Compare Documents

The trial of Oscar Wilde on charges of indecency was resumed to-day at the Old Bailey, before Mr. Justice Wills. In view cf the possibility of the case being concluded to-day, the public gallery was again packed with a crowd of spectators eager to witness the final scene. The Solicitor-General and Mr. C. F. Gill were early in court, and the prisoner, who arrived shortly after 10 o'clock, stood in the well of the court, and had a long consultation with Mr. Travers Humphreys. He looked extremely unwell, and his whole appearance and demeanour betokened the keenest anxiety. Shortly before half-past ten Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., entered the court and joined the conversation. The prisoner afterwards proceeded to the foot of the jury-box, and talked for some time with the Rev. Stewart Headlam and with Lord Douglas of Hawick. As soon as his lordship had taken his seat the prisoner resumed his seat in the dock.

The Solicitor-General again raised the question of the withdrawal of the case as regarded the witness Shelley. He pointed out that in 1894 Mr. Justice Collins laid it down that there was no law by which a case could be withdrawn from the jury on the ground that the evidence of an accomplice was uncorroborated.

His Lordship said he preferred to adhere to the course which he had taken, as the result of very deliberate consideration. One stroner reason he had for doing so was that it was contrary to the practice of the law for a judge to allow the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice to go to a jury. He did not see any use in that if the jury were to have the liberty of deliberately disregarding that direction. When an opportunity arose he should be glad to have the question settled authoritatively.

Sir Edward Clarke then rose to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He said he had to deal with what remained of this case, but he should not detain them long now, and he did not think it would be needful for him to address them at any great length hereafter. The case before them was now very limited, and the witnesses upon whom they were asked to rely were few in number. He was painfully conscious of the manner -he had almost said the unjustifiable manner -in which the case had been conducted on the part of the Crown. He should call Mr. Wilde into the witness-box again to state for the third time in that court that there was no truth whatever in these accusations which were made against him, and to face for the third time, and now with a new assailant, the cross-examination which might be administered to him with regard to these accusations. As counsel for the defence, he (Sir Edward) might do something to sustain the traditions of public prosecutions, and induce his learned friend to remember -which he feared for a moment yesterday he seemed to forget -that he was there not to try and get a verdict of guilty by any means he could, but to lay before the jury for their consideration and judgment the facts upon which they were asked to give a very serious determination. The jury must give their decision, not on suspicion and innuendo, but upon the evidence of facts. Broken as Mr. Wilde was with the anxiety of these suceessive trials, he might well be spared the indignity of again going into the witness-box. But he would go into the witness-box, because otherwise he (counsel) knew what the Solicitor-General would say, and he (Sir Edward) would have no opportunity of reply. He contended Mr. Wilde's conduct throughout had been that of an innocent man. He had courted every inquiry and had surrendered to meet these charges, confident in the hope that as examination and examination went on these accusations would break down, as they had been breaking down these five weeks, and that at last he would get his vindication from the judgment of the jury upon the facts of the evidence before them. In conclusion, he submitted that on the evidence the jury could only return a verdict of not guilty. He then called Mr. Wilde.

The prisoner then entered the witness-box, and was allowed to be seated while giving his evidence. He said this was the third time he had gone into the witness-box. He described the nature of his acquaintance with the Queensberry family, and Lord Alfred Douglas. stated that after Lord Queensberry left a card with an offensive inscription he at once instituted proceedings. In the course of his evidence in the Queensberry libel case he was asked certain questions with regard to Parker and Wood, in answer to which he made certain statements.

Sir E. Clarke: Were all those statements absolutely true? -Entirely.

Have you any qualification or alteration to make in regard to these statements? -No, I have no observations to make.

Is there-any truth whatever in the accusations made; against you in this indictment? -None whatever.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General, witness said he first made the acquaintance of Lord Alfred Douglas in 1893, and when Lord Queensberry objected to the intimacy between Lord Alfred Douglas and himself, he was quite ready to cease the acquaintance. Lord Alfred, however, desired the acquaintance to be continued. Lord Alfred Douglas was now in Paris, where he went at witness's desire. Witness had been in communication with him.

Do you frequently correspond with Lord Alfred Douglas? -Yes.

Are the two letters that have been read samples of the style in which you addressed him? -I do not think I should say they were samples. The letter written from Torquay was a prose poem in answer to his poem.

"My own boy" -is that the way in which you usually addressed him? -I do not say usually, but often. He was much younger than I was.

