Compare Documents

London, Thursday. The hearing of the libel action brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed to-day at the Old Bailey.

The case for the plaintiff closed, and Mr Carson began his address for the defence.

LONDON, THURSDAY.The hearing of the libel action brought by Mr. Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed to-day at the Old Bailey.

Mr. CARSON, Q.C., resumed the cross-examination of Mr. Wilde, who said he used to go to the upper part of a house, 13 Little College Street, occupied by a man named Taylor. The rooms were artistically furnished and perfumes were burnt. He used to attend tea parties at Taylor’s rooms, but did not know that one of the men frequenting Taylor’s house had disappeared within the past week. He did not know that Taylor and a companion named Parker were arrested in a raid on a house in Fitzroy Square last year. Taylor introduced witness to five young men, to all of whom he gave money. He invited a party to dinner at Kettner’s Restaurant, but was not aware that one of them was a valet and the other a coachman.

MR. CARSON—Was there plenty of champagne?

Witness—What gentleman would stint the valet? (Much laughter.)

Further cross-examined, Mr. Wilde denied driving with one of these men to the Savoy Hotel. He never saw Parker at a house in Camera Square. He did not know that certain men who were arrested in the Fitzroy Square raid were connected with the Cleveland Street scandals. The Fitzroy Square arrest made no difference in his friendship with Taylor. He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins, and took him to Paris, being joined there by a gentleman whose name was written yesterday, and passed to counsel. Atkins was addressed as Freddy, and was plaintiff’s guest. He gave Freddy money to go to the Moulin Rouge. They stayed at the same hotel, but no unseemly conduct ever took place. Freddy suggested he should have his hair curled.

COUNSEL—Did he have it curled?

Witness—No; I should have been very angry if he had. (Laughter.) The gentleman whose name had been written also introduced him to two young men named Scarp and Mabor. The latter met him on his return from Scotland in October, and they stayed at the same hotel in town. He gave Mabor a cigarette case at the rooms occupied by Lord Alfred Douglas. Further examined—he knew a masseur at the Savoy Hotel, but denied that the masseur made any unusual discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to a visit on one occasion to Paris.

At the conclusion of the cross-examination, Sir E. CLARKE began the re-examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Queensberry. In part of these, written from Chater’s Hotel to Lord A. Douglas, the defendant called upon his son to have nothing more to do with the man Wilde, whose wife he (defendant) had heard on good authority was petitioning for a divorce. Lord Alfred replied by wire:—"Queensberry, what a funny little man you are." The plaintiff denied the suggestion of a divorce petition. Lord Queensberry, in a further letter, called Lord Alfred an impertinent jackanapes, and threatened to cut off supplies. In another letter addressed to the father of his former wife he repeated the accusations against Wilde, to whom he referred in the following terms—"He plainly showed the white feather; he is a cur and a coward of the Rosebery type." Then alluding to his former wife Lord Queensberry also said, "I am convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone Royal insult came to me through my other son, Drumlanrig, whom I saw on the river last night, and it rather upset me. It shall be known some day that Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen and to Gladstone, but also has made a life-long quarrel between my son and me." Other letters having been read, the case for the plaintiff closed, and Mr. Carson began his address for the defence.

In opening for the defence, Mr. CARSON said all that Lord Queensberry had done he stood by, and not one of those letters or acts would he withdraw. Lord Queensberry had been consistent throughout, and his only object had been to save his son from the dangerous companionship of Oscar Wilde, who admitted to being a friend of a man known to be engaged in immoral practices. Continuing, counsel read the letter to Lord Alfred Douglas, which the prosecutor termed a sonnet, but which he maintained, if sent by a father to a son 20 years his junior, would still be an abominable and disgusting production. The other letter, of which no mention of publication was made, however, was even more extravagant.

Counsel had not concluded his address when the Court rose.