Compare Documents

The suit of Oscar Wilde and the Marquess of Queensberry was down in to-day's list for trial at the Central Criminal Court, London, before Mr. Justice Collins and a common jury. The words of the indictment charge John Sholto Douglas with maliciously publishng a defamatory libel of and concerning Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wilde. The general public and the members of the Junior Bar were very early in attendance, and not only was all sitting room taken up but the passages of the court were so blocked by the crush that ingress and egress was a matter of great difficulty.

Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Mathewe, and Mr. Travers Humphreys had been retained for the prosecution. Mr. Carson, Mr. C. F. Gill, and Mr. A. Gill were counsel for the defence; a watching brief for Lord Alfred Douglas (son of the defendant) being held by Mr. Besley, Q.C., and Mr. Monckton.

Plaintiff arrived at half-past ten, accompanied by his solicitor, and took a seat in the well of the court immediately in front of Sir Edward Clarke. Immediately afterwards the jury answered to their names, but it was not until twenty minutes to eleven that silence was called for the entrance of the learned judge.

Lord Queensberry at once surrended to his bail, and was conducted to the dock. His lordship seated himself, but obediently to the attendant's request advanced to the front and stood with his arms resting upon the ledger.

The Clerk of the Court having read the indictment charging the defendant with having published a defamatory libel of the plaintiff upon a card addressed to him, Lord Queensberry replied, "Not guilty," and added the further plea. "The libel is true and was published for the public benefit.'

For the prosecution Sir Edward Clarke then opened. The libel, he said, was upon a visiting card containing the name of Lord Queensberry, and it was a matter of very serious moment; because it imputed to Mr. Oscar Wilde the gravest offence with which a man could be charged; but a far graver issue was raised by the plea that the libel was justified, and that Mr. Oscar Wilde had for a considerable period solicited certain persons (whose names were mentioned in the pleadings) to commit certain practices. The learned counsel traced the plaintiff's career at Trinity College, Dublin, and subsequently at Magdalen College, Oxford, his marriage with a daughter of the late Mr. Lloyd, Q.C., and his later literary and artistic career. He detailed plaintiff's social connection with the sons of the defendant and with Lady Queensberry, who some years ago obtained relief from her marriage owing to misconduct on the part of the Marquess. Touching next on the introduction of Mr. Wilde to Lord Queensberry by Lord Alfred Douglas at the Café Royal, Sir Edward called the attention of the jury to a personage not hitherto mentioned. This was a man who had been given the same clothes worn by Lord Alfred Douglas, and who alleged that in the pockets he discovered four letters addressed to Lord Alfred by Mr. Oscar Wilde. Whether the man had found or stolen them was a matter of speculation. This person came to Mr. Oscar Wilde, represented himself as in distress and as wanting to go to America, and plaintiff gave him £15 or £20 in order to pay his passage. He then handed to plaintiff the letters. To those letters he (Sir E. Clarke) did not attach the slightest importance. As was generally the case the important letter was retained. While Mr. Oscar Wilde's play A Woman of No Importance was in preparation what appeared to be to some extent the copy of a letter was handed to Mr. Tree, the actor, with a request to give it to Mr. Wilde. After this another individual called on the plaintiff and offered him the original, but he said, "No." He had a copy which he looked upon as a work of art, and did not want the original. Plaintiff looked upon the letter as a sort of "prose sonnet," and told the man that it would probably appear as a "sonnet poem." It did so appear in a critical magazine edited by Lord A. Douglas, and called The Spirit Lamp. The learned counsel read the letter.

The following is a copy of the letter which was published in sonnet form in the Spirit Lamp—an aesthetical and satirical magazine edited by Lord Alfred Douglas:—

My own boy,—Your sonnet is quite lovely, and it is a marvel that those red roseleaf lips of yours should be made no less for the madness of music and song than for the madness of kissing. Your slim-built soul walks between passion and poetry. No Hyacinthus followed love so madly as you in Greek days. Why are you alone in London, and when do you go to Salisbury? Do go there and cool your hands in the grey twilight of Gothic things. Come here whenever you like. It is a lovely place, and only lacks you. But go to Salisbury first. Always with undying love yours, Oscar.

