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 Justice Collins laid it down that there was no law by which a case could be withdrawn from the jury on the ground that the evidence of an accomplice was uncorroborated.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.

There was a simmer of fresh excitement at the Old Bailey this morning when it became known that Wilde was to give evidence in his own behalf. He arrived at the court soon after ten o'clock in a small pair-horse brougham, accompanied by Lord Douglas of Hawick and the Rev. Stewart Headlam, his sureties. For five munutes he was engaged in close conversation with Mr. Travers Humphreys, his junior counsel. Sir Frank Lockwood and Mr. C. F. Gill were already in consultation over the briefs at the other end of the same bench. Having finished with his counsel, Wilde stood talking with his sureties, facing the witness-box, till Mr. Justice Wills arrived, at half-past ten, when he was called upon to surrender, and took his seat in the corner of the dock, where he at once began to amuse himself with a quill pen and a piece of paper. Sir Edward Clarke having arrived,

The Solicitor-General rose to reopen the controversy of last night as to the withdrawal of the shelley indictments from the jury. He quoted a more recent case of the Queen v. monnier, in which the judge said that no dout it was the practice to warn a nury that they should not convict unless they thought the evidence of an accomplice was corroborated, but he know of no power to withdraw the case from the jury for want of corroborative evidence.

His Lordship said he preferred to

ADHERE TO THE COURSE

he had taken as the result of very deliberate consideration. He was willing, however, to reserve the question for the consideration of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved.

Then Sir Edward Clarked, opening the case for the defence, embarked on one of the finest of the many admirable orations which have been heard from him in this court. "I shall call Mr. Wilde into the witness-box again," he began, "to state on his oath for the third time in this court that there is no truth whatever in those accusations which are made against him, and to face for the third time in this court, and now with a new assailant, that cross-examination which may be administered to him in regard to thesse acocusations. When he has given that evidence and when he has been cross-examined the cse will be complete, and it will be my duty then to address you upon the character of the evidence with which you are asked to deal." But first he had a word to say about the temper of Sir F. Lockwood's conduct of the prosecution. "I had the honor," he said, "to hold the office of Solicitor-General for six years, it is not likely that I, at any place or time, will speak lightly of the responsibilites of that office. But I always look upon the responsibility of a Crown counsel, and especially upon the responsibility of a law officer of the Crown, as a public rather than a private interest or responsibility. He is

A MINISTER OF JUSTICE,

with a responsibility more like the responsibility of a judge than like that of a counsel retained for a particular combatent in the forensic fray." Sir Edward continued that he learned his work in this court from the best example he ever saw of a law officer conducting criminal cases, that great advocate--and great gentleman--Sir John Holker, who 20 years ago was conducting great cases in this court with a determined fairness which he admired, and declared at the time he trusted he might be able at some day to sumlate. While, therefore, he said these things without the least unfriendliness of feeling towards to Solicitor-General, he said them in the hope that he might do something to induce his learned friend to remember what he feared that for a moment yesterday he forgot, that he was here not to try an get a verdict of guilty by any means he may have, but that he was here to lay before the jury for their judgment the facts on which they would be asked to come to a very serious consideration. He (Sir Edward) had now to answer but the remnant of a charge. But as the case had been whittled down the efforts of the prosecution had been redoubled, and instead of facing Mr. Gill, of the tone of whose conduct of the last case he had never for a moment to complain, down had come a law officer of the Crown, armed with the strange and invidious privilege--which he, when Solicitor-General, never once exercised, and would not exercise if ever he filled that distinguished position again--of

OVERRIDING THE USUAL PRACTICE

of the court. Whether the defendant called witnesses or not the Solicitor-General enjoyed a right, though why he should enjoy it Sir Edward could not imagine, of the last word with the jury.

But for this Sir Edward Clarke might have relied uponn his reading of the evidence given by the defendant at the last trial. Reckoning with this, the defendant, broken as he now is--as anyone who saw him at the first trial must see that he is--by being kept in prison without bail, contrary to practice, and, as Sir Eward believed, contrary to law, would submit himself again to the indignity and pain of going into the witness-box. Unfit as he was after the ordeal he had gone through, he would repeat on oath his denial of the charges which had been made against him.

Wilde in the Box.

Wilde was called at ten minutes past eleven, and at Sir Edward Clarke's request was allowed to be seated in the witness-box. Only when he began to speak was the full force of Sir Eward's remarks seen. His voice, at the first trial so full and confident, had become hollow and husky, and he seemed glad to lean over the front of the witness box. He was very briefly, and in very general terms, examined once more as to his friendship with Lady Queensberry and her sons, Lord Queensberry's objections to his friendship with Lord Alfred Douglas, and the incident of the libellous postcard. He described the production of his various plays, and declared that it was for convenience of literary work and to be near the theatre that he took the chambers at 10, St. James's-place, "Most literary men like to work out of their own house. It is quieter--and better," he added.

There was only one more question--"Is there any truth whatever in the accusations made against you in this indictment?"

"None whatever." The reply came with emphasis, and something of the old rotundity.

