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 trial or JOHN SHOLTO DOUGLAS, MARQUIS of QUEENSBERRY, who surrendered upon an indictment charging him with unlawfully and maliciously writing and publishing a false, malicious, and defamatory libel of and concerning Mr. Oscar Wilde in the form of a card directed to him, was resumed.

Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys, appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Carson, Q.C., Mr. C. F. Gill, and Mr. A. Gill defended. Mr. Besley, Q.C., Mr. Monckton, and Mr. Leonard Kershaw watched the case for a person interested.

Mr. CARSON, Q.C., continued his opening statement of the case for the defence. He said that yesterday, when it came to the usual time for the adjournment of the Court, he had dealt as fully as he intended to deal with the question of Mr. Wilde's connexion with the literature and the two letters which had been produced in the case, and he had almost hoped that he had sufficiently demonstrated to the jury upon that matter that, so far as Lord Queensberry was concerned, he was absolutely justified in bringing to a climax in the way he did this question of the connexion between Mr. Oscar Wilde and his son. He himself had, unfortunately, a more painful part of the case now to approach. It would be his painful duty to bring before them young men one after another to tell their tale. It was, of course, even for an advocate a distasteful task. But let those who were inclined to condemn these men for allowing themselves to be dominated, misled, and corrupted by Mr. Oscar Wilde remember the relative position of the parties, and remember that they were men who had been more sinned against than sinning. He was not going in any great detail now to criticize the evidence of Mr. Oscar Wilde in relation to the several transactions as to which he was cross-examined. There were general observations applicable to all the cases; there was, in point of fact, a startling similarity between each of them on his own admission which must lead the jury to draw most painful conclusions. There was the fact that in no one of these cases were these parties on an equality in any way with Mr. Wilde; they were none of them educated parties with whom he would naturally associate, and they were not his equal in years. The jury ould have observed a curious similarity in the ages of each of them. Mr. Wilde had said that there was something beautiful, something charming about youth which led him to adopt the course he did. It was absurd; his excuse in the witness-box was only a travesty of the facts. Who were all these your men? Of Wood he himself had spoken. Who was Parker? Mr. Wilde professed the same ignorance about Parker as be had about Wood--that he knew nothing about his antecedents. He also knew nothing about Searle except that he was out of employment. About Conway be said that he had met him at Worthing. There was a curious similarity between all these cases--they were all of the same age. Take the case of Parker. How did Mr. Wilde come to know Parker? Parker was a gentleman's servant who was out of employment and he and his brother one evening at a restaurant in Piccadilly met Taylor. Taylor came and addressed them. Within a day or two Mr. Wilde gave a dinner to Taylor on the occasion of his birthday, and told Taylor to bring anyone he liked. What an idea Taylor must have had of Mr. Wilde's taste that he should bring to his birthday dinner a groom and a valet. There could be no explanation of the matter but one--that Taylor was the procurer for Mr. Wilde, and the jury would hear from this young man Parker, who would have to tell his unfortunate story to them, that he was poor and out of a place, that he had no money, and unfortunately fell a victim to Mr. Wilde. On the first evening they met Mr. Wilde called Parker "Charlie" and Parker called him "Oscar." He did not want to say anything about Mr. Wilde's theories that there should be no social distinctions. It might be a very noble and a very generous instinct in some people to 'wish to break down social barriers but he did not know that Mr. Wilde's conduct was regulated by any generous instincts towards these young men. If Mr. Wilde wanted to assist Parker, did they think it was in favour of Mr. Wilde that he should take him to a restaurant and give him a luxurious dinner and champagne? Was that the way that assistance would be given? Parker said that after the dinner Mr. Wilde invited him to drive with him to the Savoy Hotel. He himself must say that they had had no explanation from Mr. Wilde as to why he had the suite of rooms at the Savoy Hotel. Parker would tell them what happened on arriving there. That was the scandal at the Savoy Hotel to which Lord Queensberry had referred in his letter as far back as June or July in last sear. The jury would wonder, not at the reports having reached Lord Queensberry's ears, but that Mr. Wilde had been tolerated in London society as long as he had. The man Parker had since enlisted in the Army and bore a good character. Mr. Wilde himself said that Parker was a respectable man. Parker would reluctantly present himself to tell his story to the jury. The learned counsel was next proceeding to deal with the case of a young man named Conway, when

SIR. EDWARD CLARKE, Q.C., who had previously left the Court with Mr. Charles Mathews, returned, and, interposing, asked permission of the learned Judge to have a conversation with Mr. Carson. At the close of a few moments' communication between the learned counsel,