Continuing the learned counsel said the words of the the letter did appear extraordinary to those in the habit of reading commercial correspondence—(laughter)—but it was merely an expression of poetic feeling, and had no relation whatever to the suggestion now made. On the production of the plaintiff's play, The Importance of Being Earnest, Lord Queensberry was refused admission and his money returned because he brought to the theatre a bouquet of vegetables—(laughter)—and the jury might have their doubts whether his lordship was responsible for his actions. The learned advocate dealt at some length with the suggestion made against the plaintiff because of his connection with certain literary productions, and as showing his real feeling as to improper publications he instanced the fact that plaintiff the instant he saw a production called The Priest and the Acolyte, wrote to the editor of the magazine protesting against its continued appearance. As to Mr. Wilde's Picture of Dorian Gray, it was simply idealising reality in the sense of harmony and beauty.

Sydney Wright, the porter of the Albemarle, having deposed to handing Lord Queensberry's card to Mr. Oscar Wilde,

The Plaintiff himself entered the witness-box, and assuming an easy pose with his arms resting on the rail, he answered the questions of his leader in a firm, deliberate voice. He met the man Wood, who had the letters referred to at the rooms of a tailor, and Wood said a man named Allen had stolen the letters from him, but they had been recovered by a detective. Plaintiff told him he did not consider the letters of any importance. Wood said he had been offered £60 for what witness described as "his beautiful letter to Lord Alfred Douglas." His reply was "I never received so large a sum for a prose work so short in length." That letter formed the basis of a French poem afterwards published and signed by a young French poet, a friend of his own. Passing from various interviews with Wood and another person named Tyler, plaintiff described a scene with Lord Queensberry in his library. He told defendant he supposed he had come there to apologise for the letter he had written about plaintiff and his son. Defendant replied that the letter was privileged, adding that plaintiff and Lord Alfred had been kicked out of the Savoy Hotel at a moment's notice, and that they had been blackmailed, and that plaintiff had taken rooms for defendant's son in Piccadilly. These statements were perfectly untrue. He asked defendant, "Do you seriously accuse your son and me?" Lord Queensberry answered, "I do not say that you are it, but you look it." (Slight applause in court.)

The Learned Judge: I will have the court cleared if there is the smallest repetition of disturbance.

Witness completed Lord Queensberry's answer, "I do not say that your are it, but you look it and you pose at it, which is just as bad. If I catch you in a public cafe again with my son I will thrash you." Plaintiff replied, "I don't know what the Queensberry Rules are, but the Oscar Wilde's rule is to shoot at sight." He then ordered defendant out of his house, saying to the servant, "This is the Marquess of Queensberry, the most infamous brute in London. Never allow him to enter my house again. If he attempts it send for the police." He was not responsible for the publication of "The Priest and the Acolyte" in the Cameleon magazine. He disapproved of it, and expressed his disapproval to the editor. There was no truth in the statements of defendant contained in the pleadings.

(Continued on Page 4.)

Mr. Carson began his cross-examination by asking plaintiff whether he was not something over 39, the age which he had given in his examination in chief. He now said he was born on the 16th October, 1854. In addition to his house in Chelsea he had rooms in St. James's Place, and Lord A. Douglas had visited them. He regarded the "Priest and the Acolyte" as violating all the artistic canons, and as being disgusting twaddle; but he had never publicly dissociated himself from the Chameleon, in which it appeared.

Was the "Priest and the Acolyte" immoral?—lt was worse—it was badly written. (Laughter.)

The learned counsel took plaintiff through a series of questions on his "Phrases and Philosophies," contributed to the Chameleon.

"Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the attractiveness of others." Do you hold that to be a safe axiom?—Witness: Most stimulating. (Laughter.)

You think anything that stimulates thought is good whether moral or immoral?—Thought is neither one nor the other, thought is intellectual.

Counsel called attention to a criticism of "Dorian Gray" in the Scots Observer, in which it was described as set in "an atmosphere of moral corruption," and asked plaintiff whether he regarded that as a suggestion that his work pointed to a certain grave offence?—Witness: Some might think so, whether reasonably or not.

