Compare Documents

The final stage with the second trial of Oscar Wilde was entered upon at the Old Bailey, to-day, before Mr. Justice Wills. The public gallery was again packed with interested spectators. It was half-past ten when the Solicitor-General entered the court and at this hour neither the prisoner nor Sir Edward Clarke had arrived. His lordship took his seat a few moments after the half hour, and Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., put in an appearance at the same time. The resumption of proceedings was delayed by another case, which was disposed of in a few minutes.

Oscar Wilde, who had in the meantime entered the court was then called upon to surrender to his bail. He at once stepped into the dock, and resumed his seat, facing the jury, with his elbow resting on the ledge before him. His appearance had not materially changed since yesterday, and he betrayed signs of considerable anxiety.

The Solicitor-General then rose and took up the threads of his speech in reply on behalf of the prosecution. He asked what was the relationship of the prisoner with Lord Alfred Douglas, and said though Lord Queensberry resented the intimacy between the prisoner and Lord Alfred the prisoner continued the intimacy, and flaunted Lord Alfred at hotels in London and the country. His learned friend had urged that after this lapse of time all the witnesses that might have been called for the defence had been scattered, and yet he had intimate associations with Taylor.

Sir Edward Clarke: That is an oratorical expression which has never been proved in the evidence.

The Solicitor-General asked what were the badges of an intimate friendship. Taylor called the prisoner "Oscar," and he called Taylor "Alfred," and he entertained him on his birthday. What more proof of intimacy did he want than that? It was a plain statement of fact that Taylor was the prisoner's intimate friend. It appeared as if counsel for the defence desired now that one man should go down and the other be saved because of a false glamour upon art.

Sir E. Clarke: I protest. I must distinctly protest against this sort of appeal to tbe jury -this suggestion to the jury that it is my desire now that one man should go down and the other be saved because of a false glamour upon art.

His Lordship pointed out that up to the present time there had been no allusion to the result of the other trial.

The Solicitor-General maintained that he had a right to reply to his learned friend's final appeal to the jury as to the literary position of his client. He was dealing with the prisoner's connection with the man Taylor, and he said that these men must be judged equally.

Sir Edward Clarke: They must be fairly tried in their proper order.

The Solicitor-General hoped that these interruptions would avail his learned friend nothing. He now came back to the point from which he started, and that was that there was one witness at least whom the prisoner could have relied upon, and that was Taylor. There was another person he could have relied upon, and that was Lord Alfred Douglas. With regard to the letters which the prisoner obtained from Wood, and which he said were of no importance, he would call the attention of the jury to one of the letters which had been produced -a letter which if found in the possession of a woman from a man would be the clearest possible evidence of some guilty passion. The letter spoke of "Rose-leaf lips, framed not only for the music of song but the madness of kissing," and contained a reference to the love of Apollo and Hyacinthus. It was in these terms that he addressed this young man, and then the jury, men of sense and reason and honour, were tried to he put off with this story of a prose poem, a sonnet which he supposed they were too low to appreciate. They must thank God that it was so. They did not appreciate a thing of this sort save at its proper level, and that was somewhat lower than a beast's.

At this point there was slight laughter from the gallery. His lordship said he hoped that throughout the rest of this trial there would be no more interruptions of this kind. It was very offensive to him to be pestered with applause or expression of feeling by people who had no business there except the gratification of a morbid curiosity. If there was anything of the kind he should have the Court cleared.

The Solicitor-General, resuming, said with regard to Parker and Wood, that his learned friend said they were blackmailers, and warned the jury lest they gave a verdict in this case which would enable this detestable trade to rear its head unblushingly in this country. He (the Solicitor General) would, however, ask the jury to take care lest they enabled another vice as detestable and as abominable to raise its head unblushingly in this country. It was true that these men participated in a blackmailing enterprise, but the genesis of a blackmailer was a man who had committed these acts of indecency, and the genesis of the man who had committed these foul acts was the man who was so debased as to be willing to pay for their commission, and were it not that there must be some men so debased as to purchase vice in this hideous and detestable form there would be no market for such crime, and there would be no market in which these blackmailers could be found. It was a strange thing that they should find Oscar Wilde in close intimacy with both Parker and Wood. No motive could be alleged for these men telling that which was untrue, and it was not suggested that their evidence had been purchased or improperly influenced. Having reviewed the evidence given by Wood, he asked the jury to say that he told the truth, that he had no motive to deceive them, and that they must irresistibly come to the conclusion that there was only conflict of testimony at the point where admission stopped and actual confession commenced. With regard to Parker also, they had admission after admission until they came on the heel of confession. In conclusion, he said he had pointed out the strength of the case, and he now had to ask the jury to do their duty in the case.

His Lordship, in summing up, said this was a painful and shocking case, which necessitated a cold and calm administration of justice, in order that due protection would be afforded to the defendant. For himself he would rather try a most shocking murder case than be engaged in trying one of these cases. He could not, however, say that his sense of difficulty was increased in this case by any consideration of the education or culture of the person accused, because having regard to the result of the Queensberry libel case they need not distress themselves by ordinary considerations, which would add to their distress in the case of persons of education and culture. In this case he could not give a simple, colourless summing up which was no good to anybody. It was very unfortunate that in dealing with Wood's case he must deal with a good deal that affected Lord Alfred Douglas, who was not a party to these proceedings and could not give evidence.

