Compare Documents

London, May 22.

The little court at Markborough-street has never been so crowded as it was this morning since Oscar Wilde initiated the famous libel proceedings against the Marquis of Queensberry. As then, so now, the Marquis figures in the role of defendant, but on this occasion he has a companion in adversity in the person of his own son, Lord Douglas of Harwick. Both of the principals of the Piccadilly rumpus were early upon the scene, the Marquis being the first to arrive. For a few minutes he loitered outside the court, the central figure of a gathering crowd, but after he had been joined by his solicitor he proceeded to push his way through the group which barred the entrance to the court. In his buttonhole he wore three Marcebal Niel roses. Lord Douglas entered the building soon afterwards, and it was at once observed that both of his eyes were black. As soon as Mr. Hannay had taken his seat both were put into the dock and charged with disorderly conduct and fighting in Piccadilly.

The first witness was Constable C C 32, who found the Marquis and his son fighting. The constable separated them, after which they again closed, and witness parted them again. Both father and son then crossed Bond-street. They met again, and recommenced fighting. Witness thereupon arrested the Marquis, and his son was taken in charge by another constable. At Vine-street the Marquis, in reply to the charge, said, "It is quite correct."

The Marquis, who defended himself, only asked one question, which suggested that Lord Douglas began the attack, and continued it while the Marquis was walking to the hotel.

Mr. S.T. Stoneham (for Lord Douglas): At the station did you hear the Marquis say anything? Witness: I heard the Marquis say he was willing to fight his son for £10,000. You did not hear Lord Queensberry call his son an opprobrious name? No.

Constable C R 6, who was also on the spot, was asked who struck the first blow, and the witness fancied that it was Lord Douglas.

Mr. Stoneham: Didn't Lord Douglas say that he had spoken to his father, and asked him to discontinue those letters and that they were the cause of the row? Witness: Yes; similar words to those.

The inspector who received the distinguished defendant at Vine-street was the next witness. After the charge had been read over to them the Marquis exclaimed, "That is my son, who has bailed Oscar Wilde to-day. He has been following me about and struck me in Piccadilly." Lord Douglas added, "Yes; that occurred through my father writing letters to my wife of a most disgusting character."

This was the case for the police, and the Marquis then proceeded to make his statement. He had driven up, he said, from the Old Bailey at the bottom of St. James's-street. As he was crossing the road to go up to Albemarle-street he saw his son walking down Piccadilly. As soon as the latter recognized him Lord Douglas "came straight at me, almost at a run, and pushed me up against a shop window, at the same time speaking at the top of his voice. I struck him certainly," added the Marquis, "but it was done in self-defence."

Mr. Stoneham, in giving Lord Douglas's version of the affray, said he and a friend walking in Piccadilly saw Lord Queensberry crossing the street. The Marquis had evidently just come out of a post-office, where he had sent the following telegram to Lord Douglas's wife:-

"Must congratulate on verdict. Cannot on Percy's appearance; looked like a dug-up corpse. Fear too much madness of kissing. Taylor guilty. Wilde's turn tomorrow. -Queensberry.

"That," said Mr. Stoneham, "is a sample of the letters Lord Queensberry has been writing not only to Lord Douglas's wife, but other members of the family. He has been requested time after time to stop these letters, but he still persists in continuing the annoyance.''

Lord Queensberry here broke in with the remark that, as his son refused to receive any letters from himself, he was obliged to write to his wife.

Mr. Hannay thought these family affairs had nothing to do with the case, and suggested that the Marquis should call his witnesses.

Accordingly Mr. Charles T. Sheriff, who was an eye-witness of the occurrence, was called to say that Lord Douglas began the attack. Both defendants admitted fighting, the only question being the issue of who struck the first blow.

Lord Queensberry's second witness, Mr. Charles Taylor, swore that he saw the son begin the fight by knocking his father against the painters' trestles outside the shop.

The magistrate bound each over to his own recognisances in the sum of £500, to keep the peace for six months.

LONDON, May 22. At the Marlborough Street Police Court this morning the Marquis of Queensberry and son, Lord Douglas of Harwick, were bound over each in £500 bail, to keep the peace. Their appearance in the police court to-day was the result of their encounter yesterday afternoon in Piccadilly.