Mr. Carson: Have you ever felt the feeling of "adoring madly" a man some years younger than yourself?

Plaintiff: I never gave adoration to anybody except myself. (Laughter.)

Mr. Carson: In your introduction to "Dorian Gray" you say there is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are either well or badly written?

Plaintiff: That expresses my view.

Has "Dorian Gray" a certain tendency?—Only to brutes, and only illiterates would so regard it.

Do the majority of people take up the "pose" you are giving us ?—I am afraid not. I am afraid they are not cultivated enough.

Mr. Carson: Not cultivated enough to draw a distinction between a good book and a bad book?

Witness (loftily): Oh. certainly not. (Laughter.)

Mr. Carson, quoting from a copy of "Lippincot" (a second copy having been handed to the learned judges), read the author's description of his first meeting with Dorian Gray, and asked, "Do you consider that description of the feelings of a man towards a youth just growing up as proper or improper?"

Plaintiff: I think it is the most proper description possible of what an artist would feel on meeting a beautiful personality.

May I take it that you have never felt the sensations which you there describe?—No; I borrowed from Shakespeare's Sonnets.

Mr. Carson: You have written an article pointing out that Shakespeare's Sonnets have a certain tendency?

Plaintiff: On the contrary, I wrote objecting to the shameful perversion by Hallam, the historian, aud a great many French critics.

Certain questions as to a French novel referred to in plaintiff's "Dorian Gray," were ruled out as irrelevant.

Mr. Carson returned to "Dorian Gray," and in a long passage hit upon the phrase, "Why is your friendship so fatal to young men ?"

Plaintiff: I do not think any grown person influences another grown person.

Further questioned, he said his letter to Lord A. Douglas was written from Torquay, where he was staying, and Lord Alfred was at the Savoy.

Mr. Carson: You say "your slim built soul walks between passion and poetry."

Plaintiff: It is a beautiful phrase. (Laughter.) The letter is unique. (Renewed laughter.)

Mr. Carson: Listen to this second letter of your own to Lord A. Douglas:—

"Dearest of all boys,—Your letter was delightful, and it was red and yellow wine to me, for I am sadly out of sorts. You must not make scenes with me. They kill me, they wreck the loveliness of life. I cannot see you, so Greek and gracious. Distorted by passion, I cannot listen to your curved lips saying hideous things to me. Don't do it. You break my heart. I must see you soon. You are the divine thing I want, a thing of grace and genius, but I do not know how to do it. Shall I come to Salisbury? There are many difficulties. My bill here is £49 for the week. I have also a new sitting-room over the Thames for you. Why are you not here my dear, my wonderful boy? I fear I must leave. No money, no credit, aud a heart of lead.—Ever your own, Oscar.

Is not that an extraordinary letter?—Everything I write is extraordinary. (Laughter).

Mr. Carson: You do not pose as being ordinary?

Plaintiff (with a gesture of contempt): No.

Is that a love letter?—lt is a letter expressive of love.

Cross-examined: Wood was a young man who had held a clerkship and was in a different social position. He had been asked by Lord A. Douglas to help Wood, and supped with Wood at the Café on the night of his introduction. On one occasion he gave Wood £2, but not for an object suggested by the learned counsel. He never misconducted himself with Wood at his house in Chelsea while his (the plaintiff's) wife and children were away. When Wood brought those letters to him he thought he came to levy blackmail.

My suggestion to you is that instead of giving him £16 you gave him £30. Did you not give him £5 the following day?—Yes. (Sensation.)

Did you have a champagne farewell lunch with the man who levied blackmail?—Yes. He convinced me he had no intention, and that the letters had been stolen by other persons.

Was it then you gave him the £5?—Yes.

Why?—Because he said £15 would land him penniless at New York.

Did you not think it strange that a man with whom you had lunched in a private room should seek to levy blackmail?—Perfectly infamous.

Cross-examination resumed: He knew Wood as "Alfred," and two other men named Allen and Taylor were also known to him. Allen was known to him by reputation as a blackmailer and nothing else. He gave Allen 10s. "to show his contempt." (Laughter). After Allen came Clyburne, who also consulted him about the letters. He was also kind to Clyburne, and gave him 10s. (Laughter.) He told Clyburne he was afraid he was leading a dreadfully wicked life. Clyburne said, "There was good and bad in all of us," to which he replied, "You are a philosopher." (Laughter.)