"Your sonnet is quite lovely. It is a marvel that those red rose-leaf lips of yours, &c." Now I ask you this, Mr. Wilde. Do you consider that was a decent way of addressing a youth? -lt is like a sonnet of Shakespeare. It was a fantastic, extravagant way of writing to a young man.

Was it decent? -Of course it was decent. It is a beautiful way for an artist to write to a young man who has culture, charm, and distinction. Decency does not come into the question.

Do you understand the meaning of the word, sir? -Yes.

Then I ask you whether you consider it a decent mode of addressing a young man? -I can only give you the same answer. It was a literary mode of writing to another -intended to be a prose poem.

Do you consider it to be decent phraseology? -Oh, yes.

In regard to other portions of the letter, witness said he referred in it to Hyacinthus, who was madly loved in Greek days. The letter was signed, "Always with undying love, yours -Oscar." Witness waa devoted to Lord Alfred Douglas, and had a refined and intellectual love for him. The other letter was not a prose poem. It was written after there had been a quarrel about something. The letter contained the following: -"Your letter was delightful red and yellow wine to me, but I am sad and out of sorts. You must not make scenes with me. They kill me. They wreck the loveliness of life. I cannot listen to your curved lips saying hideous things to me. Do not do it, you break my heart." The letter continued -"You are the divine thing I want -the thing of grace and genius, but I do not know how to do it. Shall I come to Salisbury."

Witness said an artist in literature, a man of letters, always looks for literary expression, and that leads one to certain expressions. Lord Alfred Douglas had stayed with him three times at the Savoy Hotel. Their rooms adjoined. After the committal of the Marquess of Queensbery, witness and Lord Alfred Douglas left the country together.

You two alone? -Yes.

Witness further admitted that he had visited Taylor at Little College Street, and had met a number of young men there. He could not remember their names. He had never met Parker there. Did Taylor strike you as being a pleasant companion? -Yes; I thought him very bright.

Pleasant? -Yes.

Did you know what his occupation was? -I understood he had none.

Had any of those persons you met any occupation? -I did not ask them.

When you heard that Parker had stayed with Taylor did that alter your opinion of Taylor? -I do not think I am called upon to express an opinion. If Parker was poor and shared his room it would be a charity.

Had any of these young men at Taylor's any intellectual attraction? -No, it was my vanity and love of admiration. I liked to be praised and made much of, and was gratified.

What! -with the admiration of these boys? -At the admiration.

What possible gratification was it to you who, we are told, was a successful literary man to obtain the praise of these boys, whose very names you cannot remember? -Praise from anybody is always delightful. Praise from other literary people is usually tainted with criticism. (Laughter.) It pleased me very much to be made much of.

Witness added that it did not occur to him that he could exercise any influence over these young men. He had no preference for one of the Parkers rather than the other. He called Charles Parker "Charlie," and told him to call him "Oscar." He did not remember ever taking a young man to the Savoy Hotel and dining with him alone at night. He did not dine there alone with Parker.

The Solicitor General next proceeded to cross-examine witness as to his relations with a man named Scarfe. Sir E. Clarke objected on the ground that it was not relevant. The Solicitor-General said he had a right to treat the witness as any other witness for the purpose of discrediting him. His Lordship overruled the objection, but said if the bounds of fair play were overstepped the consequence would recoil on those who overstepped it.

Witness said that Scaife had visited him at 10, St. James's Street, and had lived with him alone in a private room at an hotel. Witness also said he met a boy named Conway on the beach at Worthing and took him to Brighton for six weeks. He had also met a man named Harrington. With regard to Alfred Wood, he met him at the Cafe Royal. He had been asked to give Wood assistance.

Why did you not give it him? -I did.

Why prolong the interview? -If you mean taking him to supper, I wished to be kind to him.

Did you take him to dinner alone in a private room? -Yes.

Witness added that he afterwards met Wood again at the Café Royal. He was asked to interest himself in Wood. It was after that second meeting that he learned Wood was known to Taylor. He was afterwards told that Wood was minded to extort money from him on account of some letters which witness had written to Lord Alfred Douglas having come into possessiou. Witness afterwards met Wood and the latter gave him the letters.

What did you give him? -Ultimately I gave him £15.

What for? -Because he wished to go to America.

Do you mean to state that your payment of that money had no relation to the delivery of those letters? -None whatever.

You paid your money and you got the letters? -Yes.

Where are the letters? -I tore them up.

You had gone to buy? -No, to bargain.