A Juror: He could be here.'

His lordship said: He could not volunteer himself. He was anxious in the case of a young man like this to say nothing that might help to blast his career in life, but that did not in the least relieve him from the necessity of investigating the facts of this case. With regard to these charges the defendant was entitled to the full benefit of the observation that these matters were alleged to have taken place two or three years ago, but they must not forget that these charges had grown out of the writing of these letters to this young man. It was a matter for the grave consideration of the jury as to whether the letter referring to the madness of kissing pointed to unclean relations and appetites on both sides. It was Lord Alfred Douglas who sent Wood to the defendant. The case as to Wood seemed to him to depend upon what they thought was the character of the original introduction, whether it was stamped with charity, kindness, and good will, or whether it was for a wicked purpose.

The Foreman of the Jury: The jury are very anxious to know whether, in view of the intimacy between Lord Alfred Douglas and Wood, a warrant for the arrest of Lord Alfred Douglas was ever issued.

His Lordship: I should think not.

The Foreman: Or was ever contemplated?

His Lordship: That I cannot say.

The jury wish to know whether, if they deduce guilt from these letters, it will affect Lord Alfred Douglas as well as the defendant?

His Lordship said he thought the receipt of these letters and the continued intimacy was as damaging to the reputation of the recipient as of the sender, but that had nothing to do with the present inquiry. The question was whether guilt was brought home to the man in the dock.

At this point the court adjourned for luncheon.

On the Court resuming, his Lordship again referred to Lord Alfred Douglas, who, he said, if guilty, would not be spared because he was Lord Alfred Douglas. As to whether he would be tried he knew nothing. It be there was no evidence against him. The question before the jury was whether the man in the dock was guilty.

His Lordship concluded summing-up at 3.30 and the jury retired.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty.

The Judge characterised the offence as the worst that had ever come under his notice, and sentenced both Taylor and Wilde to two years' hard labour each. (Crimes of "Shame.")

Wilde appeared stunned, and was hurried to the cells.

Mr. Justice Wills attended at the Old Bailey on Wednesday to hear the second trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor on the charges of gross indecency and offences against the Criminal Law Amendment Act, with regard to which the jury at the last session disagreed.

On the application of Sir E. Clarke it was agreed to take the cases separately, Taylor's first, and after hearing the evidence,

The jury stated that they found a verdict of "guilty" on the count alleging indecency against Taylor with Charles Parker, and also upon the count charging him with indecency with William Parker.

At his Lordship's direction they gave a verdict of "guilty" on the count charging Taylor with procuring Wood, and they were discharged from giving a verdict on the counts for procuring the two Parkers.

His Lordship postponed sentence upon Taylor.

WILDE AGAIN IN THE DOCK

It does not often happen to anyone to make [...] at the Old Bailey at three consecutive sessions before three different Judges. It was, therefore, quite in accordance with Mr. Oscar Wilde's boast of not posing as being ordinary that he should achieve this extraordinary distinction. On Wednesday morning he surrendered to his bail for re-trial before Mr. Justice Wills and a new jury.

Wilde looked haggard and ill, and his hair, which has a slight natural wave, and is usually parted neatly from the middle, was in some disorder. Being called upon to surrender, he

STEPPED HEAVILY INTO THE DOCK

and sat down in the corner furthest from the jury, where he anxiously gnawed his fingers or played nervously with his suede gloves.

The Clerk of Arraigns having instructed the usher to "swear the jury for a misdemeanour," read out the indictment. It is now short and simple enough, alleging that the prisoner unlawfully committed various acts with Charles Parker, Alfred Wood, certain persons unknown, and Edward Shelley. "To this indictment the prisoner pleads "'Not guilty,'" the Clerk added.

OPENING THE CASE

The Solicitor-General embarked at once upon his opening of the case to the jury. The defendant was charged, he said, with offences against the Criminal Law Amendment Act, between February 20, 1892, and October 22, 1893. He then dealt with the charges in chronological order.

SHELLEY IN THE BOX

Mr. Gill called for Edward Shelley, and the gaunt young bookseller stalked into the witness-box. He deposed that he was only seventeen when he first went to the Bodley Head, and this accounted for the modest amount of his pay, which at first was only 15s. a week. he first dined with Wilde at the Albemarle Hotel, in a public room. He was afterwards asked to stay all night, and shared Wilde's bed.

QUEENSBERRY ARRIVES

While the witness was giving his evidence Lord Queensberry arrived from Marlborough-street flushed with haste--and victory--and was allowed to take a seat at the end of the juridical bench. As he stared across at the prisoner he smiled broadly.

SHELLY CROSS-EXAMINED

At noon Sir Edward Clarke rose to cross-examine Shelley. He elicited that the witness's close intimacy with Wilde only lasted three months, and terminated nine or ten months before he left the employment of Mathews and Lane. In March 1893, he went to see Wilde at the Savoy Hotel, where they quarrelled, and after that visit he wrote to Wilde that he would not see him again. Wilde replied to the effect that had the witness written that letter some months earlier it would have stung him; but coming as it did, when he was flushed with the first success of "A Woman of No Importance," he did not feel it so much.

