Compare Documents

London, Friday.

The trial of Oscar Wilde was resumed at the Old Bailey to-day. The prisoner, who betrayed tokens of the keenest anxiety, had a consultation with his counsel, and afterwards talked with Lord Douglas of Hawick before entering the dock.

The Solicitor-General again raised the question of the withdrawal of the case as regarded Shelly, and contended that Mr Justice Collins laid it down in 1894 that evidence even of an accomplice could not be withdrawn from the jury.

The Judge adhered to his decision.

Sir Edward Clarke, on behalf of the prisoner, said he had to deal with the remnants of the case. He animadverted upon the conduct of the case by counsel for the Crown, and said he should call Wilde to face for the third time the cross-examination to which he might be subjected. He submitted that Wilde’s conduct throughout had been that of an innocent man, and on the evidence he urged that the jury could only return a verdict of not guilty.

The prisoner then entered the witness box, and denied that there was any truth whatever in the charges made against him.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General—Wilde said the letter he wrote to Lord Alfred Douglas,in which he said, "It is a marvel those red-rose-leaf lips of yours should be made no less for music of song than for madness of kissing," was a decent letter. It was a prose poem. Witness admitted having met young men at Taylor’s rooms. He went there because of his vanity and love of admiration. Charles Parker had visited him seven or eight times at 10 St James’s place. Parker had lunched and dined with him alone. A man named Scarfe had also visited him there. He had taken a young man named Conway to Brighton, and had dined with Wood at the Cafe Royal in a private room. he had been asked to give Wood assistance. He ultimately gave Wood £15 because he wanted to go to America. He did not give him the money for letters which Wood gave him. He had those letters. The evidence of the masseur and the chambermaid at the Savoy Hotel was wholly untrue.

This concluded the cross-examination, and the court adjourned for lunch.

On resuming, the prisoner was re-examined by Sir Edward Clarke—He said until those trials he had no reason to believe Taylor was disreputable or immoral. With regard to the letters he obtained from Wood, he read the letters and found them of no importance. There was nothing in them he objected to being published. There was no pretence for saving that he gave Wood £15 for them.

Sir Edward Clarke then addressed the jury for the defence. He submitted that the fact that Wilde had three times entered the witness box was in itself a powerful assertion of innocence. He claimed that Wilde’s word should be accepted against that of a horde of blackmailers. Having again claimed a verdict of acquittal, Sir Edward resumed his seat amidst an outburst of applause, which was quietly subdued.

The Solicitor-General then commenced his reply for the prosecution, and had not concluded when the Court adjourned till to-morrow.

London, April 26.

The trial of Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor was begun at the Old Bailey this morning. As at the extraordinary case that was heard at the last sessions only three weeks ago, when Wilde was prosecutor and the Marquis of Queensberry was in the dock charged with criminal libel, the public interest in the proceedings was intense. The Old Court was thronged. The gallery, as before, was from an early hour packed with a most unusually well-dressed crowd. Yet there could hardly have been one among the dense mass wedging themselves within the walls who did not feel that before them was to be carried out to its bitter end the tragedy of a brilliant genius and the tragedy of a wasted life. Of all the trials--and there have been many sad ones--heard within these historic walls, there has never been one more saddening than this. So terrible, indeed, is it, that it is impossible to realise at the full the whole of its awful import.

Nine, counsel were engaged in the case. Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill had charge of the prosecution, instructed by Mr. Angus Lewis on behalf of the Public Prosecutor. Wilde was defended by Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys. Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor appeared for the prisoner Taylor, and Mr. Leonard Kershaw hold a watching brief for the witness Mavor. All the counsel were early in attendance, and Mr. Charles Mathews passed down through the dock to the cells, doubtless to see the prisoner Wilde, before the arrival of Mr. Justice Charles, who did not take his seat till fully half-past 10. The prisoners were at once brought into the dock. Wilde, looking almost haggard, and fallen away from his old fleshiness, wore the dark overcoat and suede gloves which have been his attire throughout these painful cases, and still carried his scrupulously-brushed silk hat. Taylor for the first time wore an overcoat, of light brown cloth with a collar of slightly darker velvet, and was suede-gloved like his companion. He was neatly groomed as ever, but his fresh- coloured effeminate face wore a much more serious expression than when he was first brought up at Bow - street. Wilde leant heavily on the front of the dock. Taylor stood erect, and looked curiously about the court, which he last saw from a very different point of view.

The Clerk of Arraigns, having read the principal of the 25 counts of the indictments against the prisoners, called upon Wilde to plead first.

