Compare Documents

LONDON, April 4.

The Central Criminal Court was again filled to its utmost capacity this morning, when the trial of the Marquis of Queensberry for libelling Mr. Oscar Wilde was resumed. All the windows in the court were wide open, but even this did not suffice to clear away the stuffy atmosphere which always seems to pervade the building. The public galleries were filled with persons having privilege passes, and these, it was understood, consisted almost entirely of friends of the parties in the case.

Mr. Wilde entered the court at a quarter-past 10, and taking his seat at the end of the solicitors' table, engaged in an animated conversation with Mr. Charles Mathews, one of his counsel. Some few minutes later Mr. Carson and Mr. Gill, who appeared for the defendant, made their way to the counsel's seat. They were soon afterwards followed by the Marquis of Queensberry, who walked into the dock and took his stand with the same air of self-composure as marked his conduct yesterday. He was again attired in a dark blue overcoat, and carried in his hand his small felt hat. Mr. Justice Henn Collins, the judge, took his seat at 10.30. He was accompanied by Mr. Sheriff Samuel and several Aldermen.

Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared to prosecute; while Mr. Carson, Q.C., Mr. C. F. Gill, and Mr. A. Gill (instructed by Mr. Charles Russell) represented the Marquis of Queensbury; Mr. Besley, Q.C., with Mr. Monckton, watching the proceedings on behalf of Lord Douglas of Hawick, the eldest son of the Marquis.

Mr. Oscar Wilde again went, into the witness-box, and his cross-examination by Mr. Carson was continued. Replying to questions, witness said he had continued on intimate terms with Taylor down to the present time, and it was he who arranged the interview with Wood relating to the letters at Great College-street. He used to visit witness at his house, his chambers, and at the Savoy. Witness used to go to afternoon tea-parties at Taylor's lodgings. He did not know whether he did his own cooking, but there would be nothing wrong in that.

Mr. Carson: Have I suggested anything wrong? No, but cooking is an art. Another art? Yes. Were the rooms luxurious? The place was furnished with more than usual taste. Was it not luxurious? No, I said in good taste. I thought them most pretty rooms.

Witness denied that day and night the rooms were lighted with candles and gas, and that heavy double curtains were always drawn over the windows.

Were the rooms strongly perfumed? Yes; I have known him to burn perfumes in his rooms. I burn perfumes in my rooms.

Did you see Wood there at tea? No; except on the occasion referred to. I have seen Sydney Mavor there. He was a friend of mine, but I have not the remotest idea where he is now. Have you had any communication with him? Yes; last Sunday I got Taylor to go to his mother's house to say I wanted to see him. He was not there, and I don't know where he is. Were you told he has disappeared within the last week? No; I heard he was away. Have you found him since ? What do you mean by finding him? I object to the phrase. I have not seen him since. Answering further questions, witness said he had never seen Taylor wearing a lady's fancy costume. He had sent telegrams to Taylor. He had no business with him. Was he a literary man? He was a young man of great taste and intelligence, educated at a very good public school.

Did you discuss literary matters with him? He used to listen on the subject.

And get an intellectual treat also? Certainly. Witness said he never got him to arrange dinners for him. He had never seen Fred Atkins at Taylor's, and did not know that Taylor was being watched by the police at his rooms. He knew that Taylor and Parker, whom he also knew, were last year arrested at a house in Fitzroy-square. He had seen Parker in Taylor's rooms subsequently occupied in Chapel-street. Taylor had introduced to witness about five young men, with whom he had become friendly. He liked the society of young men.

