Compare Documents

LONDON, May 1.

There was a crowded court at the Old Bailey to-day when the trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor for offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act entered upon its final stage, after having occupied four days, before Mr. Justice Charles and a jury.

Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. H. Avory prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Oscar Wilde; Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Alfred Taylor.

Simultaneously with the three loud raps upon the door which announced the approach of the judge the prisoners were brought into the dock. Wilde is grown positively grey in the face, and can no longer keep out of his eyes the haggard consciousness of his terrible position. Taylor has changed less. He still wore a weakly amiable smile.

His lordship embarked at once upon his summing-up, which occupied three hours. He described the charges against the prisoners, of committing acts of indecency, and as against Taylor of procuring the commission of such acts, and expressed satisfaction that the counts charging them with conspiracy had been withdrawn. He was sure he did not know why those counts were ever inserted at all. It was a highly inconvenient course to join counts with regard to one of which the prisoners could give evidence, while with regard to the other they could not, and he should direct an acquittal upon the charges of conspiracy against both the prisoners, as well as upon one count of the indictment against Taylor, to which ho need not now further allude, but as to which there was no evidence proper for the jury's consideration. He asked the jury to apply their minds only to the evidence. For weeks it had been impossible to open a newspaper without reading some reference to the case, and especially to the prisoner Wilde, but his lordship earnestly hoped that the jury would not allow any preconceived opinions to weigh with them in trying two persons, both of good education, and one of high intellectual gifts. As to the witnesses, where acts of indecency were alleged to have been committed with the consent of the witnesses, those persons were accomplices in the wicked act, and by a wholesome practice of the courts for certainly 200 years no defendant could be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice in his crimes. Otherwise innocent people might be exposed to terrible dangers by designing or spiteful persons. In this case, therefore, had there been no corroboration of the evidence of the young men to whom the jury had listened it would have been at once his lordship's duty to direct an acquittal. But he was clearly of opinion that there was corroboration of the kind the law requires in all the cases. His lordship did not propose to deal at any length with the incidents of the Queensberry trial, but it must be remembered that the evidence which Wilde gave at that trial was given upon oath, and must not be lost sight of in considering that he gave yesterday in his own defence. They all knew how the case arose. Lord Queensberry published a card which undoubtedly libelled Wilde, who at once initiated proceedings for criminal libel, which led to the trial on which they were now embarked. The libel referred to occurrences in 1892, but was not published till 1893. After Wilde had been examined and cross-examined, but before any evidence had been called for the plea of justification, Wilde by his counsel agreed to a verdict that Lord Queensberry was not guilty of criminal libel, and that the publication of the card was for the public benefit. That verdict, it was necessary to remember, was in no way binding on the present jury. His lordship referred to the nature of the plea of justification, and to the reason why such offences as it alleged in connection with the lads Conway and Crainger were not included in the present indictment, having occurred out of the jurisdiction of the court. On the conclusion of the Queensberry trial Wilde and Taylor were arrested to answer the charges for which they now awaited the jury's verdict. A very large portion of the evidence of Wilde at the Queensberry trial was devoted to what Sir Edward Clarke had called the literary part of the case. It was attempted to show by cross-examination of Wilde as to works he had published, especially in regard to the book called "Dorian Gray," that he was a man of most unprincipled character with regard to the relation of men to boys; and, secondly, with regard to a magazine called the Chameleon, published in the autumn of last year, and in which it was alleged that Wilde had given the sanction of his name to the most abominable doctrines. His lordship had not read ``Dorian Gray," and assumed that the jury had not, but they had been told that it was the story of a youth of vicious character whose face did not reveal the abysses of wretchedness into which he had fallen, but whose picture painted by an artist friend revealed all the consequences of his passion. In the end he stabs the picture, whereupon he himself falls dead, and on his vicious face appear all the signs which before had been upon the picture. His lordship did not think that in a criminal case the jury should place any unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorian Gray." Sir Edward Clarke had quoted from Coleridge, "Judge no man by his books," but his lordship would prefer to say "Confound no man with the characters of the persons he creates." Because a novelist put into the mouth of his villain the most abominable sentiments itmust not be assumed that he shared them. As to the Chameleon, the only connection proved between that magazine and Wilde was that it was prefaced by two pages of "Phrases and Philosophies to the Use of the Young" by the prisoner, of which it was sufficient to say that some were amusing, some cynical, some, if his lordship might be allowed to criticise, silly--but wicked, no. The learned counsel who represented Lord Queensberry called attention to a story, a filthy narrative of the most disgusting character, called "The Priest and the Acolyte," of which the author, who signed himself "X.," should be thoroughly ashamed. With that story Wilde had nothing whatever to do, and to impute to him anything in it was quite absurd. To judge him by another man's works, which he had never seen, would be highly unjust. So much for the literary part of the case. His lordship would pass to another phase which had more relevance to the issue the jury were trying. In the same Chameleon were two sonnets by Lord Alfred Douglas, one called "In Praise of Shame" and the other "The Two Loves." It was alleged that these sonnets had an immoral and unnatural tendency, and that Wilde had approved of them. What was it he had said with reference to them? His lordship, with an admirable elocutionary art, read the sonnet in praise of shame. Of the other he only quoted some lines. Wilde looked up with a fresh interest at this judicial appreciation of the literary form, if not of the sentiments of the poems. His lordship proceeded to make a big mistake. He quoted the Wilde letter beginning "Your sonnet is quite lovely, and it is a marvel that your red rose-leaf lips should be made as much for the music of song as for the madness of kissing." He imagined this applied to the sonnet in the Chameleon, but Sir Edward Clarke rose at once to point out that the letter bore a date long antecedent to the publication of the Chameleon, and clearly referred to some other matter.