Is the discovered letter the only one that a sonnet was written about?-I should have to go through a great deal of modern poetry before I could answer that? (Laughter.)

The case was adjourned till to-morrow.

The Aesthete Gives Characteristically Cynical Evidence, Replete with Pointed Epigram and Startling Paradox, and Explains His Views on Morality in Art.

Not for years has the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey been so densely crowded as it was this morning. People begged, bullied, and bribed for admission and the junior Bar passed in on its wig and choked all the passage ways. The indictment charges John Sholto Douglas, marquess of Queensberry, with writing and publishing a false and defamatory libel of and concerning Oscar Fingall O'Flaherty Wilde. This, however, will become the smallest part of the case. The defendant has undertaken to justify the libel, and if rumor is to be trusted in the smallest degree the plea of justification, which was delivered on Saturday, involves charges of the most serious kind against Mr. Wilde. Counsel for the plaintiff are Sir Edward Clarke Q.C., and Mr. Charles Mathews. Lord Queensberry is represented by Mr. Carson, Q.C., C.F. Gill, and Mr. A. Gill, M. Besley Q.C., with whom is Mr. Monckton holds a watching brief for Lord Douglas of Hawick, elder son of the Marquess. The judge, Mr. Justice Collins, arrived at half-past ten. Mr. C. F. Gill was the first of the councel to arrive.

MR. OSCAR WILDE ENTERED

the court accompanied by Mr. C. F. Humphreys, his solicitor about a quarter past ten. He wore a dark Chesterfield coat and silk hat and a dark tie. He did not on this occasion sport the white flower which was conspicuous in his lapel at the police-court. So crowded was the court that some difficulty was experienced in finding a place for a mere principal. A commonplace-looking jury was sworn in. As soon as the judge had taken his seat, the defendant was called upon to surrender, and entered the dock by the steps at the left-hand side of the dock. Standing there in a dark-blue overcoat, short and dark, and mutton chop whiskered, with his arms on the ledge at the front of the dock, while the clerk read to him the indictment. He pleaded not guilty to the charge of libelling the plaintiff, and that the publication of the words complained of was for the public benefit.

Sir Edward Clarke plunged at once in medias res. He first read to the jury the card which Lord Queensberry left open with the porter of the Albemarle Club for the plaintiff - containing a very grave and serious allegation against Mr. Wilde's character - and pointed out that it seemed to stop short of actually charging the plaintiff with the commission of one of the most serious of offences. By the plea which the defendant had put before the court

A MUCH GRAVER ISSUE

was raised. He said the statement was true, and that it was for the public benefit it was made, and he gave particulars. There was no allegation that Mr. Wilde had been guilty of the offence mentioned, but there was a series of accusations, mentioning the names of a number of persons and alleging that Mr. Wilde had solicited them to the commission of the offence and had been guilty of indecent practices with them. The statement, Sir Edward added, was put in this form in order that the persons named, while they would assist much in cross-examination, might not have to admit that they had been guilty of the gravest possible offences. It was for those who had taken the grave responsibility of putting in such a plea to justify it. Mr. Oscar Wilde was a gentleman 43 years of age, the son of Sir William Wilde, a very distinguished Irish surgeon and oculist who died some years ago. The plaintiff's mother, Lady Wilde, is still living. The plaintiff went first to Trinity College, Dublin, where he