When Sir Frank

LOCKWOOD ROSE

to cross-examine, the witness also rose. "Don't rise, please, unless you wish," said the Solicitor-General, and the witness replied, "I can hear better." In a few minutes, however, he seemed glad to sink into his chair again. He was first asked about his acquaintance with Lord Alfred Douglas. It began, he said, in 1892. The Marquess first objected in March, 1893.

Are you sure? - I am very bad about dates. It must have been last year, 1894.

Where is Lord Alfred Douglas now? - Abroad.

Where? - In Paris. He went there before the last trial. At my own wish.

And the intervention of his father had no effect? - No.

Quoting the two letters about which so much has already been heard, the Solicitor-General asked, "Are these a sample of the syle in which you addressed Lord Alfred Douglas?"

"No," replied the witness, "I do not think I should say a sample. No! The letter written from Torquay [the "madness of kissing" letter] was intended to be kind of prose poem in answer to a poem he had written to me in verse. I was written under circumstances of great feeling."

Asked about his choice of the words "My dear boy" as a mode of address, the witness replied that he adopted them because Lord ALfred Douglas was so much younger than himself. The letter was a

FANTASTIC, EXTRAVAGANT WAY

of writing to a young man. As he said at the first trial, it did not seem to be a question of whether a thing was proper or right, but of literary expression.

I did not use the word proper or right. Was it decent? - Oh, decent! Of course. There is nothing indecent in it.

Do you think that was a decent way for a man of your age to address a man of his? - It was a beautiful way for an artist to address a young man of culture and charm. Decency does not enter into it.

Doesn't it? Do you understand the meaning of the word, sir? - Yes.

Then do you consider that a decent mode of addressing a young man? - I can only give you the same answer, that it is a literary mode of writing what is intended to be a prose poem.

The witness admitted that the second letter, in which he said Lord Alfred Douglas's last communication was red and yellow wine to him, and concluded with lamentable particulars of the amount of his hotel bill and the statement that he had no money, no credit, and a heart of lead, was a mixture of

POETRY AND PROSE

and was not intended to be any kind of sonnet.

Asked what the charge was which Lord Queensberry made against him, he quoted the words on the libellous postcard, after a little fencing with the Solicitor-General. Between Lord Queensberry's committal and the first trial the witness and Lord Alfred Douglas went abroad together for about a week. Before the trial he saw Lord Queensberry's plea of justification, which alleged all the misconduct of which evidence has since been given, besides making charges which have not been heard because they reger to occurrences in Paris.

Did you abandon that prosecution? - It was abandoned by the advice of my counsel.

With your consent? - Yes, I admit it was with my consent, but none of those matters had been entered into. It was entirely about literature, and it was represented to me that I could not get a verdict because of those two letters you have read.

Were you not cross-examined as to you knowledge of Taylor and his character? - Yes.

And as to the establishment he maintained at 13, Little-College-st.? - Yes.

How long had you known Taylor? - I met him first in September, 1892. Yes, I paid visits at his rooms, but I have not been there fore than fice or six times in my life.

Was there any but male society there? - Oh, no, entirely male.

Youths? - Oh, young men.

The witness mentioned Mavor and Schwabe as two fo the young men he met at Taylor's rooms. He said he only went there to

TEA PARTIES

lasting half an hour or an hour, and he could not, after a lapse of three years, remember whom he met. Then he became petulant. "You ask me to remember whom I met at a tea party three years ago! It is childish! How can I?"

Did Taylor strike you as being a pleasant companion? - Yes, I thought he was very bright.

Did you know what his occupation was? - No, I understood that he had none.

Had any of those young men any occupation? - Oh, they were young men--singers--I did not ask.

He saw nothing remarkable in the furnishing of Taylor's rooms. The windows were curtained, but not obscured. He did not know that Taylor's male friends stayed with him, and shared his bed, he knew it now.

Does that alter your opinion of Taylor? - No, I don't think so. I don't think it is necessary to conclude there was anything criminal. It was unusual. I don't believe anything criminal took place between Taylor and theses boys, and if they were poor and he shared his bed with them it may have been charity.

Did it shock you that he should have done it? - No, I saw no necessity for being shocked.

Would the knowledge that they habitually shared his bed alter your opinion of Taylor? - No.

Sir Edward Clarke objected to the examination of the witness on his opinions of other people, and the judge upheld his contention, but pointed out that it came too late.

The witness himself objected to the general character of the question whether he gave presents to the young men he met at Taylor's. He remembered giving a silver cigarette case to Mavor. It cost £4. He gave another to Charles Parker, but he was "afraid it only cost £1."

Silver? - Well, ye--es. He had a great fancy for giving

CIGARETTE CASES.

To young men? - Yes. He might have given seven or eight in 1892 and 1893.

His lordship interposed that a cigarette case conveyed no impression to anyone's mind unless he knew what he meant. The Solicitor-General did not attempt, however, to elucidate the language of cigarette cases. He passed on to ask if the conversation of the young men was literary. No, said the witness, but the fact that he had written a play which was a success seemed to them very wonderful, and he was gratified at their admiration.

