Compare Documents

The trial of JOHN SHOLTO DOUGLAS, Marquis of Queensberry, who surrendered, upon an indictment charging him with unlawfully and maliciously writing and publishing a false, malicious, and defamatory libel of and concerning Mr. Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills Wilde in the form of a card directed to him, was resumed.

Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Carson, Q.C., Mr. C. F. Gill, and Mr. A. Gill defended. Mr. Besley, Q.C., Mr. Monckton, and Mr. Leonard Kershaw watched the case for a person interested.

The cross-examination of Mr. Oscar Wilde by Mr. CARSON, Q.C., was continued. Witness said it was a person named Taylor who arranged the interview with Wood in reference to the letters at his (Taylor's) rooms in Little College-street. Taylor had been to witness's house and chambers, and he himself used to go to Taylor's rooms to afternoon tea parties. Taylor's rooms did not strike him as anything peculiar except that they were furnished in better taste than usual. They were very pretty rooms. He had seen the rooms lighted otherwise than by candles. It would be quite untrue, he should think, to say that Taylor had a double set of curtains drawn across the windows and that the rooms were always lighted by candles. He had known Taylor to burn perfumes in his rooms. He never saw Wood at tea there, except on one occasion. He had seen Sidney Mayor, who was 25 years of age, at Taylor's rooms. He had not seen Mayor for a year and did not know where he was. When at tea at Taylor's there was no servant to wait. Witness had no particular business with Taylor--Taylor was a friend of his and was a young man of great taste and intelligence, educated at a very good English school. Witness had not got Taylor to arrange dinners for him to meet young men. He had dined with Taylor at restaurants in private rooms--he preferred dining in private rooms. He did not know that Taylor was being watched by the police ; he never heard that. He knew that Taylor and Parker were arrested in a raid made at a house in Fitzroy-square last year. He saw Parker at Taylor's residence in Chapel-street. Taylor had introduced five young men to him with whom he had been friendly. Witness had given money or presents to all five ; they gave him nothing. Among the five Taylor introduced him to Charles Parker and he became on friendly terms with him. He did not know that Parker was a gentleman's servant out of employment. Being asked by Mr. Carson how old Parker was, the witness replied that he did not keep a census and he could not tell. It would be rather vulgar of him to ask people their age. Parker was not a literary character nor an artist, and culture was not his strong point. He himself never inquired what Parker had been--he never inquired about people's past. He did not know where Parker was now. He had given Parker £4 or £5 because he was poor and because he liked him. He first met Parker at Kettner's restaurant. Witness invited Taylor to dinner at Kettner's on the occasion of his birthday, and told him to bring what friends he liked, and he brought Parker and Parker's brother. Witness did not know that one of the Parkers was a gentleman's servant and the other a groom. The reason he invited them to dinner was the pleasure of being with those who were young, bright, happy, care less, original--he did not like the sensible and he did not like the old. The dinner was one of Kettner's best--with the best of wine. Being asked by Mr. Carson whether he gave them an intellectual treat, the witness said that they seemed greatly impressed. They had what wine they wanted, and he did not stint them--no gentleman would stint his guests. He did not take Charles Parker to the Savoy after the dinner, and he did not give him money. Charles Parker never dined with him at the Savoy. From October, 1893, to April, 1894, witness had chambers in St. James's-place. His impression was that Taylor wrote to him saying that Charles Parker was in town and would like to see him, and witness replied that he could come and have afternoon tea with him. Charles Parker came there to tea. He gave Charles Parker a silver cigarette case as a Christmas present, and he gave him £3 or £4 because he was hard up and asked him for it. No impropriety took place. Being asked by Mr. Carson what there was in common between witness and Charles Parker, witness replied that he liked the society of people who were much younger than himself and who were idle and careless, and he did not like social distinctions of any kind. To him the mere fact of youth was so wonderful that he would sooner talk to a young man for half an hour than be cross-examined in Court. He would talk to a street arab with pleasure. Charles Parker told him he had an income from his father. The witness did not think he had written any beautiful letters to Charles Parker. He did not go at half-past 12 at night in March or April, 1893, to visit Charles Parker at Park-walk, Chelsea. He heard that Parker had enlisted in the Army. In August last year he read of the arrest of Taylor and Parker in the raid at a house in Fitzroy-square. The magistrate dismissed the case. He read the names of the persons who were arrested. He had never heard the name of Preston in respect of the Cleveland-street scandal. When he read that Taylor was arrested witness was greatly distressed and wrote to tell him so. He had not seen Taylor again until this year. The fact of Taylor's having been arrested did not make any difference in their friendship. Witness first knew Freddy Atkins in October or November, 1892. He told witness he was employed by a firm of bookmakers. Witness did not come in contact with him by making bets. Atkins was a young man of 19 or 20 when the witness first met him. He met him at a gentleman's rooms off Regent-street--he thought, Margaret-street. He did not meet him at Taylor's. Several people were present when he was introduced to Atkins. He never asked Atkins to dinner or to lunch. He met him at a dinner given by a gentleman at Kettner's. He thought Taylor was at the dinner. He met Atkins two days afterwards. He felt friendly towards Atkins at the dinner and thought be was very good company. He called him "Fred," and Atkins called him " Oscar." Atkins had an ambition to go on the music-hall stage. Atkins did not discuss literature with him; witness would not allow him to. Atkins never lunched with him at the Cafe Royal. On one occasion a gentleman was lunching with Atkins at the Cafe Royal, and they came over and had coffee with witness, who had had been lunching there. Subsequently witness was going to Paris to see a firm of publishers about a work which he was bringing out. Atkins and another gentleman were going there, and it was arranged that all three should go together. The gentleman, however, could not go, and he asked witness to allow Atkins to accompany him. He paid Atkins's fare, but it was repaid. He did not suggest that Atkins should go in the capacity of his secretary. They stayed at an hotel in Paris in the Boulevard des Capucines. He did not see much of Atkins in Paris,and Atkins was not there as his guest. When witness returned to London he was ill. Atkins and the gentleman came to see him while he was ill. He did not ask Atkins to promise not to say anything about the visit to Paris. He had been to Atkins's address in Ospaburgh-street to tea. Another gentleman was there, about 20 years of age. He gave Atkins about £3 15s. to buy his first song for the music-hall stage. Atkins music-hall stage never took less. That was in March, 1894. There was never any occasion for any impropriety between witness and Atkins. Witness knew Ernest Searle, whom he met in December, 1893. Taylor introduced him to him. At the time Searle's occupation was nothing. Searle had been to Australia. Taylor introduced Searle to him at St. James's-place. Witness did not ask him to bring him there. Mr. Carson asked how Taylor came to bring Searle there, and witness replied that Taylor told him that he knew a young man who had met Lord Douglas of Harwick on board ship going out to Australia. Subsequently Taylor and Searle dined with witness at Kettner's. He gave Searle a cigarette ease; it was his custom to give cigarette cases. He first met Sidney Mayor in September, 1892. Mayor was 25 years of age. Taylor did not introduce Mayor to him. Mayor was introduced to witness by the gentleman who asked him to allow Atkins to accompany him to Paris. Witness never gave Mayor any money, and he never gave Taylor any money to give to him. He gave Mayor a cigarette case. A cigarette case was the present which he usually gave to any one whom he liked. Mayor stayed with him for one night at an hotel in Albemarle-street in October, 1892. Mayor came there because witness had asked him to meet him at the railway station on his return from Scotland, and he stayed with him at the hotel because he was on his way through London and there was no one at home, and it was nicer to have a companion. Witness knew Walter Granger, a servant at some rooms at Oxford where he stayed in 1893. Granger was 16 years of age. Witness emphatically denied the allegations in the plea of justification.

