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.

LONDON, WEDNESDAY.All the appearances of a sensational trial were prescribed at the Old Bailey to-day when the Marquis of Queensberry entered the dock to answer the charge of criminally libelling Mr Oscar Wilde. Although influential people and the ordinary public clamoured at the doors for admission soon after eight o’clock in the morning it was only the privileged few who gained entry within the judicial precincts. The Marquis of Queensberry soon followed by Mr Oscar Wilde, took a seat at the solicitors’ table. By the time Mr Justice Collins took his seat on the bench the court was crammed, and the counsel engaged were busy with their blue papers.

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 Queensberry; Mr Besley, Q.C., with Mr Monckton, watching the proceedings on behalf of Lord Douglas of Hawick, the eldest son of the Marquis.

The Clerk read out the indictment, to the effect that the marquis did unlawfully and maliciously write and publish a false, malicious, and defamatory libel concerning Mr Oscar Wilde in the form of a card directed to him.

The Marquis said he pleaded not guilty, and that the libel was true, and that it was for the public benefit that it should be published.

In opening the case for the prosecution Sir Edward Clarke pointed out the enormous gravity of the accusation levelled against Mr Wilde by the Marquis of Queensbery, but the defendant a plea raised a much graver issue, for in that plea it was alleged that the complainant had solicited various persons to commit an offense. It was for those who had put those allegations to the plea to prove them to the satisfaction of the jury. The learned counsel then briefly traced the career of Mr Wilde, who was a son of Sir William Wilde, and had had a brilliant university career both at Dublin and at Oxford. In 1882 he published a volume of poems, laughed at by some but appreciated by many, and, at all events, representing the thoughts of a man of high culture. In 1891 he was introduced to Lord Alfred Douglas, a son of the defendant, and from that time he had been the friend not only of Lord Alfred but of Lord Douglas of Hawick, and of the mother of those gentlemen. Up to 1892 Mr Wilde did not know the defendant with the exception of a meeting about 1881. In November, 1892, Mr Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas were lunching together at the Cafe Royal, when the defendant entered, and at Mr Wilde’s suggestion the son shook hands with his father, and seemed to be reconciled. The three had a friendly chat, and parted gaol friends. Mr Wilde did not see the marquis again until early in 1894. Meanwhile Mr Wilde became aware of statements that had been made affecting his character. Some letters of Mr Wilde’s and of Lord Alfred Douglas were being handed about, and a man named Wood was represented as desiring to be [ . . . ] to America. As a matter of fact Mr Wilde gave Wood some assistance. At that time Mr Wilde’s play, "A Woman of No Importance," was being prepared for the Haymarket Theatre. One day Mr Beerbohm Tree received a note requesting him to forward to Mr Wilde what purported to be a copy of an incriminating letter written by Mr Wilde. Mr Tree sent it on. Shortly afterwards a man named Allen brought Mr Wilde the original and wanted to sell it, but Mr Wilde replied, "It is a work of art. I should have desired to possess a copy. Now you have been good enough to send me a copy, I don’t want the original. (Laughter.) There was another letter written to Lord Alfred Douglas. Mr Wilde addressed Lord Douglas as "My own Boy," and after referring to his sonnet as "quite lovely," went on: "Why are you alone in London, and when do you go to Salisbury? Do go there, and cool your hands in the grey twilight of Gothic things. Come whenever you like, but go to Salisbury first. With undying love." The words of the letter, observed Sir Edward, appeared extravagant to those who were only in the habits of writing [ . . . ] correspondence—(laughter) or those wordy letters when the necessities of life forced upon one every day. It was a letter of which Mr Wilde was in no way ashamed, and with regard to any reputation that might be associated with it, he was absolutely indifferent. He said it was the expression of political feeling, and had no relation whatever to the hateful suggestions which were made. In the middle of 1894 there was an interview between the complainant and the defendant upon which he would not dwell. On February 14th last Mr Wilde’s play, "The Importance of being Earnest," was being produced at the St. James’s Theatre. Lord Queensberry had paid for a seat, but his money was returned when he presented himself at the theatre with a bouquet composed of vegetables. He even tried to get into the gallery, but the police prevented him. There was reason to fear that the defendant would make a disturbance at the performance in the same way as he raised a protest on behalf of agnosticism at the production of Lord Tennyson’s "Promise of May." Nothing more was heard until February 28th, when Mr Wilde had occasion to visit the Albemarle, of which he was a member. The porter handed to Mr Wilde a card that had been left by Lord Queensberry, and upon that card the charge against the defendant turned. He (Sir Edward Clarke) did not intend to mention the names alluded to in the pleadings, but he would deal certain suggestions made in those pleadings that Mr Wilde was the writer, or, at all events, the publisher of articles of a remarkable and unnatural tendency. One of the publications called in question was the "Picture of Dorian Gray," a book that strangely enough had been publicly sold for several years. The learned counsel outlined the story, and defied the other side to prove that the author had done more than the [ . . . ] the novelist a privilege to portray the vices and passions of human nature.

