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.

London, April 3.

All the appearances of a sensational trial was presented at the Old Bailey to-day, when the Marquis of Queensberry entered the dock to answer the charge of criminally libelling Mr. Oscar Wilde. Although influential people and the ordinary public clamoured at the doors for admission soon after eight o'clock in the morning, it was only the privileged few who gained entry within the judicial precincts. Necessarily, from the peculiar nature of the case, the proceedings were expected to be of a character such as to preclude the admission to court of any but the sterner sex. The Marquis was the first to appear, and was soon followed by Mr. Oscar Wilde, who took a seat at the solicitors' table. By the time Mr. Justice Collins took his seat on the bench the court was crammed, and the counsel engaged were busy with their blue papers. Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared to prosecute; while Mr. Carson, Q.C., Mr. C. F. Gill, and Mr. A. Gill (instructed by Mr. Charles Russell) represented the Marquis of Queensberry; Mr. Besley, Q. C., with Mr. Monckton, watching the proceedings on behalf of Lord Douglas of Hawick, the eldest son of the Marquis.

The Clerk read out the indictment to the effect that the Marquis "did unlawfully and maliciously write and publish a false, malicious, and defamatory libel" concerning Mr. O. Wilde, in the form of a card directed to him.

The Marquis said he pleaded not guilty, and that the libel was true, and that it was for the public benefit that it should be published.

Sir E. Clarke, in opening the case for the prosecution, said the card was a visiting card of the Marquis of Queensberry, and had written upon it, "To Oscar Wilde, posing as --" (an expression which we are unable to print). Of course it was a matter of serious moment that a word as that should in any way be connected with the name of a gentleman who had borne a high reputation in this country. It was an accusation of the gravest of all offences. The accusation of posing no doubt appeared to suggest that there was no guilt of the actual offence, but that in some way or another the person of whom these words were written desired to appear to be a person guilty of that gravest of all offences. He pointed out that there was no allegation in the pleadings that Mr. Oscar Wilde had been guilty of the offence of which he (counsel) had spoken; but there was a series of accusations, and the names of many persons were mentioned. It was said with regard to these that Mr. Wilde had solicited them to commit with him a grave offence, and that he had been guilty with each and all of them of improper practices. He thought it would occur to the jury as somewhat, strange that whereas these pleadings and the statements which were contained in them referred to a very considerable period of time, one would gather from the pleadings that during all that time Mr. Wilde had been unsuccessfully soliciting these persons. If they were called upon to sustain the charges, these persons would necessarily have to admit much in cross-examination; but he supposed they would not be prepared to admit that they were guilty of the grossest of all offences. Of course,it was for those who had undertaken the grave responsibility of putting in the pleadings of these allegations to satisfy the jury if they could, by witnesses whose evidence they would deem worthy of consideration and entitled to belief, that these charges were true. Counsel next proceeded to refer to the circumstances under which Mr. Wilde became acquainted with Lord A. Douglas in 1891, and pointed out that from that time to the present Mr. Wilde had been the friend not only of Lord Alfred Douglas, but of his brother and mother, Lady Queensberry, who was the wife of the defendant, but who some years ago obtained release from the marriage tie in consequence of the defendent's conduct. It was not until 1894 that Mr. Wilde became aware that certain statements had been made affecting his character, and he became aware of it in this way: There was a man named Wood, whom he had seen once or twice, and who had been given some clothes by Lord A. Douglas. This man said he had found in the pocket of the coat that was given to him four letters which had been written by Mr. Wilde to Lord A. Douglas. Whether Wood had found them in the pocket of the coat or whether he had stolen them was a matter upon which he (counsel) at this moment could only speculate. At all events, there were some letters of Mr. Wilde's which were being handed about, and Wood came to Mr. Wilde early in the year 1894, and told, him that he had these letters, and asked Mr. Wilde to give him something for them. Wood represented himself as being in some distress, and as wanting to go to America. Mr. Wilde gave him £15 or £20 in order to pay his passage to America. Wood handed Mr. Wilde the letters which had been written by him to Lord A. Douglas, but he(counsel) did not think any importance attached to these letters, because, as was generally the case where people thought that they had got letters which were of some importance, those which were of no importance were given up, and the letter which was supposed to be of importance was retained. That was the case in this instance. On Feb. 28 Mr. Wilde called at the Albemarle Club, and was then handed the card, the subject of the libel alleged, contained in an envelope, and in the result a warrant was granted, upon which the Marquis of Queensbury was arrested on Mar. 2. Referring to the plea of justification, it contained references to a certain magazine, and Mr. Wilde was said to be responsible for an article appearing in it of a disgraceful and unworthy character. As a matter of fact, however, Mr. Wilde was not responsible for the article at all. He insisted, as soon as he saw that article, his name appearing on the title-page of the magazine that it should be withdrawn from publication. He had no knowledge that the article had been written or that it was going to appear in the magazine until he saw it in print, and he then expressed his opinion that the literature was bad and unworthy to be published.