At the police-court the witness had said it was at the end of 1893 or early in 1894 that he quarrelled with Wilde. he could not now remember whether he did not also say that impropriety only took place on one occasion. Now he speaks of two. On the first occasion he was

NOT QUITE SOBER

He was excited, but not drunk. If he had realized what was going to happen he would have rejected it.

Then, why did you go there again? - I was weak, of course.

Within what space of time did these two incidents take place? - Within a week.

Did you think Mr. Wilde had also had too much to drink? - No.

Then it did not seem to you an accidental occurrence? - No.

I WAS ENTRAPPED

He knew I admired him very much, and he took advantage of me--of my admiration, and of--I won't say innocence--I don't know what to call it.

Has Wilde ever given you money? - Yes, long afterwards.

Not as the price of consenting to this? - No.

Witness had read a good deal of the lighter forms of literature--dramatic and poetic, and had written a few things. Mr. Wilde used to ask him to let him see them, but witness thought they were too poor to show to him.

The witness's attitude towards Wilde in the early period of their acquaintance may be judged from the following letter:--

Sunday evening, Feb. 21, 1892.

Dear Mr. Oscar Wilde, -- I must again thank you for "The House of Pomegranates" [a book of stories which the witness parenthetically exclaimed were "not fit for children"] and the theatre ticket. It was very good of you to send them to me, and I shall never forget your kindness. What a triumph was yours last night [the first night of "Lady Windermere's Fan."] The play is the best I have seen on the stage, with such beauty of form and wit that it adds a new phase of pleasure to existence. Could Lady Blessington live anew, the conversations would make her jealous, George Meredith might have signed it. How miserably poor everything seems beside it! Except, of course, your books. But then your books are a part of yourself.

Again, on 27 Oct., 1892, the witness wrote:--

My Dear Oscar, -- Will you be at home on Sunday evening next? I am most anxious to see you. I would have called this evening, but I am suffering from nervousness, the result of insomnia, and am obliged to remain at home. I have longed to see you all through the week. I have much to tell you. Do not think me forgetful, in not coming before, because I shall never forget your kindness, and am conscious that I can never sufficiently express my thankfulness.

"Now, Mr. Shelley," said Sir Edward Clarke, "do you mean to tell the jury that, having in your mind that this man had behaved disgracefully towards you, you wrote this letter?"

"Yes," the witness replied, "because after these two occurrences he treated me very well. He

SEEMED REALLY SORRY

for what he had done. He introduced me to his wife. I dined with them twice and he seemed to take a real interest in me." It further appeared that Wilde offered the witness $100 to enable him to go away and study, but that he refused it.

Mr. Lane, his employer, had also offered to help the witness, but he scornfully refused even this assistance, and in hysterical letters to Wilde talked about "the brutal insults of Vigo-st." He babbled about his "horrible harsh existence," and after leaving the Bodley Head for a clerkship in the City, wrote of resigning this, and going down to live in Chelsea "and read with a coach in the evening." Again he wrote--

Oscar, -- I want to go away and rest somewhere--I think in Cornwall for two weeks. I am determined to live a truly Christian life, and I accept poverty as part of my religion. But I must have health. I have so much to do for my mother.

"What had you to do for your mother?" asked Sir Edward Clarke, and there was one of the laughs which have been so rare during the case when the witness replied, "I pay for my keep," which Sir Edward suggested was more like doing something for himself. The witness has a brother who is "permanently unwell."

"Is his mind disordered?" asked Sir Edward; and the witness replied, "Yes."

In the letter to Wilde Shelley spoke of his employer, Lane as a "viper."

Why a viper, Mr. Shelley? - I ought not to have used the word. I was angry with him.

Angry about what? - Mr. Lane had tried to make me break off my acquaintance with Mr. Wilde.

That is, Mr. Lane had offered to find you money to enable you to change your place of employment in order to get you out of the way of Wilde? - Yes.

You ought to have been glad and grateful to Mr. Lane, for you knew then what kind of man Wilde was? - Yes, but--

Why weren't you? - It was human nature, I suppose, feeling.

"Your human nature!" interjected Sir Edward Clarke, with emphasis.

Several other letters were subjected to an examination of this kind, apparently to show that Shelley either was untruthful or subject to hallucinations. Shelley admitted that at time he was mentally ill through overstudy.

In January last Shelley assaulted his father, he said, and was locked up. When he was arrested he sent Wilde to bail him out. He was not in his sound mind that day. "I certainly could not have been sane," said Shelley, "to assault my father."

ALFRED WOOD'S EVIDENCE.

After luncheon Alfred Wood was called, and, as on other occasions, gave his evidence almost in a whisper. Wood's acquaintance with Taylor and Wilde was again narrated. Wood is the youth for whose voyage to America Wilde found the money.

CHARLES PARKER

Charles Parker was then called, and , examined Mr. Gill, proceeded to repeat his already oft-repeated story.

Sir Edward Clarke's first question in cross-examination was: Are you the Charles Parker who got £30 as blackmail from a gentleman who committed an indecent practice with you? The question brought forth the bold admission that the witness was the same Parker.

Where did those practices take place? - At my place, 7, Camera-square.

Wood had given the place of the infamy as at his chambers, 10 Regent-street, so that the two witnesses here contradicted each other.

The case was adjourned.