In re-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, the witness said it was from certain letters produced that he gathered that Lord Queensberry objected to his friendship with Lord Alfred Douglas.

The letters were as follows :--

"Carter's Hotel, Albemarle-street, Sunday, April 1, 1894.

"Alfred,--It is extremely painful to me to have to write to you. in this strain. I must, but please understand I decline to receive any answers from you in writing in return. Any letters coming under a disguised handwriting or in other people's, if opened by mistake, will be out in the fire unread. After your previous hysterical impertinent ones I refuse to be annoyed with such, and must ask you if you have any thing to say to come here and say it in person. Firstly, am I to understand that having left Oxford, as you did, with discredit to yourself, the reasons of which were fully explained to me by your tutor, you now intend to loaf and loll about and do nothing? All the time you were wasting at Oxford I was put off with the assurance that you were eventually to go into the Civil Service or to the Foreign Office, and then I was put off by an assurance of your going to the Bar. It appears to me you intend to do nothing; in fact the important valuable time has passed, and it seems you are too late now for any profession. I utterly decline to supply you, however, with sufficient funds just to enable you to loaf. You are preparing a wretched future for yourself, and it would be most cruel and wrong of me to encourage you in this. Do you seriously intend to make no attempt to help yourself, and to go on with year present life, doing nothing? Secondly, I come to the more painful part of this letter--your infamous intimacy with this man Wilde. It must either cease or I will disown you and stop all money supplies and if necessary I will go to him personally and tell him so. Also, he shall have a bit of my mind. I am not going to try and analyze this intimacy, and I make no accusation, but to my mind to pose as a thing is as bad as the real thing. . . . I hear on good authority, but this may he false, that his wife is petitioning to divorce him. Is this true, or do you know of it? If so, what is to be your position, going about as you do with him." The letter was signed, "Your disgusted so-called father, QUEENSBERRY.'"

To this Lord Alfred Douglas telegraphed to his father:--" What a funny little man you are !-- ALFRED DOUGLAS." Lord Queensberry's next letter to Lord Alfred was in these terms :-- "You impertinent little jackanapes. I request you will not send me such messages through the telegraph, and if you come to me with any of your impertinence I will give you the thrashing you richly deserve. The only excuse for you is that you must be crazy. I heard from a man the other day who was at Oxford with you that that was your reputation there, which accounts for a good deal that has happened. All I can say is if I catch you with that man again I will make a public scandal in a way you little dream of. It is already a suppressed one. I prefer an open one, and at any rate I shall be no longer blamed for allowing such a state of things to go on. Unless this acquaintance ceases I shall carry out my threat and stop all supplies, and if you are not going to make any attempt to do something I shall certainly cut you down to a mere pittance, so you know what you are to expect.--Queensberry."

A third letter was written to Mr. A. Montgomery, the father of the Marchioness of Queensberry, who had obtained a divorce from the Marquis, in which, dating from Maidenhead, he said:--"Sir,--I have changed my mind, and, as I am not at all well, having been very much upset by what has happened the last ten days, I do not see why I should come dancing attendance upon you. . . . Your daughter is the person who is supporting my son to defy me. She won't write, but she is now telegraphing on the subject to me, Last night, after hearing from you, I received a very quibbling, prevaricating sort of message from her, saying the boy denied having been at the Savoy for the last year, or with Oscar Wilde at all. As a matter of fact he did, and there has been a scandal. I am told they were warned off, but the proprietor would not admit this. This hideous scandal has been going on for years. Your daughter must he mad in the way she is behaving. She evidently wants to make out I want to make out a case against my son. It is nothing of the kind. I have made out a case against Oscar Wilde, and I have to his face accused him of it. . . It now lies in the hands of these two whether they will further defy me. Your daughter appears to me now to he encouraging them to do so, although she can hardly intend this. I don't believe Wilde will now dare defy me. He plainly showed the white feather the other day when I tackled him--a damned cur and coward of the Rosebery type. As for this so-called son of mine, I will have nothing to do with him. He may starve as far as I am concerned after his behaviour to me. His mother may support him, but she shan't do that here in London with this awful scandal going on. But your daughter's conduct is outrageous, and I am now fully convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone-Royal insult that came to me through my other son, that she worked that, I thought it was you. . . It shall be known some day by all that Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen, which she knows, which makes her as bad as him and Gladstone, but also has made a life-long quarrel between my son and I."