Had any of them any occupation? That I can hardly say. Did you give money to each? Yes; I should think to all five-money or presents. Did they give you anything? Me? No. Among the five was Charles Parker? Oh, yes. Was he a gentleman's servant out of employment? I never heard that, nor should I have minded. How old was Parker? I don't keep a count. He was young, and that was one of his attractions. I have never asked him his age. I think it is rather vulgar to do so, (Laughter.) Was he an educated man? Culture was not his strong point. (Laughter.) Did you ask what his previous occupation was? I never inquire about people's pasts. (Laughter.) Nor their future? Oh, that is a public matter. (Laughter.) Did you become friendly with Parker's brothers? They were my guests at table. Did you know that one was a gentleman's valet and the other a gentleman's groom? I did not know it, nor should I have cared. I do not care "tuppence" for social position. What inducement was there for you to entertain them? The pleasure of being with those who are young, bright, happy, careless, and original. I do not like the sensible, and I do not like the old.

In the course of further cross-examination, the witness said: "Charley", Parker did not accompany me to the Savoy Hotel, and I strongly deny that there has been any misconduct between us. From October, 1893, to April, 1894, I had rooms in St. James's-place. Taylor wrote to me while I was staying there, telling me that Parker was in town, and I asked him to come and have " afternoon tea " with me. He came to see me five or six times. I liked his society. I gave him a silver cigarette case and about £3 or £4 in money.

Mr. Carson: What was there in common between you and these young men? Well, I will tell you. I like the society of people much younger than myself. I recognise no social distinctions at all. The mere effect of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk with a young man for half an hour than even be cross-examined in court. (Laughter.)

Cross-examination continued: A common boy I met in the street might be a pleasing companion. I took Parker to lunch with me at various places.

Witness went on to say that Parker had written a letter to him asking whether he might have the pleasure of dining with him that evening; and he (Mr. Wilde) was to send an answer by the messenger. The writer hoped it would be convenient "that we should spend the evening together."

Questioned with regard to "Freddy" Atkins, Mr. Wilde said he first met him at the rooms of a gentleman in a house off Regent-street. He had the charm of idleness about him, with the ambition to go on the music-hall stage.

Did he discuss literature with you? Oh, I wouldn't allow him. (Laughter.) The art of the music-hall was as far as he had got. Answering further, witness said he took Atkins over to Paris a fortnight after they met. They stayed at 29, Boulevard des Capucines, and Atkins was over there practically as his guest.

Mr. Carson: I think you told me that you heard that Parker and Taylor were arrested together? I read it in a newspaper.

Did you read that at the time they were arrested they were in company with several men in women's clothes? My recollection is that two young men in women's clothes drove up to a house of music-hall singers, and that they were arrested outside the house. I was very distressed when I saw the account of the raid in Fitzroy-square, but it made no difference in the friendship between myself and Taylor. I was not aware that one of the men was well known for his indecent practices.

Mr. Carson: If anyone says you slept in the same bed as Parker it is a mistake? Yes, an infamous lie. There was never any impropriety between himself and Atkins. He knew a young man named Scrape, who also had no occupation; he was introduced by Taylor. Witness had asked him to dine with him, and had given him a silver cigarette case. It was his usual present. The witness was then similarly cross-examined about a young man named Sydney Mayborn, to whom he also gave a silver cigarette case of the value of £4 11s. 6d. He dined with him (Mayborn) at the Albemarle Hotel, and they stayed there the night, because he liked to have people staying with him. Mayborn lived at Notting Hill. He had never taken boys into his bedroom at the Savoy. He was under the massage treatment then.

This concluded the cross-examination, and in reply to Sir E. Clarke, witness said letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry were communicated to him by the persons to whom they were addressed. These were read by counsel. The first, addressed to Lord Alfred Douglas, ran:-

