Compare Documents

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charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of the acts complained of were withdrawn by counsel for the prosecution yesterday.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

Sir Edward Clarke instantly and with emphasis exclaimed, "If that had been done in the first instance I should have applied that the defendants should be tried separately. Of course I know my learned friend has the legal right to withdraw the counts at any stage of the case."

His Lordship said the evidence had suggested to his mind that the counts of conspiracy were really unnecessary, and

Sir Edward Clarke said that he must ask that a verdict of not guilty on the conspiracy counts might at once be taken of the jury.

His Lordship: I cannot say that. All I can say at the present stage of the trial is that I feel it my duty to accede to Mr. Gill's application.

Sir Edward Clarke: At some part of the case I shall claim that a verdict of not guilty be entered on these counts.

Before the sensation of this first surprise had died away Sir Edward Clarke was on his feet again. "Have you something more to say?" asked his lordship; and the

SENSATION WAS REDOUBLED

when Sir Edward Clarke replied, "No, my lord, I was about to address the jury," After the announcement that had just been made, he said, an announcement of the importance and significance of which he would have much to say later is the day, he was going to call Mr. Oscar Wilde before the jury as a witness! This decision had not been arrived at in consequence of the decision of Mr. Gill in regard to charges which, if they were not to be proceeded with, should never have been put into the indictment. And Sir Edward was fully alive to all the consequences of the course he had elected to take. To put Mr. Wilde in the witness-box would entitle Mr. Gill to the right of reply in the case, and expose him (Sir Edward) to the consequence of having that evidence and his own observations commented on and replied to. But he had never attached as much importance to "the last word" as the great advocate who taught him his profession used to do.

The court was very hushed and still when the full significance of Sir Edward Clarke's decision was realised. Wilde himself was least moved of anyone, sitting impassive and expressionless in his corner of the dock. But when Sir Edward had fully embarked on an eloquent and most impressive opening of the case for the defence, Wilde leaned forward as if irresistibly drawn out of his habitual attitude of insouciance by their fervor and

DEEP EARNESTNESS

of his advocate. Sir Edward first protected against the notion of Mr. Gill yesterday is insisting on reading, for the purpose of prejudicing Mr. Wilde, the cross-examination in the Queensberry case. I was a cross-examination upon his books and writings, and Coleridge had long ago said, "judge no man by his books. The man is more a greater than his books." But Mr. Wilde had been judged, not by his own books alone, but by articles written by other people which he had repudiated as horrible and disgusting. Sir Edward would not himself save the smallest hesitation about defending "Dorian Grey," a very simple story which appeared first in Lippincott's, a publication in the highest class of American periodical literature, and which, in book form, had since been in constant circulation and on sale in every English bookshop. As to Mr. Carson's cross-examination of Wilde as the French work, "A Rebours," Sir Edward described it as genuinely unfair, and a violation of every canon of justice. He described Wilde's responsibility for any of the views expressed in that book or in the story of "The Priest and the Acolyte," about which Wilde was one of

THE FIRST TO PROTEST.

Then, passing from the literary part of the case, Sir Edward pointed out that the latest date at which misconduct was charged against Wilde was September, 1893, 18 months ago, and that it was his own act in prosecuting Lord Queensberry which had brought this matter before the public and placed him in his present peril. Wilde had long been, and was now, a friend of Lady Queensberry and her son. Lord Queensberry had been divorced from his wife.

Mr. C.F. Gill interrupted that this was irrelevant and in no way material to the present case, and he should protest against any attack on Lord Queensberry, who was not represented here.

There was a laugh when Sir Edward replied that Mr. Gill rebuking irrelevance was rather amusing. He did not further describe Lord Queensberry's position, but proceeded that he, Sir Edward, was responsible for the advice given to Mr. Wilde in the Queensberry case, and it was partly because of that fact that he was here again on Wilde's behalf to meet an accusation which could not be properly tried then. Men charged with offences like those alleged against Mr. Wilde, he said, when they know themselves to be guilty, shrink from investigation. Men guilty of such offences suffer from

A SPECIES OF INSANITY.

What then would they think of the mental condition of a man who, knowing himself to be guilty, and that evidence of his guilt would be forthcoming from half-a-dozen different places, insisted on bringing his case before the world. On 30 March, before the previous trial, Mr. Wilde knew this catalogue of accusations against him. He nevertheless went into the witness box, as he would now go into the witness box again, to deny absolutely that there was the least truth in any of them.

Mr. Grain said he would also call Taylor to give evidence on his own behalf, but he did not propose to make more than one speech to the jury.

Wilde was then called and sworn. He stepped alertly from the dock to the witness-box, and then, standing erect, or leaning in an easy attitude on the front of the box he

QUIETLY ANSWERED

Sir Edward Clarke's questions. He repeated once more the story of his classical distinctions at Dublin and Oxford, where he took his degree in 1878. Since that year, he said, he had devoted himself to literary work. Recently he had devoted himself specially to dramatic literature, and his first play, "Lady Windermere's Fan," was produced in the early part of 1892. He had since produced "A Woman of No Importance," "An Ideal Husband," and "The Importance of Being Earnest," and had also written "Salomé," a tragedy in French, and contributions for various magazines. In 1884 he married Miss Lloyd, and has two sons. His wife and sons have always lived with him at 16, Tite-st. He also had between October, 1893, and April, 1894, rooms at 10, St. James's-place. They were taken for literary work, and he very rarely slept there. His house at Tite-st. was very small, and he always found it most convenient to work elsewhere, that he might not be disturbed. It was entirely and solely for that purpose he took the rooms at St. James's-place. At his previous examination in the Queensberry case he denied every one of the charges made against him.