Witness said there was no truth whatever in the statement in Lord Queensberry's letter that witness's wife was going to petition for a divorce, It was from the letters of Lord Queensberry which Sir Edward Clarke had read that witness gathered that Lord Queensberry objected to his friendship with Lord Alfred Douglas, but, having regard to the character of those letters, he thought it right to entirely disregard them. Witness first knew Taylor in October, 1892, being introduced to him by a gentleman of high position and reputation whom he last saw in February or March, 1893, and who had not been in England now for two years, At the time he was introduced to him Taylor was living in College-street. He knew that Taylor had lost a good deal of the money which he had inherited, but that he still had a share in an important business. Taylor was educated at Marl borough School, and was a young man of education and accomplishments. He saw in the newspaper that among the persons arrested in the raid at the house in Fitzroy-square were Taylor and Charles Patker, and he saw that the charge against Taylor and Charles Parker was dismissed. Witness was much distressed about it, and wrote to Taylor. Taylor told him in reply that it was a benefit concert, that he had been given a ticket, that when he arrived at the house dancing was going on, and he was asked to play the piano, that two music-hall singers were expected to come in costume, and that suddenly the police entered and arrested everybody. Knowing that the charge had been dismissed, and hearing how the arrest had happened, witness thought that no blame was attaching to Taylor, and he was very sorry for him. Shelley was in the employment of a firm of publishers, and he was introduced to him by a member of the firm. He met Shelley a few days afterwards on going to the premises of the firm, and talked to him about literature. He found that Shelley had a great deal of taste and a great desire for culture. Shelley was well acquainted with the whole of witness's works, and was very appreciative of them. Witness gave Shelley three of his books. Shelley had dined with witness and Mrs. Wilde at Tite-street. Shelley was in every way a gentleman.

The Court adjourned for luncheon at 1 30 and reassembled again at 2 o'clock. Mr. Oscar Wilde did not put in an appearance until 8 minutes after 2, and on doing so expressed his apologies to the Court for his late arrival. It was due, he said, to the clock of the hotel where he had been lunching being wrong.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE, continuing his re-examination, questioned the witness as to certain letters. Witness said that the letters produced were the handwriting of Edward Shelley. Upon hearing the contents of the plea in this case witness searched for and found the letters. Sir Edward Clarke then read the letters referred to. In March, 1893, Edward Shelley had left the employment of Messrs. Mathews and Lane, and was very anxious to get another situation. He wrote subsequently asking witness for £10. Witness lent him or gave him £5 about that time. He wrote other letters asking witness to help him to get employment. In one of these letters the writer referred to the deadly enemies which the witness had in London, as was evidenced by the Daily News article. In reply to a question from counsel, witness said that this was an article not quite appreciating the poem "The Sphinx." (Laughter.) There was never any relation between witness and Edward Shelley other than that which might legitimately exist between a man of letters and a person who admired his poems and works. With reference to the Worthing incident, witness said that he had taken a furnished house at Worthing at the time and had been staying there with his family. The latter left Worthing after a time and witness remained on. The lad named Conway was known to witness's family, and had been to his house to tea. He was not in employment at the time when witness met him. He never heard that Conway had been a newspaper boy or that he had had any connexion with journalism. (Laughter.) The boy had an intense desire to go to sea in the merchant service as an apprentice. He used to go out fishing, sailing, and bathing with witness, his son, and his son's friends. He had never seen Conway since then. He had written one letter to him, he thought in November last, in reference to his becoming an apprentice in the merchant service. Witness had consulted a friend who had many ships, and wrote to Conway and told him the result of his inquiries. With respect to the young men introduced to witness by or through Alfred Taylor, they had been his guests with one or two exceptions. With regard to Atkins, he was introduced to witness by the gentleman whose name had not been mentioned. When these persons were introduced to him he had no reason to suspect that they were immoral or disreputable persons, nor had he since unless it was in the ease of Charles Parker, who was arrested and and the charge against whom had been dismissed by the magistrate. Apart from that there had never been any thing at all to bring to his mind the idea that these people were disreputable persons. He had never seen Charles Parker at the Savoy Hotel. The reason why he did not take steps against Lord Queensberry earlier was that very strong pressure had been put upon him by Lord Queensberry's family not to do so. On the Wednesday following the Saturday on which Lord Queensberry's visit occurred witness had an interview with a member of the Queensberry family, who was also a member of Parliament.

Mr. CARSON read the following postcard, addressed by Lord A. Douglas to Lord Queensberry:--

"As you return my letters unopened, I am obliged to write on a postcard. I write to inform you that I treat your absurd threats with absolute indifference. Ever since your exhibition at O.W.'s house I have made a point of appearing with him at many public restaurants, such as the Berkeley, Willis's Rooms, the Cafe Royal, &c., and I shall continue to go to any of these places whenever I choose and with whom I choose. I am of age and my own master. You have disowned me at least a dozen times, and have very meanly deprived me of money. You have, therefore, no right over me, either legal or moral. If O.W. was to prosecute you in the criminal Courts for libel you would get seven years penal servitude for your outrageous libels. Much as I detest you, I am anxious to avoid this for the sake of the family; but if you try to assault me I shall defend myself with a loaded revolver, which I always carry; and if I shoot you, or if he shoots you, we should be completely justified, as we should be acting in self-defence against a violent and dangerous rouge, and. I think if you were dead not many people would miss you.--A. D."

In reply to questions from the jury, witness said that he had never seen the editor of the Chameleon at the time that he wrote to witness from Oxford and asked him to contribute to the magazine. He subsequently saw him, he thought in the month of November, in a friend's rooms. He had written to him to say that he had really nothing to give him at all. He afterwards said he could give him some aphorisms out of his plays. The Chameleon was not for private circulation.

Sir. E. CLARKE said that only 100 copies were to be printed, but so far as those 100 copies would go the magazine would be for public circulation.

A juryman.--Were you aware of the nature of this article, "The Priest and the Acolyte"? Witness.-- In no way whatever. It came as a terrible shock.

