Compare Documents

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

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

Mr. GILL said that he and Mr. Avory had had an opportunity of considering the indictment, and had come to the determination not to ask fora verdict on the counts charging the prisoners with conspiracy.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE said that if those counts had been withdrawn in the first instance he should have asked that the prisoners be tried separately. Of course, his learned friend Mr. Gill could say at any time that there was no evidence of conspiracy--that was all he could do.

Mr. JUSTICE CHARLES.--After the evidence had been given it occurred to my own mind that the counts for conspiracy were really unnecessary counts altogether.

Mr. Gill said that was the conclusion which was arrived at on going through the evidence.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE said he wanted know what exactly was position. Would his learned friend to adopt the course of asking his Lordship to strike out the conspiracy counts from the indictment?

Mr. GILL said he was adopting the course of not asking for a verdict on the conspiracy counts, because it would be suggested that there would be a difficulty with regard to calling the prisoners in consequence of the conspiracy counts being in the indictment, and that he himself might take advantage under the conspiracy counts of cross-examining to matters outside the specific charge. For that reason he desired to take the course of not asking for a verdict on the conspiracy counts to avoid any difficulty being placed in the way of the prisoners giving evidence.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said that Mr. Gill was entitled to take that course.

Sir EDWARD CLARKE.-- I ask for a verdict of not guilty at once on those counts.

Mr. JUSTICE CHARLES.-- I cannot assent to that course.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE.--I am entitled to a verdict of not guilty at one time or other because the prisoners have been given in charge.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES.-- I think at the present stage of the trial it is my duty to say that I accede to Mr. Gill's application.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE.-- Then I say that at some stage of the case I shall ask for a verdict of not guilty to be entered on those counts.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE then opened the case for the defence of Wilde. He said that the announcement which had been made by Mr. Gill was one on which he should think it his duty to comment later on in the day. At that moment he thought it better to say nothing about it, as he should like to weigh the observations which he desired to make on that very remarkable incident in a very remarkable trial. He was going to call Mr. Oscar Wilde as a witness. That decision to call him as a witness had not been arrived at in consequence of the statement made by Mr. Gill--but he certainly felt strengthened in that resolution to call Mr. Wilde by the fact of this tardy withdrawal of charges which, if they were not intended to be proceeded with, ought not to have been put into the indictment--nor in consequence of the statement which his learned friend Mr. Gill had made with regard to what he felt to be the proper limits of cross-examination--limits which, if they had been applied at the beginning of yesterday instead of to-day, would have saved the trouble of reading a good deal of the cross-examination which was read yesterday. That cross-examination had been read, and there were some topics in it upon which he must address some observations. He trusted that the calling of Mr. Wilde would not materially lengthen the trial. On a consideration of the notes of the cross-examination read yesterday it became very clear to him that in justice to Mr. Wilde he should have asked that some notes of his examination in chief should be read before the jury. But then it occurred to his mind that the jury would naturally prefer to hear Mr. Wilde's statement made in the witness-box before them instead of being asked to rely on the evidence given at the hearing of the charge of libel. If the evidence in chief were to be read at all, he came to the conclusion that the jury would prefer to hear to-day Mr. Wilde's denial on oath. He was aware that that would entitle Mr. Gill to the right of reply, and that it would expose himself to the necessity of having that evidence and his own observations upon it commented upon by his learned friend and criticized by him after his mouth was closed. But he never had at any time during his professional life attached nearly half so much importance to what was called the last word that some great advocate who taught him his profession had attached to it. The conduct of a portion of the Press in reference to the ease had been disgraceful--it was conduct calculated to imperil the administration of justice and was in the highest degree prejudicial to the interests of the prisoners. Mr..Gill asked the jury to dismiss from their minds anything which they might have seen in newspapers. Mr. Gill in saying that was quite fair, but it was not fair for him to have insisted upon having the cross-examination of Mr. Wilde on his writings which they had heard. It was not fair to judge of a man by his own books. Coleridge said long ago, "Judge no one by his books. Man is more and greater than his book." The strange unfairness in the case had been that an attempt had been made, and that attempt was repeated by the reading of the cross-examination yesterday, not to judge Mr. Wilde by his own book, but by books which he did not write and to judge him by an article which he did not write and which he repudiated as horrible and disgusting. He himself should have no difficulty in defending the story of "The Picture of Dorian Gray " if it was necessary. Of all strangely unfair cross-examinations which were ever addressed in a Court of justice the cross-examination addressed to Mr. Wilde on literature with which he had nothing to do was the most unfair, and now that cross-examination was dragged in again for the purpose of biasing the minds of the jury against Mr. Wilde. He himself denounced that as violating every canon of fairness. The question of the literature was an entirely different question from that which the jury had now to determine. The last date mentioned in the indictment was 18 months ago.The jury would, no doubt, ask themselves how it was that this question now arose. The reason was that Mr. Wilde insisted on having it investigated before the public. It was Mr. Wilde's act and his act alone in charging Lord Queensberry with libel which had brought the matter before the public. Mr. Wilde's counsel and not Mr. Wilde were responsible for the course taken in withdrawing from that charge of libel. If Mr. Wilde were a guilty man, would he have provoked this investigation? It was a remarkable fact that there was only one statement in Mr. Wilde's evidence which the prosecution had called a witness to contradict--that was, the statement that he had never been to see Charles Parker at Park-walk, and the prosecution had called a witness who said that one night she was looking out of the window and saw a gentleman, whom she recognized as Mr. Wilde, getting into a hansom cab.. He should call Mr. Wilde, who would deny on oath that there was any truth in the allegations made on the part of the prosecution.