GREATLY DISTINGUISHED HIMSELF

for classical knowledge. He passed to Magdalen College, Oxford, and again greatly distinguished himself, taking the Newdigate Prize among other honors. Leaving the university, he devoted himself to literature in its artistic side, and many years ago became a very public person indeed, laughed at by some, appreciated by many, as representing a particular aspect of culture -the aesthetic cult. In 1884 he married the daughter of the late Mr. Horace Lloyd, Q.C., and has lived with her and their two children at Tite-st, Chelsea. Both are members of the Albemarle Club, to the porter of which the offensive card was delivered. Here he made the acquaintance of lord Alfred Douglas, and from 1891 had been friend of that young gentleman as well as of his mother, the Lady Queensberry who was the wife of the defendant till she obtained release on the ground of the defendant's misconduct. Mr. Wilde had repeatedly been her guest at Wokingham, and at Salisbury, and Lord Alfred Douglas has been the accepted friend in Mr. Wilde's own house in Chelsea, and at Cromer and Worthing and elsewhere. Until the early part of 1893 Mr. Wilde did not know the defendant except that they met once, about 1890 or 1891, an incident of which Lord Queensberry reminded Mr. Wilde when they met at luncheon. In November, 1892, Mr. Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas were

LUNCHING TOGETHER

at the Café Royal when Lord Queensberry came into the room. Mr. Wilde was aware there had been strained relations between Lord Alfred and his father, and he suggested that this was a good opportunity of making it up. Lord Alfred acted on the suggestion, brought Lord Queensberry to the table and introduced him to Mr. Wilde and the three lunched together. Lord Queensberry remained chatting with Mr. Wilde after his son left, and invited the prosecutor to visit him at Torquay. After that they saw nothing of each other till the early part of 1894 when Mr. Wilde became aware that certain statements were being made -not by Lord Queensberry - affecting his character. A man named Wood had been given some clothes by Lord Alfred Douglas, and he alleged that he found in the pocket of a coat four letters from Mr. Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas. Whether he did find them there or whether he stole them was a matter for speculation, but the letters were handed about, and Wood asked Mr. Wilde to buy them back. He represented himself as being in need and wanting to go to America. Mr. Wilde handed him £15 or £20, and received from him three of somewhat ordinary importance. It afterwards appeared that only the letters of no importance had been given up (Sir Edward Clarke made the remark quite innocently), and the letter of some importance had been retained. At that time "A Woman of No Importance" was in rehearsal at the Haymarket Theatre and there came to Mr. Wilde through Mr. Beerbohm Tree a document which purported to be a copy of the retained letter. It had two head-names, one Babbicombe Cliff, Torquay, and the other 16, Tite-st. Shortly afterwards a man named Allan called on Mr. Wilde, and demanded ransom for the original of the letter Mr. Wilde

PEREMPTORILY REFUSED.

He said "I look upon the letter as a work of art. Now I have got a copy I do not desire the original. Go." Almost immediately afterwards a man named Claburn brought the original and surrendered it, saying it was sent by Mr. Wood. Mr. Wilde gave him a sovereign for his trouble it was supposed to be a letter of an incriminating character, and someone had taken the trouble to copy it, with mistakes, and put it about. Mr. Wilde still says that he looks upon this letter as being a kind of prose sonnet, and on 4 May, 1893, it was published in sonnet form in the Spirit Lamp, an aesthetical and satirical magazine, edited by Lord Alfred Douglas. Here is the letter:-

"My Own boy,-Your sonnet is quite lovely, and it is a marvel that those red-roseleaf lips of yours should be made no less for the madness of music and song than for the madness of kissing. Your slim-built soul walks between passion and poetry. No Hyacinthus followed Love and so madly as you in Greek days. Why are you alone in London, and when do you go to Salisbury? Do go there and cool your hands in the grey twilight of Gothic things. Come here whenever you like. It is a lovely place and only lacks you. But go to Salisbury first. Always with undying love. -Yours, OSCAR."

When Sir Edward Clarke read this letter there was a momentary and involuntary outburst of merriment. Sir Edward said it might provoke mirth in those used only to the terms of commercial correspondence, but Mr. Wilde denied that it was open to any unclean interpretation, or was more than the letter of

ONE POET TO ANOTHER.

