter, but he did not think it his duty to do so, because he thought that, although the defendants were competent witnesses on one set of counts and not the other, the counts might lawfully be joined. In the result, the defendants were entitled to be acquitted on the charges of conspiracy, and he should direct a verdict of acquittal accordingly, and also on two counts against Taylor upon which there was no evidence. He asked the jury to apply their minds only to the evidence which they had listened to in this court. He entreated the to put away from their minds everything which they might have read about the defendants and to apply their minds fairly to the consideration of the case as it had been presented before them by the witnesses called on the part of the prosecution. In a case of this kind where acts were charged not against the will of the persons who were called upon to prove them, those persons were accomplices. By, he would not say the law of England, but by the wholesome practice of our Court for nearly 200 years no defendant could be convicted by a jury upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. That was a wise rule of practice. If it were otherwise, to what terrible dangers might innocent people be exposed by designing or spiteful adversaries? in this case, therefore, had there been no corroboration of the testimony of those to whose evidence they had listened it would have been his duty at once to have told the jury that they ought to acquit the defendants. He was sure that the jury would agree if they reflected upon it for a moment that the uncorroborated evidence or an accomplice could not be acted upon, and therefore In this case he had anxiously to watch the evidence which had been given to see if the witnesses were corroborated in some way or other. He was clearly of opinion that there was corroboration of all the witnesses in the sense that the law required--not corroboration by eye-witnesses--it would be idle to expect that, and the law did not require it, but there was corroboration as to the acquaintanceship of the defendants with the witnesses, and as to many particulars of the narrative which they gave, which would render it quite impossible for him to withdraw the case from their consideration. He need not go through the various circumstances now which constituted corroboration, and which, therefore, made it his duty to leave the cases of all the witnesses who had been called to their consideration. Not only were some of the witnesses accomplices, but Charles Parker, Wood, and Atkins had been properly described by Sir Edward Clarke, in the eloquent speech which he addressed to the jury yesterday for the defence of Wilde, as persons who levied blackmail. Atkins, in the Witness-box, in the hearing of the jury, was out of his own mouth convicted of having told a gross and most deliberate falsehood. Yesterday the jury had the long examination and cross-examination of Wilde on the hearing of the charge of libel brought by him against Lord Queensberry read. In order thoroughly to appreciate the effect of what Wilde said in the witness-box yesterday they must bear in mind what he said when he was examined and cross-examined on the former occasion. The jury now knew how that matter came before them--it was in consequence of the charge of libel brought by Wilde against Lord Queensberry, who put in a plea of justification. Sir Edward Clarke, who represented Wilde in that case, ultimately withdrew from the prosecution, and said that he did not desire anything but a verdict of ""Not Guilty to be given for Lord Queensberry. That verdict was not binding on the jury in the slightest degree, because it was a verdict on the libel, and it was delivered at the instance of Sir Edward Clarke for the reasons explained and without any witness being called in support of the plea of justification. About 30 pages of Wilde's cross-examination in that case was devoted to what Sir Edward Clarke called the literary part of the case. It attempted to show on the cross-examination of Wilde on works which he had published, and especially having regard to a book called ``The Picture of Dorian Gray, that he was an unprincipled man in reference to young men. The whole of the cross-examination was read yesterday, and it was divided into two parts--the first as to his being the author of "The Picture of Dorian Gray and the second with regard to a magazine called the Chameleon. First, with regard to "The Picture of Dorian Gray," the book had not been read to the jury, but extracts from it had been read to them, and they had been placed by Sir Edward Clarke in possession of the story of the book. He himself owned, and he thought it his duty to at once say so, that he did not think that in a criminal case they ought to base any unfavourable opinion on the fact that Wilde was the author of The Picture of Dorian Gray." A great writer, as they were told yesterday, had said, "Judge no man by"his books." He himself would rather say, "Judge no man, confound no man with the persons he created." If an imaginative writer put into his novel some consummate villain, and put into the mouth of that man sentiments revolting to humanity, they might criticize if they pleased the work, but it would be unfair if the author of the work were charged with a crime to say, Oh, you created a person in your novel, and you put into his mouth sentiments revolting to humanity. That would not be fair, because, whilst some of our greatest writers had passed long lives in writing most wholesome literature which any one could read, other great writers, who were perfectly noble-minded men themselves, somehow or other had written works which it was painful for ordinary persons to read. It would he unfair, therefore, when they were trying a man to allow themselves to be unfavourably influenced against him by the circumstance that he had written a work of which they as far as they had heard any extracts from it might disapprove. With regard to the Chameleon, the only connexion between Wilde and that magazine was that it was prefaced by two pages of his works, which were some of them amusing, some cynical, and some of them--if he might be allowed to criticize them himself--silly, but not wicked in the sense of it being an inference which they ought to draw that Wilde was capable of having committed the alleged offence into which they were now inquiring, nor did Mr. Gill say so, nor did the learned counsel for Lord Queensberry say so, but what they did was this--they pointed to an article in this paper called "The Priest and the Acolyte," with which Wilde had nothing to do and of which the author ought to be thoroughly ashamed. Wilde had nothing to do with it nor with the paper, except that, at the request of a friend, he had prefaced the paper with some expressions from works of his. That was all Wilde knew about this paper. To judge him by another man's work which he had never seen would be highly unjust and quite absurd, so much for the literary part of the case as it had been called, and he should not say anything more about it with the exception of an observation to which he now came. In the Chameleon there were two sonnets, which it was alleged had an immoral tendency, and it was further alleged that Wilde had approved of them, so that that became more material to the issue that the jury were trying, and they must carefully inquire what Wilde said in reference to those two poems. His Lordship read the two letters written by Wilde, as to which he was cross-examined at the hearing of the charge of libel brought by him against Lord Queensberry. Wilde said he was not ashamed in any sense of either of those two letters, and that they did not breathe anything impure. One of those letters, he said, was a sort of prose poem or sonnet. Wilde said that the love referred to in the poem, "Two Loves," was love similar to that which animated David and Jonathan, that it was the love which Plato might have called the beginning of wisdom: it was a love perfectly pure, such as was spoken of in some of the sonnets of Shakespeare. In the poem, "In Praise of Shame,"Wilde said the word shame was used in the sense of modesty. His Lordship then went in detail through the evidence, and pointed out the questions which the jury had to decide. He had had to sum up the case to the jury with some minuteness because of the importance of the community and its gravity to the accused. It was important that, if they thought the practices were proved, they should fearlessly say so; but, on the other hand, it was of vast importance that people should not be convicted of acts which they had not committed. The prisoner Wilde had the right to ask them to remember that he was a man of highly intellectual gifts--a person whom people would suppose to be incapable of such acts as were alleged. Taylor, though nothing had been said about his abilities belonged to a class of people of whom it would be difficult to imagine such offence. Still, the jury must deal with the evidence fearlessly, remembering the prisoner's position on the one hand and their duty to the public on the other. If they felt they could not act on the evidence of the witnesses they should say so; but, if they felt constrained to believe that evidence, they must return a verdict to that effect.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at 1 35 and returned into Court at a quarter past 5 o'clock, when the prisoners resumed their places at the bar.

