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, Wednesday Evening.

All the appearances of a sensational trial were 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. By the time Mr Justice Collins took his seat on the Bench the court was crammed. 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 Edward Clarke stated the case for the plaintiff.

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 in Chelsea and other places. I have two sons. In 1891 I made the acquaintance of Lord Alfred Douglas. 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 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 1895 that I heard that some 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 wished 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, and he replied that he must get out of 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 of the time. That ended the interview. A long time afterwards I was handed the copy of a letter by Mr Tree. It was the day after the production of my play. Prior to this a man named Allen called upon me. He told the servant that he wished to see me on particular business, and when I went into the hall I saw that he wanted to obtain money, I said to him, "You have come about my beautiful letter to Lord A 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 it, as I consider it to be a work of art." He stated, "A very curious construction has been put on this letter, Mr Wilde." I replied "Ah! Art is little intelligible to the criminal classes." He then said "A man has offered me £60 for it." I observed, "If you take my advice you will go to that man and soil my letter to him for £60. I myself have never seen so large a sum offered for any prose work of that very small length. I am very glad to find that there is some man in England who considers that a letter of mine is worth £60." He then said, '"The man is out of town." I replied, "He is sure to come back again, and as far as I am concerned I can assure you on my word of honour that I will not pay you one penny for it." He then changed his manner a little, and said he had not got a single penny, that he was very poor, and that he had taken a lot of time and trouble in trying to find me. I said, "I cannot guarantee your cab expenses, but will give you half a sovereign." He took the money and went away. A short time afterwards I was told by my servant that a man named Clyborn wanted to see me. I went to him, but told the man I could not dwell any more on this matter. He then produced the letter. I said to him quietly, "Why does he give it back?" He said, "Well, he says that you were kind to him, and that there is no use trying to 'rent' you as you only laugh at us." I looked at the letter, and it was extremely soiled. I said to him, "I think it quite unpardonable that better care was not taken of an original MS of mine" (laughter). He said he was very sorry, but it had been in many hands. I took the letter again and said," Well, I'll accept the letter back, and you can thank Mr Allen for me for all the anxiety he has shown about the letter." I gave Clyborn half a sovereign for his trouble in bringing back the letter. I then said to him, "I am afraid you are leading a wonderfully wicked life." He said, "There is good and bad in everyone of us, Mr Wilde." I told him that he was a born philosopher. He then left. The letter has remained in my possession ever since.

Witness (continuing) spoke of Lord Queensberry coming to the table where Lord Alfred Douglas and witness were lunching 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 library.

I entered the room, continued Mr Wilde, and Lord Queensberry at once remarked, "Sit down." I said, "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 for criminal libel 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 you disgusting 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 disgusting 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 not do so, and I told him I would have him put out by the police. He repeated the accusation, adding "It is a disgusting scandal all over London." I said, "If it is so you are the author of the scandal, and no one else. The letters you have written about me are infamous, 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 wont have in my house a brute like you." I went out into the hall followed by Lord Queensberry and the gentleman who was with Lord Queensberry. l said to my servant, pointing at Lord Queensberry, as I spoke, "This is the Marquis of Queensberry, the most infamous brute in London. You are never to allow him to enter my house again. Should he attempt to come in you must send for the police." Lord Queensberry then left with violent words. It is quite untrue that I took rooms in Piccadilly for his son, Nor was there any foundation for the statement that I at any time was compelled to leave the Savoy Hotel. It is perfectly untrue.

Witness, continuing, referred to the first performance of "The Importance of Being Earnest," and to receiving the card at the Albermarle Club. He bore out the statement of counsel concerning the "Chameleon," saying that a certain article was bad and indecent.

Sir E Clarke — As to your alleged conduct with various persons, is there any truth in either of these cases? There is no truth whatsoever in any one of them.

Mr Carson then proceeded to cross-examine the witness. He said — You said at the commencement of your examination that you are thirty-nine years of age. I think you are over forty? I do not think so.

You were born, I believe, on October 16, 1854? Yes.

That makes you somewhat over forty? Very well.

Do you know Lord A Douglas's age? He is, I think, twenty-four.

When you knew him he was about twenty or twenty-one? Yes.

Continuing, witness said he had not, previous to the interview, received a letter from the Marquis expressing the wish that the acquaintance with his son should not continue. Witness knew the defendant did not wish the acquaintance to continue.

Mr Carson — And for the reasons he gave you? Yes.

Answering further, witness said he had continued very intimate with Lord A Douglas down to the present moment, and he had been to Oxford, Brighton, Worthing, Cromer, and Torquay with him, but had never taken rooms for him. He had been to various hotels with him, including the Savoy, and had taken rooms for himself at 10 and 11 St James's place apart from his house in Tite street. Lord Douglas had stopped there, and, as to his poems in the " Chameleon," he thought them exceedingly beautiful—the one "In Praise of Shame," and the other "Two Loves." The story objected to in the "Chameleon" was, he thought, from a literary point of view, most objectionable, and he added it was impossible for a man of letters to criticise a work from any other point of view. He did not think there was such a thing as an immoral book. The story in question, "The Priest and the Acolyte," was, he said, worse. It was badly written.

Do you think the story blasphemous? I think the account of the death violated every artistic canon of poetry.

That is not what I ask. That is the only answer I can give you.

Did you think it blasphemous? I thought it wrong.

I want to see in what position you pose? That is not the way to talk to me. I pose as nothing.