On 14 Feb. another play of Mr. Wilde's, "The Importance of Being Earnest," was about be produced at the St. James's Theatre. In the course of the day certain information was given to the management of certain intentions of Lord Queensberry. It is a matter of history, said Sir Edward, that when the late Laureatic play, "The Promise of May," was produced Lord Queensberry got up in the theatre and in his character as an agnostic took objection to the exposition which had been made of agnostic principles in that play in the character played by Mr. Hermann Vesin. It would have been still more serious to have had a scene, and charges affecting Mr. Wilde's character made in the theatre. Lord Queensberry had booked a seat, but his money was returned and police retained at the theatre. In the evening Lord Queensberry attended, with a large bouquet made of vegetables. His intention can only be conjectured, but when he was refused admission to the theatre he left the bouquet at the box office "for Mr. Wilde." Sir Edward could not understand how his lordship could condescend to such a pantomimic expedient, even if he had cause for attacking the character of Mr. Wilde, and whether, Lord Queensberry was always and

ALTOGETHER RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS ACTIONS

would be open in doubt on the part of the jury before the case ended. No notice was taken of this intended insult. He tried to get into the gallery, but the police had their instructions and he was not able to get into any part of the theatre. On 23 Feb. Mr. Wilde went to the Albemarle Club, where the porter, a very sensible man, handed him an envelope containing the card he had received from Lord Queensberry as long before as the 18th. This was the first publication by Lord Queensberry of the accusation he was making against Mr. Wilde, and it was now incumbent on Mr. Wilde to take action in the matter. Short of actual publication Mr. Wilde would not have done anything to bring into prominence the relations between Lord Queensberry and his family, and would not now do so more than was actually necessary.

The next day Lord Queensberry was arrested. The police-court proceedings are already public property.

Sir Edward said he would not refer in detail to the accusations made against Mr. Wilde, and mention the names which he believed must have been hastily included. He would do

NOTHING TO EXTEND THE RANGE

of the case beyond the radius which was inevitable. But two of the allegations were so strange that he was bound to notice them. The first was that in July, 1890, Mr. Wilde published "a certain immoral and obscene work entitled 'The Picture of Dorian Grey,'" designed and intended to describe the relations, intimacies, and passions of certain persons of unnatural habits, tastes and practices. The second was that in December, 1894, he published a certain other immoral and obscene work in the form of a magazine entitled "The Chameleon," containing similar references and "certain immoral maxims entitled 'Phrases and Philosophies for the Use of the Young.'" With regard to the magazine, Mr. Wilde was only a contributor, and in no way responsible for any part of it except the "Phrases," which were only such epigrammatic sentences as lent brillancy to his plays. But on seeing the magazine he found that it contained a story, "The Priest and the Acolyte," which was a disgrace to literature, an amazing thing to be written by anyone, or published by any decent publisher, and he at once saw the editor and insisted on its withdrawal. As to "Dorian Grey," it has been for five years on bookstalls and in libraries and all Sir Edward need say of it was that it was the

STORY OF A YOUNG MAN,

of good birth, whith great wealth and much personal beauty, whose friend, a distinguished painter, paints a portrait of him. He expresses the strange wish that as life goes on he might be allowed to possess the undiminished beauty of his youth, while the picture should age and fade. The strange wish is granted, his conduct in life leaves its record on the picture not on himself. He plunges into dissipation and crime, and the portrait, which is locked up from every eye but his own, grows more hideous till he can stand it no longer, but takes a knife and strikes at the picture. He instantly falls dead himself, and those who come into the room find the picture again amazingly beautiful, and on the floor a hideous and unrecognisable body of an old man. "I have read the book - for the purposes of this case," said Sir Edward," and I shall be surprised if my learned friend can point to any passage other than such as the novelist must write to describe life and produce a work of art."

This was all Sir Edward had to say.

Sidney Wright, porter, of the Albemarle Club, was the first witness. He deposed that on 18 Feb. the defendant handed to him a card on which were written the words complained of saying "Give that to Oscar Wilde." Witness made a note of the day and hour at the back of the card, and placed it in an envelope, which he handed to Mr. Wilde on 28 Feb., which was the first occasion on which he saw the prosecutor.

Mr. Oscar Wilde was himself the next witness. Ponderous and fleshy, his face a dusky red, and his hair brushed away from a middle-parting in smooth waves, he folded his hands on the front of the witness-box, and replied in carefully modulated monosyllables, accentuated by nods of the head, to Sir Edward Clarke's leading questions about his early life, already described. In 1882 he added, he published a first volume of poems, and he had since lectured both in America and England. During the last few years he had devoted himself to such dramatic literature as "Lady Windermere's Fan," A Woman of No Importance," "The Importance of Beig Earnest," and "The Ideal Husband," all of which were written between February, 1892 and February, 1895,

AND HAD ALL BEEN SUCCESSFUL.