When Wilde was called upon to surrender on Thursday, he stumbled on mounting the steps leading to the deck, and seemed weak and uncertain on his feet. His fixed attitude when he wedged himself in the angle of the deck, with his head resting heavily on his right hand, bespoke unutterable weariness.

WITNESS TO CORROBORATE.

The first witness was William Parker, a dull-looking young fellow in a brown tweed suit, the elder brother of Charles Parker. His examination-in-chief was not a long business. He could only say that Taylor invited himself and his brother to dine with Wilde at Kettner's, that the dinner was a particularly good one, and that after dinner Wilde took Charles Parker at the Savoy Hotel.

"Did you know your brother was going there for an indecent purpose?" asked Sir Edward Clarke to cross-examination, and the witness replied, "That is what Taylor gave us to understand."

Did you hear such a proposal made to your brother and not interfere to prevent it? - No, I didn't then.

Had you intended to do the same sort of thing yourself? - Yes, perhaps.

EVIDENCE OF SAVOY SERVANTS.

Then came a branch of the case on which the prosecution seemed inclined to rely largely. Mr. C. F. Gill called the bookkeeper of the Savoy Hotel to produce the records of Wilde's stay there in March, 1893, and then examined the hotel servants as to things seen and heard in his rooms. Jane Cotter, a chambermaid, deposed that at first Wilde occupied bedroom No. 362, Lord Alfred Douglas occupying No.361, which adjoined the other chamber. She found it necessary to call the attention of Mrs. Perkins, the housekeeper, to the conditions of Wilde's bed. On the third morning of his study, about eleven o'clock, Wilde rang the housemaid's bell. She met him in the doorway of No. 361, and he told her he wanted a fire in his own room, No. 362. There she saw a boy eighteen or nineteen years of age, with dark, close cropped hair, and a sallow complexion. Some days later Lord Alfred Douglas left the hotel, and Wilde then removed into rooms in the front of the hotel.

Cross-examined by Sir Edward Clarke, the Witness said the condition of the room was much worse on the first two nights Wilde was there subsequently.

Why do you wear eyeglasses? - Because my sight is bad. Do you use those when you are about your work? - No.

Witness said, in reply to further questions, she found it unnecessary to put them on to recognize anyone.

Re-examined by Mr. Gill, she said she had distinctly seen what she alleged in her examination-in-chief.

While Alice Saunders, another chambermaid, was corroborating the evidence

LORD DOUGLAS OF HAWICK

came into court looking rather blue and puffy about the eyes, and stood for some minutes in front of the dock talking with a representative of Wilde's solicitors. Alice Saunders said she had her attention called to the state of Wilde's room by the previous witness and she described the condition in which she had found it.

Antonio Miggs, a masseur employed at the Savoy Hotel, repeated his evidence that he, too, had seen a boy in Wilde's room. In cross-examination he could not remember whether the boy he saw was fair or dark.

Emil Becca, the dark young waiter from the Savoy Hotel, who was first called as a witness on Monday in the case against Taylor, repeated his evidence that while Wilde was staying in the hotel he had seen young men in his rooms. He had probably seen about five young men in all. He had taken champagne and whiskeys and sodas to the bedroom and seen yong men there, and after Wilde had the sitting-room in the front of the hotel he had served them a supper of cold fowl and champagne for Wilde and a dark young man.

Mrs. Perkins, who now lives at Southsea, was called to prove that in 1893 she was

HOUSEKEEPER AT THE SAVOY

Hotel, and that her attention was called by the housemaids at the time to the condition of Wilde's room. To further prove the intimacy between Wilde and Parker, Mrs. Margery Dancroft's deposed that while the latter was living at Park Walk, Chelsea, in the spring of 1893, she saw Wilde come there in a cab one night, and the two go away together. Taylor lived close by, at Chapel-place, and was constantly in and out of Parker's lodging.

Cross-examined, the Witness became less confident that Parker went away with Wilde. She saw the prisoner get into the cab, and she knew Parker did not return into the house.

Just after noon Lord Queensberry arrived with a yellow rose in his button-hole and carrying his silk hat on the head of his umbrella. He nodded familiarly to acquaintances in the reserved enclosure--the cynosure of all eyes. Judge and stewards took no notice and, after one indifferent stare, Wilde returned to his languid contemplation of the witness.

Soon after three o'clock the reading of evidence in the Queensberry trial was finished, and with it the case for the prosecution.

His Lordship said that with regards to Shelley he was very clearly of opinion that he must be regarded on his own evidence, as an accomplice, and his evidence should be corroborated. It seemed to him that there was nothing of the kind here. Shelley's own letters to Wile were rather against the supposition, and his lordship felt it his duty to withdraw that part of the case from the jury.

Excitement in court was intense when his Lordship intimated his intention of withdrawing from the jury the Shelley case.

CASE FOR THE DEFENCE.

On Friday Sir Edward Clarke opened the case for the defence. "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 these accusations which are made against him. When he has given that evidence, and when he has been cross-examined, the case 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 Sir F. Lockwood's conduct of the prosecution. "I had the honour," he said, "to hold the office of Solicitor-General, which he now holds, for a longer period than any man has held it during the last hundred years, and having been Solicitor-General for six years, it is not likely that I, at any place or time, will speak lightly of the responsibilities of that office. While he said these things without the least unfriendliness of feeling towards the 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 and 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 fearing 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 inviduous 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.

