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charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of the acts complained of were withdrawn by counsel for the prosecution yesterday.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

LONDON, April 30.

As usual, there was again a big crowd at the Old Bailey this morning to witness the closing scenes in the terrible drama known as the Wilde trial.

Before the arrival of the Judge, Taylor was brought into the dock, and, hanging in an uncomfortable attitude over the ledge, conferred earnestly with Mr. J. P. Grain, his leading counsel, while Mr. Charles Mathews, as usual, passed down into the cells to see Wilde. A most serious conference with Sir Edward Clarke followed, and the counsel for the prosecution were equally closely engaged at their side of the court. As soon as his lordship had taken his seat Mr. Gill sprang upon the court the first surprise of what was to be a day of surprises. Having considered the indictment, he said, he had come to the determination not to ask for a verdict on the two counts of the indictment charging the defendants with conspiracy.

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 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 in 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 advocates 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. Sir Edward first protested against the action of Mr. Gill yesterday in insisting on reading, for the purpose of prejudicing Wilde, the cross-examination in the Queensberry case. It 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 and 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 have 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 on the French work, "Á Rebours," Sir Edward described it as grossly unfair, and a violation of every cannon of justice. He denied 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 at 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. 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 March 30, before the previous trial, Mr. Wilde knew this catalogue of accusations against him. He nevertheless went 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.

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-street. 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-street 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 you gave on that occasion absolutely and in all respects 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.

With this emphatic declaration the examination in chief was concluded.

Cross-examined by Mr. Gill, first with regard to Lord Alfred Douglas's poems in the Chameleon, he said that the one "In Praise of Shame'' had reference to modesty; the word shame was to be taken in that sense. As to the words in the sonnet "Two Loves," they referred to a deeply spiritual affection that was as pure as it was perfect. There were those who would not understand it and mocked at it, and sometimes put one in peril.

At the conclusion of this explanation there was handclapping in the public gallery.

The judge: I shall have this court cleared if there is the slightest manifestation of feeling.

Witness went on to say that there was nothing in the letter written to Lord A. Douglas of the Savoy Hotel of which the was ashamed. It was one full of deep affection, but the other letter was more of a literary answer to one addressed to him. The Savoy letter was direct and simple, and was not literature, he repudiated the evidence of the chambermaid at the Savoy as entirely untrue, the same remark applying to the evidence of the "masseur." He heard that the jury found the libel justified in the last case, but he was not in court nor did he read any account of it. The evidence of Edward Shelley was untrue in respect to the allegations.

Mr. Gill: With regard to the evidence of Charles Parker, what part is untrue? I say he never came to the Savoy Hotel at all, but it is quite true he came to lunch once or twice at St. James's-place. The allegations were untrue. Witness also denied the allegations of Atkins and of Alfred Wood.

Re-examined: Taylor was an accomplished pianist, and there used to be music at his rooms. Atkins wanted to go on the music-hall stage, and witness brought him his first song.

Sir E. Clarke: You produced the letter known as the "prose poem" in your examination in chief during the trial of the Marquis of Queensberry? Yes.

Alfred Taylor was next placed in the box, and examined by Mr. Grain. He said he was 33 years of age. His father was in a large way of business up to the time of his death, and that business was now carried on as a company. He was educated at Marlborough up to the age of 17, and then went to a private tutor, and afterwards entered the militia, with the idea of getting through to the army. In 1883 witness came into a sum of £45, 000, and lived a life of pleasure in town, having no occupation. Witness denied the accusations of Charles Parker. Witness in cross-examination said he had no knowledge that the Parkers were servants our of a place. He discovered a good deal afterwards.

After lunch Sir Edward Clarke began in measure 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 our what he said was the cruel hardship of trying the prisoners conjointly on charges, many of which affected 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. As to the affection which Mr. Oscar Wilde had expressed in the letters which had been put in, he had himself described it as a pure and true affection, absolutely unconnected with, alien to, irreconciliable with, the filthy practices which this band of "blackmailers" had been narrating. He had gone into the witness-box fearless of what might be produced against him. He himself produced the first of the two letters which had been used against him, with regard to which Sir Edward said, "Mr. Wilde is not an ordinary man. He is a man who has written poetry, brilliant dramas, charming essays; a man who from his youth has been trained in the study of the literatures of the world--not of this England of ours alone, but of those empires whose glories are to us now only a name. He writes letters in a tone which to others may seem high-flown, exaggerated--absurd, if you like, but, said Sir Edward, he was not afraid or ashamed to produce those letters. I spoke to you before of the cowardice of guilt. I reminded you that these men--the Woods, the Parkers, the Atkinses, the whole tribe of them--flourished in so frightful a trade because a man who has been tempted into any sort of guilt would rather give his whole fortune, rather exile himself from his country, than allow the thing to be suggested against him. Contrast this instinctive shrinkage of the guilty man with the courage that brought Mr. Wilde into the witness-box in this court to face, once and for all, and as he hoped, and I hope, to dispose of the accusations which were being made against him. Dealing with detail with the evidence, Sir Edward insisted strongly on the facts that Wilde's movements had always been open, and the hotels at which he stayed were not small houses of ill-repute in back streets, but important and well-known hotels.

Under the strain of these last hours of his trial, Wilde's remarkable phlegm is rapidly breaking down. During the afternoon he restlessly changed his position, scribbled repeatedly with a quill pen on a piece of blotting-paper, but always haggardly regarding the counsel who was so brilliantly pleading his cause, or the jury who were absorbed in Sir Edward Clarke's advocacy. "Fix your minds," Sir Edward Clarke concluded, "firmly on the tests which ought to be applied to evidence before you can condemn a fellow-man on a charge like this. Then I trust the result of your deliberations will be to gratify those thousand hopes which are waiting upon your verdict; I trust that that verdict will clear from this fearful imputation one of our most renowned and accomplished men of letters."

The conclusion of a remarkably earnest and effective address was followed by irrepressible applause.

Wilde was visibly affected by the peroration of Sir E. Clarke, and on becoming more composed wrote a note which was passed to the learned counsel.

Mr. Grain followed on behalf of Taylor. In regard to the charge of procuring, Mr. Grain showed that the two lads named Parker were the only witnesses who claimed to have been introduced by Taylor to Wilde, and that all the resources of the Crown and of the eminent solicitors employed by Lord Queensberry had been unable to produce any corroboration of their story of misconduct. He explained that Taylor, having got through his own large fortune, was living at Little College-street on an allowance from his father's firm.

Mr. C. F. Gill replied on behalf of the Crown, going laboriously through every point at some length, and at the conclusion of his speech the court adjourned until to-morrow.