Both the Marquis of Queensberry and Lord Douglas of Harwick were fashionably dressed. The Marquis did not show any sign of yesterday's fight. On the other hand, his son had a black eye. The Marquis was not defended by counsel, but Lord Douglas had a lawyer present to attend to his interests.

The police evidence regarding the encounter between the father and the son in Piccadilly yesterday afternoon was first given. The disturbance was described as having taken place near the corner of Bond street. A few words were exchanged and a brief but very determined conflict followed. The combatants were soon separated by the police, who escorted them to the nearest police station, where they were charged with disorderly conduct as neither the father nor the son would prefer a charge against the other.

In his defense the Marquis of Queensberry said that while walking in Piccadilly his son, Lord Douglas of Harwick, came running at him and pushed him against a store window, speaking at the top of his voice. The Marquis added that he struck his son in self-defense.

HELD IN BAIL TO KEEP THE PEACE.

Counsel for Lord Douglas of Harwick said that the latter and a friend were walking in Piccadilly, not thinking of the Marquis of Queensberry, when the encounter between Lord Douglas and his father took place. Counsel added that Lady Douglas of Harwick received the following telegram:

"I must congratulate you on the result, but I cannot congratulate you on Percy's appearance. He looks like a dug-up corpse. I fear there is too much madness in kissing. Taylor is guilty; it will be Wilde's turn tomorrow."

It was also asserted that the Marquis had written to Lady Douglas false charges against her husband and members of the family, and that although he had promised to stop writing he had not done so. Yesterday, it was claimed that Lord Douglas asked the Marquis to cease writing "these obscene and filthy" letters to his wife. The Marquis then hit him in the face and the fight between father and son followed.

After further evidence, showing that the Marquis was the aggressor, the case was settled by the Marquis and his son being bound over, each in £500 bail to keep the peace.

The Marquis, who wore a fresh boutonniere and presented a very jaunty appearance, admitted that he had offered to fight his son, Lord Douglas of Hawick, anywhere or at anytime for £1,000. Lord Douglas showed a very black eye as the result of his encounter with his father, but the latter did not show a mark.

The crowd cheered the Marquis as he drove away in a cab, and as earnestly hissed and hooted Lord Douglas as he took his departure.

The Marquis went directly from the Marlborough street police station to the Old Bailey Court, where he was an attentive listener at the trial of Oscar Wilde.

OSCAR WILDE’S TRIAL

So Indisposed That He Had to Leave the Court

Room During the Proceedings.

LONDON, May 22. - The second trial of Oscar Wilde began in the Central Criminal Court, Old Bailey, this morning. Wilde, upon entering the court, was accompanied by but one of his sureties, the Rev. Stewart Headlam, his other bondsman, Lord Douglas of Hawick, being engaged in the Marlborough Street Police Court in defending himself against a charge of disorderly conduct.

Wilde looked pale and haggard as he entered the dock, evidently being greatly affected by the result of the trial of Taylor yesterday.

Sir Frank Lockwood, Q. C., M. P., conducted the prosecution. The alleged offences charged against Wilde, he said, in his opening address, occured between February, 1892, and October, 1893. He laid a special stress upon the charge in which Wilde was involved with Shelly. Mr. Lockwood thought the jury should accept the prosecution's evidence as regarded Wilde’s mode of life at the Savoy Hotel.

Edward Shelly was called to the stand and repeated what he had previously testified to. He declared that he had resented the overtures made to him by Wilde. Sir Edward Clarke cross-examined Shelly severely. Shelly admitted that he was mistaken in his testimony in the Bow Street Police Court giving the time of his breaking off the intimacy with Wilde, and also admitted that Wilde did not mention or suggest any acts of misconduct after the first interview.

Wilde became indisposed at this point, and was obliged to temporarily leave the dock. The examination of Shelly was meanwhile suspended. The proceedings were resumed in a few minutes.

Shelly's cross-examination being resumed, he admitted that he had a brother who was insane. He also admitted having written a letter to Wilde in which he said: "I am afraid that sometimes I am not very sane, but I am certain that I am sane now." He maintained, however, that the charges he had made against Wilde were true.

Alfred Wood and Charles Parker were called to the stand and repeated the testimony previously given by them, after which the court adjourned.