WILDE IN THE BOX.

Wilde was called at then minutes past eleven, and at Sir Edward Clarke's request was allowed to be seated in the witness-box. 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 on the accusations made against you in this indictment?"

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

CROSS-EXAMINATION.

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 Marquis 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 the 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 style in which you addressed Lord Alfred Douglas?"

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

Asked as to his choice of the words "My own 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 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.

And do you consider that decent? - It was an attempt to write a prose poem in a 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 men? - 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 a bow).

"Dearest of all 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 £40."

That, I suppose is true--that is not poetry? - 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.

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 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 refer 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 these two letters you have read.

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

And as to the establishment he maintained at 13, Little College-street? - 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 more than five 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 of the young men he met at Taylor's rooms. He said he only

WENT THERE TO TEA PARTIES

lasting half 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 him very bright.

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

Had any of these 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 necessary to conclude there was anything criminal. It was unusual. I don't believe anything criminal took place between Taylor and those 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 opinion 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, yes. 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; "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 these boys? - Yes.

I WAS FOND OF PRAISE.

I liked to be lionized and made much of.

By these boys? - Yes.

Whose very name 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 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 younger men, that would be out of the question. Otherwise I don't see what capacity I have for influencing people.

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 dinners 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.

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

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

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 scents and---f--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.

It is true that when you met Parker in Trafalgar-square you used the word, "You look 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.

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.

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 ambition to go to go to sea, and whose mother was a widow, and let lodgings.

The witness brought him a suit of blue serge, and to amuse him took him for a twenty-four 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 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 Café 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 Café Royal. He had been asked to assist him, and took him to supper at the Florence. He had already supped himself.

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

Did you know he came from 13, Little College-street? - No, I did not know that. He told me he was a clerk, out of employment, and was anxious to find employment. I could not do that, but I gave him money.

Why should he be sent to you for money? - The money was not really from me, but was from Lord Alfred Douglas, who was at Salisbury.

There are such things as postal orders, I believe? - Yes.

The Solicitor-General passed rapidly forward to the time at which Taylor told Wilde that Wood wished to go to America and Wilde learned, through

AN ANONYMOUS LETTER,

that his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas had fallen into Wood's hands, and that he was to be blackmailed about them. Wilde went to Sir George Lewis, and then Taylor came to him with a story that Wood was very much distressed and concerned and arranged the meeting at Little College-street. The Witness stated that Wood gave him the letters as soon as he entered the room. They were letters of no importance.

Where are they? - Oh, I tore them up.

He then gave Wood £15, but it was not as the price of the letters. He had gone prepared to bargain for them if they were worth buying back.

To bargain for what? - For these letters.

And you took money with you for the purpose? - Yes.

And you got the letter? - Yes.

And gave him luncheon and an additional sum of £5 the following day? - Yes.

Passing the Savoy Hotel evidence, the Solicitor-General asked if it was true that the masseur and the chambermaid saw boys in the witness's room. "Entirely untrue," he replied. "No one was there."

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

You answer also that the chambermaid's statement is untrue? - Absolutely.

RE-EXAMINED.

After luncheon Sir Edward Clarke re-examined Wilde. The early part of the question were as to the technicalities touching the Queensberry trial.

On the cross-examination of yourself in the Queensberry trial, a name was written on paper as the name of the person who introduced Taylor to you. Was that person whose name was then suppressed Mr. Schwartz? - Yes.

Is Mr.Schwartz a gentleman of wealth and position? - Yes.

Taylor was well educated and a clever musician? - A very clever musician. He used to sing and play a great deal at his rooms.

Had you any idea at that time of your acquaintance with Taylor that he was a man addicted to improper practices? - I had no conception whatever--no conception whatever of anything of the kind.

Had you any interest in Wood beyond the fact of Lord Alfred Douglas knowing him? - None, except that Lord Alfred Douglas asked me to take an interest in the young man and be kind to him.

When Wood brought the letters to you did he attempt to get money from you for them? - No. He at once handed me the letters, and said he highly regretted I should have thought him capable of trying to blackmail me.

Is it then positively untrue that you gave Wood £15 for the letters? - I would not have given him fifteen pence for them. They were of no importance.

Was there anything in them you would object to have known? - There may be people who would regard some of the words of the letter as frivolous, but then (Wilde waved his gloves to and fro with a gesture of disregard for the people there may be) there was nothing in the letters. They were of no importance.

This concluded the examination of Wilde, who returned to the dock obviously feeling that he had gone through a troublesome experience with less annoyance than he had anticipated.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE'S SPEECH.

Sir Edward Clarke began his address to the jury by holding out the olive branch to the Solicitor-General. "Having in my mind, he said, "the observations which under some stress of feeling I made in the early part of the day, I may state at the outset that I recognise the

ADMIRABLE FAIRNESS

with which the Solicitor-General cross-examined Mr. Wilde. And if earlier in the day I was moved by what I am glad to think I then described as the momentary forgetfulness of my learned friend yesterday to expressions which sounded hostile in regard to him, he will let me say at once in the frankest manner that the way in which he has cross-examined absolutely destroys any suggestion which might have lain in my words." Then Counsel dwelt upon the fact that Wilde had invited publicity by his actions against the Marquis of Queensberry, and that the statements made by him under cross-examination in that action remained--with one small exception--uncontradicted by independent witnesses. A vigorous denunciation of the blackmailing practices of Charles Parker and Wood followed, with a severe reference to the tender care taken of these witnesses by the Crown.