SIR E. CLARKE intimated that this concluded the evidence for the prosecution, and

Mr. CARSON then rose to make his opening speech for the defence. He said that is appearing in that case for Lord Queensberry he could not but feel that a very grave responsibility rested upon him. So far as Lord Queensberry was concerned, in any act he had done, in any letter he had written, or in the matter of the card which had put him in his present position, he withdrew nothing. He had done what he had done premeditatingly, and he was determined at all risks and all hazards to try to save his son. Whether Lord Queensberry was right or whether he was wrong they had probably now to some extent information upon which they could found a judgment. He must say for Lord Queensberry, notwithstanding the many elements of prejudice which his learned friend (Sir E. Clarke) thought fit to introduce into the case in his opening speech, that Lord Queensberry's conduct in this respect had been absolutely consistent all through; and if the facts which he stated in his letter as to Mr. Wilde's reputation and acts were correct, then not only was he justified in doing what he could to cut short what would moat probably prove a most disastrous acquaintance for his son, but in taking every step which suggested itself to him to bring about an inquiry into the acts and doings of Mr. Wilde. It was said that the names of eminent persons, distinguished persons, had been introduced into Lord Queensberry's letters. Hs was very glad that those letters had been read, and he thought Sir Edward Clarke took a very proper course in having those letters read, because they proved that those names were introduced in a way which bad absolutely no connexion with the charges made in the letters against Mr. Oscar Wilde. Those names were introduced in relation to purely political matters arising out of the fact that one of Lord Queensberry's sons was made a member of the House of Lords while Lord Queensberry himself was not a member of that House, and, rightly or wrongly, he felt aggrieved in consequence. Mr. Carson then proceeded to review the facts connected with Lord Queensberry's acquaintance with Mr. Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas's friendship with the same person. These facts have already been published. He commented strongly on Mr. Wilde's friendship with the various young men whose names have come up in the course of the trial, and asked why Taylor, who was the pivot of the whole case, had not been put in the box. With regard to the Chameleon, he pointed out that Mr. Oscar Wilde did not publish any condemnation of the article which he thought objectionable, he only complained about it to the editor, and he only complained of its being inartistic, and not of its being immoral or blasphemous. All that he said was that he did not approve of it from the literary point of view. There was exactly the same idea in the objectionable article in the Chameleon as was contained in the letters to Lord Alfred Douglas, and the same idea was to be found in Lord Alfred Douglas's poem, "Two Loves," which was published in the Chameleon. The same idea, again, was to be found in "Dorian Grey" as was contained in the letters to Lord Alfred Douglas, and counsel read passages from the book in support of this statement. Counsel referred to the introduction of Mr. Beerbohm Tree's name into the trial, and said that he had received a cable that morning from Mr. Tree in which he gave substantially the same account of the incident of the letter as that which Mr. Wilde had given in the box on the previous day. He (Mr. Carson) desired to say that he considered that Mr. Tree's conduct in the matter had been perfectly right.

Mr. JUSTICE COLLINS.--There is not the slightest ground for making any statement whatever against Mr. Tree's action. It was in the most perfect propriety.

Mr. CARSON, proceeding, referred to the letter from Mr. Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas--which Mr. Wilde had described as a prose sonnet--and read it again to the Court. Ho said that Mr. Wilde described it as beautiful. He (counsel) called it an abominable piece of disgusting immorality.

Counsel had not concluded his speech when the Court adjourned.

The hearing of the charge against the Marquis of Queensberry of maliciously publishing a false and defamatory libel concerning Mr. Oscar Wilde was resumed yesterday morning before Mr. Justice Collins at the Central Criminal Court.

Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared for the prosecution; Mr Carson, Q.C., Mr. C. F. Gill, and Mr. A. Gill for the defence; and Mr. Besley, Q.C., and Mr. Monckton for Lord Douglas of Hawick.

The cross examination of Mr. Wilde by Mr. Carson, which was in progress at the time of the adjournment on Wednesday, was continued. The witness said that he was on intimate terms with Taylor, and so continued until the present time. It was Taylor who arranged to meet him and Wood in reference to the letters at Taylor's house in Little College-street. He had known Taylor since the early part of October of the previous year. Taylor visited him at his house, at his chambers, and at the Savoy Hotel. He occupied the upper part of the house, and might have four rooms. He did not know whether Taylor kept a servant, or whether he used to do his own cooking. Sometimes Taylor and sometimes a friend opened the street door. The rooms were not peculiar, except that they exhibited more taste than was usual in rooms of the kind. They were very pretty.

Is it true that the double curtains were always drawn across the windows, and that candles were lighted both day and night?—Quite untrue, I should say. I can remember seeing daylight in the room. It was about the 12th of March. I went in the middle of the day.

Were the rooms strongly perfumed?—I have known him to burn perfumes in his rooms. I cannot say that it was always so, but it was the same as I used to do in my rooms. I met a man named Mayor there once, and sent Taylor last Sunday to try and find him.

Had you any particular business with Taylor?—No; no business at all. He was a young man of great taste and intelligence. He wrote good English and had been brought up at a good public school. He used to listen well. (Laughter.) We used to discuss artistic subjects.

Was he an artist? —He was not an artist to create anything, but he had great taste, and was intellectual and clever. I did not get him to arrange dinners for me to meet young men, but I have dined with him about 12 times, perhaps, at restaurants in Rupert-street—the Florence, Kettner's, the Solferino—generally in private rooms, as I prefer dining in private rooms.

Did you send him this telegram—"Can you call at six o'clock? Oscar, Savoy?"—Yes; I was staying at the Savoy at the time. I wanted to see him because I had had an anonymous letter saying that Wood was going to blackmail me about letters which had been stolen from Lord Alfred Douglas. The matter was discussed then. "Fred" was a young man to whom I was introduced by a gentleman—a friend of mine. His other name was Atkins.

You were very familiar with him?— What do you mean by familiar? I liked him.

