Compare Documents

The trial of Oscar Wilde on charges of indecency was concluded at the Old Bailey last evening, before Mr Justice Wills.

The prisoner looked ill and anxious in the morning when the Court resumed. As soon as he had entered the dock the Solicitor-General resumed his speech for the prosecution. He asked what was the relationship of the prisoner with Lord Alfred Douglas? Though Lord Queensberry resented the intimacy between the prisoner and Lord Alfred, the prisoner continued that intimacy and flaunted Lord Alfred at hotels in London and the country. The learned counsel contended it had been shown that the prison was closely intimate with Taylor.

Sir Edward Clarke said that was not borne out by evidence.

The Solicitor-General said it appeared as if counsel for the defence desired that one man should go down, and another be saved because of a false glamour of art.

Sir Edward Clarke protested against this mode of appeal to the jury.

The Solicitor-General next referred to the letter which spoke of "rose-leaf lips and madness of kissing." The jury were tried to be put off with the story that this was a prose-poem which they could not appreciate. They must thank God they could only appreciate it at its proper level, which was somewhat lower than a beast’s. His learned friend had warned the jury lest by their verdict they should enable blackmailing to rear its head unblushingly in this country. They should take care that they did not enable another vice as detestable and abominable to raise itself unblushingly. The jury must believe the evidence of Parker and Ward, because no motive had been shown why they should deceive. He submitted that a conflict of testimony only happened at the point where admission stopped and actual confession commenced. In conclusion, he asked the jury to observe the oath they had taken.

The Judge, in summing up, said he thought Wilde had not suffered by Taylor being tried first. With regard to Wilde’s case, he regretted he must deal with matters affecting Lord Alfred Douglas, who was not a party to these proceedings, and could not give evidence.

A Juror—He could be here.

His Lordship said he could not volunteer to give evidence. With regard to the letters referred to it was for the jury to say whether they pointed to unclean relations and appetites on both sides. Lord Alfred Douglas was the person who sent Wood to Wilde, and the jury had to consider whether that introduction was for purposes of charity or for wickedness.

The Foreman of Jury said they were anxious to know whether a warrant for the arrest of Lord Alfred Douglas had ever been issued.

His Lordship said a warrant had not been issued.

In answer to another question by the foreman his lordship said the receipt of this letters and the continuance of the intimacy was as damaging to the reputation of the recipient as to the sender; but that had nothing to do with the case. The question was whether guilt had been brought home to the man in the dock.

His lordship’s address was interrupted by the adjournment for luncheon, and on

The Court resuming, he again referred to Lord Alfred Douglas, who, he said, if guilty, would not be spared because he was Lord Alfred Douglas. As to whether he would be tried, his lordship knew nothing. It might be there was no evidence against him. The question before the jury was whether the man in the dock had been guilty of immoral practices with certain persons, of whom Lord Alfred Douglas was not one. His lordship then dealt with the case of Parker, in regard to which, he said, the association of the defendant with Parker was a crucial point. They must remember the statement that Parker got an introduction to the defendant because he wished to get on the stage. As to the other charges, either the chambermaid committed perjury or she saw what she had sworn.

The jury retired at 3 30 p m, and at 5 25 returned into the box and asked some questions as to the evidence of the waiter at No 10 St James’s place; in reply to which the judge said there was no evidence of Parker sleeping at that address.

The jury again retired, and returned into court shortly afterwards and declared the prisoner guilty on all counts. Taylor being then brought into court, he and Wilde were sentenced each to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour.

The trial of OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, upon a charge of unlawfully committing acts of gross indecency with Charles Parker and Alfred Wood and with persons whose names were unknown, was resumed.

The Solicitor-General (Sir F. Lockwood, Q.C.), Mr. C. F. Gill, and Mr. Horace Avory appeared for the prosecution; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL continued his address on the part of the prosecution. In the course of his speech there was a laugh in the portion of the Court set apart for the public, whereupon the Solicitor-General expressed his surprise that there should be any stray laughter, and

Mr. JUSTICE WILLS observed that such exhibitions of feeling on the part of people who had no business to be there, and who were only present for the purpose of gratifying their morbid curiosity were most offensive to him, and if there was anything of the sort again he would have the Court cleared.

