Compare Documents

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.

The hearing of the charge against the Marquis of Queensberry of maliciously publishing a false and defamatory libel concerning Mr. Oscar Wilde was yesterday resumed before Mr. Justice Collins at the Central Criminal Court.

Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. C. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Carson, Q.C., Mr. C. F. Gill, and Mr. A. Gill for the defence; and Mr. Besley, Q.C., and Mr. Monckton watched the case on behalf of Lord Douglas of Hawick.

Mr. Wilde did not make his appearance in Court, but it was understood that he was within the building.

Mr. Carson, continuing his speech for the defence, said that he almost hoped that he had on the previous day sufficiently demonstrated upon the matters that were not really in dispute—that Lord Queensberry was absolutely justified in bringing to a climax in the way he did the question of the relationship between Mr. Wilde and his son. It would, however, be his painful duty to bring before the Jury, one after the other, the young men referred to, to give their versions of the story. One startling similarity between all of the cases was that none of the young men were in any way on a social equality with Mr. Wilde. They were not educated people such as he would naturally associate with, nor his equals in age, and could he not easily have found companions to please his expressed ideas of youth and beauty among people of his own class? The whole thing was absurd. It might be a very noble and generous instinct to wish to throw down all social barriers; but if Mr. Wilde had desired to benefit the young men whose acquaintance he made, surely he could have found a better way of doing so. The ridiculous explanation given by the prosecutor would not bear a moment's examination. Then there was no sufficient explanation as to why he took the suite of rooms at the Savoy Hotel; but when they heard the evidence of the various witnesses that he would call, they would wonder not that the gossip about Mr. Wilde had reached Lord Queensberry's ears, but that Wilde had been tolerated, as he had been, for years in society.

While the learned counsel was further elaborating his case, Sir Edward Clarke came into Court, and, interrupting Mr. Carson, entered into a brief consultation with him.

Sir Edward Clarke, then rising, said—Perhaps your Lordship will allow me to interpose at this moment in order to make a statement, which I, of course, make under a feeling of grave responsibility. My learned friend, Mr. Carson, yesterday addressed the Jury upon the question of the literature involved in this case, and upon the inferences to be drawn from the admissions made with regard to the letters to Mr. Oscar Wilde which were read yesterday. My learned friend began his address this morning by saying that he had hoped that be had said enough yesterday in dealing with these topics to enable him to be relieved of the necessity of dealing in detail with the other issues in this case. I think it must be present to your Lordship's mind that those who are representing Mr. Wilde have before them a very terrible anxiety. They cannot conceal from themselves the fact that the judgment that may be formed of that literature, and of the conduct which has been admitted by Mr. Wilde, might not improbably induce the Jury to say that when Lord Queensberry used the words complained of, he was using words for which there was sufficient justification for a father using under the circumstances—words which entitled him to the utmost justification, as well as relieving him from the criminal charge in respect to his statement. It being our clear view that that might not improbably be the result upon that part of the case, I and my friends, who desire to be associated with me in the matter, had to look forward to this, that a verdict given in favour of the defendant on that part of the case might be interpreted outside as a conclusive finding in regard to all parts of the case; and the position in which we stood was this, that without expecting to obtain a verdict in this case, we should be going, day after day, through long evidence, and into an investigation of matters of a most appalling character. In these circum- stances I hope your Lordship will think that I am taking the right course—a course which I am taking after communication with Mr. Oscar Wilde—and that is, that having heard what has been already said by my learned friend in respect to matters connected with the literature and the letters, I feel that we could not resist a verdict of not guilty in respect to the words of the libel. I hope your Lordship will not think I am going beyond the bounds of duty in doing what I can to prevent what would be a most terrible task, however it might close, if I now interpose on behalf of Mr. Oscar Wilde, and ask leave to withdraw from the prosecution. (Applause.) If your Lordship does not think that at this point in the case, after what has taken place, I ought to be allowed to do this, I am prepared to submit to a verdict of not guilty having reference—if to any part of the particulars—to that part which is connected with the publication of "Dorian Gray" and the publication of the Chameleon. I do trust, my Lord, that my application may make an end to the case.

