Compare Documents

London, Friday.

The trial of Oscar Wilde was resumed at the Old Bailey to-day. The prisoner, who betrayed tokens of the keenest anxiety, had a consultation with his counsel, and afterwards talked with Lord Douglas of Hawick before entering the dock

The Solicitor-General again raised the question of the withdrawal of the case as regarded Shelly, and contended that Mr Justice Collins laid it down in 1894, that evidence, even of an accomplice, could not be withdrawn from the jury

The Judge adhered to his decision.

Sir Edward Clarke, on behalf of the prisoner, said he had to deal with the remnants of the case. He animadverted upon the conduct of the case by counsel for the Crown, and said he should call Wilde to face, for the third time the cross-examination to which he might be subjected. He submitted that Wilde's conduct throughout had been that of an innocent man, and on the evidence he urged that the jury could only return a verdict of not guilty.

The prisoner then entered the witness-box and denied that there was any truth whatever in the charges made against him.

He was then cross-examined.

Witness admitted having met young men at Taylor's rooms. He went there because of his vanity and love of admiration. Charles Parker had visited him seven or eight times at 10 St James's place. Parker had lunched and dined with him alone. A man named Scarfe had also visited him there. He had taken a young man named Conway to Brighton, and had dined with Wood at the Cafe Royal in a private room. He had been to give Wood assistance. He ultimately gave Wood £15 because he wanted to go to America. He did not give him the money for the letters which Wood gave him. He had those letters. The evidence of the masseur and the chambermaid at the Savoy Hotel was wholly untrue.

This concluded the cross-examination and the court adjourned for lunch.

On resuming, the prisoner was re-examined by Sir Edward Clarke—He said until these trials he had no reason to believe Taylor was disreputable or immoral. With regard to the letters he obtained from Wood, he read the letters and found them of no importance.

There was nothing in them he objected to being published. There was no pretence for saying he gave Wood fifteen pounds for them.

Sir Edward then addressed the jury for the defence.

The Court adjourned.

The trial of Oscar Wilde on charges of indecency was resumed to-day at the Old Bailey, before Mr. Justice Wills. In view cf the possibility of the case being concluded to-day, the public gallery was again packed with a crowd of spectators eager to witness the final scene. The Solicitor-General and Mr. C. F. Gill were early in court, and the prisoner, who arrived shortly after 10 o'clock, stood in the well of the court, and had a long consultation with Mr. Travers Humphreys. He looked extremely unwell, and his whole appearance and demeanour betokened the keenest anxiety. Shortly before half-past ten Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., entered the court and joined the conversation. The prisoner afterwards proceeded to the foot of the jury-box, and talked for some time with the Rev. Stewart Headlam and with Lord Douglas of Hawick. As soon as his lordship had taken his seat the prisoner resumed his seat in the dock.

The Solicitor-General again raised the question of the withdrawal of the case as regarded the witness Shelley. He pointed out that in 1894 Mr. Justice Collins laid it down that there was no law by which a case could be withdrawn from the jury on the ground that the evidence of an accomplice was uncorroborated.

His Lordship said he preferred to adhere to the course which he had taken, as the result of very deliberate consideration. One stroner reason he had for doing so was that it was contrary to the practice of the law for a judge to allow the uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice to go to a jury. He did not see any use in that if the jury were to have the liberty of deliberately disregarding that direction. When an opportunity arose he should be glad to have the question settled authoritatively.

Sir Edward Clarke then rose to address the jury on behalf of the prisoner. He said he had to deal with what remained of this case, but he should not detain them long now, and he did not think it would be needful for him to address them at any great length hereafter. The case before them was now very limited, and the witnesses upon whom they were asked to rely were few in number. He was painfully conscious of the manner -he had almost said the unjustifiable manner -in which the case had been conducted on the part of the Crown. He should call Mr. Wilde into the witness-box again to state for the third time in that court that there was no truth whatever in these accusations which were made against him, and to face for the third time, and now with a new assailant, the cross-examination which might be administered to him with regard to these accusations. As counsel for the defence, he (Sir Edward) might do something to sustain the traditions of public prosecutions, and induce his learned friend to remember -which he feared for a moment yesterday he seemed to forget -that he was there not to try and get a verdict of guilty by any means he could, but to lay before the jury for their consideration and judgment the facts upon which they were asked to give a very serious determination. The jury must give their decision, not on suspicion and innuendo, but upon the evidence of facts. Broken as Mr. Wilde was with the anxiety of these suceessive trials, he might well be spared the indignity of again going into the witness-box. But he would go into the witness-box, because otherwise he (counsel) knew what the Solicitor-General would say, and he (Sir Edward) would have no opportunity of reply. He contended Mr. Wilde's conduct throughout had been that of an innocent man. He had courted every inquiry and had surrendered to meet these charges, confident in the hope that as examination and examination went on these accusations would break down, as they had been breaking down these five weeks, and that at last he would get his vindication from the judgment of the jury upon the facts of the evidence before them. In conclusion, he submitted that on the evidence the jury could only return a verdict of not guilty. He then called Mr. Wilde.