"Alfred,-It is extremely painful to me to have to write to you in the strain I must, but please understand I decline to receive any answers from you in writing in return. After your previous hysterical impertinent ones, I refuse to be annoyed with such, and must ask you, if you have anything to say, to come here and say it in person. First, am I to understand that having left Oxford, as you did, with discredit to yourself, the reasons of which were fully explained to me by your tutor, you now intend to loaf and loll about and do nothing ? All the time you were wasting at Oxford I was put off with the assurance that you were eventually to go into the Civil Service or to the Foreign Office, and then I was put off by an assurance of your going to the Bar. It appears to me you intend to do nothing. . . I utterly decline, however, just to supply you with sufficient funds to loaf about. You are preparing a wretched future for yourself. . . Secondly, I come to a more painful part of this letter, your infamous intimacy with the man Wilde. It must either cease or I will disown you, and stop all money supply. I am not going to try and analyse this intimacy, and make no accusations. . . . No wonder people are talking as they are if you are seen as I saw you. Also, I now hear on good authority-but this may be false-that his wife is petitioning to divorce him. . . . Is this true, or do you not know of it ? The horror has come to my mind that it was possible you may perhaps be brought into this. If I thought the actual thing was true, and it becomes public property, I should be quite justified in shooting him at sight. . .- Your disgusted, so-called father, QUEENSBERRY."

Replying to a question, Mr. Wilde said there was not the slightest foundation for the remark as to divorce proceedings.

To the letter a telegram was sent in reply, "What a funny little man you are.-ALFRED DOUGLAS." The next letter began: "You impertinent young Jackanapes," and went on: "If you come to me with any of your impertinence, I shall give you the thrashing you richly deserve. The only excuse for you is that you must be crazy. All I can say is that if I catch you with that man again, I will make a public scandal in a way you little dream of. It is already a suppressed one. I prefer an open one."

A letter from the Marquis to Mr. Alfred Montgomery, his father-in-law, was next read:

"Sir,- ... Your daughter is the person who is supporting my son to defy me.... Last night I received a very quibbling sort of message from her, saying the boy denied having been at the Savoy for the last year.... As a matter of fact, he did so, and there has been a scandal ever since.... I saw Drumlanrig here (Maidenhead) on the river last night, which rather upset me…."

Another letter was read, and then

Sir E. Clarke asked: Having regard to the contents of those letters did you or did you not think it right to disregard the wishes referred to in them? I thought it right to entirely disregard them.

The court then adjourned for lunch.

On resuming, the court was kept waiting some 10 minutes owing to the absence of Mr. Wilde, who apologised to the judge for his lateness.

In answer to a question by Sir E. Clarke, regarding "Dorian Gray," witness said he had not "purged" or "toned down" that book for the purpose of publishing it in book form, but he had altered a certain passage which was liable to be misconstrued.

Sir Edward Clarke then read in full Mr. Wilde's letter in reply to the criticism of "Dorian Gray" which appeared in the Scots Observer. And then read again the passage from "Dorian Gray" on which Mr. Carson cross-examined Mr. Wilde yesterday afternoon, and the following passage, which, he claimed, threw an entirely different light on the whole.

Continuing, Mr. Wilde said that he first knew Alfred Taylor in October, 1892. He was introduced to him by the gentleman whose name had been written down and referred to. That gentleman was one of high position and of good repute. He had not seen him since March, 1894. He had not been in England for two years, and had not been available as a witness in this case. When he was introduced to Taylor, Taylor was living at 13, College-street. He knew nothing about Taylor having any occupation or about his means. He knew that he had been educated at Marlborough, and was a well educated and accomplished man. Neither at the time of this first meeting, nor at any time since, had he had any reason to believe that Alfred Taylor was an immoral and disreputable person. As to the arrest of Taylor and Parker the explanation which Taylor gave him was that it was a benefit concert he was attending. He was asked to play the piano, and two music-hall singers were expected to come in costume. They were not in the house; and suddenly the police entered and arrested everybody. He thought it was monstrous to blame Taylor in the matter.

Witness had been introduced to Edward Shelley by Mr. John Lane, the publisher. He found Shelley to be a young man with a great desire for culture. He had carried on conversation on literary subjects with Shelley. In February, 1892, his play "Lady Windermere's Fan" was produced. He gave Shelley a ticket for the dress-circle on the first night. On the following night he supped with some gentlemen, and he thought Mr. Edward Shelley was one of the party. Mr. Shelley was a great admirer of his (Mr. Wilde's) own works, and he gratified that appreciation by giving Shelley copies of them. He had never written an inscription in any book that he gave to Shelley which he had the smallest objection to the whole world reading. Soon after the first appearance of "Lady Windermere's Fan" he went to Paris, and after his return Shelley dined with him at Tite-street.