He had also written a French play, "Salomé," which is at the present time in preparation in Paris, and had also written essays and occasional articles. He made the acquaintance of Lord Alfred Douglas in 1891 when he was brought to Tite-st. by a friend of Lady Queensberry, whose acquaintance he made later. He also came to know Lord Douglas of Hawick, and the late Lord Drumlaurig, who was the eldest son. Mr. Wilde went on to describe the Café Royal luncheon party in November, 1892, and repeated that it was at his suggestion Lord Alfred made friendly overtures to his father, from whom he had been estranged. After that he did not see Lord Queensberry till March, 1894. In the meantime the episode of the four letters had begun. The man Wood said he had found them in a suit of clothes which Lord Alfred Douglas had given to him. "I read the letters," said Mr. Wilde, "and I said, I do not consider these letters of any importance.'" Wood said, "They were stolen from me by a man named Allan, and I have been employed to get them back as they wished to extort money from you." Witness repeated that they were of no use and Wood procreded, "I am very much afraid, as they are threatening me. I want to get away to America." "He made a very strong appeal to me to enable him to go to New York, as he could find nothing to do in London. I gave him £15." Long afterwards, on 23 April, 1893,

MR. BEERBOHM TREE

handed him the copy of the other letter which has been read, and a man named Allan afterwards called and witness said, "I suppose you have come about my beautiful letter to Lord Alfred Douglas. If you had not been so foolish as to send a copy of it to Mr. Beerbohm Tree I would gladly have paid a very large sum of money for the letter, as I consider it is be a work of art." He replied, "A very serious construction has been put on that letter." Witness replied, "Ah, art is rarely intelligible to the criminal classes." Allan said he had been offered £80 for it. Witness said,"Take my advice. Go to that man and sell my letter to him for £80. I myself have never received so large a sum for any prose work, and that very small work, but I am glad to find there is anyone in England who considers that a letter of mine is worth £80." "He was somewhat taken aback," added Oscar. "I said 'I can only assure you on my word of honor that I will not pay one penny for that letter, so if you dislike this man very much you should sell my letter to him for £80.' He then, changing his manner, said he hadn't a single penny, was very poor and had been many times to try and find me. I said I could not guarantee his expenses but I would gladly give him half a sovereign. He took it and went away. I also told him, 'This letter, which is a prose poem, will shortly be published in sonnet form in a delightful magazine and I will send you a copy.' In fact the letter was made

THE BASIS OF A SONNET

in French, which was published in the Chameleon. Allan had no sooner gone than the man Cliburn came with the letter. He said, 'Allan said you were kind to him, and there is no good trying to "rent" you, as you only laugh at us. The letter was very much soiled and I said, "I think it quite unpardonable that better care was not taken of a manuscript of mine." He said he was very sorry, but it had been in so many hands I said to him 'I am afraid you are leading a wonderfully wicked life.' He said, 'There is good and bad in every one of us.' I told him that was more than possible."

All this Oscar told with the blandest air of sangfroid, caressing his tan gloves between his hands. Sir Edward passed on to the incidents of 1894. At the end of June there was in interview at 16, Tite-st. with Lord Queensberry and another gentleman -"whose name is of no importance." Lord Queensberry said, "Sit down" Oscar replied, "I don't allow you to talk to me like that. I suppose you have come to apologise for the statements you have made about my wife and me in relation to your son. I could have you up any day I choose for criminal libel for writing such letters. How dare you say such things about your son and me?" Lord Queensberry replied, "You were both kicked out of the Savoy Hotel at a moment's notice for your scandalous conduct." Oscar said, "That is a lie!" Lord Queensberry continued,"You have taken and furnished rooms for him in Piccadilly." Oscar replied, "Someone has been telling you a series of lies." Lord Queensberry said, "I hear you were thoroughly well blackmailed last year for a disgusting letter that you wrote to my son." Oscar replied, "The letter was

A BEAUTIFUL LETTER,

and I never write except for publication." Oscar said, "You accuse me of leading your son into vice." Lord Queensberry replied, "I don't say you did it, but you look it and you pose as it."