Mr. Justice Charles said that he had received a communication from the jury to the effect that, with the exception of a minor question which he put to them with reference to Atkins, they were unable to arrive at a conclusion. They were not agreed with regard to any of the other questions which he had put to them. Was there anything which they desired to ask him in reference to the case which they thought might assist them?

The foreman of the jury said he did not think that there was any question which they wished to ask his Lordship. They were not agreed on three of the questions.

Mr. Justice Charles asked whether, if they proceeded with their deliberations, there was any prospect of their coming to a conclusion as to some of them.

The foreman replied that there was no prospect of their agreeing.

Me. Justice Charles said that the jury had been a very long time deliberating over this matter, and no doubt had done their very best to arrive at a conclusion. If they thought that by deliberating further they could arrive at a conclusion he should ask them to do so.

The foreman said that he did not think there was any chance of their agreeing.

Mr. Justice Charles.-- If you tell me that, I do not think I am justified in detaining you in consultation any longer.

Sir Edward Clarke said that, before the jury were discharged, he asked that a verdict of not guilty should be taken on the conspiracy counts.

Mr. Justice Charles said that that should be done. He had informed the jury that he should direct a verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy counts and on counts which charged Taylor with some acts.

Mr. Gill said that if the jury were discharged he should ask that they be discharged without a verdict.

Sir Edward Clarke.-- That cannot be done. I have a right to have a verdict of not guilty on these counts.

Mr. Justice Charles said that the prisoners were entitled to have a verdict of not guilty entered on the record on the conspiracy counts, on the count charging them with attempting to procure the commission of an act by Atkins, and on the counts charging Taylor with attempting to procure the commission of an act by Wood and Mavor. Unfortunately, the material matters were those upon which the jury could not come to an agreement, and with regard to them he must discharge the jury without giving a verdict.

The jury found the prisoners Not Guilty on all conspiracy counts and other counts referred to by Mr. Justice Charles.

The jury, being unable to agree as to the other counts, were discharged without giving a verdict with regard to them.

Sir Edward Clarke asked that Wilde might be admitted to bail.

An application for bail was also made on behalf of Taylor.

Mr. Gill said he would say nothing on the matter.

Mr. Justice Charles.-- I do not feel able to accede to the application.

Sir Edward Clarke.-- May we renew the application on other materials to the Judge in Chambers?

Mr. Justice Charles.-- If the application is renewed, it must be renewed in the usual way to a Judge in Chambers.

Sir Edward Clarke said that with regard to the question of a retrial of this case he hoped that it would not be thought right that the new trial should commence immediately. It would be well, perhaps, that the Treasury should have an opportunity of considering the manner in which the case should be presented, if at all.

Mr. Gill said the case would certainly be tried again. The most desirable course would be that it should go to the next Sessions--that was the usual course.

Mr. Justice Charles.--Let it be so; it is the usual course.

The business of the Sessions was concluded.