Compare Documents

The trial was resumed of Oscar Wilde, 40, author, on an indictment charging him with certain mis- demeanours.—The Solicitor General (Sir Frank Lockwood, Q.C). Mr. C. F. Gill, and Mr. Horace Avory prosecuted ; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C, Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travel Humphreys defended.

Sir E. Clarke, in his speech for the defence, said the area of the case was very limited now, and he would not go into the details of the evidence, but he would call his client, who would for a third time deny on oath the allegations made against him, and subject himself a third time to cross-examination, this time by another assailant. If the Jury felt that the evidence brought home to their minds with certainty the guilt of the Prisoner, he had no right for one moment to challenge their decision, and they ought to convict ; but they had a right to ask that the evidence should be Bound and trustworthy upon which they were invited to convict. It should be the evidence of facts ; it must not be suspicion, insinuation, or inuendo. He had now only to deal with the remnant ot a case, which had steadily broken down piece by piece, and it justified the hope which his client had entertained from the first, that ultimately his character would be vindicated by the verdict of the Jury. Broken down by being kept in prison, without being allowed bail, contrary to practice, and, he believed, to law, and by the worry, anxiety, and the mental strain of three successive trials. Mr. Wilde would again enter the witness-box and on oath deny the charges ; and he trusted that the Jury, after they had heard him, and considered carefully the whole case, would acquit him.

Mr. Wilde was called, and allowed to be seated whilst giving evidence. In cross-examination, he said Lord Alfred Douglas was now in Paris. He was in communication with him still. The two letters produced could not be taken as samples of the letters that he usually sent to Lord Alfred Douglas. The wording of the letters might be fantastic and extravagant, but it was quite decent, in his opinion. The Witness was questioned in detail relative to the literature aud the correspondence connected with the case, and he gave his explanation of the various phrases appearing in the correspondence, which was practically a repetition of what he said during cross-examination at the last trial. No definite charge was made against him by the Marquess of Queensberry. He went abroad with Lord Alfred Douglas after the committal of the Marquess of Queensberry for libel, and stayed away about a week. Being questioned as to his association with Taylor, Sir E. Clarke submitted that the learned Solicitor General was not entitled to ask the Witness for his opinion of another person ; he had only a right to cross-examine as to facts. — The Judge declined to interpose, observing that the stage of the cross-examination made discussion on the point unnecessary. — Witness had put to him the names of several young men with whom it was alleged he had dined, and he was invited to explain the reasons for such associations. — Sir E. Clarke, interposing, submitted that the learned Counsel was exceeding the limit of cross-examination, which ought to be limited to the persons alone in regard to whom charges were made. — The Judge was of opinion that the cross-examination was in order, the Witness being on the same footing as a witness in any other case, where the question as to his credit was involved. — ln re-examination, Witness said he had no idea that Taylor was an immoral man, nor had he heard that suggestion made, until these proceedings.

Sir E. Clarke, continuing his speech for the defence, said one of the most important features for comment favourable to the Prisoner was the fact that in the whole of the evidence there was not one single bit of independent corroboration. It was not enough to discredit the evidence of the Prisoner, the Crown must persuade the Jury to believe the evidence of their Witnesses if their case was to be established. The action of Mr. Wilde had not been in the least inconsistent with that of a man who, conscious of innocence, was prepared to face the charges of blackmailers. A guilty man could not have undergone the terrible ordeal of examination and cross-examination on three different occasions. He submitted that he was entitled to claim a verdict of acquittal for Mr. Wilde. If the Jury were compelled to give an adverse verdict, let them do so firmly. A brilliant promise had been clouded by these accusations, and a light and a reputation nearly quenched by the torrent of prejudice, which a few weeks ago swept through certain portions of the Press. He trusted that they would be glad to think in the future that their verdict saved that reputation from absolute ruin, and left the Prisoner — a distinguished man of letters, a brilliant Irishman — to live amongst them a life of honour and repute, and to give, in the maturity of his genius, gifts to literature of which they had only had the promise in his youth (applause).

The Solicitor General replied on behalf of the Crown, and had not concluded his address when the Court rose.

(Before Mr. JUSTICE WILLS.)The trial of OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, upon an indictment charging him with unlawfully committing certain acts with Charles Parker and Alfred Wood, and with certain persons whose names were unknown, was resumed.

The Solicitor-General (Sir F. Lockwood, Q.C.), Mr. C.F. Gill, and Mr. Horace Avery appeared for the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended.