An applausive tapping in the gallery followed this statement. "If I hear the slightest repetition of that noise I will have the court cleared," said the judge.

Mr. Wilde continued, "Lord Queensberry said, 'If I catch you and my son together again I will thrash you." I said, 'I do not know what the Queensberry rules are, but the Oscar Wilde rule is to shoot at sight.' I then told him to leave my house. He said he would not do so. Itold him I would have him put out by the police." The scene ended with recriminations of a similar kind. Mr. Wilde went into the hall and said to his servant, "This is the Marquess of Queensberry, the most infamous brute in London. Never allow him to enter my house again. Should he attempt to come in you may send for the police."

Was it for that you had taken rooms in Picadilly for his son? - No.

Was there any foundation of any kind for the statement that you and any of his sons were expelled from the Savoy Hotel? -It is perfectly untrue.

Next Sir Edward turned to the production of "The Importance of Being Earnest," and the incident of

THE VEGETABLE BOUQUET.

He said the production was very successful, and he was afterwards called, and bowed his acknowledgments. Mr. Wilde briefly denied responsibility for the character of the Chameleon, and said he knew nothing about the story of "The Priest and the Acolyte" till he saw the magazine, and expressed his disapproval of it to the editor. As to "Dorian Grey," the moral of that was that the man who tried to destroy his conscience destroyed himself. There was no truth whatsoever in any one of the accusation of misconduct made in the plea of justification.

Then Mr. Carson rose to cross-examine. He began by demonstrating to Mr. Wilde's surprise, that Mr. Wilde is over 40, having been born in October, 1854. Lord Alfred Douglas, he said, is 24. Witness said he was aware of Lord Queensberry's wish that the intimacy with his son should cease, but it had continued -down to the present moment.They had stayed together in various places, including several London hotels. Witness, in addition to his house at Tite-st, had had rooms at 10 and 11 St. James's-place, from October, 1894, to the beginning of April 1894. Lord Alfred Douglas had stopped there. They had been abroad together too. In the Chameleon there was not only the prose poem, but also contributions by Lord Alfred Douglas, written, witness believed, at Oxford.

Did you approve of them? - They were

EXCEEDINGLY BEAUTIFUL POEMS.

The one "In Praise of Shame"? - Yes.

The other "The Two Loves"? - Yes.

"I have a love but dare not speak his name"? - Yes.

You think that did not convey any improper suggestion? - Yes.

You think, I believe, that there is no such thing as an immoral book? - Yes.

Then you do not think "The Priest and the Acolyte" was immoral? - It was worse; it was badly written. (Laughter.) I thought the end of it violated every artistic art of beauty.

Did you think it blasphemous? - I thought it wrong.

Being pressed, the prosecutor said he did not think it blasphemous. For some reason Mr. Carson labored this point. Oscar denied absolutely that because his poem was in the same magazine as this story, the magazine of an undergraduate, he was guilty of Lord Queensberry's accusation. He stroked and fondled his nose and cheeks, while Lord Queensberry remained immovably fixed in his position at the front of the dock. Presently the cross-examination got into deeper waters still, and Oscar was found saying, "I don't believe that any book or work of art ever produces any effect on conduct at all" -and was forthwith launched upon a long discussion of the art and morals question with Mr. Carson. He presently said that his writings must not be tested by truth in the sense of correspondence with fact. Anything was good, he said, which stimulated thought. To realise oneself through pleasure was finer than to realise oneself through pain. And so forth, and

DEEPER AND DEEPER STILL,

till the Irish Q.C. was left hopelessly floundering. Oscar blandly ran his fingers through his hair, and beamed on his cross-examiner, while overwhelming him with metaphysical definitions and "half-truths put in an amusing paradoxical form."

"What the sins of 'Dorian Grey' are no one knows," Mr. Wilde had written in answer to a reviewer. "People might think it meant unnatural vice?" suggested Mr. Carson. "Every man would see his own son in 'Dorian Grey'" said Mr. Wilde.

The case is proceeding.