Compare Documents

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

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

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 Suddenly the counts for conspiracy were withdrawn, and as to the other counts the jury were discharged because they could not agree upon a verdict.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oscar Wilde, 40, author, who surrendered to his bail, and Alfred Taylor, 38, were placed at the bar to take their trial again upon those counts of the indictment as to which the jury at he last Sessions were unable to agree upon a verdict. It will be remembered that the jury at the last Sessions found the defendants "Not guilty" upon the other counts in the indictment.

The Solicitor-General (Sir F. Lockwood, Q.C.), Mr, C.F. Gill, and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on behalf 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 defended Taylor.

Sir Edward Clarke said that before the jury were sworn he thought he ought to make an application that the defendants should be separately tried. The ground for the application was that it was an application practically as of right in this case. On the occasion of the trial, which took place at the last Sessions the indictment contained 25 counts. Upon many of those counts a verdict of not guilty was entered, and there remained a certain number of counts not charging conspiracy, but charging the committal of offences by the defendants. There were only eight of those counts which affected Wilde, and in none of those counts was any charge made against Taylor. The other counts were counts against Taylor, and in nine of them was there any charge made against Wilde. He submitted, therefore, that inasmuch as the counts were separate with regard to the defendants, the defendants should be tried separately.

Mr. J. P. GRAIN, for Taylor, said that he concurred in everything which Sir Edward Clarke had said, and he made the same application.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL opposed the application. He said that he had pointed out to his learned friend that the result of trying the defendants separately would be that it would be necessary to take the case of Taylor first.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE.--I should object to that.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL repeated that it would be necessary to take Taylor's case first -- the sequence 'of events would necessitate that being done. Then what would be the nature of the inquiry? It would be an inquiry into the conduct of one person who was on his trial, and evidence would have to be given of the conduct of another person who was not on his trial. In these circumstances it appeared to him that those who were responsible for the drawing of the indictment

rightly considered the position and thought it would be an injustice to the person not on his trial that evidence should be given as to his conduct when he was not represented. He trusted that Mr. Justice Wills would not allow his learned friend to dictate to the prosecution as to the order in which the cases should be taken. Those who framed the indictment rightly included the defendants in the some indictment. The history of the cases were so bound up together that it would be impossible to inquire into the case of one without inquiring into the case of the other. He submitted that it would be the fairest course towards the defendants that there should be one trial, and he asked that they should be tried together.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE said that the ground upon which the Solicitor-General supported the course of trying the defendants together was that it would be unfair to the defendants to try them separately. The best defence, and Mr. Grain and he (Sir Edward Clarke) were distinctly of opinion that it would be an injustice to the defendants if they were tried together. He therefore urged that they should be tried separately.

Mr. Justice Wills said that he need hardly say that this matter had been present to his mind for consideration before he came there, because he did not affect to be entirely ignorant of what had taken place, and he anticipated that this application would be made. He had considered it carefully with regard to the evidence, and in view of what the evidence was he thought that it was much fairer that the defendants should be tried separately.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he proposed to take the case of Taylor first.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE asked that Wilde's case might be taken first. Wilde's name stood first in the indictment, and the first count was a count directed against him. It would be unjust to Wilde that his case should be tried immediately after the trial of the other defendant.

Mr. Justice Wills.- It should not make any difference.

Sir Edward Clarke.- It should not, my Lord.

Mr. Justice Wills.- I and the jury will do our very best to take care that one trial has no effect on the other.

Sir Edward Clarke.-I am sure you will do that, but there never was a case in which that duty was more difficult to discharge. I ask, inasmuch as Mr. Wilde's name is first in the indictment and the first count is one directed against him, that his case should be taken first.

Mr. Justice Wills.- I do not see how I can interfere with the discretion of the prosecution.

Sir Edward Clarke.- Then it would be convenient for me to at once make the application, which I shall repeat at the end of Taylor's case, and that is that the trial of Mr. Wilde shall stand over until the next Sessions.

Mr. Justice Wills suggested that the application had better be made when they saw the result of Taylor's case.

Sir Edward Clarke said that as there was no prospect of Wilde being called up to take his trial at present he asked that Mr. Justice Wills should allow him out on the same bail.

The Solicitor-General said he would leave the matter entirely in his Lordship's discretion.

Mr. Justice Wills granted the application.

Oscar Wilde was accordingly allowed out on the same bail.

The trial of Alfred Taylor upon the counts charging him with committing and procuring the commission of acts of gross indecency was then proceeded with.

The Solicitor-General, in opening the case, said that the defendant Taylor, who was 33 years of age, was educated at one of our large public schools and began life with a considerable amount of money which he had inherited. For a short time he held a commission in a Militia regiment, but apparently for some time before the time with which he (the Solicitor-General) should have to trouble the jury he had followed no occupation of any sort or kind. The Solicitor-General then proceeded to refer to the facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution, and said that, of course, the jury would give the fairest and most impartial trial to the case.

Evidence was then given by Charles Parker and William Parker. Other witnesses were also called for the purpose of giving corroborative evidence.

At the conclusion of the evidence for the prosecution,

Mr. Grain submitted that there was no corroboration, or at any rate no such corroboration as was requisite, and he contended that there was no case to go to the jury against Taylor.

The Solicitor-General contended that although there was no corroboration by an eye-witness there was, nevertheless, corroborative evidence.

Mr. Justice Wills said he thought that there was sufficient corroborative evidence.

Mr. Grain then addressed the jury for the defence of Taylor, contending that there was no corroborative evidence, and that the charge against him had not been proved. He should call Taylor as a witness, and he would give him a denial of the charge.

At the conclusion of Mr. Grain's speech,

The hearing of the case was adjourned until to-morrow. Mr. Justice Wills advising the jury to keep their minds open and not to allow any one to speak in reference to the case.