To bargain for what? -Those letters.

And you took money for this purpose? -Yes.

You paid the money? -Yes.

And you got the letters? -Yes.

When did you destroy the letters? -I tore them up two or three days afterwards.

Witness added that on the next day he gave Wood a lunch at the Florence and an additional sum of £5. Wood afterwards went to America.

Now, I come to the Savoy Hotel. Were you visited at that hotel by many young men? -The majority of my friends are young.

You heard what the masseur said. Is that untrue? -Entirely.

You contradict his testimony wholly? -Wholly.

May I take it your testimony is the same as regards the evidence of the chambermaid? - Yes.

This concluded the cross-examination, and the Court adjourned for lunch.

(Continued on Page 4.)

On the Court resuming the prisoner, who had entered the dock, was again called into the witness-box. He was re-examined by Sir E. Clarke. Sir E. Clarke then addressed the jury on behalf of the defence. The trial was again adjourned.

A larger crowd than usual waited outside the Old Bailey this morning to see Wilde drive up. He … into court soon after 10, accompanied by … Stewart Headlam. Wilde looked worn and … nervous perspiration on his face … bearing signs of sleeplessness. … erect, however, and bore his … silver-mounted cane with his ...

... crowded early, doubtless the … that Wilde would be put in the witness-box.

Before the opening of the proceedings Wilde … with Mr. Travis Humphreys, the … counsel for the defence, and afterwards with Sir Edward Clarke.

Lord Douglas of Hawick arrived about half-past ten, and joined company with his fellow- … and kept Wilde in animated conversation for a few minutes before Wilde was called into …

THE SHELLEY CASE.

Sir Frank Lockwood, immediately the Judge took his seat, spoke re the withdrawal of Shelley, and denoted decisions of judges as late … to show that the jury might be told the evidence of a witness who was an accomplice was a thing they should not accept unless corroborated, instead of the case being withdrawn altogether.

Mr. Justice Wills replied that he had made up his mind that it would be far better to withdraw a witness altogether than let his evidence go to the jury and the jury to be told to disregard it.

THE SPEECH FOR THE DEFENCE.

Sir Edward Clarke opened the defence by pointing out that the area of the case had become small, the witnesses upon whose evidence they would have to decide their verdict being few. Sir Edward alluded to what he called the "causual, unjustifiable way in which the case is being conducted on the part of the Crown." He realised, he said, the responsibility of his learned friend the Solicitor-General. He himself had had the honour of holding the office of Solicitor-General for six years, for a longer period than ever it was held by any other man in the last hundred years. He realised the responsibilities of a Crown official, but he would point out to his learned friend that he was there, not to try to get a verdict of guilty by any means—the Solicitor-General was there to lay the facts of the case before the jury for their safe judgment, and fair action to all concerned. For the third time, said Sir Edward, he would call Oscar Wilde, the defendant, into the witness-box, and for the third time Wilde would swear the charges made against him were wholly and completely untrue. Law officers of the Crown had, Sir Edward continued, a strange and invidious privilege—a privilege the existence of which he could not understand, a privilege he had never availed himself of, and never would avail himself of if he were again Solicitor-General—that was, the privilege of addressing the jury last. But the Crown had sent down a law official, and so he was forced, in order to reply to the Solicitor-General, to put Wilde into the box.

WILDE TO BE CALLED.

"Now, broken as he is," said SIr Edward in a most impressive voice, "and no one who saw him when he came into the court for the first time, and sees him now, can fail to see what has happened to the man—broken as he is by being kept in prison without bail, contrary to practice, and I believe contrary to law—broken as he is by the anxiety of these successive trials, I might have spared him the indignity of having again to go into the witness-box, to go through the ordeal of repeating his denial on oath."

Sir Edward then traced the history of the case from the action of the Marquis of Queensberry. He dwelt on the continued friendship of Wilde for the Douglases and their mother, the Marchioness of Queensberry. Wilde had heroically fought against the accusations made against him, accusations that had broken down piece by piece.

WILDE IN THE WITNESS-BOX.

Wilde, looking very haggard, was given a chair in the witness-box, and a glass of water placed at his elbow.

In the early part of the year 1894, did it come to your knowledge that the Marquis of Queensberry objected to your acquaintance with Lord Alfred Douglas?

Then followed answer and question detailing the facts of the card left at Wilde’s club, and his taking action against the Marquis of Queensberry. He had long been, and was still, a friend of the Queensberry family.

