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 Justice Collins laid it down that there was no law by which a case could be withdrawn from the jury on the ground that the evidence of an accomplice was uncorroborated.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

London, April 26.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The court was adjourned at five o'clock.

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