Sir Edward Clarke at once rose to take a preliminary objection to his client being called upon to plead at all. He pointed out that on the counts under the Criminal Law Amendment Act the prisoners are competent witnesses on their own behalf, while on the counts for conspiracy they are not. He submitted, therefore, that they could not be asked to make one plea to both indictments. The defendants had, moreover, the right to elect whether they would be put on their trial on the charge of conspiracy, on which they could not give evidence, or on the charge under the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885, under which they are competent witnesses.

Mr. Gill, in reply, said the prisoners were charged with acts of gross indecency, on which they could give evidence. The only other charge against them was one of agreement as to committing or attempting to commit these misdemeanours. To give evidence on the first would undoubtedly lay them open to cross-examination on both, but there was no hardship he said, in the prisoners being indicted on counts so nearly similar.

Mr. Justice Charles held that the counts could lawfully be joined together in the same indictment. Otherwise the Criminal Law Amendment Act would be held to over-ride the ordinary criminal law, under which misdemeanours could undoubtedly be joined. At the same time he appreciated the inconvenience of the position.

Wilde was then again called upon to plead, and in clear tones replied not guilty. Taylor was next called upon, and rather huskily replied in the same words.

Sir Edward Clarke then raised another objection. He appealed to the judge to order in his discretion that the prosecution should elect upon which of the two sets of charges they would proceed, quoting a long case to show that two separate charges of misdemeanour could not be taken upon the same offence and at the same time.

Mr. Gill left it to the Bench. It was, he said, entirely a question for the learned judge. The learned judge here again could not agree with Sir Edward. He again expressed his sense of the inconvenience of the position, but he did not feel, at least at that moment, justified in putting the prosecution to the necessity of dividing the case.

Mr. Gill rose to address the jury. With regard to the nature of the case, he said it would be idle to suppose the jury had not heard or read much about it already, but be trusted they would dismiss prior knowledge as far as possible from their thoughts and approach the consideration of a very serious case with impartial minds.

Mr. Gill proceeded to describe Taylor's rooms with their heavily draped windows, their candles burning on through the day, and the languorous atmosphere, heavy with perfumes. Here, he said, men met together, and here Wilde was introduced by Taylor to youths who would give evidence in the case. Analysing the indictment, Mr. Gill said the first nine counts referred to misconduct with the lads named Parker, the next three to Frederick Atkins, the next five to Alfred Wood, two more to incidents at the Savoy Hotel, two to the young man named Mavor, three to charges of conspiracy, and the last to Wilde's conduct in regard to the lad Shelley. Taking these in their order he roundly accused Taylor of corrupting the first-named lads, and inducing them to meet Wilde by assuring them that he was liberal in his payments. In regard to Taylor the most serious counts of the indictment charge him with attempting the actual felony with both the lads named Parker, whose evidence was abundantly corroborated. Mr. Gill then went over the facts already published in connection with the Queensberry suit and the police-court proceedings as to Wilde's relations with the Parkers, Atkins, Mavor, and Wood, and with the latter's alleged attempt to extort blackmail. There was a difference about Wilde's acquaintanceship with Shelley, whom he met in the shop of his publishers, Messrs. Mathews and Lane, where he was employed. It was an acquaintance with a literary side, but it went through the same stages. Tamely concluding, when he seemed to be only in medias res, with an assurance that the evidence which he would call would justify the jury in finding the prisoners guilty on all counts of the indictment, Mr. Gill called his first witness.

Charles Parker is now 21 years of age, a slim, clean-shaven lad, with a fair, girlish face. He deposed that prior to his acquaintance with Taylor he was employed as a valet. His brother, William Parker, was a groom. He then proceeded to give once more in detailthe process by which Taylor introduced himself at the St. Jamesís Restaurant, and the dinner at the Solferino in Rupert-street, at which Wilde was present. They had a private room. The table was laid for four, and was lighted by candles with red shades. There was champagne, followed by cognac, and incidents followed which the witness described. Wilde meantime gazed at him fixedly, showing no embarrassment or feeling. There were unmentionable particulars of other meetings, after each of which the witness received a sum of money. Wilde leaned over the front of the dock to whisper a few sentences into the ear of Mr. Charles Mathews, who nodded and left the court. Almost as if by accident Mr. Gill elicited a piece of evidence against Wilde more revolting than anything which has yet been told in the case. When Mr. Gill went on to refer to the arrest of the witness and Taylor in the Fitzroy-square raid in August, 1894, Mr. Grain rose for the first time and quietly protested against the introduction of matter extraneous to the indictment. "Surely I have enough to answer!" he said. Mr. Gill said he only desired to show that after that incident the witness ceased his acquaintance with Taylor, and went into the country, where he enlisted in the army. It was there Lord Queensberry's solicitor found him, when seeking evidence in support of the plea of justification.

