Compare Documents

Oscar Wilde (40), author, and Alfred Taylor (33), no occupation, appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on several indictments charging them with committing grave offences.

The approaches to the Old Bailey presented much the same aspect as during the hearing of the action Wilde v. the Marquess of Queensberry, out of which the present prosecution has arisen, but by some alteration of the arrangements for admission made by the Under-Sheriff the crowding within the building was less. There was no legion of junior members of the bar blocking up the passages, although the learned gentleman elbowed each other in the seats usually reserved for counsel. The public galleries were filled long before the jury filed into their box.

Mr. C.F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Treasury. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde. Taylor was represented by Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor. Mr. Kershaw held a watching brief for the witness Sidney Mayor.

Mr. Justice Charles took his seat at half-past ten o'clock. Wilde, on taking his place in the dock, appeared pale and ill. He was attired as he appeared at Bow Street, and wore a dark blue overcoat, with velvet-collar and cuffs. He leaned languidly on the bar. Taylor, whose greatcoat of light brown cloth was in strong contrast with the darker attire of his companion, surveyed the Court with a somewhat impassive air, his gloved hands joined in front of him.

The accused being called upon to answer, Sir E. Clarke rose and made a preliminary objection, the gist of which was that neither of them could be asked to plead, because one part of the indictment being under the Criminal Law Amendment Act they could upon that be competent witnesses. Upon the charge of conspiracy, which was another part of the indictment, they could not be competent witnesses. The learned counsel based his argument upon certain cases in the law reports, and he submitted a demurrer on the ground that the counts had not been lawfully joined.

Mr. Gill having replied, his Lordship said there was very little assistance from authorities, as there were broad distinctions between this case and those upon which decisions had been given. He, however, thought that the case Queen v. Owen, to which attention had been called by Mr. Gill, pionted against his acceding to the request of Sir Edward Clarke. Though he felt the inconvenience of the present state of things, as already expressed by the late Lord Chief Justice in the Queen v. Whelan case, he did not agree to the view of the learned counsel that the several counts could not be lawfully joined.

Prisoners were accordingly asked to plead, and to the several indictments they replied "Not guilty."

Sir E. Clarke then raised the point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy, or upon the count of misdemeanour.

Mr. Gill submitted that it was entirely in the discretion of the learned judge.

His Lordship said he agreed, aud he felt it impossible in this case to put the prosecution to elect as to which of the counts they would offer evidence upon.

Mr. Gill then opened to the jury, intimating at the outset that he was there to conduct the prosecution by the direction of the Public Prosecutor. Though much had been published about the case, he appealed to them to approach its consideration without bias. Mr. Gill briefly sketched the circumstances of the action of Wilde v. the Marquess of Queensberry, the subsequent arrest of Wilde, and the apprehension of Taylor during the preliminary examination of Wilde at Bow Street, prefacing his statements with the observation that it was an extraordinary fact that a man like Wilde should have been in contact at all with Taylor. The learned counsel detailed the circumstances under which Charles Parkor, valet, and William Parker, groom, were introduced to Wilde by his fellow prisoner, and stated the nature of the evidence as to their subsequent relations at various addresses in London. Passing from the incident of the mock wedding between Taylor and Charles Parker, Mr. Gill traced their later movements, Parker's visits to Wilde, and the relations of the two prisoners as disclosed by correspondence in possession of the prosecution. The allegations in respect to other persons mentioned in the several counts of the indictment were next described at considerable length, and in this connection Wilde's visit to Paris was alluded to, also his conduct in making presents and in giving money Counsel next adverted to the alleged Savoy Hotel incidents, and finished his address at half-past twelve.

During the greater part of it Wilde had sat disconsolately, with a hand to the right side of his face. He moved restlessly from time to time. Taylor closely followed Mr. Gill as he passed from point to point of the story.

The youth, Charles Parker, valet, was the first witness sworn. He described his introduction to Oscar Wilde by Taylor as a result of an arrangement at St. James's Restaurant. He also detailed various acts. Counsel took the witness to another part of the case—that against Taylor. Wilde gave him a cigarette case and a gold ring, Witness testified to visits which he had made to Wilde, and spoke of certain acts as to which details were not adduced at Bow Street. He ceased to associate with the prisoner Taylor in 1894, and went away to the country where he embarked upon another occupation. He enlisted.

The Court adjourned for luncheon.

The revelations made by the previous witness caused considerable sensation, and were of a more shocking character than those given before the magistrate.