Sir Edward Clarke now opened the case for the defence. He said it became his duty to make some observations to the jury on what remained of the case which was deliberately launched against Mr. Wilde. De should not detain the jury long now, and he did not think it would be necessary to detain them long when he he came to address them hereafter on the subject of the evidence on which the jury were asked to rely, as the area of the case was very limited. He "should not discuss in detail now the evidence which had been given in the case, because that evidence was not complete. He should call Mr. Wilde into the witness-box again to state on his oath for the third time in this Court that there was no truth whatever in the accusations which were made against him, and to face for the third time in this Court, now with a new assailant, the cross-examination which might be administered to him with regard to the matters which were contained in these accusations. When he had given his evidence and had been cross-examined the evidence would be complete, and he should then have to address the jury on the evidence with which they were asked to deal. He had to deal with the remains of a case. Some weeks ago the indictment contained 25 counts, some of which were counts for conspiracy, and on which indictment there was a point reserved when could be argued if necessary. Suddenly the counts for conspiracy were withdrawn, and as to the other counts the jury were discharged because they could not agree upon a verdict. Then came this trial. When the case was more important than it was now it was not thought necessary to have a law officer of the Crown conduct the prosecution, but it was left to the practised and competent hands of Mr. Gill. He had not to remonstrate Mr. Gill at any point of his address. But now came down a law officer. There was a strange and an invidious distinction belonging to the law officers of the Crown--why they enjoyed it he did not know--he never availed himself of it when he was a law officer, and would not do so if it was his fate to fill that position again. It was the privilege of the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General when they came down to prosecute that if the defendant called no witnesses at all the law officer had the last word. That was an important change. Mr. Wilde had twice given a denial to these charges, but he was kept in prison without bail contrary to practice and, as he believed, contrary to law. Broken in health as Mr. Wilde was by the anxiety of these [unintelligible] trials, he might have spared him the indignity and the pain of having again to go into the witness- box, but if he did not call him he knew what the reply of the Solicitor-General would be. A further hardship was inflicted on Mr. Wilde. He (Sir Edward Clarke) made an application that these persons should be tried separately, and it was decided that they should be tried separately. He was here representing Mr. Wilde, who was the first person mentioned in the indictment, and he claimed that he should be tried first. He could not imagine any reason in logic or fairness which could be suggested for the course which was adopted of trying the other defendant first. In Taylor's case the jury were notable to agree as the the [...] referring to Mr. Wilde, and were discharged without giving a verdict as to that issue. Practically this was the third time that the issue had been placed before a jury. There could be o cause for complaint against him of he felt a little soreness at the treatment which Mr. Wilde had sustained. He asked the jury to remember that it was Mr. Wilde's own action in preferring the charge of libel against the Marquis of Queensberry that had brought about this inquiry. He could not leave one observation unmade, that in the evidence given by Mr. Wilde at the hearing of the charge of libel against the Marquis of Queensberry there was only one statement which was contradicted by an independent witness, that Mr. Wilde had never been to Par-walk, and a woman had been called on the part of the prosecution who stated that she had seen a gentleman who, she said, was Mr. Wilde drive away in a hansom cab from Park-walk, and she was the only independent witness who contradicted any statement made by Mr. Wilde. He asked the jury to remember that in relation with the question with which they had to deal. What he had to say as to the character of the witnesses on whose evidence they were asked to rely were observations which he would [unintelligible] hereafter. He submitted that on the evidence before them the jury could not come to any other conclusion than that it was their duty to acquit Mr. Oscar Wilde.

Wilde was then called and examined by Sir. Edward Clarke. He said that every one of the statements which he made in his evidence given at the hearing at this court of the charge of libel preferred by him against he Marquis of Queensberry was entirely true, and he had no qualification or alteration to make with regard to any of them. He had rooms in St. James's-place from October, 1893, to April, 1894. He took the rooms to write in, because his house was small for literary purposes, and at that time he was writing a play. He took the rooms for the purpose of writing there - entirely for the purposes of literary work. Most literary men liked to write out of their houses. There was no truth whatsoever in the accusations made against him in the indictment.

Sir Edward Clarke then addressed the jury for the defence. He commented in severe terms upon the witnesses Charles Parker and Alfred Wood. It was upon the evidence of these two men that the jury were asked to condemn Mr. Wilde. He reminded the jury that Wood and Charles Parker had shared in a sum of £400 or £500 which he contended was obtained by a man named Allen from a gentleman by blackmail. It seemed to him that if these blackmailers were to be listened to, or their word accepted before the word of Mr. Wilde,who gave a denial to their story, the profession of blackmailing might become more deadly and more dangerous than it had ever been before. Mr. Wilde knew nothing of tho men's character. They were introduced to him, and it was his love of admiration that caused him to like to be in their society. The positions should be changed--it was these men who ought to be the accused and not the accusers. It was true that Charles Parker and Wood never made any charge against Mr. Wilde before the plea of justification of the libel case; but what a powerful piece of evidence that was in favour of Mr. Wilde, for if Charles Parker and Wood thought they had material for making a charge against Mr. Wilde, did the jury think they would not have made it? Did the jury think they would have remained year after year without trying to get something from him? Charles Parker and Wood made no charge against Mr. Wilde, and did not attempt to get money from him, and that circumstance was among other cogent proofs to be found in the case that there was no truth whatever in the accusation against Mr. Wilde. He contended that there was no corroboration of the evidence of Charles Parker and Wood and that their evidence could not be relied upon, and he also urged that there was nothing to support the counts charging Mr. Wilde with committing the acts alleged with persons whose names were unknown. The jury must not act upon suspicion or prejudice, but upon an examination of the facts, and he respectfully urged that he was entitled to claim for Mr. Wilde a verdict of acquittal. If on an examination of the evidence they felt it their duty to say that the charge had not been proved, he was sure that they would be glad that the brilliant promise which had been clouded by these accusations and the bright reputation which was so [unintelligible] by the prejudices which a few weeks ago swept through the Press had been saved by their verdict from absolute ruin and that it had left him the distinguished man of letters and the brilliant Irishman to live among us with honour and repute, to give, in the maturity of his genius, gifts to our literature of which he had given the promise in his early youth.

There was loud applause in Court at the conclusion of Sir Edward Clarke's address.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then replied on the part of the prosecution and denied that the prosecution had behaved with any unfairness towards Wilde. He thought that those conducting the prosecution were quite right in thinking that a law officer should be instructed to appear for the prosecution. With regard to the right of reply which belonged to the law officers and with reference to Sir Edward Clarke's observation that he had never availed himself of that right when he was a law officer, the Solicitor-General said that his learned friend had no right to lay down a rule which could not affect others who filled that office.

The Solicitor-General had not concluded his speech when the Court rose.

The hearing of the case was adjourned until tomorrow, Wilde being admitted to the same bail.