Mr. Wilde then left the box, and Sir E. Clarke said the evidence for the prosecution was "closed for the present"-a qualification which Mr. Carson objected to. His lordship said that, broadly put, the case for the prosecution must close now, but at his discretion he might admit some other evidence.

Mr. Carson then opened the case for the defence. The Marquis, he said, was undoubtedly, they would find, justified in the public interest, and in the interest certainly of his son, in taking the steps he had to withdraw his son from the company of Wilde. Evidence would be brought to show that these young men with whom Oscar Wilde had been associated were all men of notorious immorality. Mr. Wilde was a man with a notorious reputation, a reputation which, it would be proved, led to trouble at the Savoy Hotel. Taylor was the pivot of the case. Taylor was notoriously a disreputable man. Taylor introduced these young men, these men of art, and grooms and valets, to Wilde. Yet Taylor was not to be produced. Witnesses would be brought to describe the extraordinary den-the perfumed, ever-curtained rooms-he kept in Little College-street. This was the place where Mr. Wilde made visits to meet these young men. Witnesses would be brought to prove the fearful practices of this man, Oscar Wilde. Why was a gentleman spoken of in the case as nameless? Because the man was out of the country. (Sensation.) But Taylor was not out of the country. Taylor, who, if any man could, could speak for Mr. Wilde. And Taylor was still a friend of Wilde's. But he was not called.

As to the literature written by Oscar Wilde, Mr. Carson took up first the Chameleon. He would not say Mr. Wilde was responsible for all that appeared in that publication. But if he was willing to contribute to a journal which had for its purpose the praise of a gross practice, and wrote for such a journal aphorisms and philosophies for the use of the young, what could they believe but that he approved of its teachings? He disapproved of the article in the journal called "The Priest and the Acolyte," not because it was immoral, but merely because it was not artistic. The language used by the priest in the article with reference to the acolyte was the same in effect as that addressed to Lord Alfred Douglas by Mr. Wilde. The same strain, the same immorality ran through "Dorian Gray." If they found Mr. Wilde himself in his conduct with Lord Alfred Douglas adopting the same idea as ran through those articles and books, could they have any doubt that the same kind of mind was dominating the conduct of Lord Alfred Douglas? The poem, "Two Loves," by Lord Alfred Douglas, published in the Chameleon, and spoken of by Mr. Wilde as beautiful, was not beautiful, but filthy.

Mr. Carson then took up "Dorian Gray," and described the teaching in it, reading long extracts from the work. The book alone supplied enough to justify the complaint made by Lord Queensberry.

The case was adjourned.

The hearing of the charge of criminal libel brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was begun at Old Bailey, London, on Wednesday morning, before Mr Justice Collins. The Court was densely crowded. Mr Oscar Wilde occupied a seat at the solicitor's table.

On taking his place in the dock, Lord Queensberry answered the indictment by pleading first "not guilty," and secondly, that the libel was true and was published for the public benefit.

Sir E. Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said very grave issues had been raised, because the defendant in the pleadings alleged that plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit indecent offences. Certain letters addressed by the plaintiff to Lord A. Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to the plaintiff through Mr Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentlemen who in turn gave it to the plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant germs, but it did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queenberry's action the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts whether the defendant was responsible for his actions.

Plaintiff was examined by Sir Edward Clarke at length on the subject of the letters, which he said he did not regard as important. He described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told the defendant he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering the defendant out of the house he described him as "the most infamous bruts in London." There was no foundation for the suggestions in his pleadings.