Mr. Carson—l do not know that I have any right whatever to interfere in any way in the application my learned friend has made. I can only say, as far as Lord Queensberry is concerned, that if there is a plea of not guilty—a plea which involves that he has succeeded in his complete justification—I am quite satisfied. Of course my learned friend would admit that we must succeed on that plea in the manner in which he has said, and, that being so, it will rest entirely with your Lordship as to whether the course suggested by my learned friend ought to be taken.

Mr. Justice Collins—Inasmuch as the prosecutor in this case is prepared to acquiesce in a verdict of not guilty against the accused, I do not think it is any part of the function of the Judge or of the Jury to insist on going into details which can have no bearing on the matter which is already concluded by the assent of the prosecutor. But as for putting any limitation on the verdict, the justification is one which is a justification of the charge. If that is justified it is justified, and if it is not it is not, and the verdict of the Jury upon it must be guilty or not guilty. As I understand, the prosecutor will assent to a verdict of not guilty. There can be no terms. There can be no limitation of the verdict, which must be guilty or not guilty. Of course tho Jury will return a verdict of not guilty.

Mr. Carson—The verdict will, of course, be that complete justification is proved, and that the publication was for the public benefit.

Mr. Justice Collins—The verdict will be not guilty, but it is arrived at by that process, of course. I shall have to tell the Jury that the justification was proved, and that the statement was true in substance and in fact. I shall also have to tell them that they will have to find that the statement was published in such a manner as to be for the public benefit. If they find on these two points then the verdict will be not guilty in favour of the defendant. That is the verdict which I understand that the Jury are invited to give. A few seconds later his Lordship, turning to the Jury, said :—Your verdict will be not guilty, but there are other matters which have to be determined with reference to specific finding of complete justification, and. as I told you, that involves that the statement is true in substance and in fact, and that the publication is for the public benefit. These are the facts on which you will have to find, and if you find them in favour of the defendant, your verdict will be not guilty. You will have to say whether you find complete justification has been proved or not.

After consulting for a few minutes, the Jury signified that they had arrived at their decision.

The Clerk of Arraigns—Do you find the complete justification proved or not?

The Foreman of the Jury—Yes.

The Clerk—Do you find a verdict of not guilty?

The Foreman—Yes.

The Clerk—And that is the verdict of you all?

The Foreman—Yes; and we also find that the publication was for the public benefit.

The announcement of the verdict was received with loud applause.

Mr. Carson—And the costs of the defence will follow?

Mr. Justice Collins—Yes, he is entitled to his costs.

Mr. Carson—May I ask that Lord Queensberry may be discharged?

Mr. Justice Collins—Yes, certainly.

Lord Queensberry then left the dock amid renewed applause, and, on descending into the body of the Court, was congratulated by his friends.

At the conclusion of the trial at the Central Criminal Court yesterday morning, Mr. Charles Russell, Lord Queensberry's solicitor, addressed the following letter to the Public Prosecutor:—

"37, Norfolk-street, Strand.

"To the Hon. HAMILTON CUFFE, Director of Prosecutions.

"Dear Sir,—In order that there may be no miscarriage of justice, I think it my duty at once to send you a copy of all our witnesses' statements, together with a copy of the shorthand notes of the trial—Yours faithfully,

"Charles Russell."

During the afternoon Mr. Angus Lewis, of the Treasury, had an interview with Sir John Bridge at Bow-street, and subsequently a warrant was issued by the Magistrate.

—

Mr. Oscar Wilde was arrested shortly after seven o'clock last evening, and taken to Scotland Yard. The warrant for the arrest was executed by Inspector Richards, of Scotland-yard, who, with Sergeant Allen, proceeded to the Cadogan Hotel, Sloane-street, shortly after six o'clock. When the charge was read over to him he made no reply, and was immediately taken to Scotland Yard and handed over to Inspector Brockwell, who held the warrant. After remaining for some time at Scotland Yard, Mr. Wilde was placed in a four-wheeled cab and conveyed to Bow-street. He was at once placed in the dock and charged by Inspector Digby. The prisoner made no reply, and was removed for the night to a cell. Mr. Wilde will be brought up before the Magistrate and charged at ten o'clock this morning, when it is understood evidence of a formal character only will be tendered. At one o'clock this morning Mr. Wilde still remained in custody, the police officials not being empowered to accept bail.