You made certain remarks upon the evidence of Charles Parker, when you were in the box before?—Yes.

Have you any qualification to make on those remarks?—No.

You have been living with your wife since you were married in 1894, at 16, Tite-street?—Yes.

While your family were away you stayed at the Savoy Hotel?—Yes.

You had rooms at St. James’s-place?—Yes, for writing. It was quiet. Most literary men like to work away from their own house. I was then writing "An Ideal Husband."

Is there any truth whatever in the accusations made against you?—None whatever.

CROSS-EXAMINED.

In cross-examination Sir Frank Lockwood asked:

Where is Lord Alfred Douglas now?—He is abroad.

Where?—Paris.

When did he go?—About three weeks ago.

Did he leave after the first trial?—No, he stayed awhile after the Queensberry trial.

Did he stay till your first trial as defendant?—No, he went away to France at my wish.

What did you do when you learned that the marquis objected to your friendship with his son? I said I was perfectly ready to cease the acquaintance, if it would make peace between him and his father, but he preferred to do otherwise.

So the intervention of the father had no effect?—None.

Then the Solicitor-General read the two famous letters from Wilde to Douglas.

"The letter from Torquay was intended to be a prose poem in answer to one he had written to me," repeated Wilde.

Are these two letters a sample of the letters you have written to Douglas?—No; I don’t think you can take them as a sample.

"My own boy," proceeded Sir Frank Lockwood, reading the letter. Is that the way you usually addressed him?—Oh yes, often. He was much younger than I was.

You adopted that phraseology on account of his being so much younger?—Yes.

"Your sonnet is quite lovely, and it is a marvel that those red roseleaf lips of yours should be made no less for the music of song than for the madness of kissing."

May I ask you this, Mr. Wilde: Do you consider that was a decent way of addressing a youth?—It is a little like a sonnet of Shakespeare. I admit it was a fantastical and extravagant way of writing to a young man. The question whether the thing is proper or right is—

A QUESTION OF DECENCY.

The word I used, Mr. Wilde, was decent?—It was a beautiful way for an artist to write to a young man who had a love of art.

Do you consider that a decent mode of addressing a young man? (emphatically).—It was a literary way of addressing a prose poem to—

I ask you whether you know the meaning of the word decent?—Yes (quietly).

And do you consider that decent?—It was an attempt to write a prose poem in beautiful phraseology.

Did you consider it decent phraseology?—Oh yes, yes.

"Your slim-gilt soul walks between passion and poetry. Hyacinthus, whom Apollo loved so madly, was you in Greek days." You were speaking of love between?—What I meant by the phrase was that he was a poet and Hyacinthus was a poet, and—(then the voice became inaudible).

"Always with undying love," read on Sir Frank. It was not a sensual love, said Wilde.

Is that again poetic imagery or an expression of your feelings?—That is an expression of my feelings; with a smile and bow).

"Dearest of old boys," read on Sir Frank, "your letter was delightful red and yellow wine for me, but I am sad and out of sorts, Bosey. You must not make scenes with me. They wreck the loveliness of life. I cannot see you, Greek and gracious, distorted by passion. I cannot listen to your curved lips say hideous things to me. Don’t do it: you break my heart, and I must see you soon. You are the divine thing I want, the thing of grace and genius. But I don’t know how to do it. Shall I come to Salisbury? There are many difficulties; my bill here is £49"—that I suppose is true? That is, not poetic?—Oh! no, no! (Laughter suppressed.)

"I have also got a new room over the Thames. But why are you not here, my dear boy. Ever your own Oscar." He came and stayed with you at the Savoy?—Yes, in the month of February.

You were alone, you two?—Oh, yes.

The approach to your room was through his?—Yes.

Were you then aware of his father objecting to your acquaintance?—No.

TAYLOR’S TEA PARTIES.

The words on the Queensberry card containing the alleged libel were then ascertained from Wilde, after which the examination turned in the direction of the meetings and tea parties at Taylor’s rooms.

The boys Wood, Mavor, and Parker, what was their occupation?—One doesn’t ask people such questions at a tea party.

You have heard Taylor’s rooms described; Were they always in darkness?—I was only there once in the daytime, and then saw nothing remarkable.

Did you know Taylor had friends staying there, who invariably slept in bed with him?—I didn’t know that.

You know now?—I have heard it here.

Does that alter you opinion of Taylor?—No.

Do you approve of his conduct?—I don’t think I am called upon to express approval or disapproval of any persons conduct.