His lordship recognised the error, but went on to read the letter, as veil as that other from the Savoy Hotel, written in 1893, in which Wilde began, "Dearest of all boys,-- Your letter was delightful red and yellow wine to me," and concluded, "I fear I must leave. I have no money, no credit, and a heart of lead." Abandoning the sonnets and dealing with these letters, his lordship asked if Mr. Carson was right in regarding them as of a horrible and indecent character. Turning next to the charges made against the defendants, his Lordship called the jury's attention to that made in reference to Shelley. Although there was in the letters written by Shelley evidence of excitability, the prosecution denied the argument of Sir E. Clarke that his evidence ought not to be received on account of his mind having become disordered. The decision of this matter must rest entirely with the jury, and their responsibility was very great. His lordship next dealt with the evidence given by Atkins, and expressed the opinion that this witness was most reckless; and the jury would probably be of opinion that if Atkins was the only person who spoke on these matters it would be totally unsafe to rely upon his statements at all. The judge remarked on the impudence of the witness in trying to deceive the jury. There was no doubt that he was a most unscrupulous and untruthful man, and the jury, who were the judges as to the credibility of witnesses, must decide whether or not they would accept his evidence. As to what was alleged to have taken place at an hotel in the Strand, the evidence given by the servants and the masseur was of vast importance. If their story was true, there was evidence which could be acted upon with regard to certain of the charges. The learned judge next referred to the introduction of the two Parkers to Taylor, and to the extraordinary condition of the rooms in Little College-street. He pointed out that at length the attention of the police was directed to this house, but it must be remembered, in favour of Taylor, that although an entrance was effected by means of an artifice, no step was taken with regard to the house, and Taylor continued to live there. Three of the men on whom the greatest reliance was placed with reference to the charges against the prisoners were all affected, in the same way, by the wicked crime of extorting money from persons to whom they were introduced, and whom they had got into compromising positions. In conclusion, his lordship expressed the hope that they would do justice to the public on the one hand and to the defendants on the other. They must deal fairly with the evidence. If they thought they ought not to act on the evidence, then they would acquit prisoners; on the other hand, if they believed the evidence, then they must do their duty.

The jury retired at 1.35.

At three o'clock a communication was brought from the jury, and conveyed by the Clerk of Arraigns to the judge, and shortly afterwards the jury had luncheon taken to them.

The jury, after a deliberation of three hours and three-quarters, returned into court, when the foreman, who had caused a communication to be sent to tho judge, in reply to his lordship, said that they were unable to agree as to a verdict. There was no chance, in his opinion, of the jury agreeing to a verdict.

Sir Edward Clarke asked that a verdict of acquittal on the conspiracy counts, upon which no evidence was offered, be returned by the jury.

The judge said that he would direct that an acquittal be entered on the record in regard to the conspiracy counts, and with respect of the counts referring to Wood and Atkins.

The jury were accordingly discharged.

Sir Edward Clarke applied for bail for Oscar Wilde. Application was made for bail on behalf of Taylor.

The judge: I do not feel able to accede to the application. In reply to Sir Edward Clarke, his lordship said that if another application for bail was to be made, it would be in the usual course, made before a Judge in Chambers.

It is stated that the prisoners, Wilde and Taylor, will be tried again at the next Sessions of the Central Criminal Court.

OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, and ALFRED TAYLOR, 33, were indicted under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act for the commission of acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of those acts, and there were other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of those acts, the charge being one of misdemeanour

The greatest interest was taken into the case, the Court being crowded.

Mr. C.F. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde, and Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor. Mr. Leonard Kershaw held a watching brief.

Before the defendants were called upon to plead to the indictment,

SIR EDWARD CLARK submitted that they could not be called upon to plead to it. There were 25 counts in the indictment, some of them alleging the commission of acts under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and there were other counts charging the procuring of the commission of those acts, and also counts charging the defendants with conspiring to do those acts. Upon the charges of the commission of those acts and the procuring of the commission of those acts the defendants were by the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, competent witnesses, but upon the charge of conspiracy they were not competent witnesses. In these circumstances he submitted that the defendants could not be called upon to plead to the indictment, as on one set of charges contained in it they were competent witnesses, while on the other set of charges contained in it they could not be competent witnesses. He therefore demurred to the indictment as containing inconsistent counts.

Mr. C.F. GILL said that the prisoners were charged in the indictment with committing acts under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and they were clearly available witnesses if they desired to give evidence with regard to those charges. The only other charges in the indictment were charges of agreement to commit the acts which they were charged with committing under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said the question of substance was whether the counts could be lawfully joined, having regard to the present state of the law, in the same indictment. Unquestionably, prior to the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, counts for substantive misdemeanours and conspiracies to commit them might be lawfully joined, although, if justice should require it, the prosecution might be called upon to elect on which counts they would proceed. Could they be lawfully joined now? Had it made any difference in criminal pleading that on some of the counts defendants were competent witnesses and on others they were not? He was unable to agree with Sir Edward Clarke's view. He himself thought that, although the Legislature had prescribed that with reference to offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, defendants were competent witnesses, that circumstance had not altered the general law with reference to the joinder of counts for misdemeanour. Although he felt the inconvenience of the present state of things, he did not think the fact that the prisoners were competent witnesses on some of the counts and were not competent witnesses on the other counts authorized him to say that by law those counts could not be joined in the same indictment.

The prisoners pleaded "Not guilty."

SIB EDWARD CLARKE then asked Mr. Justice Charles to put the prosecution to the election whether they would proceed on the counts for conspiracy or on the other counts.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said he did not think he would be justified in putting the prosecution to the election on which counts they would proceed.

Mr. GILL, in opening the case, said he was sure the jury would dismiss from their minds anything which they might have heard or read with regard to the case, and would approach the consideration of it with minds perfectly fair and impartial, and that they would watch closely the evidence which would be put before them on the part of the prosecution. He then explained how it was that this prosecution had been instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions. The charges against the prisoners were in connexion with youths, who would be called before the jury. The charge against Taylor with regard to some of these youths, if not all of them, was that he acted for the other prisoner-- that he procured these youths in order that the prisoner Wilde might have an opportunity of committing acts of gross indecency with them. The prisoners were also charged with an agreement together that youths should be procured in order that the prisoner Wilde might commit those acts with them. On the counts under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, the defendants could be called as witnesses if they so desired.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said that the defendants were only competent witnesses on the counts under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.

Mr. GILL, continuing, gave an outline of the circumstances of the case as alleged on the part of the prosecution, and briefly indicated what the evidence would be which would be adduced on the part of the prosecution.

Witnesses were then called and examined.

Charles Parker, 21 years of age, deposed to his introduction to Wilde by Taylor and to his subsequent relations with Wilde and Taylor in 1893. In August last year witness ceased to associate with Taylor, and did not see him again. Witness went into the country and enlisted.

In cross-examination by Sir Edward Clarke, Charles Parker said that he stated before the magistrate that he had received £30, part of a sum of money which had been extorted from a gentleman. Two men extorted the money from the gentleman--one of them being Wood and the other a man named Allen. Witness did not know that Wood had got £20 or £30 from Wilde in reference to some letters written by Wilde.

In cross-examination by Mr. GRAIN, the witness said that the sum of £30 which he had mentioned was the only sum he had received under similar circumstances. Wood had not suggested more than once that there were people from whom ho might obtain money in which witness might participate.

William Parker was the next witness examined. He said that the only occasion on which he met Wilde was at a dinner at a restaurant, when he and his brother Charles were introduced to him.

Evidence was then given describing the rooms occupied by Taylor in Little College-street. Taylor's visitors were young men from 16 years of age to his own age. The witness who gave the evidence describing Taylor's rooms never saw Wilde there.

Alfred Wood, who said he was formerly a clerk, was called and examined. His evidence was not concluded when the Court rose.

The hearing of the case was adjourned until to-morrow.