You told me yesterday that you always called people whom you liked by their Christian names.—Yes, I always do when I like a man. I used to meet Fred at Taylor's, but 1 do not know whether I have met him at tea parties there. He used to call me by my Christian name, and Taylor and I used to call him Fred. I never heard that Taylor was being watched by the police; but I did hear that Taylor and Parker were arrested in a raid made by the police on a house in Fitzroy-square. I knew Parker, but I did not see him at Taylor's rooms.

How many young men did Taylor introduce to you?—I should think six, or seven, or eight.

With whom you afterwards became intimate or friendly—I should think about five.

Whom you would call by their Christian names ?—Yes.

Were those young men always about 20 years of age?—Twenty or 22. I like the society of young men.

Were any of them of any occupation?—Really I cannot say. If you ask me in regard to people's occupation I really cannot tell you.

Have you given money to all of the five?—Yes, to all of the five, I should think—I should say money and presents. They gave me nothing. Taylor introduced me to Charles Barker, with whom I became friendly.

Was he a gentleman's servant out of employment?—I have no knowledge; I never heard it.

If you had known that he was a gentleman's servant out of employment, would you have become friendly with him?—I would become friendly with any person whom I liked.

What was his age?—I do not know. I think he was about 20, but whether he was only 17 or not I do not know. I have never asked him his age. I think it vulgar to ask people their ages.

Was he an artist ?—No. Was he educated?—Culture was not his strong point. (Laughter.) I do not know about his past life. I never inquire about people's past. I have not the remotest idea what he is now. I have lost sight of him. I have given him altogether, perhaps, £4 or £5.

What for?—Because he was poor; and what better reason could I have for giving money. I first met him with Alfred Taylor. His brother was with him.

Did you become friendly with his brother?—They were my guests at the restaurant.

On the first occasion that you saw them?—Yes. It was Taylor's birthday, and I asked him to dinner, and told him to bring his friends.

Did you know that one of them was a gentleman's valet, and the other a gentleman's groom?—I did not know it, and if I had known it I should not have cared. I do not care twopence about social position.

What was your reason for being with these young men? —The pleasure of being with those who are young, bright, happy, careless, and original.I am surprised at your description of them. They appeared to me to be very pleasant and nice. One of them—Charley Parker—was anxious to go on the stage.

Did you call him "Charley?"—Yes.

Was it a good dinner?—I forget the menu. It was Kettner's best. I entertained Mr. Taylor and his friends in a private room. I should think that was in March, 1893.

The first evening?—Yes.

Did you give them an intellectual treat?—They seemed deeply impressed. (Laughter.)

During the dinner did you become more intimate with "Charley" than with the others ?—Oh, yes.

Did he call you "Oscar?"—Oh, yes. I told him to. I like to be called either "Oscar" or "Mr. Wilde." I put him at his ease at once.

Did you give them plenty of champagne?—I gave them whatever they wanted to drink. There was no particular kind of drink.

Did you give this valet plenty to drink?—Not an inordinate quantity of drink. They were served the same as I was. I did not stint them. What gentleman would?

No, what gentleman would stint a valet—I strongly object to that sort of question.

After dinner did you say to Charley, "This is the boy for me?"—No. I went back to the Savoy. I did not take him with me. I did not drive him to the Savoy Hotel. I was staying there, my wife being in Italy.

Did you give Charley iced champagne? Is that a favourite drink of yours?—Yes; strongly against my doctor's orders. I did not give him any money at Kettner's. At no time did he ever come to the Savoy. I saw him afterwards, and it was not until the month of December, 1893, that I gave him any money.

Did you ask Taylor what these young men were?—No. It was sufficient for me to know that they were friends of his. Parker told me that his desire was to go on to the stage, but what the ambition of the others was I do not know. Taylor did not tell me that he met them in the St. James's Restaurant. I had rooms in St. James's-place from October, 1893, to March, 1894, and Parker came there to tea perhaps five or six times. I liked his society. I gave him a Christmas present—not a chain or ring, I gave him a cigarette-case.

Did you give him money ?—Yes, I gave him about £3 or £4. He was hard up and asked me to assist him. Nothing particular occurred on that occasion. He merely had his tea, smoked, and enjoyed himself.

What was there in common between you and a young man in the position of this young man ?—Well, I will tell you. I delight in the society of men younger than myself. I like those who may be glad, young, and careless. I recognise no social distinctions of any kind between them and myself, and to me the mere fact of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk to a young man for half an hour than be cross-examined in Court even. (Laughter.)

Then do I understand that even a young boy whom you picked up off the street would be a pleasing companion to you?—Oh, I would talk to a street arab with pleasure.

And take him into your rooms ?—Be it so; yes, if he interested me. Parker has lunched with me at the Café Royal, but I have never called upon Charley Parker.

Have you ever written him a beautiful letter?—I do not think that I have ever written Parker a beautiful letter.

Have you any letters from him?—I think there is one.

Will you give it to me?

Sir E. Clarke—After the way in which my learned friend has spoken of this young man, I should like you, my Lord, and the Jury, to see that letter.

Mr. Carson—Yes, the Jury can see it, and, as Parker will be in the box; they can see him too.

Cross-examination continued—I did not visit Parker at 60, Park-walk, Chelsea, in March or April of last year at midnight.

Is his house 10 minutes' walk from Tite-street?—I do not know. I never walk. (Laughter.)

You never walk?—Never.

Then, I suppose, in paying your visits, you would go in a cab?—Yes.

And in paying those visits you would leave the cab outside the door?—Yes, certainly, if it was a good cab. I do not think that I have seen Parker since February of last year. I have heard that he has gone into the Army as a driver. I read in a newspaper that he and Taylor were arrested. I was very much distressed about it, but the Magistrate took a different view and dismissed the case. It made no difference in our acquaintanceship. I wrote to him and he wrote back to me, but I have not got his letter. Taylor came to my house on Tuesday last. I knew Fred Atkins first in 1892. He told me that he was connected with bookmakers. I was introduced to him in the rooms of the gentleman whose name you handed to me yesterday. I have never asked him to dinner or lunch. I have met him at a dinner given by the gentleman referred to—I think at Kettner's. Taylor was there. I became friendly with him at that time. I called him "Fred" and he called me "Oscar." He told me that he had neglected his business.