Tho SOLICITOR-GENERAL referred in detail to the evidence which had been given on the part of the prosecution. With regard to the appeal which Sir Edward Clarke had made as the literary past and the literary future of Wilde, the Solicitor-General observed that with that they had nothing whatever to do. Wilde had a right to be acquitted if they thought he was an innocent man, but if on their consciences they believed that he was guilty of these charges than the jury had only one consideration, and that was to follow closely the obligation of the oath which had been imposed upon them.

Mr, JUSTICE WILLS then summed up, and in the course of his remarks said that the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which made a defendant a competent but not compellable witness, was never intended to alter or to infringe upon the sacred old principle of English law that the prosecution must make out the charge against the accused. His Lordship commented upon the beneficial nature of the provision in that Act of Parliament enabling a defendant to be called as a witness, and went on to say that it would be a bad day for the administration of justice in England when juries ceased to take their direction on points of law from the Judge, or when they surrendered to any Judge in the land--no matter what his learning, experience, or ability was--their own independent judgement on the facts which were before them. It was the province of the jury to decide upon the facts. The learned Judge proceeded to refer in detail to the circumstances of the case.

The Foreman of the Jury said that the jury wanted to know whether a warrant against Lord Alfred Douglas was ever issued.

Mr. Justice Wills replied that he could not say, but he should think not. They had not heard of it.

The Foreman of the Jury.--Or ever contemplated?

Mr. Justice Wills replied that he could not say. He did not think they need discuss that. The issue of a warrant depended always on what evidence there was. The mere production of letters was not sufficient; there must be evidence of some act.

The Foreman of the Jury.--If we are to deduce any guilt from those letters it would apply equally to Lord Alfred Douglas.

Mr. Justice Wills said that they had nothing to do with that. The question which the Jury had to decide was whether Wilde was guilty of the charge made against him. His Lordship reviewed the evidence which had been given in the case, and pointed out to the jury the questions for their consideration. There was only evidence as to one of the counts in reference to St. James's-place.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at half-past 3 o'clock, and at 26 minutes past 5 o'clock they returned and asked a question in reference to the evidence as to St. James's-place.

Mr. JUSTICE WILLS read his note of the evidence of a witness on the subject, and

The jury retired again, but returned into Court about five minutes afterwards and said they found Wilde Guilty on all the counts except that which charged him is respect to Edward Shelley, upon which they found him Not guilty. That count, it will be remembered, was withdrawn from the jury by Mr. Justice Wills on Thursday.

The announcement of the verdict was greeted with a cry of "Shame" in a portion of the Court reserved for the public.

The defendant Taylor was then placed in the dock.

SIB EDWARD CLARKE asked Mr. Justice Wills not to pass sentence until next sessions, as there was a demurrer to be argued in reference to the indictment.

Mr. J. P. GRAIN, who appeared for the defendant Taylor, said that the argument of the demurrer would affect Taylor equally, and he therefore made the same application as Sir Edward Clarke.

The Solicitor-General opposed the application. The passing of sentence now would not interfere with the argument of the demurrer.

MB. JUSTICE WILLS.--There was a verdict of not guilty.

SIK EDWARD CLARKE.--That does not affect it.Mr. JUSTICE WILLS.--What is the objection?SIR EDWARD CLARKE.--That the indictment is bad?

MR. JUSTICE WILLS.--What is the point?SIR EDWARD CLARKE.--The point is the joining of two sets of counts on one set of which the defendant could be called as witnesses and on the other could not.

Mr. JUSTICE WILIS said that, as the passing of sentence now would not affect the argument of the demurrer, be thought it his duty to complete the proceedings here.

MR. JUSTICE WILLS, addressing Wilde and Taylor, said that it had never been his lot to try a case of this kind so bad. One has to put stern constraint upon oneself to prevent oneself from describing in language which he would rather not use the sentiments which must rise in tho breast of every man who had any spark of decent feeling in him and who had heard the details of these two terrible trials. Ho could not do anything except pass the severest sentence which the law allowed, and in his judgment it was totally inadequate to such a case as this. The sentence was that each of them be imprisoned and kept to hard labour for two years.

On the sentence being pronounced there were cries of "Shame" and hisses in Court.