On the Court resuming after luncheon Sir E. Clarke began his cross-examination of Parker, who said it was after he joined his regiment that Mr. Russell, the solicitor, found him. He had not in the meantime communicated with any person. He had spoken in his examination at Bow Street of having received £30 as part of a sum of money extorted from a gentleman. The men who extorted the money were Wood and Allen.

How much money did Wood and Allen get?—£300 or £400. (Sensation.)

When you had spent your portion you went into the army?—Yes. I spent it in three or four days.

At Sir Edward's request Parker wrote the name of the gentleman in whose employ he had been as a valet before meeting Taylor. The name was handed to his Lordship, the learned counsel remarking that as the gentleman had no connection whatever with this case there could be no object in mentioning the name in open court.

Replying to further questions Parker said that after leaving this particular gentleman's employ, he received a letter from him charging him with stealing clothing. He sent the articles back to his late employer. He told Wilde about his own parentage, and expressed a wish to go on the stage. Wilde's rooms in St. James's Place were very "public," and servants came in and out.

Do you mean to assert that in rooms thus described this conduct went on again and again?—Yes.

Cross-examined by Mr Grain: When witness made Taylor's acquaintance Wood visited witness at Camera Square frequently.

Was £30 the only sum you ever received under similar circumstances?—Yes.

What means of subsistence had you when you met Taylor in St. James's Restaurant?—I had just left a situation.

How much money had you in your possession?—A few shillings.

Further cross-examined: He went to Paris with an operatic composer in 1893. It was as valet that he went. He was given two louis a week.

Did you occupy the same apartments?—No. I stayed in a different place. I knew a man named Burton, and went with him to Monte Carlo.

Re-examined by Mr. Gill: He knew Lord A. Douglas. The letters which Wood had possession of were supposed to be letters received by Lord A. Douglas from Wilde.

Mr. Gill called attention to part of Parker's deposition at Bow Street, and examined the witness upon it with the view to prove there was no discrepancy in his testimony as a whole.

William Parker, a groom, and Mrs. Grant, a married woman, also gave evidence.

The case was adjourned.

LORD ALFRED DOUGLAS.

The Central News is requested by Lord Alfred Douglas to state that, in response to an urgent telegram from his mother, he started to-day for Italy to see her, but hopes to return to London in a few days.

London, April 26.

The trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor was begun at the Old Bailey this morning. As at the extraordinary case that was heard at the last sessions only three weeks ago, when Wilde was prosecutor and the Marquis of Queensberry was in the dock charged with criminal libel, the public interest in the proceedings was intense. The Old Court was thronged. The gallery, as before, was from an early hour packed with a most unusually well-dressed crowd. Yet there could hardly have been one among the dense mass wedging themselves within the walls who did not feel that before them was to be carried out to its bitter end the tragedy of a brilliant genius and the tragedy of a wasted life. Of all the trials--and there have been many sad ones--heard within these historic walls, there has never been one more saddening than this. So terrible, indeed, is it, that it is impossible to realise at the full the whole of its awful import.

Nine, counsel were engaged in the case. Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill had charge of the prosecution, instructed by Mr. Angus Lewis on behalf of the Public Prosecutor. Wilde was defended by Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys. Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor appeared for the prisoner Taylor, and Mr. Leonard Kershaw hold a watching brief for the witness Mavor. All the counsel were early in attendance, and Mr. Charles Mathews passed down through the dock to the cells, doubtless to see the prisoner Wilde, before the arrival of Mr. Justice Charles, who did not take his seat till fully half-past 10. The prisoners were at once brought into the dock. Wilde, looking almost haggard, and fallen away from his old fleshiness, wore the dark overcoat and suede gloves which have been his attire throughout these painful cases, and still carried his scrupulously-brushed silk hat. Taylor for the first time wore an overcoat, of light brown cloth with a collar of slightly darker velvet, and was suede-gloved like his companion. He was neatly groomed as ever, but his fresh- coloured effeminate face wore a much more serious expression than when he was first brought up at Bow - street. Wilde leant heavily on the front of the dock. Taylor stood erect, and looked curiously about the court, which he last saw from a very different point of view.

The Clerk of Arraigns, having read the principal of the 25 counts of the indictments against the prisoners, called upon Wilde to plead first.

Sir Edward Clarke at once rose to take a preliminary objection to his client being called upon to plead at all. He pointed out that on the counts under the Criminal Law Amendment Act the prisoners are competent witnesses on their own behalf, while on the counts for conspiracy they are not. He submitted, therefore, that they could not be asked to make one plea to both indictments. The defendants had, moreover, the right to elect whether they would be put on their trial on the charge of conspiracy, on which they could not give evidence, or on the charge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, under which they are competent witnesses.