SPEECH FOR THE PROSECUTION.

Sir F.Lockwood then addressed the Court on behalf of the Crown, and described Sir E. Clarke's defence as a brilliant one. Turning to the hardship said to have been inflicted on Wilde in being cross-examined three times, the Solicitor-General argued that so far from being places at a disadvantage, there were good grounds for coming to the conclusion that he was now better fitted and readier with his answers than before. It was only upon the evidence he asked the jury to condemned the accused ; but they could not appreciate that evidence until they knew what manner of man he was they were dealing with. Who were his associates? He was a man of culture and literary tastes; and counsel submitted that they ought to have been his equals and not these illiterate boys.

YESTERDAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

The interest centered in the trial of Oscar Wilde at the Old Bailey yesterday was greater than ever when Sir Frank Lockwood rose to finish his speech.

When Wilde made his appearance he was accompanied by Lord Douglas of Hawick, who sat at the solicitor's table; while the other surety--the Rev. Stewart Headlam--was also in court; Lord Queensberry, as usual, occupied a seat near the bench.

When Wilde entered the dock his appearances fully justified the words used by Sir Edward Clarke the previous day--"Broken as he is, worn as he is."

Sir Frank and Sir Edward were in conflict almost directly after the former had resumed his address. Sir Edward objected to a reference to the intimate association between Wilde and Taylor.

Sir Frank Lockwood: What are the badges of intimate friendship? Is he not a great friend on his own confession? Does not Oscar say to Taylor, "Bring your friends, they are my friends? I will not inquire whether they come from the stable or the kitchen?" No doubt my learned friend desires now to disconnect them. He wishes, as a result of this trial, that one should be condemned and the other left free to continue his grand literary career.

Sir Edward Clarke: I protest.

Sir F. Lockwood: My friend hopes to preserve Wilde by means of a false glamour of art.

Sir E. Clarke: My lord, I must protest against this line of argument.

Sir Edward Clarke: My lord. I most strongly protest against the line the learned Solicitor-General is taking.

Sir Frank Lockwood: You may protest----

His Lordship: So far no mention has been made of the verdict in the other trial.

Sir Edward contented himself here with muttering that they ought to have been tried in their proper order.

Sir Frank Lockwood, continuing, referred to the relations of Wilde with Lord Alfred Douglas, and to the history of the blackmail which the letters which Wilde wrote to Lord Alfred had made possible.

Passing on to allude to the "madness of kissing" letter, the Solicitor-General contended that such a letter found in the possession of a woman from a man would be taken to prove a guilty passion. How much worse was the inference to be drawn when such a letter was written by one man to another. It had been attempted to show that this was "a prose poem, a sonnet, a lovely thing," which I suppose we are too low to appreciate. Let us thank God, if it is so, that we do not appreciate things of this sort save at their proper level, and that is somewhat lower than the beasts. The Solicitor-General then proceeded to deal with Sir Edward Clarke's conduct of the former trial, and a reference to his "candour" provoked a laugh from the public gallery.

His Lordship admonished the crowd. "These interruptions," he said, "are offensive to me beyond anything that can be described. To have to try a case of this kind, to keep the scales even, and do one's duty is hard enough, but to be pestered with the applause or expressions of feeling of senseless people who have no business to be there at all except for the gratification of morbid curiosity is too much. If there is anything of the kind again I shall clear the court."

The Solicitor-General presently alluded to the witnesses Parker and Wood. His learned friend had said they were blackmailers, and had warned the jury against giving a verdict which should enable this detestable trade to rear its head unblushingly in this city. "Gentlemen," he continued, "I should have as much right to ask you to take care lest by your verdict you should enable another vice, as detestable, as abominable, to rear its head with unblushing effrontery in this city. The genesis of the blackmailer is the man who has committed these acts of indecency with him. And the genesis of the man who commits these foul acts is the man who is

WILLING TO PAY

for their commission. Were it not that there are men willing to purchase vice in this most hideous and detestable form there would be no market for such crime, and no opening for these blackmailers to ply their calling." With regard to the Savoy Hotel charges, why, he asked, was Lord Alfred Douglas, who occupied a room adjoining that of Wilde, not called to contradict the evidence of the chambermaid? In conclusion, he appealed to the jury to do their duty in this case without being influenced by considerations of the literary past or the literary future of Oscar Wilde.

THE JUDGE SUMS UP.

At half-past twelve Mr. Justice Wills began his summing up. Pointing out to the jury that their duty was "the cold, calm, resolute administration of justice," he said he would himself rather try the most shocking murder that it had ever fallen to his lot to try than be engaged in a case like this. It might be thought that the difficulty and distress of dealing with it would be increased by the position and education of the person accused. His lordship could not say that his own difficulty or sense of responsibility was increased by that consideration. Whatever might be the guilt or innocence of the accused, his conduct had been such, particularly with regard to Lord Alfred Douglas, that it would be impossible for twelve intelligent, impartial, and honest gentlemen to say there was no good ground for an indignant father to charge him with having posed as the Marquis of Queensberry had suggested. His Lordship continued that in his opinion that conspiracy charges should never have been introduced at the last trial, and the joining of the charges against the two prisoners of itself.