Did he seem to you to be an idle kind of fellow?—Oh yes, he seemed to have the charm of idleness, with an ambition to go on the music-hall stage.

Did you think him charming?—I thought he was very pleasant.

Did you discuss literature with him?—No, I would not allow him to do so.

That was not his line?—No, the art of music-halls was as far as he had got. (Laughter.)

In reply to further questions, the witness said that Atkins never lunched with him at the Café Royal, though he met him afterwards at lunch with the gentleman who had been referred to. At the suggestion of that gentleman he took Atkins to Paris, where he was going on business, as the gentleman was unable to go until two days later, and Atkins was disappointed at the possible brevity of the holiday. They remained in Paris about a fortnight, going by the Club train, and Atkins's fare was repaid to bim by the gentleman in question. Atkins did not act as his secretary, and went to Paris merely for his own pleasure. They stayed in the Boulevard des Capucines. He took Atkins to the Café Jullien, and paid for his lunch.

After lunch did you suggest to him that he should have his hair curled?—No, I told him that I thought it would be very unbecoming. He suggested it himself.

And you were of opinion that it would be unbecoming?—That was my opinion, which I have never changed.

You thought he looked better without his hair curled?—Yes, it was silly of him. It did not suit him. (Laughter.) I should have been very angry with him if he had done it. I should have been very much annoyed.

Did he get it curled?—I do not think so—not to my recollection. I saw him at dinner.

You gave him an excellent dinner?—Yes.

Plenty of wine?—Why will you ask me that question. Nobody who dines at my table is stinted in wine.

Did you give him a sovereign to go to the Moulin Rouge?—Yes. I went to a French theatre, and when I came back Atkins was in bed. The other gentleman joined us on Wednesday, we having come to Paris on Monday. Shortly after our return to London I wrote to the gentleman and asked him to bring Atkins. I was ill in bed. They both came to see me, and I thought it was very kind of them to come. I afterwards sent him tickets for my theatre and went to see him at his house in Osnaburgh-street. I gave him £3 15s. to buy his first song on the music-hall stage. He told me that poets who wrote for the music-hall stage never took less. (Laughter.)

Did you consider him a moral, respectable young man?—I don't know about respectability. He was a very pleasant, good-natured fellow. I encouraged him, and as he was going on the music-hall stage I bought him a song and went to tea in his rooms in order that I might hear him sing.

The witness, continuing, said that he was introduced to Ernest Scarfe in 1893 by Taylor. He was about 20 years of age. At the time he was doing nothing, but had previously been in Australia. He was not aware that Scarfe also had been a valet, or that his father was a valet. He was a nice, pleasant young man. He did not meet Scarfe in society, but Scarfe was in his (Mr. Wilde's) and Taylor's society. Taylor informed him that Scarfe met Lord Douglas of Hawick while on a voyage to Australia. Scarfe had dined with him. He asked him to do so because he (Mr. Wilde) was very good- natured, and it was one of the best ways of pleasing a person not in one's own social position to ask him to dine. He never gave Scarfe any money, but he gave him a cigarette-case. It was his custom to do that. He had given a great many cigarette-cases as presents. He first knew Sidney Mavor in September, 1892. He was about 25 years old. He was introduced by the gentleman to whom reference had already been made. He had not heard from him for 18 months. Perhaps he did give him a cigarette-case. He gave people cigarette cases because he liked them. He thought a month's knowledge was quite sufficient to enable him to express admiration or liking for a person. Mavor had stayed with him at the hotel in Albemarle-street as a companion for pleasure and amusement. He paid for the man's entertainment, and had dined with him several times. Walter Grainger was a servant at some rooms in High-street, Oxford. He was about 16 years old. He waited at table. He was a particularly plain boy—ugly, in fact. He mentioned that fact because of the insolent question that counsel put to him. Counsel insulted and stung and almost unnerved him by his repeated insolent questions, and there was some excuse if he appeared to answer flippantly. When he went to Goring, Grainger was brought down as under-butler. The boy had asked him to find him a place, and he acted in the matter only out of kindness. He stayed at the Savoy Hotel when his wife was out of town, but never had any boys waiting on him there or in Paris.

Re-examined by Sir E. Clarke—The letters produced were written by Lord Queensberry, and were communicated to him (Mr. Wilde) by the persons who received them with one exception. It was from them that he learned of Lord Queensberry's objection to his intimacy with his son.

Sir E. Clarke read and put in the letters. The first, which was dated April 1, from Parker's Hotel, in Albemarle-street, was addressed by Lord Queensberry to Lord Alfred Douglas. In it Lord Queensberry expressed his pain at having to write in such a strain, and declared that any answer must be delivered in person, as, after "your present hysterically impertinent ones" he declined to read any more letters. "Having had to leave Oxford in disgrace to yourself, the reasons of which were fully explained to me by your tutor, you are now loafing and loling about, doing nothing." The letter afterwards went on to say that Lord Queensberry utterly "declined to supply you with sufficient funds just to enable you to loaf," and added, "You are preparing a wretched future for yourself, and it would be most cruel and wrong for me to encourage you in this." Then came a reference to "your infamous intimacy with this man Wilde." "I am not going," he wrote, "to try to analyse this intimacy, and I make no charge, but my mind to pose as a thing is as bad as to be it." "No wonder people are talking as they are. I hear, on good authority, that his wife is petitioning to divorce him." It further stated :— "If I thought the actual thing was true, and it becomes public property, I should be quite justified in shooting him at sight. These Christian English cowards, and men, as they call themselves, want waking up." This letter was signed, "Your disgusted and so-called father, QUEENSBERRY."

Sir E. Clarke—Is there any truth in the statement about the petition for divorce?— There is not the slightest foundation for the statement.

Sir E. Clarke then began to read the second letter to Lord Alfred Douglas. It was dated April 3, and began :—"You impertinent young jackanapes, I request that you will not send such messages to me by telegraph."