Sydney Wright, hall-porter of the Albemarle Club, said that on February 18 Lord Queensberry handed the card [ . . . ] to witness and asked him to give it to Mr Wilde, who was a member of the club. Witness saw Lord Queensberry write something on the card before he gave it to him. WItness handed it to Mr Wilde on 28th February.

Mr Oscar Wilde after giving evidence as to his university and literary career, said: In 1884 I married Miss Lloyd, and from that time up to now I have lived with her at Chelsea and other places. I have two sons. In 1881 I made the acquaintance of Lord A. Douglas. He was brought by a friend of mine to my house at Chelsea. Since 1881 I have been acquainted with Lord Queensberry, and have been a guest at her house many times. I have also been on friendly terms with Lord A. Douglas’s brother, Lord Douglas of Hawick. Lord A. Douglas has stayed at my house on numerous occasions. In November, 1894, I was lunching with Lord A. Douglas in the public room at the Cafe Royal. I was aware that there was some estrangement between Lord A. Douglas and Lord Queensberry. The latter entered the room, and at my suggestion Lord Alfred crossed the room and shook hands with his father. Lord Alfred had to go away early, and Lord Queensberry remained and chatted with me. Afterwards something was said about Torquay, and it was arranged that Lord Queensberry should call upon me there, but he did not come. It was in 1893 that I heard that same letter which I had written to Lord A. Douglas had come into possession of certain persons. I met a man named Wood, who said he had some letters which had been written by me, which he had found in a suit of clothes that Lord A. Douglas had given him. I said, "You certainly should have given them back to him." He took three or four letters from his pocket and said, "Here are the letters." I read them and remarked, "I do not consider these letters of any importance," and the man replied, "They were stolen from me the day before yesterday by a man named Allen. I have only just got them back again, as they wanted to extort money from you." I observed, "I do not consider that they are of any value at all." He said, "I am very much afraid of staying in London, as these men are threatening me. I want to go to America." I asked him what hope of success he had in America better than London. He made a very strong appeal to me to enable him to go to New York as he could find nothing to do in London. I gave him £15. The letters had remained in my hand the whole time. Witness continuing spoke of Lord Queensberry coming to the table where Lord Alfred Douglas and witness were laughing at the Cafe Royal in the early part of 1894. Shortly after that meeting he became aware that Lord Queensberry was making suggestions with regard to his character and behaviour. In June, at witness’s house in Tite street, he had an interview with the Marquis and another gentleman who accompanied the defendant. The interview took place in the horary. I entered the room, continued Mr Wilde, and Lord Queensberry at once remarked "Sit down." "I don’t allow anyone to talk to me like that. I suppose you have come to apologise to me and my wife for the statement you have written about me and your son." I also said, "I could have you up any day I chose for criminal for writing such a letter." He said, "The letter is privileged, as it was written to my son." I replied, "How dare you say such things about your son and me." He said, "You were both kicked out of the Savoy Hotel at a moment’s notice for your conduct. I said, "That is a lie." He said, "You have taken furnished rooms for him in Piccadilly." I said, "Somebody has been telling you an absurd set of lies about your son and me. I have not done anything of the kind." He said, "I hear you were thoroughly well blackmailed last year for a letter that you wrote to my son." I said to him, "The letter was a beautiful letter, and I never write except for publication." He said, "If I catch you and my son together again in any public restaurant, I will thrash you." I said to him, "I do not know what the Queensberry rules are, but the Oscar Wilde rule is to shoot at sight." I then told Lord Queensberry to leave my house. He said he would [ . . . ] and I told him I would have him put out by the police. He repeated the accusation, adding, "It is a scandal all over London." I said, "If it is so, you are the author of it, and no one else. The letters you have written about me are [ . . . ], and I see that you are merely trying to ruin your son through me. I then said to him, "Now, you have got to go. I won’t have in my house a brute like you." I went out into the hall, followed by Lord Queensberry and the gentleman with Lord Queensberry. I went to my [ . . . ], pointing at Lord Queensberry as I spoke, "This is the Marquis of Queensberry, the most infamous brute in London. You are never to show him [ . . . ] my house again. Soon the [ . . . ] Lord Queensberry [ . . . ] violent words. It is [ . . . ] untrue that I took rooms in Piccadilly for my son, nor was there any foundation for that statement that I at any time was compelled to leave the Savoy Hotel. It is perfectly untrue. Witness continuing referred to the [ . . . ] performance of "The Importance of being Earnest," and to receiving the card at the Albemarle Club. He [ . . . ] out the statement of counsel concerning the "Chameleon," saying that a certain article was bad and [ . . . ].

