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.

London, April 3.

All the appearances of a sensational trial was presented 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. Necessarily, from the peculiar nature of the case, the proceedings were expected to be of a character such as to preclude the admission to court of any but the sterner sex. The Marquis was the first to appear, and was soon followed by Mr. Oscar Wilde, who 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. O. 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.

Sir E. Clarke, in opening the case for the prosecution, said the card was a visiting card of the Marquis of Queensberry, and had written upon it, "To Oscar Wilde, posing as --" (an expression which we are unable to print). Of course it was a matter of serious moment that a word as that should in any way be connected with the name of a gentleman who had borne a high reputation in this country. It was an accusation of the gravest of all offences. The accusation of posing no doubt appeared to suggest that there was no guilt of the actual offence, but that in some way or another the person of whom these words were written desired to appear to be a person guilty of that gravest of all offences. He pointed out that there was no allegation in the pleadings that Mr. Oscar Wilde had been guilty of the offence of which he (counsel) had spoken; but there was a series of accusations, and the names of many persons were mentioned. It was said with regard to these that Mr. Wilde had solicited them to commit with him a grave offence, and that he had been guilty with each and all of them of improper practices. He thought it would occur to the jury as somewhat, strange that whereas these pleadings and the statements which were contained in them referred to a very considerable period of time, one would gather from the pleadings that during all that time Mr. Wilde had been unsuccessfully soliciting these persons. If they were called upon to sustain the charges, these persons would necessarily have to admit much in cross-examination; but he supposed they would not be prepared to admit that they were guilty of the grossest of all offences. Of course,it was for those who had undertaken the grave responsibility of putting in the pleadings of these allegations to satisfy the jury if they could, by witnesses whose evidence they would deem worthy of consideration and entitled to belief, that these charges were true. Counsel next proceeded to refer to the circumstances under which Mr. Wilde became acquainted with Lord A. Douglas in 1891, and pointed out that from that time to the present Mr. Wilde had been the friend not only of Lord Alfred Douglas, but of his brother and mother, Lady Queensberry, who was the wife of the defendant, but who some years ago obtained release from the marriage tie in consequence of the defendent's conduct. It was not until 1894 that Mr. Wilde became aware that certain statements had been made affecting his character, and he became aware of it in this way: There was a man named Wood, whom he had seen once or twice, and who had been given some clothes by Lord A. Douglas. This man said he had found in the pocket of the coat that was given to him four letters which had been written by Mr. Wilde to Lord A. Douglas. Whether Wood had found them in the pocket of the coat or whether he had stolen them was a matter upon which he (counsel) at this moment could only speculate. At all events, there were some letters of Mr. Wilde's which were being handed about, and Wood came to Mr. Wilde early in the year 1894, and told, him that he had these letters, and asked Mr. Wilde to give him something for them. Wood represented himself as being in some distress, and as wanting to go to America. Mr. Wilde gave him £15 or £20 in order to pay his passage to America. Wood handed Mr. Wilde the letters which had been written by him to Lord A. Douglas, but he(counsel) did not think any importance attached to these letters, because, as was generally the case where people thought that they had got letters which were of some importance, those which were of no importance were given up, and the letter which was supposed to be of importance was retained. That was the case in this instance. On Feb. 28 Mr. Wilde called at the Albemarle Club, and was then handed the card, the subject of the libel alleged, contained in an envelope, and in the result a warrant was granted, upon which the Marquis of Queensbury was arrested on Mar. 2. Referring to the plea of justification, it contained references to a certain magazine, and Mr. Wilde was said to be responsible for an article appearing in it of a disgraceful and unworthy character. As a matter of fact, however, Mr. Wilde was not responsible for the article at all. He insisted, as soon as he saw that article, his name appearing on the title-page of the magazine that it should be withdrawn from publication. He had no knowledge that the article had been written or that it was going to appear in the magazine until he saw it in print, and he then expressed his opinion that the literature was bad and unworthy to be published.