JUSTIFIED THE DISAGREEMENT OF THE JURY.

As to the present trial, he would have preferred to try the prisoners in a different order, but he did not think the defendant had suffered by the course taken by the Solicitor-General. It was impossible in dealing with Wood's case to avoid dealing also with Lord Alfred Douglas. He was not here, and it must be remembered in his favour that if neither side called him he could not volunteer himself as a witness. His Lordship was also anxious not to say anything to blast the career of a young man on the threshold of life. His family seemed to be a house divided against itself. But even if there was no filial love or parental affection, even if there was nothing but hatred between father and son, what father would not try to save his son from the association suggested but the two letters from the prisoner to Lord Alfred Douglas? His Lordship would avoid saying whether these letters seemed to point to actual criminal conduct or not. Suppose that they were

PROSE POEMS,

suppose that they were things of which the intellectual and literary value could only be appreciated by persons of high culture, were they the less poisonous for a young man? It was strange that it should not occur to a gentleman capable of writing such letters that any young man to whom they were addressed must suffer in the estimation of everybody if it were known. Lord Queensberry seemed to have taken a method of interfering which his lordship would have thought no gentleman would have taken in leaving at the defendant's club a card containing a most offensive expression. It was a message which left the defendant no alternative but to prosecute or to be publicly branded as a man who could not deny a foul charge.

Lord Queensberry found some of these expressions so little to his taste that he presently got up and

LEFT THE COURT.

His Lordship went on to speak of the ill-assorted friendship between Lord Alfred Douglas and Wood, whom he introduced to Wilde, and to whom he gave a suit of clothes containing the "madness of kissing" letter. His lordship found it more understandable that a lad like Wood should be given cast-off clothes than silver cigarette cases. His lordship had no doubt that the "red rose-leaf lips" letter was the worst of the bundle which fell into the hands of the blackmailers, but he regarded it as highly unfortunate that the others should have been destroyed. If they were indeed harmless, as the defendant had said, they would have been an answer to this charge.

A QUESTION FROM THE JURY BOX.

The Foreman of the Jury interposed with the question: "In view of the intimacy between Lord Alfred Douglas and Would, was a warrant ever issued for the apprehension of Lord Alfred Douglas?"

His Lordship replied, "I should think not. We have not heard of it."

"Was it ever contemplated?" asked the Foreman, and his Lordship in many words said he did not know. A warrant would, in any case, not be issued without evidence of some fact, of something more than mere intimacy.

The Foreman: It seems to us that if we adduce any guild from these letters if applies as much to Lord Alfred Douglas as to the defendant.

His Lordship: Quite so; but does that relieve the defendant? Our present inquiry is whether guilt is brought home to the man in the dock.

The Court adjourned for half and hour for lunch.

THE JUDGE DOESN'T KNOW.

After lunch his lordship returned to this subject. There was a natural disposition, he said, to ask. "Why should this man stand in the dock and not Lord Alfred Douglas?" But the supposition that Lord Alfred Douglas would be in any way spared because he was Lord Alfred Douglas was one of the wildest injustice--the thing was utterly and hopelessly impossible. Lord Alfred Douglas, as they well knew, went to Paris with the present defendant. There he had stayed, and his lordship knew absolutely nothing more about him. He was as ignorant in this respect as the jury. It might be that there was no evidence against Lord Alfred Douglas, but even about that he knew nothing. It was a thing they could not discuss, and to entertain any such consideration as he had mentioned would be prejudice of the worst possible kind.

Come to the evidence of Margery Bancroft, the Judge pointed out that if anything could be found against her it would have been found by the defence. The Jury were therefore, to recognize that she was not a street-walker not a disreputable woman, and that she had been eight years in her situation. Her evidence was good, because it was difficult to see any wrong motive that she could have in coming forward to blast the reputation of a man. But the evidence of the Savoy servants after a long lapse of time must not be entirely rolled upon. If a servant noticed anything wrong and said nothing about it for two years, he would not consider that as evidence upon which he would hang a dog. Nor must it be presumed that the mere act of two men sleeping together was to be punished. Poverty and misery frequently compelled this to happen, and even men and women to sleep together promiscuously. God forbid that he should say that this in itself was to be considered a serious crime. But when they came to a man who was spending £40 a week, it was natural to ask why he did not offer another room to his guest.

The Judge went on to express a wish that medical evidence had been called. It was a loathsome subject, but he made a point of never shrinking from details that were absolutely necessary. This medical evidence would have thrown light on what had been alluded to as marks of grease or vaseline smears. Then, with reference to the condition of the bed, there was the diarrhoea line of defence. That story he was not able to appreciate. He had tried many other similar cases, but he had never heard this before. It struck him as being possible, but more than anything else, it impressed him with the importance of medical evidence in such a case, which evidence, unfortunately, they had not had. The worst state of the sheets was not alleged on the night the boy was said to have been seen by the chambermaid in the bed. There was the same sort of thing, said the woman, but not so bad.