Mr. GRAIN said he should also call the prisoner Taylor, but he only proposed to make one speech.

The prisoner Wilde was then called as a witness, and, in reply to Sin EDWARD CLARKE, he said he was married and had two sons. He had the rooms in St. James's-place because he wanted to be quiet for literary purposes. His own house was small, and his two sons were not at school, so he took the rooms in St. James's-place in order to be able to write there without being disturbed. In his evidence given at the trial of Lord Queensberry on the charge of libel he gave a denial to all the charges, and that evidence was entirely true.

Being asked by SIR EDWARD CLARKE,-- Is there any truth in any one of the allegations of indecent

conduct made against you? Wilde replied.-- There is no truth whatever in any one of those allegations.

In cross-examination by Mr. GILL, Wilde repeated that there was no truth whatever in the allegations, and said that the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution who made any allegation of indecency against him was entirely untrue.

The prisoner Taylor was then called as a witness, and in answer to Mr. GRAIN he said that his father, who was now dead, carried on a large business which was now a limited company. He was educated at Marlborough, and then went to a private tutor at Preston, near Brighton. He afterwards entered the Militia, with the intention of going into the Army, but he gave it up. In 1883 he came into a sum of 45,000. He lived in town, and had no occupation. There was no truth whatever in the allegations made against him on the part of the prosecution.

Taylor was cross-examined by Mr. Gill, and reiterated his denial of the allegations.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE, addressing the Jury for the defence of Wilde, said that the question which the Jury had to decide as to Mr Wilde was in a great degree distinct from the question which they had to decide with regard to Taylor. He said he would make some observations on the remarkable course taken by the prosecution in this ease, which he did not remember to have been taken in any other case. The jury would recollect that he himself made an objection to the indictment on the ground that in the indictment there were two sets of counts, one set of counts charging offences on the part of the defendants and the other set of counts charging conspiracy between the defendants, and that on one set of counts the defendants could be called as witnesses and on the other set of counts they could not. The learned Judge recognized the inconvenience of the way in which the law now stood, but said that the indictment containing those counts might be put before the jury. He himself accepted his Lordship's expression of opinion on the point loyally. But what about the prosecution? Had the prosecution evidence which required the counts for conspiracy to be put in the indictment or not? If they had not, then why were those counts put in the indictment, and why were the prisoners to be put to the embarrassment of having to meet an indictment upon part of which they could give evidence and on part of which they could not? He did not make any complaint against his learned friends. If there was any point of law on the indictment it still remained in spite of the course taken by the prosecution of withdrawing the counts charging the prisoners with conspiracy. But counsel for the Crown ought to have made up their minds whether they were going to allege conspiracy or not. His Lordship would tell the jury that the conversation alleged to have taken place between Taylor and the Parkers at the St. James's restaurant when they first met was no evidence at all against Mr. Wilde.

Mr. Justice Charles said it was evidence against Taylor only.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE, continuing, proceeded to refer to the evidence of the witnesses called out on the part or the prosecution. With reference to the witness Shelley, he pointed out that Shelley himself stated that when he wrote the letters which were read to him in cross-examination he thought that people were under the impression that his mind was disordered. William Parker and Mavor stated that no impropriety took place between Mr. Wilde and themselves. The only witnesses who said anything against Mr. Wilde were Atkins, Wood, and Charles Parker. Sir Edward Clarke contended that Atkins had been concerned in blackmailing, and that Wood and Charles Parker had participated in a sum of money which had been obtained from a gentleman by means of blackmail. Atkins, Wood, and Charles Parker, three blackmailers, were the only persons who said anything against Mr. Wilde. To support the charge the evidence ought to be convincing--evidence which the jury believed to be honest; untainted, and in all degrees true. Could the jury say that with regard to any one piece of the evidence which attacked the conduct of Mr. Wilde that those epithets could be applied? The jury were dealing with matters which were alleged to have taken place a long time ago, and consequently it was impossible that witnesses could be called by Mr. Wilde, who could only meet the allegations by the statement that they were false. The reason why Mr. Wilde was introduced to the young men was that he liked the society of the youthful. Sir Edward Clarke asked the jury to fix their minds firmly on the tests which ought to be applied to the evidence, and that he trusted that the result would gratify those thousand hopes which were waiting upon their verdict and to clear one of our most renowned and accomplished men of letters from the charge made against him.

Mr. GRAIN then addressed the jury for the defence of Taylor. He contended that the evidence against Taylor was uncorroborated.

Mr. GILL replied on the part of the prosecution.

The hearing of the case was adjourned until to-morrow.

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.