Evidence having been given to prove the publication Of the alleged libel by Sidney Wright, the porter of the Albemarle Club, to whom the card was given, Mr. Oscar Wilde was next called, and in his evidence he said that he made the acquaintance of Lord Alfred Douglas in 1891. He was also on friendly terms with Lord Alfred Douglas's brother. Since 1891 he had been in the habit of dining with Lord Alfred Douglas at the Albermarle Club, and had stayed with him at various places. In November, 1892, he met the Marquis of Queensberry at the Café Royal, whilst in the company of Lord Alfred Douglas, and they had luncheon together. He did not see the Marquis again for some time. The witness spoke to a man named Wood calling upon him and producing a certain letter, which he had sent to Lord Alfred Douglas. This man said that the letters had been stolen from him. The witness did not regard the letters as of any importance. He gave the man £15 to get to America. He next had a call from a man named Allen, to whom he said: "I suppose you have come about my beautiful letter to Lord Alfred Douglas. If you had not been so foolish as to send a copy of it to Mr. Beerbohm Tree I would gladly have paid you a very large sum of money for the letter, as I consider it to be a work of art." The man said: "It is a very curious construction to put on that letter." He added that a man had offered him £60 for it. The witness said: "If you would take my advice you would go to that man and sell my letter for £60. I have never received so large a sum for any prose work of that length." Other conversation followed, and the man said that he had not a single penny, and was very poor, and witness gave him 10s. He told the man that the letter was a prose poem, which would shortly be published in a dramatic magazine, and he would send him a copy. That letter was the basis of a poem published in French in the "Spirit Lamp" magazine. The Marquis called on him about Lord Alfred Douglas, and witness, referring to a letter, said: "I could have you up at any time for a criminal libel." The Marquis said: "The letter is a privileged one, as it was written to my son." He added: "You were both kicked out of the Savoy Hotel at a moment's notice for your disgusting conduct." He made other statements, and he ordered the Marquis out of his house, saying to his servant: "This is the Marquis of Queensberry, the most infamous brute in London. You are never to allow him to enter my house again, and if he should attempt to come in you must send for the police." There was no truth in the suggestion that he was turned out of the Savoy Hotel. He had nothing whatever to do with the magazine called the Chameleon beyond contributing to it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Carson, Q.C.: He was 40 years of age next birthday; Lord Alfred Douglas was 24 years Of age. Before the interview in Tite-street, between himself and the Marquis, he had hot received a letter from the Marquis protesting against his association with his son, Lord Alfred Douglas. He was aware that the Marquis had made such a protest, but, notwithstanding, he had kept the acquaintance up till the present time, and had stayed with Lord Alfred Douglas at various places, including hotels in London. He had been abroad with him, and recently they were at Monte Carlo. He was of opinion that there was no such thing as an immoral book. Mr. Carson: Do you think the phrase, under the title of "Phrases of Philosophy for the Young," a proper one: "Wickedness is a myth invented by good people to account for the peculiar attractiveness of others"? - I rather think everything I write is true in effect, but not true in the sense of an actual fact in life. So far from the phrases being improper, he thought they were most stimulating. (Laughter.)

Is "Dorian Gray" open to the interpretation of being a disgusting book? - Only to brutes and the illiterate. You cannot ask about the interpretation of my work; it does not concern me. What concerns me is my view and my feeling. I do not care "tuppence" what Philistines think about it.

Mr. Carson read the description of the artist's feelings on first meeting "Dorian Gray" and in reply to a question, Mr. Wilde said: I think this is the most perfect description possible of what an artist would feel on meeting a beautiful personality. You mean a beautiful person? - Yes; a beautiful young man if you like.

Having read another passage, Mr. Carson asked: Do you mean to say that that describes the natural feeling of one man towards another? - It describes the influence produced on an artist by a beautiful personality.

The letter you wrote to Lord Alfred Douglas, was it an ordinary letter? - No. "My own boy"; was that not ordinary? - No. You would say, I suppose, that for a man of your age to address a youth of half your years as "My own boy" would be an improper thing? - No, certainly not; not if he was fond of him. I was fond of Lord Alfred. Mr. Carson quoted--"And it was marvellous that those red, roseleaf lips of yours should be made no less for music and song than for the madness of kissing." Was that proper? - My dear sir, you are cross-examining me upon a poem. You might as well ask me if King Lear or Shakspere's sonnets are improper.

I will read you another letter--

"Savoy Hotel. "Dearest of all Boys, -- Your letter was delightful red and yellow wine to me, and I am sad and out of sorts. Boysey, you must not make scenes with me ; they kill me; they wreck the loveliness of life. I cannot see you, so Greek and gracious, distorted by passion. I cannot listen to your curved lips saying hideous things to me. Don't do it It breaks my heart. I must see you soon. You are the divine thing I want of grace and genius. But I don't know how to do it. There are many difficulties. My bill here is £49 for the week. My dear, my wonderful boy, I fear I must leave. No money, no credit, and a heart of lead.--From your own OSCAR."

Was that an extraordinary letter? - I think everything I write is extraordinary. I do not pose as being ordinary. Ask me anything you like.

In further cross-examination Mr. Wilde admitted having asked an office boy engaged at his publishers, Messrs. Matthews and Lane, to dine with him at the Albermarle Hotel. The boy had whisky and soda. "He had what he liked," said Mr. Wilde.

Witness was asked as to his acquaintance with two other young men.

The hearing was then adjourned until tomorrow, Lord Queensberry being allowed out on bail.