Mr. Carson—Read the telegram from Lord Alfred Douglas to his father.

Sir E. Clarke—Certainly.

The telegram was handed in, and was as follows:— "To Queensberry, Parker's Hotel, Albemarle-street—What a funny little man you are.—ALFRED DOUGLAS."

Sir E. Clarke—In the second letter addressed to Lord Alfred Douglas the defendant said that his son's reputation has accounted for a good deal that had happened, and that if he caught him again with "that man" he would make a public scandal of what was at present only a suppressed one. He also threatened to cut off Lord Alfred's allowance. If the defendant was quite certain of the thing he would shoot the fellow on sight, but he (defendant) could only accuse him of posing. He did not believe Wilde would dare defy him. He plainly showed the white feather the other day when the defendant tackled him. In another letter to his son, which began, "You miserable creature," Lord Queensberry said that he had given instructions to tear up all future letters from Lord Alfred, and referred to the "horrible brute" to whom Lord Alfred had fallen a prey. He expressed sorrow for him as a human creature, who must, however, be allowed to "gang his ain gait." It depended upon himself whether his father would recognise him again after his behaviour. He made allowances for him as he thought he was demented, and was therefore sorry for him.

Having regard to the contents of those letters, did you or did you not think it right to disregard the wish referred to?—I thought it right to entirely disregard it.

And your friendship with Lady Queensberry and her sons has continued to the present time?—Yes. It was not true that "Dorian Gray" was purged or toned down for the English market. In consequence of what Mr. Pater said to him he modified one passage in the book. He first knew Alfred Taylor in October, 1892. He was introduced to him by the gentleman whose name had been written. That gentleman was of high position, good birth, and repute. He last saw him about February or March, 1894, but he was not available for the purposes of the trial. He knew that Taylor had lost a great deal of money in business. He was educated at Marlborough School, and played the piano very charmingly. He had no reason to believe that Taylor was an immoral or disreputable person. With regard to the arrest, Taylor wrote him that he had been given a ticket for a private benefit, at which he was to play the piano, and two music-hall singers in costume were to appear. They were, however, not in the house at the time the police came in and arrested everyone present. There was no impression left in his mind as to Taylor's impropriety. The suggestion was monstrous. John Lane, the publisher of his works, introduced him to Shelley. He afterwards talked to the young man, who had good literary taste. He saw him when he went from time to time to the house while his books were being printed, as he was often the only person in charge. In February, 1892, "Lady Windermere's Fan" was produced, and he gave Shelley a ticket for the performance. He gave him also some of his books, because Shelley admired his works. After his return from Paris Shelley dined with him and Mrs.Wilde at their house in Tite-street. He was in every way a gentleman.

Sir E. Clarke read several letters from Shelley, complaining of poverty and ill-health, and asking for pecuniary assistance.

Witness identified the letter, and said that in response he gave the man £5.

Was there ever any relation between you and Edward Shelley other than that you have described as the relation between a man of letters and a person who admired his poetry and works, and who had been brought into contact with you?—Never, on any occasion. With regard to the boy Conway he became a great friend of my sons, and went out almost every day with us and our friends. My wife met him on many occasions. Woods I first saw in January, 1893, at the Café Royal. I only saw him once at Taylor's house—on the occasion of the letters. There waa no actual introduction, but whilst at Salisbury I was asked by Lord Alfred Douglas if I could find the man something to do. He was out of employment, and was anxious to obtain a clerkship. As to Charles Parker and his brother, I had no idea whatever what their occupation had been. It was represented to me that their father was a man of means.

When they were introduced to you had you any reason for suspecting that they were disreputable persons?—None whatever. Nothing came to my knowledge tending in any way to destroy their characters. I knew that Charles Parker was arrested on a certain charge, and that the case was dismissed by the magistrates. I never saw Charles Parker at the Savoy Hotel, and I have never in my life been at 7, Camera-square, or at 50, Park-walk.

How was it that after the interview with Lord Queensberry on the 30th of June, and these further letters coming to your knowledge, you took no steps against him?—It was on account of the strong pressure put on me by the Queensberry family.

Did you, early in July, have an interview with a member of Parliament?—Yes; on the Wednesday following the Saturday on which Lord Queensberry's visit to my house occurred. This member of Parliament was a member of Lord Queensberry's family.

Mr. Carson, with the permission of the Judge (over-ruling an objection by Sir E. Clarke), read the following postcard, addressed by Lord A. Douglas to Lord Queensberry:—"As you return my letters unopened I am obliged to write on a postcard. I write to inform you that I treat your absurd threats with absolute indifference. Ever since your exhibition at O.W.'s house I have made a point of appearing with him at many public restaurants, such as the Berkeley, Willis's Booms, the Café Royal, &c, and I shall continue to go to any of these places whenever I choose, and with whom I choose. I am of age and my own master; you have disowned me at least a dozen times, and have very meanly deprived me of money. You have, therefore, no right over me, either legal or moral. If O. W. was to prosecute you in the criminal courts for libel you would get seven years' penal servitude for your outrageous libels. Much as I detest you, I am anxious to avoid this for the sake of the family; but if you try to assault me I shall defend myself with a loaded revolver, which I always carry; and if I shoot you, or if he shoots you, we should be completely justified, as we should be acting in self-defence against a violent and dangerous rough, and I think if you were dead not many people would miss you.—A.D."

Sir E. Clarke—At this stage of the case that is the evidence for the prosecution, my Lord.

Mr. Carson—At this stage of the case? We take it that the prosecutor's case is closed. He must make his whole case now.

Sir E. Clarke—Subject to this—that evidence may be given which it may be necessary for my client to rebut.

Mr. Justice Collins—It may be that evidence will be sprung upon you. Of course I shall reserve my discretion as to the evidence I shall allow you to submit at any future stage.

Mr. Wilde then left the box, and almost immediately left the Court.