Mr. Gill, in reply, said the prisoners were charged with acts of gross indecency, on which they could give evidence. The only other charge against them was one of agreement as to committing or attempting to commit these misdemeanours. To give evidence on the first would undoubtedly lay them open to cross-examination on both, but there was no hardship he said, in the prisoners being indicted on counts so nearly similar.

Mr. Justice Charles held that the counts could lawfully be joined together in the same indictment. Otherwise the Criminal Law Amendment Act would be held to over-ride the ordinary criminal law, under which misdemeanours could undoubtedly be joined. At the same time he appreciated the inconvenience of the position.

Wilde was then again called upon to plead, and in clear tones replied not guilty. Taylor was next called upon, and rather huskily replied in the same words.

Sir Edward Clarke then raised another objection. He appealed to the judge to order in his discretion that the prosecution should elect upon which of the two sets of charges they would proceed, quoting a long case to show that two separate charges of misdemeanour could not be taken upon the same offence and at the same time.

Mr. Gill left it to the Bench. It was, he said, entirely a question for the learned judge. The learned judge here again could not agree with Sir Edward. He again expressed his sense of the inconvenience of the position, but he did not feel, at least at that moment, justified in putting the prosecution to the necessity of dividing the case.

Mr. Gill rose to address the jury. With regard to the nature of the case, he said it would be idle to suppose the jury had not heard or read much about it already, but be trusted they would dismiss prior knowledge as far as possible from their thoughts and approach the consideration of a very serious case with impartial minds.

Mr. Gill proceeded to describe Taylor's rooms with their heavily draped windows, their candles burning on through the day, and the languorous atmosphere, heavy with perfumes. Here, he said, men met together, and here Wilde was introduced by Taylor to youths who would give evidence in the case. Analysing the indictment, Mr. Gill said the first nine counts referred to misconduct with the lads named Parker, the next three to Frederick Atkins, the next five to Alfred Wood, two more to incidents at the Savoy Hotel, two to the young man named Mavor, three to charges of conspiracy, and the last to Wilde's conduct in regard to the lad Shelley. Taking these in their order he roundly accused Taylor of corrupting the first-named lads, and inducing them to meet Wilde by assuring them that he was liberal in his payments. In regard to Taylor the most serious counts of the indictment charge him with attempting the actual felony with both the lads named Parker, whose evidence was abundantly corroborated. Mr. Gill then went over the facts already published in connection with the Queensberry suit and the police-court proceedings as to Wilde's relations with the Parkers, Atkins, Mavor, and Wood, and with the latter's alleged attempt to extort blackmail. There was a difference about Wilde's acquaintanceship with Shelley, whom he met in the shop of his publishers, Messrs. Mathews and Lane, where he was employed. It was an acquaintance with a literary side, but it went through the same stages. Tamely concluding, when he seemed to be only in medias res, with an assurance that the evidence which he would call would justify the jury in finding the prisoners guilty on all counts of the indictment, Mr. Gill called his first witness.

Charles Parker is now 21 years of age, a slim, clean-shaven lad, with a fair, girlish face. He deposed that prior to his acquaintance with Taylor he was employed as a valet. His brother, William Parker, was a groom. He then proceeded to give once more in detailthe process by which Taylor introduced himself at the St. Jamesís Restaurant, and the dinner at the Solferino in Rupert-street, at which Wilde was present. They had a private room. The table was laid for four, and was lighted by candles with red shades. There was champagne, followed by cognac, and incidents followed which the witness described. Wilde meantime gazed at him fixedly, showing no embarrassment or feeling. There were unmentionable particulars of other meetings, after each of which the witness received a sum of money. Wilde leaned over the front of the dock to whisper a few sentences into the ear of Mr. Charles Mathews, who nodded and left the court. Almost as if by accident Mr. Gill elicited a piece of evidence against Wilde more revolting than anything which has yet been told in the case. When Mr. Gill went on to refer to the arrest of the witness and Taylor in the Fitzroy-square raid in August, 1894, Mr. Grain rose for the first time and quietly protested against the introduction of matter extraneous to the indictment. "Surely I have enough to answer!" he said. Mr. Gill said he only desired to show that after that incident the witness ceased his acquaintance with Taylor, and went into the country, where he enlisted in the army. It was there Lord Queensberry's solicitor found him, when seeking evidence in support of the plea of justification.