The admiration of theses boys? - Yes. I was foun of praise. I liked to be lionised and made much of.

By these boys? - Yes.

Whose very names you don't remember? - Yes (and the witness resumed the languid, affected drawl of the Queensberry cross-examination), praise from anyone (this very sententiously) is always delightful. Praise from other literary people is usually tainted with criticism. I admit that I am enormously fond of praise and admiration, and that I like to be made much of by my inferiors--inferiors socially. It pleases me very much.

Did it not strike you that in your position you could exercise a considerable influence over these lads, for good or for ill? - No, I am bound to say I don't think it did. The only influence I could exercise on anybody would be

A LITERARY INFLUENCE.

Of course in the case of these young men that would be out of the question. Otherwise I don't see what capacity I have for influencing people.

Asked again about Taylor's rooms the witness said they seemed to him rather tastefully decorated. As to their situation, he thought it a particularly nice one--close to Westminster, close to the Abbey. (Laughter.)

Not a very cheerful street? - I have known artists who lived quite close there.

He had not known Taylor many months when he invited him to come to dine on the occasion of his (Taylor's) birthday, and gave him carte blanche to bring his friends.

As many as he liked? - Well, I did not ask him to bring a crowd.

Then it was a pure coincidence that the table was laid for four, and that he brought the two Parkers? - No. I think he had ordered the dinner himself. I told him to go to Kettner's because I have been in the habit of dining there for years.

He did not know at the time that the Parkers were valet and groom respectively. Had he known it he would not have cared. He had no sense at all of social differences. He did not pause to consider whether it could be of the slightest service to lads in their position to be entertained in such style by a man in his. They enjoyed it as schoolboys would enjoy a treat. It was something they did not get every day. He did not suppose they would have cared to be entertained to a chop and a pint of ale--they were used to that. They were amused by the

LITTLE LUXURIES

of Kettner's, the pink lamp shades, and so forth. As to wine, he certainly should not stint a guest.

After the dinner he bade the Parkers goodbye, and they went away with Taylor. He certainly did not take Charles Parker to the Savoy Hotel with him.

Did you every sup alone with any young men at the Savoy HOtel about that time? - I could not remember. You are asking me of three years ago. Lord Alfred Douglas may.

But he would be perfectly well known to the waiters of the Savoy? - Oh, yes.

Wherever you are well known he would be? - Oh, I don't know that.

You have stayed together at the Savoy, at the Albemarle, at the Avondale, at St. James's-place, at the Metropole, at Brighton, at Cromer, at Goring, at the Albion at Worthing, and at Torquay? - Yes. He has not stayed with me at St. James's-place, but I have lent him my rooms there.

The witness continued the story of his acquaintance with Charles Parker, who might have visited him seven or eight times at St. James's-place, and with whom on one occasion he dined at Kettner's, going afterwards to the Pavillion. He

LAST SAW

him in December, in the street, but did not remember saying to him, "You are looking pretty as ever." He admitted receiving from him the following letter:--"7, Camera-sq. Dear Oscar,--Am I to have the pleasure of dining with you this evening/ If so kindly send answer per messenger or wire me at above address. I do trust it will be convenient, and that we can spend the evening together. With kind regards and apologies, yours, &c., CHAS. PARKER." The witness could not remember whether he responded to this incitation. he was certain he hd never been to see Parker at his Chelsea lodging.

The Solicitor-General introduced the name of a young man named Scarfe, who was taken by Taylor to see Wilde. The witness said Scarfe represented himself as a young man who had made money in Australia.

Why was he brought to you? - Because many people at that time had great pleasure and interest in seeing me.

Did he call you Oscar? - Yes.

At once? - I had to ask him to. I have a passion for being called by Christian name. It pleases me.

Did you give him a cigarette case? - Yes.

Has he dined alone with you? - Yes.

The witness remembered Alfonzo Conway, whom he met on the beach at Worthing in the August of last year. This was a boy who had an ambition to go to sea, and whose mother was a widow and let lodgings. The witness bought him a suit of blue serge, and to amuse him took him for a 24 hours'

TRIP TO BRIGHTON,

where they slept in adjoining rooms. While the Solicitor-General cross-examined as to the moral effects of the trip on Alfonzo there was time to observe that to-day Lord Queensberry could not get a seat, but had to stand at the back of the reserved enclosure, where he sucked the brim of his hat and stared across at the witness with twinkling beady eyes.

In continued cross-examination, the witness who had constantly to sip at the frequently replenished glass of water at his side, said he met Harrington in the company of Schwabe at the Cafe Royal. He denied that he had ever given him either of two scarf pins which were produced by the Solicitor-General. He also met Wood, by appointment, at the Cafe Royal. He had been asked to assist him, and took him to super at the Florence. He had already supped himself.

They why not give him 5s. to go and get his supper? - Ah, that would be treating him like a beggar. He was sent to be by Lord Alfred Douglas.

Did you know he came from 13, Little College-st.? - No, I did not know that. He said [...]