Was the evidence that you gave on that occasion absolutely true? - Entirely true evidence.

Is there any truth in any of the allegations made against you in the evidence in this case? - There is

NO TRUTH WHATSOEVER

in any one of the allegations. No truth whatsoever.

With this emphatic declaration the examination in chief was concluded, and Mr. C. F. Gill tose with the weightier purpose of cross-examining. He spoke first of "Dorian Grey," and the letters to Lord Alfred Douglas, the originals of which were handed to the witness. He reminded the witness that he had said Lord Alfred Douglas contributed two poems to the "Chameleon," and that they were beautiful poems. "Yes," said the witness. The first, Mr. Gill continued, was "In Praise of Shame," concluding, "Of all sweet passions, shame is the loveliest."

"May I---," said Mr. Wilde.

"No!" Mr. Gill sharply replied. "Kindly answer my questions!"

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

"It is not for me to explain anyone else's work," said Mr. Wilde, "but the explanation given to me by the person who wrote that sonnet was that the word shame was used in the

SENSE OF MODESTY--

to feel shame, or not to feel shame. It seemed to me obscure."

The other sonnet was entitled "The Two Loves." It concluded, "'I am true love, I fill the heart of girl and boy with mutual flame.' Then, sighing, said the other, 'Have your will. I am the love that dares not speak its name.'"

Witness: That is clear.

Mr. Gill: Clear that it refers to natural love and unnatural love?

"Oh no," said the witness, "most certainly not," and entered upon the explanation which unfortunately was not at times perfectly audible. The love that dare not speak its name, he said, was the great affection between an elder and a younger man, as between David and Jonathan, such as Plato made the basis of his philosophy, such as you find in the sonnets of Michael Angelo and Shakespeare, "and these two letters of mine." It was a love so misunderstood that it might be described as "the love that dare not speak its name." There was

NOTHING UNNATURAL

about it. It was beautiful, it was fine, it was noble, it was intellectual, this love between an elder man, with his experience of life and a younger with all the joy and hope of life before him.

This long explanation was delivered with a dramatic emphasis that drew a burst of spontaneous applause from the small public gallery, His lordship was deeply annoyed. "If there is the slightest manifestation of feeling," he said, "I shall certainly have the court cleared."

Mr. Gill tried to apply this definition to the two letters to Lord Alfred Douglas--the first containing the references to the slim gilt soul and the red rose-leaf lips, and the second saying, "You are the most divine thing I want," and describing Lord Alfred Douglas's letter as being "delightful red and yellow wine to me."

"There is nothing in that," said the witness, "of which I am ashamed. It is full of deep affection. The other letter was more of a prose poem, more of a literary answer to a sonnet he had sent me."

Passing to the incidents at the Savoy Hotel, Mr. Gill asked if the witness would contradict the evidence of the hotel servants. "It is entirely untrue!'' he replied, and with some temper added, "Can I answer for what hotel servants say years after I left the hotel?

IT IS CHILDISH.

I am not responsible for hotel servants." He denied that Charles Parker ever went with him to the Savoy Hotel at all, while admitting that he had lunched at St. James's-place. Edward Shelley's accusations of impropriety were equally untrue.

"Did you see no impropriety is kissing him?" asked Mr. Gill, and the witness replied, "I certainly do not think that one should kiss a young man." It was true that the lad Atkins went to Paris with him, but quite untrue that that any impropriety occurred, as was suggested, there. Schwabe was certainly there, but there were three bedrooms.

Atkins never tried to blackmail you in any way? - No.

And you have no complaint to make of Barton? - No.

Do you know him? - No.

Apart from the suggestions of indecency Atkins's statements were in the main true, and the same remark applied to Wood's evidence. He was introduced to Taylor by Schwabe, and at his rooms in Little College-st., met actors and singers, chiefly young men. the only men ever introduced to him by Taylor to whom his had given money were Charles Parker and Ernest Scarfe.

A rather

CURIOUS ESTABLISHMENT,

wasn't it, Taylor's? - I didn't think so. I thought it Bohemian.

Not the sort of place you usually visit at? You had no other friends in that street? - Of no; merely a bachelor's place. Did you notice that no one could see in through the windows? - No, that I didn't notice.

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

What did you go there for? - To amuse myself sometimes--smoke a cigarette--music--singing--chat--nonsense.

What was Taylor's occupation? - I understood he had private means.

Then I may take it that you never saw anything at Little College-st. to excite suspicion? - The witness nodded.

And up to the time of the trial nothing had occurred to shake your faith in Taylor? - Nothing.