This closed the examination in chief, and the court adjourned for luncheon.

When the court resumed, Sir E. Clarke proceeded to cross - examine the witness Charles Parker. He enlisted on Sept. 3. Somebody from Messrs. Russell and Day came to see him about the matter in March. He enlisted in the name he had given in court. The day before Mr. Russell came he had not communicated with anybody in regard to this. He had no idea how he found him out. He had stated at the police-court that he had received £30, which was money that had been extorted from a gentleman. He could not remember the date when he received his £30. It was a month or two before he enlisted. The names of the men from whom he received the money were Wood and Allen. Wood was a witness in this case. He did not know where Allen was to be found.

How much did Wood and Allen tell you they got?--£300 or £400.

It was the first sum of money he had received under such circumstances. He spent it in about two days.

At counsel's request witness wrote the name and address of his late employer. He was there as a valet for about nine months. He did not leave without a character. He had a written character, which was given to him before the clothes he was accused of stealing were found to be missing. When he called at Taylor's house he understood what the purpose was. When he first met Wilde he knew him as a dramatist, and told him that he wanted to go upon the stage. He told Wilde that his father was a horse-dealer, He knew why he was introduced to Wilde. At that first dinner Wilde took the greatest part in the conversation. He and Wilde arrived at the Savoy at about 10 o'clock. They went to the second or third floor--he could not be certain which, but be thought the second. He did not see anyone but a hall-boy at the hotel entrance. They went up by the lift. In the sitting-room Wilde rang the bell for a waiter, and the waiter went for drinks and brought them in. The sitting-room and the bedroom opened one into the other. Wilde did not lock the sitting-room door, but he locked that of the bedroom. He did not see any servants about when he left the hotel. He did not know Wilde even by sight until he was introduced to him at the restaurant.

Mr. Grain, on behalf of Taylor, introduced a new name, that of one Harrington, and suggested that the witness was introduced by Harrington to Taylor. The witness denied it. He knew Harrington before he knew Taylor, and he was present at the meeting at the St. James's Hall bar, but he did not make the introduction.

Are you quite sure the sum of £30 mentioned by Sir Edward Clarke is the only sum you have received under similar circumstances? Yes. Has Wood not suggested to you more than once that there were people from whom you might obtain money? No. You are sure of it? Yes.

Mr. Grain next found a glaring discrepancy between the evidence given by witness this morning as to misconduct with Taylor at Camera-square and that he gave last week at Bow-street, where he swore that there was no such misconduct. The witness admitted that he had made both statements, and could in no way reconcile them. Passing to another subject, Mr. Grain elicited that six months after the witness made Taylor's acquaintance he went to Paris with another person.

A composer? Yes. An operatic composer? Yes. How long were you in Paris with that person? A month. In what capacity? As valet. Did he pay you wages? Yes; two louis a month. Did you share the same room? No. You saw him every day? Yes; I visited him every morning.

In further cross-examination the witness said he knew the lad Atkins and another named Burton. They were living together when he made their acquaintance.

Did you go to Monte Carlo with Burton? Yes. How long were you there? Only a few days.

This concluded Mr. Grain's cross-examination, and Mr. Gill rose to re-examine. In reply to his (Mr. Gill's) questions, Parker said he knew Lord Alfred Douglas. He was introduced to him by Taylor. He knew, too, that the letters for which Wood received £30 were written by Wilde. Then MG Gill found a plausible explanation of the apparent inconsistency discovered by Mr. Grain, by eliciting that the misconduct in Chelsea occurred at the Chapel-street lodging, and not in Camera-square. After being almost three hours in the box the witness was dismissed, and Mr. Gill called.

William Parker, the elder brother of the last witness, aged 22. He confirmed generally the evidence to the way in which they made the acquaintance of Taylor and were introduced to Wilde.

William Parker was narrowly cross-examined by Sir Edward Clarke. "When you went to the first dinner at Kettner's or the Solerino," he asked, "did you know the purpose for which you now say you were introduced to Mr. Wilde?" "Yes," said the witness.

Ellen Grant, the caretaker of 13, Little College-street, was called to give evidence of Taylor's tenancy. Among the visitors were Charles Mason, Sydney Mavor, and other young men of 16 and upwards.

The court was adjourned at five o'clock.

We are requested by Lord Alfred Douglas to state that in response to an urgent telegram from his mother he started to-day for Italy to see her, but hopes to return to London in a few days.