Mr. Carson then opened the case for the defence. He declared at the outset that, so far as Lord Queensberry was concerned, in every letter he had written and in the charge he had made against Mr. Oscar Wilde, and which had put him into his present position, he withdrew nothing. He had determined at all risks and all hazards to try and save his son. Whether he was right or whether he was wrong the Jury probably now to some extent had information upon which to found a judgment. He (the learned counsel) must claim for Lord Queensberry that, notwithstanding the many elements of prejudice which the prosecution had introduced against him, his conduct in this respect had been absolutely consistent all through, and if the statements which he had made in his letter as to Mr. Wilde's reputation and acts were correct, not only was he justified in doing what he could to put an end to the disastrous acquaintance which existed between Mr. Wilde and his son, but he was bound to take every step which suggested itself to him to bring about at once such an inquiry as would lead to the acts and deeds of Mr. Wilde being made public. According to the case as presented on behalf of Mr. Wilde, there was no personal quarrel or dispute of any kind between Lord Queensberry and the prosecutor, and the only motive the former had in the course he had taken had been to save his son from this intimacy. Mr. Wilde's character was made known to Lord Queensberry in the first place by his writings, and, secondly, in connection with the Savoy Hotel. He could not fail to notice the character which a man in Mr. Wilde's position must have earned for himself when he was leading the kind of life to a portion of which—and only a small portion of which—he had confessed in the witness-box. Mr. Wilde had been going about with young men who were not his co-equals in station or his co-equals in age. He had been associated with men who, it would be proved, he thought, before the case concluded, were some of the worst characters in London. He referred, above all, to Taylor, a notorious character, as the police would tell them. He (the learned counsel) had put a question to Mr. Wilde as to whether Taylor's house was not a den of infamy of the worst description, but notwithstanding this suggestion, and although no longer ago than Tuesday last Taylor was found in company with Mr. Wilde in Tite-street, the prosecution did not venture to put the man into the box. Taylor had been found in company with Parker, who, with a number of other notorious characters, had been arrested on suspicion. His learned friend had said that Parker was acquitted. Yes; but the police did not act in this way without very grave reason, and when Taylor was found associating with him, and it was given in evidence that Taylor was practically the right-hand man of Mr. Wilde in all his orgies with "artists" and valets, at least it might be expected that an opportunity would be given for cross-examining him. Taylor was the pivot of this case. When they had heard the various witnesses, and when, one after another, these were compelled to speak as to the conduct of Oscar Wilde, surely the man- who introduced those persons to Wilde was the man who, above all others, could have thrown light upon the object of such introductions. Taylor was the man best fitted to bear out Mr. Wilde's innocence of the charges made in the plea of justification, but yet he was not, and would not, be produced. A certain name had been written down. When it was convenient to mention anybody that name was mentioned by Mr. Wilde because the man was out of the country; but Taylor was in the country. Taylor was still Mr. Wilde's friend, nothing having happened, as the prosecutor said, to interrupt the friendship. Then why was not Taylor produced? Evidence would be given as to the life this man led; as to the extraordinary den he kept in College-street, with the curtains always drawn, with luxurious hangings to the windows, gorgeous and luxurious furniture, and a perpetual change of varied perfumes—where daylight was never admitted, the only illumination being the shaded light of candles, lamps, or gas. When they heard the extraordinary way Taylor kept his rooms, together with a description of the extraordinary company that there assembled at the innocent afternoon tea parties, the Jury, he thought, would come to the conclusion that he was right when he said that Taylor was the pivot in the case upon which the true relations of Mr. Wilde with various persons must be estimated. As to the high ground taken up by Mr. Wilde—who did not write for "Philistines" or "the illiterate," but only as an artist for artists—there was the greatest contrast between his books and the way he chose his friends. He took up with gentlemen's servants and a newspaper boy, his case no longer being that he was dwelling in the regions of Art (which no one understood but himself and the artist), but that he had such a magnanimous, noble, and democratic soul that he drew no social distinctions, and it gave him exactly the same pleasure to have the sweeping-boy from the streets to lunch or dine with him as the best educated artist or the greatest littérateur in the Kingdom. Mr. Wilde's positions were absolutely irreconcilable. If the defence had rested the case on Mr. Wilde's literature alone they would have been absolutely justified in the course they had taken. The learned counsel then referred at some length to the character of the literary matter in the Chameleon, arguing that the same idea, often similar phrases, ran through that and the two letters written to Lord Alfred Douglas, which had been read in Court—letters which Mr. Wilde described as beautiful, but which he (the learned counsel) considered simply disgusting. The same idea was to be found in "Dorian Gray." The poem written by Lord Alfred Douglas and published in the Chameleon showed the result of the "artistic" education the young man had received, and the domination of Mr. Oscar Wilde over him. No father would be likely to regard such a production on the part of his son without a feeling of horror. Having referred to the manner in which the two letters written by Mr. Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas had been brought to the front, Mr. Carson said that the man Wood, who was one of the College-street lot, had received £21 from Mr. Wilde, and had been shipped off to America. Probably Mr. Wilde hoped the man would never be heard of again in this country. But he was here; the Jury would have him examined before them. The learned counsel here incidentally remarked that Mr. Beerbohm Tree had cabled from America with reference to the introduction of his name into the case.

Mr. Justice Collins said there was not the slightest ground for suggesting anything against Mr. Tree.

Mr. Carson said that gentleman had acted throughout exactly as he ought to have done.

Mr. Justice Collins—With perfect propriety.

Mr. Carson went on to comment further upon the letters written to Lord Alfred Douglas by Mr. Wilde, declaring that if the Jury accepted the statement that either of the epistles was written as a sonnet to be published he envied them their credulity. The sonnet or prose-poem theory had been invented as a way out of a difficulty, and it was an extraordinary thing that the only letter Mr. Wilde had ever written which he was able to describe as a sonnet was one which had become known to the public. It was also an extraordinary thing that Mr. Wilde should have taken up his residence at the Savoy Hotel whilst his wife was away in Italy, having regard to the facts which he had himself stated that it entailed an outlay of £45 per week, and that he was short of money and without credit.

The learned counsel had not concluded his address when the Court rose.

Lord Queensberry was again admitted to bail on his own recognisances.