I must press you—I don’t believe, replied Wilde, that anything improper took place between Taylor and these boys. If Taylor was poor and shared his bed with his friends, that may have been charity.

What pleasure could you find in the society of boys teach beneath you in social position?—I make no social distinctions.

What did you do with them?—I read to them. I read one of my plays to them.

From your literary position you would be able to exercise considerable influence over them?—Certainly, but not literary influence, I don’t think that would be possible.

I don’t mean literary influence?—I like to be liked, I liked their society simply because I like to be lionised.

What—by these boys?—Yes; I like praise.

HE IS FOND OF PRAISE.

You, a successful literary man, wished to obtain the praise of those boys?—Praise from anybody—praise from other literary people is usually tainted with criticism. I am enormously fond of praise, enormously fond of admiration, and, I admit, to be praised by my inferiors; I admit it pleased me very much.

Your social inferiors?—I have no sense at all of social differences.

Alluding to the brothers Parker Wilde admitted he preferred Charles to William because he was bright.

You preferred Charles?—I make no preferences.

You like bright boys?—I like bright boys. Charles Parker was bright. I liked him.

Do you think it would be of any service to youths in their position to be entertained to dinner in the manner they were by a man of your station?—Schoolboys enjoy a treat.

You looked upon them as schoolboys?—No, but if you ask people to come and dine with you, you must give them something they don’t have every day. I don’t think it would have interested them if I had asked them to dine on a pint of ale and a chop.

PLENTY OF WINE.

You didn’t stint them with wine?—Oh, no.

You would let them drink as much as they liked?—I should not limit their consumption, but I should consider it extremely vulgar for any one to take too much wine at table.

Let me ask you whether it didn’t occur to you that having obtained their admiration that it was then within your power to exercise an influence for good or for ill with these lads?—The only influence I could exercise with anybody would be a literary influence. Of course, in their case it was impossible. Literary influence I know I have had a great deal, but not influence of any other kind.

Was Taylor charming?—Charming is not the word I would apply. I found him bright and pleasant.

Intellectual?—Not intellectual. Clever, decidedly.

Artistic?—Yes.

Very good taste, with his accents and—?—I think it good taste to use perfumes. I thought his rooms were done up with considerable taste. I think he had a very pleasant taste. His rooms were cheerful.

Not a very cheerful street, Little College-street?—Few streets are cheerful.

Is it true that when you met Parker in Trafalgar-square you used the words, "You are looking as pretty as ever?"—No, I don’t think I used the words.

Would you consider such words right to use to a youth?—Oh, no. It would be frivolous.

You don’t object to being frivolous?—Oh, I—

Sir Edward Clarke objected to the Solicitor-General being frivolous. He leaped to his feet and protested against the cross-examination going away to subjects which had nothing to do with the charges. Mr. Justice Wills also objected to anybody being frivolous, and intimated as much to the Solicitor-General, whereupon SIr Edward Clarke sat down again.

WOOD AND THE £15.

The acquaintance with the boy Alphonse at Worthing, and Wilde taking him to Brighton, buying him new clothes, and presenting him with a cigarette case, was the subject of a brief part of the cross-examination. Wilde’s replies were that he met the boy, talked to him, found him interesting, and felt he would like to keep the boy. What he did was more kindness.

For a while the cross-examination fell to dulness. It assumed more seriousness and importance when the transaction of Alfred Wood being handed money to go to America came up. Wilde said he received an anonymous letter at the supper table one evening, and another the following day, signed by a person who called himself a private detective, and saying Wood had letters belonging to Lord Alfred Douglas, written by him, and meant to extort money for them. So he communicated with Sir George Lewis. Wood afterwards met him at Taylor’s He gave Wood £15 to enable him to go to London, but certainly did not give him the money for the letters.

Do you mean, on your oath, to say the payment had nothing to do with the delivery of the letters?—None whatever.

You got the letters?—Yes. They were of no importance whatever. I tore them up.

Coming to the Savoy Hotel incident, the Solicitor-General asked: When you stayed at the Savoy, had you young men there to see you?—The great majority of my friends were young. I was ill while at the Savoy.

You were attended by the masseur?—Yes.

You have heard what he says about a person being seen in your bed. Is that statement untrue?—Absolutely and entirely untrue.

There was no one there, man or woman?—No one.

You answer also that the chambermaid’s statement is untrue?—Absolutely.

Sir Edward Clarke summed up for the defence.