Mr Carson cross-examined as to the teaching in "Dorien Gray" and "Phrases and Philosophies." The plaintiff replied that he looked at these matters from the point of view of art. "The Priest and Acolyte" was twaddle, but he had not dissociated himself from the "Chameleon," in which it appeared. The man Wood was an unemployed clerk, the plaintiff said in further cross-examinations, and he not only gave him £15 for his passage to America, but £5 more on the occasion of a champagne lunch before his departure. He denied misconduct with Wood. Lord A. Douglas had asked him to befriend the man when introducing him. Wood and plaintiff knew each other by their Christian names. A man named Allen also called on him with reference to the Douglas letters. He knew Allen as a blackmailer, and gave him 10s to show his contempt (laughter). After Allen came another person named Clyburne, and he was kind to Clyburne by giving him the same amount. To a bookseller's assistant he had given money on three occasions, but denied misconduct.

Mr Wilde again went into the witness box on Thursday, and his cross-examination by Mr Carson was continued. Replying to questions, witness said he had continued on intimate terms with Taylor down to the present time, and it was he who arranged the interview with Wood relating to the letters at Great College street. He used to visit witness at his house, his chambers, and at the Savoy. Witness used to go to afternoon tea parties at Taylor's lodgings. He did not know whether he did his own cooking, but there would be nothing wrong in that.

Mr Carson--Have I suggested anything wrong?--No, but cooking is an art.

Another art?--Yes.

Were the rooms luxurious?--The place was furnished with more than usual taste.

Was it not luxurious?--No, I said in good taste. I thought them most pretty rooms. Witness denied that day and night the rooms were lighted with candles and gas, and that heavy double curtains were always drawn over the windows.

Were the rooms strongly perfumed?--Yes; I have known him to burn perfumes in his rooms--a charming idea. I burn perfume in my rooms.

Did you see Wood there at tea?--No except on the occasion referred to. I have seen Sydney Mavor there. He was a friend of mine, but I have not the remotest idea where he is now.

Have you had any communication with him?--Yes, last Sunday I got Taylor to go to his mother's house to say I wanted to see him. He was not there, and I don't know where he is.

Were you told he has disappeared within the last week?--No; I heard he was away.

Have you found him since?--What do you mean by finding him? I object to the phrase. I have not seen him since. Answering further questions, witness said he had never seen Taylor wearing a lady's fancy costume. He had sent telegrams to Taylor. He had no business with him.

Was he a literary man?--He was a young man of great taste and intelligence, educated at a very good public school.

Did you discuss literary matters with him?--He used to listen on the subject.

And get on intellectual treat also?--Certainly. Witness said he never got him to arrange dinners for him. He had never seen Fred Atkins at Taylor's and did not know that Taylor was being watched by the police at his rooms. He knew that Taylor and Parker, whom he also knew, were last year arrested at a house in Fitzroy square. He had seen Parker in Taylor's rooms subsequently occupied in Chapel street. Taylor had introduced to witness about five young men, with whom he had become friendly. He liked the society of young men.

Had any of them any occupation?--That I can hardly say.

Did you give money to each?--Yes; I should think to all five-money or presents.

Did they give you anything?--Me? No.

Among the five was Charles Parker?--Oh yes.

Was he a gentleman's servant out of employment?--I never heard that, nor should I have minded.

How old was Parker?--I don't keep a census. He was young, and that was one of his attractions. I have never asked him his age, I think it is rather vulgar to do so (laughter).

Was he an educated man?--Culture was not his strong point (laughter).

Did you ask what his previous occupation was?--I never inquire about people's pasts (laughter).

Not their future?--Oh, that is a public matter (laughter).

Did you become friendly with Parker's brothers?--They were my guests at table.

Did you know that one was a gentleman's valet and the other a gentleman's groom?--I did not know it nor should I have cared, I do not care "tuppence" for social position.

What inducement was there for you to entertain them?--The pleasure of being with those who are young, bright, happy, careless, and original. I do not like the sensible, and I do not like the old.

Was it a good dinner?--I forget the menu at the present moment. It was certainly Kettner at his best. It was in honour of Mr. Alfred Taylor's birthday.