This closed the examination in chief, and the court adjourned for luncheon.

When the court resumed, Sir E. Clarke proceeded to cross - examine the witness Charles Parker. He enlisted on Sept. 3. Somebody from Messrs. Russell and Day came to see him about the matter in March. He enlisted in the name he had given in court. The day before Mr. Russell came he had not communicated with anybody in regard to this. He had no idea how he found him out. He had stated at the police-court that he had received £30, which was money that had been extorted from a gentleman. He could not remember the date when he received his £30. It was a month or two before he enlisted. The names of the men from whom he received the money were Wood and Allen. Wood was a witness in this case. He did not know where Allen was to be found.

How much did Wood and Allen tell you they got?--£300 or £400.

It was the first sum of money he had received under such circumstances. He spent it in about two days.

At counsel's request witness wrote the name and address of his late employer. He was there as a valet for about nine months. He did not leave without a character. He had a written character, which was given to him before the clothes he was accused of stealing were found to be missing. When he called at Taylor's house he understood what the purpose was. When he first met Wilde he knew him as a dramatist, and told him that he wanted to go upon the stage. He told Wilde that his father was a horse-dealer, He knew why he was introduced to Wilde. At that first dinner Wilde took the greatest part in the conversation. He and Wilde arrived at the Savoy at about 10 o'clock. They went to the second or third floor--he could not be certain which, but be thought the second. He did not see anyone but a hall-boy at the hotel entrance. They went up by the lift. In the sitting-room Wilde rang the bell for a waiter, and the waiter went for drinks and brought them in. The sitting-room and the bedroom opened one into the other. Wilde did not lock the sitting-room door, but he locked that of the bedroom. He did not see any servants about when he left the hotel. He did not know Wilde even by sight until he was introduced to him at the restaurant.

Mr. Grain, on behalf of Taylor, introduced a new name, that of one Harrington, and suggested that the witness was introduced by Harrington to Taylor. The witness denied it. He knew Harrington before he knew Taylor, and he was present at the meeting at the St. James's Hall bar, but he did not make the introduction.

Are you quite sure the sum of £30 mentioned by Sir Edward Clarke is the only sum you have received under similar circumstances? Yes. Has Wood not suggested to you more than once that there were people from whom you might obtain money? No. You are sure of it? Yes.

Mr. Grain next found a glaring discrepancy between the evidence given by witness this morning as to misconduct with Taylor at Camera-square and that he gave last week at Bow-street, where he swore that there was no such misconduct. The witness admitted that he had made both statements, and could in no way reconcile them. Passing to another subject, Mr. Grain elicited that six months after the witness made Taylor's acquaintance he went to Paris with another person.

A composer? Yes. An operatic composer? Yes. How long were you in Paris with that person? A month. In what capacity? As valet. Did he pay you wages? Yes; two louis a month. Did you share the same room? No. You saw him every day? Yes; I visited him every morning.

In further cross-examination the witness said he knew the lad Atkins and another named Burton. They were living together when he made their acquaintance.

Did you go to Monte Carlo with Burton? Yes. How long were you there? Only a few days.

This concluded Mr. Grain's cross-examination, and Mr. Gill rose to re-examine. In reply to his (Mr. Gill's) questions, Parker said he knew Lord Alfred Douglas. He was introduced to him by Taylor. He knew, too, that the letters for which Wood received £30 were written by Wilde. Then MG Gill found a plausible explanation of the apparent inconsistency discovered by Mr. Grain, by eliciting that the misconduct in Chelsea occurred at the Chapel-street lodging, and not in Camera-square. After being almost three hours in the box the witness was dismissed, and Mr. Gill called.

William Parker, the elder brother of the last witness, aged 22. He confirmed generally the evidence to the way in which they made the acquaintance of Taylor and were introduced to Wilde.

William Parker was narrowly cross-examined by Sir Edward Clarke. "When you went to the first dinner at Kettner's or the Solerino," he asked, "did you know the purpose for which you now say you were introduced to Mr. Wilde?" "Yes," said the witness.

Ellen Grant, the caretaker of 13, Little College-street, was called to give evidence of Taylor's tenancy. Among the visitors were Charles Mason, Sydney Mavor, and other young men of 16 and upwards.

The court was adjourned at five o'clock.

We are requested by Lord Alfred Douglas to state that in response to an urgent telegram from his mother he started to-day for Italy to see her, but hopes to return to London in a few days.