Mr. Gill now introduced

A NEW NAME

to the case. He asked, "After the Queensberry case was committed for trial did you not see, at Calais, a boy named Tankard, who used to be page at the Savoy Hotel?" "Yes," said the witness, that was when Lord Alfred Douglas and he were going abroad for a few days (the occasion of the flying visit to Monte Carlo) and before the plea of justification, which introduces Tankard's name, had been put in. As to Alphonso Conway, the boy of the beach at Worthing, he was such a happy, bright boy, it was a pleasure to talk to him.

Did you feel this deep affection of an elder man to a younger man towards all these boys?" asked Mr. Gill, and the witness replied with a kind of exaltation. "Certainly not! one feels that once in one's life, and only once, towards anyone."

This practically concluded the cross-examination, which had not been very fruitful of results. Sir Edward claim briefly re-examined. The witness explained that passing through the Calais he recognised the boy Tankard, who was doorkeeper at the buffet. He merely asked him how he was getting on, and he replied that he was learning French. At that time witness knew nothing of the plea of justification. Taylor was an

ACCOMPLISHED PIANIST,

and there was always music at his rooms. When the witness heard that Wood had letters of his he communicated with Sir George Lewis, and Taylor arranged a meeting at his rooms. Witness was anxious to get back those letters (which have not been produced) because they contained some slighting references to other people, which he would not have liked to have published. Then he received an anonymous letter saying that Wood had other letters, and intended to try and extort money by means of them. Witness did not give any money for them at all, but he gave Wood money to enable him to go to America.

In reference to the two poems by Lord Alfred Douglas in the "Chameleon," the witness denied that he had anything to do with their publication, and this concluded his re-examination.

"Alfred Taylor," cried Mr. Grain, whose client changed places with Wilde, nervously struggling to get off his right glove for the purpose of being sworn. Hitherto little has been heard of Taylor's antecedents. He now described himself, in a clear and not unpleasant voice, as 33 years of age, and the son of a manufacturer whose business was now being carried on as a limited company. Up to the age of 16 or 17 he was

EDUCATED AT MARLBOROUGH

School, afterwards going as a private tutor to a house at Preston, near Brighton. He afterwards entered the militia, 4th Batt. Royal Fusiliers, City of London Regiment, with the idea of going into the Army. On coming of age in 1883 he came into a fortune of £45,000, and since that time had had no occupation, living a life of pleasure. The charges of gross misconduct being put to him seriatim, he denied them categorically as "Certainly not true," "Absolutely untrue."

Cross-examined by MR. C. F. Gill, he admitted that the witnesses who had sworn to it had slept at his rooms at Little College-st., and that he had there certain articles of female apparel.

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

Alluding to the depraved life of certain lads, Mr. Gill asked, "You know what I mean?" and the witness replied, "Yes, I thoroughly understand," but

ABOSLUTELY DENIED

that he had been in any way associated with them.

Did you know Wilde well? - Yes.

Did you ever tell them he was fond of boys? - No, never.

Do you know that he is? - I believe he is fond of young people.

Taylor corroborated the story that it was to celebrate his birthday that Wilde invited him to dine at Kettner's, and bring any friends he liked. He took the Parkers, but there was no impropriety of any kind. Asked if he knew a man named Marven who was concerned in the Fitsroy-st. raid, Taylor said yes. Whether he knew what Marven was, that he had "heard a good deal." Witness and Parker were both captured in that raid, but were discharged from custody. Taylor described with every appearance of candor the way in which he made the acquaintance of the various lads who had given evidence in the case, and the tea parties in which they indulged at Little College-st. The cross-examination did not materially advance the case or evoke any kind of damaging admission.

The Court was adjourned for lunch.

Having forfeited the last word, sir Edward Clarke was now required to address the jury on behalf of Wilde. It was so close upon the usual time of adjournment however, that his lordship suggested luncheon first and speech afterwards. Breathing space was very welcome, and gave people

TIME TO REALISE

1. That the withdrawal of the conspiracy indictment has solved the difficulty in regard to which Sir Edward Clarke last night lodged his demurrer.

2. That the defendants, contrary to expectation, had not suffered, even if they had not gained, by going into the witness-box, while they had disarmed the obvious criticism which would have been passed had they not given evidence.

Sir Edward Clarke began in measured terms a careful analysis of the case for the prosecution. Appealing to the jury to set aside prejudice, and regard only the evidence which had been laid before them, he asked if they could possibly find Wilde guilty of the terrible offences with which he was charged. He complained of the embarrassment caused by the action of the Crown in allowing the conspiracy counts of the indictments to stand till late in the case, and pointed out what he said was the cruel hardship of trying the prisoners conjointly on charges, many of which affect them individually only. Taylor, for example, could not possibly be concerned in the charges made by Edward Shelley against Wilde, nor Wilde in the misconduct alleged to have taken place in Taylor's rooms. Dealing then with the evidence, Sir Edward pointed out that in cross-examining Mr. Gill had dealt, not with Wilde's own writing, but with two

POEMS WRITTEN BY LORD ALFRED

Douglas, with which Wilde had no more to do than Sir Edward--or the jury.

The case is proceeding.