In the course of further cross-examination the witness said--The dinner at Kettner's was given by me in March 1893. It was one of the best they could provide. "Charley" Parker did not accompany me to the Savoy hotel that night, and I strongly deny that there has been any misconduct between us. From October, 1893, to April 1894, I had rooms in St. James's place. Taylor wrote to me while I was staying there telling me that Parker was in town, and I asked him to come and have "afternoon tea" with me. He came to see me five or six times. I liked his society. I gave him a silver cigarette case and about £3 or £4 in money.

Mr Carson--What was there in common between you and these young men?--Well, I will tell you. I like the society of people much younger than myself. I recognize no social distinction at all. The mere effect of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk with a young man for half an hour then ever be cross-examined in court (laughter).

Cross-examination continued--A common boy I met in the street might be a pleasing companion, I took Parker to lunch with me at various places.

Witness went on to say that Parker had written a letter to him asking whether he might have the pleasure of dining with him that eveningl and he (Mr Wilde) was to send an answer by the messenger. The writer hoped it would be convenient "that we should spend the evening together." He never paid visits to Parker at a house in Camera square. He did not know that certain men who were arrested in the Fitzroy square raid were connected with the Cleveland street scandals. The Fitzroy square arrest made no difference in his friendship with Taylor. He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins, and took him to Paris, being joined there by a gentleman, whose name was written on Wednesday and passed to counsel. Atkins was addressed as Freddy, and was plaintiff's guest. He gave Freddy money to go to Moulin Rouge. They stayed at the same hotel, but no impropriety ever occurred. Freddy suggested that he should have his hair curled. Counsel-Did he have it curled? Witness--No; I should have been very angry if he had (laughter). The gentleman whose name had been written also introduced him to young men named Scarfe and Maver. The latter met him on his reutrn from Sookland in October, and they stayed at the same hotel in town. He gave Maver a cigarette case.

Further cross-examined--He knew a masseur at the Savoy hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in Paris.

At the conclusion of the cross-examination Sir E. Clarke began the re-examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Queensberry. In part of these, written from Carter's Hotel to Lord A. Douglas, the defendant called upon his son to cease his infamous intimacy with the man Wilde, his blood had turned cold at the sight of their horrible faces. The writer continued "I hear on good authority that his (Wilde's) wife is petitioning for a divorce on the ground of unnatural crimes. The horror has crossed my mind you may be brought into this. If I thought that the actual thing true I should feel justified in shooting him at sight." Lord Alfred replied by wire, "Queensberry, what a funny little man you are." Plaintiff denied the suggestion of the divorce petitions. Lord Queensberry, in a further letter, called Lord Alfred "an impertinent jacksnapes," and threatened to cut off supplies. In another letter, addressed by defendant to the father of his former wife, he repeated the accusations against Wilde, to whom he referred in the following terms:--"He plainly showed the white feather. He s a s------- cur and a corward of the Rosebery type." Then, alluding to his former wife, Lord Queensberry said: "I am convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone Royal insult that came to me through my other son--she worked that I saw Dsumlanrig on the river last night, and it rather upset me. It shall be known some day that Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen (which makes her as bad as him), and to Gladtstone, but also has made a life-long quarrel between my son and me." Lord Queensberry in August addressed Lord Alfred as an abortion. The letter continued, "How right I was to face misery rather than bring others into the world. That was the reason I broke off with your mother."

Mr Carson addressed the jury for the defence, and had not concluded when the court adjourned. Counsel said the Marquis of Queensberry withdraw nothing and what he had done was premediatevely done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case, and was absent. Various men mentioned in the case would be called on defendant's behalf, and would prove for what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Wilde. The man "Wood", whom plaintiff had given money to go to the Americas, and who was supposed to be out of the way, would be prodced and give evidence. Mr. Carson alleged that Wilde had conceived a vile, abominable passion for Lord Alfred Douglas, who had become so dominated by Wilde that he even threatened to shoot his own father, and Lord Queensberry was, he contended, bound to have acted as he had done in the interests of his son.