I want to see your position in reference to this line of publication, and I want to know do you consider that story was blasphemous? The emotion produced in my mind was that of disgust. I did not consider the story a blasphemous production. I think it horrible, but the word "blasphemous " is not my word.

Mr Carson read number of extracts from the article, and said "I think you will admit that anyone who was connected or would allow himself publicly to approve of that article would be posing as a—?"

The Witness — No, but I would say it was very bad literary taste.

You disapprove of it from a literary point of view. Did you ever inform the public that you disapproved of it? No, I never did.

Notwithstanding that the article was in a paper to which you yourself contributed, you did not think it necessary to dissociate yourself from it in any public way? I considered it beneath my dignity to write a letter in regard to an article which was the work of an undergraduate.

Asking questions concerning the "Paraphrases for the Young," written by the witness in the "Chameleon," counsel read this one:—"There is something tragic about the enormous number of young men in England who start life with perfect profiles, and end by adopting some useful profession.'

Witness — The young, I think, have enough sense of humour to see that that is an amusing paradox.

Turning to "Dorian Gray," counsel read an extract, and asked, may I take it that no matter how immoral a book was if it was well written it would be a good book? If it were well written it would produce a sense of beauty, and if badly written a sense of disgust.

Well, if it put forward disgusting views it would be well written? No work of art ever forward views.

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 the Philistines think about it.

The majority of people would come under your term of illiterates? I have found wonderful exceptions.

Your book might have an improper meaning to the ordinary individual? I have no knowledge of the ordinary individual.

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 National feeling of one man towards another? It describes the influence produced on an artist by a beautiful personality.

The book speaks of adoration for the youth Dorian. Have you experienced that? I have never given adoration to anybody but myself (laughter).

I dare say you think that is very smart? Not at all.

Asked a further question, Mr Wilde exclaimed, "I do not know what you are talking about," to which counsel retorted, "Well, I hope I shall make myself very plain before I am done."

Later witness said he borrowed the sensations described in the book from Shakespeare's sonnets, and added — "There are people in the world who cannot understand the intense devotion, affection, and adoration that an artist can feel for either a wonderful and beautiful person or a wonderful and beautiful friend. Those are the conditions under which we live. I regret them."

People who have not a high understanding you think, might put it down to something wrong? Undoubtedly. [...] had done it about Shakespeare's sonnets.

Turning to the personal letter written by witness to Lord A Douglas, counsel asked — "Was that an ordinary letter?"

Witness — Certainly not. An ordinary letter — no!

Do you mean to tell me this was a natural and proper way to address a young man? You are criticising a poem. If you ask me whether it is proper, you might as well ask me whether "King Lear" is proper or a sonnet of Shakespeare proper.

But apart from art? I can't answer any question apart from art. A man who was not an artist could never have written that letter. He could not have used the language used unless he was a man of letters and an artist.

Was that the ordinary way in which you carried out your correspondence with Lord A Douglas? One could not write a letter like that every day. It would be like writing a poem every day—you couldn't do it.

Mr Carson, having quoted from another letter asked—Is that an extraordinary letter? I think everything I write extraordinary, I do not pose being ordinary. Good heavens! (angrily) ask me any questions you like about it.

Mr Carson — When did the man named Wood first come to you about the letters which he had found in Lord A Douglas’s coat? An appointment was made through Mr A Taylor.

Answering further questions Mr Wilde said he met Wood at the Cafe R0yal at Lord A Douglas’s request. He frequently went to 13 Little College street, and had tea there sometimes.

Mr Carson — I think there were all young men at those tea parties? No, not at all.

They were all men? Yes.

Do I understand that the very first day you saw Wood you took him round to the Florence Restaurant? Yes.

Was Taylor also present? No.

In reply to further questions witness emphatically denied having any unlawful relations with Wood. The £15 he gave him was to pay his passage to New York, and witness gave him £5 more the next day.

Did you have a champagne lunch with him before he left for America? Yes.

With the man you thought wanted to blackmail you? Yes.

Answering further questions, witness said Wood called him Oscar. Almost everybody called him by his Christian name. Allen, who brought him the "prose poem," was a notorious blackmailer. He gave him 10s out of contempt. That was one of the best way to show contempt.

Counsel proceeded to put questions with regard to the "office boy" of witness’s publishers.

Mr Wilde denied that the lad was the office boy, and said he was an assistant. He was not good looking, but had an intellectual face. He had dined with witness at the Albemarle Hotel.

For the purpose of having an intellectual treat? Well, for him, yes (laughter).

Other questions were asked by counsel, and, ultimately, Mr Wilde, turning to the Judge, asked—Is it not sufficient for me to give an entire denial, without being exposed to the ignominy, of detail after detail? Why should I be exposed before the whole court in entering into this sort of thing, which cannot possibly be borne?

Mr Carson did not persist.

Cross-examination continued — He became acquainted with a boy named Alfonso Conway, at Worthing, who was about 18 years of age, but had no occupation. He denied having any unlawful relations with him. He had given him a cigarette case with the inscription "Alfonzo: from his friend Oscar Wilde." He had also given this boy his photograph and a book.

Did you bring this boy with you to Brighton? Yes.

You bought him this straw hat and a blue suit to make him look more like your equal? Oh no, he could never look that.

How is it he was so good a companion for you? Because his was a pleasant, bright, simple, nice nature.

The case was adjourned, the defendant being allowed out on his own recognisances.