As for the matron, the Judge pointed out that she had admitted that Cotter, the chambermaid, had made communication to her. He considered that if she was informed of the condition of the room, and of the boy being seen in the bed, and if she yet took no steps to prevent such a thing in the future, she was liable to become an accessory before the fact in the event of its being repeated It was a condition of things one shuddered to contemplate in a first-class hotel, and if it could be assumed that such practices could be tolerated with a man who, it seemed, was running up a bill of £50 a week, then it would look almost as if we were coming to state of society when it would be possible to have a magnificently-built place of accommodation on the Thames Embankment.

The Judge concluded by thanking the counsel for their assistance and the jury for their patience.

THE JURY RETIRE.

The jury retired at 3.30, and the court was immediately filled with a hum of conversation. Lord Douglas of Hawick and Mr. Stewart Headlam left at the same time as Wilde descended the steps. It was understood that the boy witnesses were outside in waiting, but they did not appear in the court. About five o'clock the jury sent for some water, and again, at 5.20, for ink and paper. This caused one of the barristers in court to audibly observe, "They have used all their ink."

At 5.25 the jury sent a note to the Judge, who returned into court at once. The jury also trooped in and Wilde came up into the dock and leaned forward with his arms upon the woodwork in front. It appeared that the jury wanted the Judge to read over to them his notes about the waiter. Thomas Price, who had been at St. James's-place. This evidence was to the effect that Alfred Taylor had visited that address once, that Charles Parker had been five or six times, and that he (Price) had served tea to them.

The Foreman: Is there any evidence of Charles Parker having stayed there?

The Judge: No.

It seemed at first as if the jury intended to declare their verdict at once. They stood together in a group, craning their necks over in order to speak to one another. But after a few minute, the Foreman said, "My lord, you will excuse us for a moment." The jury then left again, and Wilde also disappeared.

VERDICT.

The jury came back, however, after a interval of a short duration, and the foreman stood up to declare the verdict. There was perfect silence throughout the building. Wilde was standing up for the first time during the day; his appearance was one of great dejection, though there was not the slightest sign of any animation in his face.

The verdict was "Guilty" --(some applause in court)--guilty on every count save that referring to Edward Shelley-guilty with Charles Parker four times over-guilty with Alfred Wood-guilty with a person unknown at Room 346 at the Savoy-guilty with a person unknown at another room in the same hotel.

Taylor was suddenly seen by those in court to be standing alongside Wilde. The Judge was about to pass sentence, when Sir Edward Clarke rose and asked that sentence should be postponed to next sessions in order that a certain matter might be argued before the Court of Crown Cases Reserved.

Sir F. Lockwood objected to this.

The Judge said he hardly understood the point, and Sir Edward explained that he alluded to the demurrer he had raised before the trial commenced.

The objection had been turned against the indictment because the case combined charges of conspiracy with charges under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In the latter case, the defendant could be put in the witness-box and in the former case could not.

Sir Frank Lockwood: Sentence can be passed without prejudicing the argument before that Court.

The Judge: Of the correctness of the indictment I have myself no doubt. But, in any case, my passing sentence will not interfere with the arguing of the point raised, and I think it my duty to pass sentence at once.

SENTENCES.

The Judge, in sentencing the prisoners, then said: Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor, the crime of which you have been convicted is so bad that one has to put stern constraint upon one's self to prevent one's self from describing in language which I would rather not use the sentiments which must rise to the breast of every man of honour who has heard the details of these two terrible trials. That the jury have arrived at a correct verdict in this case I cannot persuade myself to entertain the shadow of a doubt, and I hope at all events that those who sometimes imagine that a Judge is half-hearted in the cause of decency and morality because he takes care that no prejudice shall enter into the case, may see that what is consistent at least with a stern cause of indignation at the horrible crimes which have been brought home to both of you. It is of no use for me to address you. People who can do these things must be dead to all sense of shame, and one cannot hope to produce any effect upon them. It is the worst case I ever tried. That you, Taylor, kept a kind of male brothel it is impossible to doubt. I cannot in such circumstances do anything except pass the severest sentence which the law allows--in my judgment totally inadequate to such a case as this. The sentence of the Court is that each of you be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two years.

When the Judge finished speaking there was an immediate haze of excited comments in every part of the court. Journalists rushed out with the news, flimsies and messages were passed from hand to hand over the heads of the people in the gangways and corridors. There was sone applause, but very little. On the other hand the word "Shame" was cried out, here and there, in different quarters. The sentence had no more effect upon Taylor apparently than had any of the previous episodes in this sensational trial. But on Wilde it was evident that the blow fell as a final climax to a prolonged series of most painful sufferings. He stood upright in an attitude not without dignity, and appeared to desire to speak. Then an officer on each side of him offered him their assistance, and taking him gently by the arms, led him to the top of the stairs descending to the cells. The moment they took their hands away from the sleeves of his coat, instead of stepping down at once, he turned round and again faced the court. "Surely he is going to say something" must have been the thought of most of the spectators. But no ! Turning again to the steps, he went down with a heavy tread and, seemingly, in a half-dazed condition.

Both Wilde and Taylor were conveyed without delay to Newgate Gaol, where they waited for the warrants to be signed for their detention. They were then conveyed in the prison van to Pentonville Prison, where their sentences will be undergone, providing the men are not transferred to another establishment before their time expires.