Sir E. Clarke—As to your alleged conduct with various persons is there any truth in either of these cases?

Witness—There is no truth whatsoever in any one of them.

Cross-examined by Mr Carson, the witness said he first knew Lord Alfred Douglas when he was 20 or 21 years of age. He was friendly with Lord Queensberry up to the time of the interview at [ . . . ] (the witness’s) house. He had not received a letter previous to that time from Lord Queensberry stating that he did not wish him to continue his friendship with his son. He had continued friendly with his son right down to the [ . . . ]. He had been with him to Oxford, Brighton, and Worthing on several occasions. He had also stayed with him at Cromer, Torquay, and various hotels in London. The witness had rooms in St. James’s place from October, 1893, to the end of March, 1894. Lord Alfred Douglas had been abroad with him several times. He recently went with him to Monte Carlo. His article in the "Chameleon" was not written at Brighton. Lord Alfred Douglas also contribute to the magazine. He did not write his contributions while at Brighton. The witness was of opinion that there was no such thing as an immoral book. Mr Carson then proceeded to cross-examine the witness as to the letter which had been written to Lord Alfred Douglas.

The Witness said it was a letter which no one but an artist would have written.

Mr Carson next read another letter written by witness from the Savoy Hotel to Lord Alfred Douglas.

The Witness said it was an extraordinary letter. The appointment to meet the man Wood in reference to the letters was made by Mr Taylor. Before the appointment was brought about he went to Sir George Lewis, whom he got to write a letter to Wood. He met Wood first in January, 1893, at a cafe in Regent street. He gave Wood money because he had been asked to be kind to him. He considered Wood attempted to levy blackmail, and he was determined to face it.

Mr Carson—So you gave him money to go to America?

The witness said he did not give the man £16 for the letters. He did not know that Taylor was in communication with Wood when he was in America. Wood called Taylor "Alfred" and the Witness "Oscar." He called Wood "Alfred." Everyone called him by his Christian name. He had given them a farewell supper and money because the man had told him he had no intention of levying. "Alfred," he said, was a blackmailer. He had never heard of him as anything else. He gave him 10s and received nothing. He gave the money out of contempt.

Mr Carson—Is that the way you show your contempt? Yes; very often.

After some further evidence the court adjourned. Lord Queensberry being allowed out on bail in the sum of £500.