SIR EDWARD CLARKE rose, and, addressing Mr. Justice Collins, said,--Will your Lordship allow me to interpose at this moment to make a statement, which, of course, is made under a feeling of very great responsibility? My learned friend, Mr. Carson, yesterday addressed the jury on the question of the literature involved in this case, and upon the inferences to be drawn from admissions made, with regard to letters, by Mr. Oscar Wilde yesterday, and my friend began address this morning by saying that he hoped yesterday that he had said enough dealing with those topics to induce the jury to relieve him from the necessity of dealing in detail with the other issues in this case. I think it must be present in your Lordship's mind that those who are representing Mr. Oscar Wilde in this case have before them a very terrible anxiety. They cannot conceal from themselves that the judgment that might be formed of that literature and of the conduct which had been admitted might not improbably induce the jury to say that when Lord Queensberry used the words, "Posing as," &c., he was using words for which there was sufficient justification to entitle a father using those words in those circumstances to the utmost consideration, and to be relieved from a criminal charge in respect of that statement. And, my Lord, we had, in our clear view that that might not improbably be the result upon that part of the case, and I and my learned friends who desire to be associated with me in this matter had looked forward to this--that a verdict given in favour of the defendant upon that part of the case might be interpreted outside as a conclusive finding with regard to all parts of the case. The position in which we stood was this--that, without expecting to obtain a verdict in this case, we should be going through day after day, it might be, with long evidence, investigating matters of the most appalling character. In these circumstances I hope your Lordship will think that I am taking a right course, which I am taking after communications with Mr. Oscar Wilde, --that is to say, that, having regard to what has been already referred to by my learned friend in respect of the matters connected with the literature and the letters, I feel that he could not resist a verdict of "Not guilty" in this case, having reference to the words, " Posing as," &c. In these circumstances I hope that your Lordship will think that I am not going beyond the bounds of duty, and that I am doing some thing to save or to prevent what would be a most terrible task, however it might close, if I now interpose and say, on behalf of Mr. Oscar Wilde, that I would ask to withdraw from the prosecution, and, if your Lordship does not think at this time of the case that I ought to be allowed to do this, I am prepared to submit to a verdict of "Not guilty," having regard, if to any part of the particulars at all, to that part of them which is connected with the publication of "Dorian Gray " and the publication of the Chameleon. I trust that that may make an end of the case.

Mr. CARSON, Q.C.--My Lord,--I do not know that I have any right whatever to interfere in any way in the application that my friend has made to your Lordship. I can only say that, as far as Lord Queensberry is concerned, if there is a verdict of "Not guilty," a verdict which involves that he has succeeded in his plea of justification, I am quite satisfied. Of course, my friend must admit that we must succeed upon that plea in the manner which he has stated. Therefore, it rests entirely with your Lordship whether the course suggested by my friend should be taken.

Mr. JUSTICE COLLINS.--Inasmuch as the prosecutor in this case is prepared to acquiesce in a verdict of ``Not guilty," I do not think it is any part of the functions of a Judge or jury to insist on going through prurient details which have no bearing on the matter which has been already concluded by the assent of the prosecutor to a verdict of ``Not guilty." But as to the jury's putting any limitation on the verdict, the justification is one justifying the charge of "Posing as," &c. If that is justified, it is justified. If it is not, it is not; and the verdict of jury must be a verdict of "Guilty" or "Not guilty," and I understand the prosecution to assent to a verdict of "Not guilty." Of course, the jury will return their verdict.

Mr. CARSON, Q.C.--Of course, my Lord, the verdict will be that the plea of justification is proved, and that it is for the public benefit.

JUSTICE COLLINS.--The verdict is "Not guilty," but it is arrived at by that process. I should tell the jury that two things had to be established--that the justification was true in substance and in fact--that the prosecutor had "Posed as," &c.--and I should also have had to tell them that they would have to find that the statement was published in such a manner as to be for the public benefit. If they find these two issues in favour of the defendant, then the verdict will be "Not guilty." That is the verdict, I understand, which is submitted to. Gentlemen of the Jury,--Your ultimate verdict will be "Not guilty," but there are other matters which have to be determined with reference to the specific finding on the plea of justification and which involve two things--that the statement is true in fact, and that it was published for the public benefit. Having found these in favour of the defendant, your verdict will be " Not guilty," and you will have to say whether the plea of justification is proved or not.

The jury having consulted for a few moments, the Clerk of Arraigns, addressing them, said:--Gentlemen of the Jury,--Do you find the plea of justification has been proved or not?

The Foreman.--Yes.

The Clerk of Arraigns.--You say that the defendant is Not guilty, and that is the verdict of you all?

The Foreman.--Yes; and we also find that it was published for the public benefit.

The verdict was received with loud applause.

Mr. CARSON, Q.C.--Of course, the costs of the defence will follow.

Mr. JUSTICE COLLINS.--Yes.

Mr. C. F. GILL.--And Lord Queensberry may be discharged.

Mr. JUSTICE COLLINS.--Certainly.

The Marquis of Queensberry then left the dock amid renewed cheering.