Evidence having been given to prove the publication Of the alleged libel by Sidney Wright, the porter of the Albemarle Club, to whom the card was given, Mr. Oscar Wilde was next called, and in his evidence he said that he made the acquaintance of Lord Alfred Douglas in 1891. He was also on friendly terms with Lord Alfred Douglas's brother. Since 1891 he had been in the habit of dining with Lord Alfred Douglas at the Albermarle Club, and had stayed with him at various places. In November, 1892, he met the Marquis of Queensberry at the Café Royal, whilst in the company of Lord Alfred Douglas, and they had luncheon together. He did not see the Marquis again for some time. The witness spoke to a man named Wood calling upon him and producing a certain letter, which he had sent to Lord Alfred Douglas. This man said that the letters had been stolen from him. The witness did not regard the letters as of any importance. He gave the man £15 to get to America. He next had a call from a man named Allen, to whom he 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 you a very large sum of money for the letter, as I consider it to be a work of art." The man said: "It is a very curious construction to put on that letter." He added that a man had offered him £60 for it. The witness said: "If you would take my advice you would go to that man and sell my letter for £60. I have never received so large a sum for any prose work of that length." Other conversation followed, and the man said that he had not a single penny, and was very poor, and witness gave him 10s. He told the man that the letter was a prose poem, which would shortly be published in a dramatic magazine, and he would send him a copy. That letter was the basis of a poem published in French in the "Spirit Lamp" magazine. The Marquis called on him about Lord Alfred Douglas, and witness, referring to a letter, said: "I could have you up at any time for a criminal libel." The Marquis said: "The letter is a privileged one, as it was written to my son." He added: "You were both kicked out of the Savoy Hotel at a moment's notice for your disgusting conduct." He made other statements, and he ordered the Marquis out of his house, saying to his servant: "This is the Marquis of Queensberry, the most infamous brute in London. You are never to allow him to enter my house again, and if he should attempt to come in you must send for the police." There was no truth in the suggestion that he was turned out of the Savoy Hotel. He had nothing whatever to do with the magazine called the Chameleon beyond contributing to it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Carson, Q.C.: He was 40 years of age next birthday; Lord Alfred Douglas was 24 years Of age. Before the interview in Tite-street, between himself and the Marquis, he had hot received a letter from the Marquis protesting against his association with his son, Lord Alfred Douglas. He was aware that the Marquis had made such a protest, but, notwithstanding, he had kept the acquaintance up till the present time, and had stayed with Lord Alfred Douglas at various places, including hotels in London. He had been abroad with him, and recently they were at Monte Carlo. He was of opinion that there was no such thing as an immoral book. Mr. Carson: Do you think the phrase, under the title of "Phrases of Philosophy for the Young," a proper one: "Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the peculiar attractiveness of others"? - I rather think everything I write is true in effect, but not true in the sense of an actual fact in life. So far from the phrases being improper, he thought they were most stimulating. (Laughter.)

Is "Dorian Gray" open to the interpretation of being a disgusting book? - Only to brutes and the illiterate. You cannot ask about the interpretation of my work; it does not concern me. What concerns me is my view and my feeling. I do not care "tuppence" what Philistines think about it.

Mr. Carson read the description of the artist's feelings on first meeting "Dorian Gray" and in reply to a question, Mr. Wilde said: I think this is the most perfect description possible of what an artist would feel on meeting a beautiful personality. You mean a beautiful person? - Yes; a beautiful young man if you like.

Having read another passage, Mr. Carson asked: Do you mean to say that that describes the natural feeling of one man towards another? - It describes the influence produced on an artist by a beautiful personality.

The letter you wrote to Lord Alfred Douglas, was it an ordinary letter? - No. "My own boy"; was that not ordinary? - No. You would say, I suppose, that for a man of your age to address a youth of half your years as "My own boy" would be an improper thing? - No, certainly not; not if he was fond of him. I was fond of Lord Alfred. Mr. Carson quoted--"And it was marvellous that those red, roseleaf lips of yours should be made no less for music and song than for the madness of kissing." Was that proper? - My dear sir, you are cross-examining me upon a poem. You might as well ask me if King Lear or Shakspere's sonnets are improper.

I will read you another letter--

"Savoy Hotel. "Dearest of all Boys, -- Your letter was delightful red and yellow wine to me, and I am sad and out of sorts. Boysey, 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 It breaks my heart. I must see you soon. You are the divine thing I want of grace and genius. But I don't know how to do it. There are many difficulties. My bill here is £49 for the week. My dear, my wonderful boy, I fear I must leave. No money, no credit, and a heart of lead.--From your own OSCAR."

Was that an extraordinary letter? - I think everything I write is extraordinary. I do not pose as being ordinary. Ask me anything you like.

In further cross-examination Mr. Wilde admitted having asked an office boy engaged at his publishers, Messrs. Matthews and Lane, to dine with him at the Albermarle Hotel. The boy had whisky and soda. "He had what he liked," said Mr. Wilde.

Witness was asked as to his acquaintance with two other young men.

The hearing was then adjourned until tomorrow, Lord Queensberry being allowed out on bail.