The prisoner then entered the witness-box, and was allowed to be seated while giving his evidence. He said this was the third time he had gone into the witness-box. He described the nature of his acquaintance with the Queensberry family, and Lord Alfred Douglas. stated that after Lord Queensberry left a card with an offensive inscription he at once instituted proceedings. In the course of his evidence in the Queensberry libel case he was asked certain questions with regard to Parker and Wood, in answer to which he made certain statements.

Sir E. Clarke: Were all those statements absolutely true? -Entirely.

Have you any qualification or alteration to make in regard to these statements? -No, I have no observations to make.

Is there-any truth whatever in the accusations made; against you in this indictment? -None whatever.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General, witness said he first made the acquaintance of Lord Alfred Douglas in 1893, and when Lord Queensberry objected to the intimacy between Lord Alfred Douglas and himself, he was quite ready to cease the acquaintance. Lord Alfred, however, desired the acquaintance to be continued. Lord Alfred Douglas was now in Paris, where he went at witness's desire. Witness had been in communication with him.

Do you frequently correspond with Lord Alfred Douglas? -Yes.

Are the two letters that have been read samples of the style in which you addressed him? -I do not think I should say they were samples. The letter written from Torquay was a prose poem in answer to his poem.

"My own boy" -is that the way in which you usually addressed him? -I do not say usually, but often. He was much younger than I was.

"Your sonnet is quite lovely. It is a marvel that those red rose-leaf lips of yours, &c." Now I ask you this, Mr. Wilde. Do you consider that was a decent way of addressing a youth? -lt is like a sonnet of Shakespeare. It was a fantastic, extravagant way of writing to a young man.

Was it decent? -Of course it was decent. It is a beautiful way for an artist to write to a young man who has culture, charm, and distinction. Decency does not come into the question.

Do you understand the meaning of the word, sir? -Yes.

Then I ask you whether you consider it a decent mode of addressing a young man? -I can only give you the same answer. It was a literary mode of writing to another -intended to be a prose poem.

Do you consider it to be decent phraseology? -Oh, yes.

In regard to other portions of the letter, witness said he referred in it to Hyacinthus, who was madly loved in Greek days. The letter was signed, "Always with undying love, yours -Oscar." Witness waa devoted to Lord Alfred Douglas, and had a refined and intellectual love for him. The other letter was not a prose poem. It was written after there had been a quarrel about something. The letter contained the following: -"Your letter was delightful red and yellow wine to me, but I am sad and out of sorts. You must not make scenes with me. They kill me. They wreck the loveliness of life. I cannot listen to your curved lips saying hideous things to me. Do not do it, you break my heart." The letter continued -"You are the divine thing I want -the thing of grace and genius, but I do not know how to do it. Shall I come to Salisbury."

Witness said an artist in literature, a man of letters, always looks for literary expression, and that leads one to certain expressions. Lord Alfred Douglas had stayed with him three times at the Savoy Hotel. Their rooms adjoined. After the committal of the Marquess of Queensbery, witness and Lord Alfred Douglas left the country together.

You two alone? -Yes.

Witness further admitted that he had visited Taylor at Little College Street, and had met a number of young men there. He could not remember their names. He had never met Parker there. Did Taylor strike you as being a pleasant companion? -Yes; I thought him very bright.

Pleasant? -Yes.

Did you know what his occupation was? -I understood he had none.

Had any of those persons you met any occupation? -I did not ask them.

When you heard that Parker had stayed with Taylor did that alter your opinion of Taylor? -I do not think I am called upon to express an opinion. If Parker was poor and shared his room it would be a charity.

Had any of these young men at Taylor's any intellectual attraction? -No, it was my vanity and love of admiration. I liked to be praised and made much of, and was gratified.

What! -with the admiration of these boys? -At the admiration.

What possible gratification was it to you who, we are told, was a successful literary man to obtain the praise of these boys, whose very names you cannot remember? -Praise from anybody is always delightful. Praise from other literary people is usually tainted with criticism. (Laughter.) It pleased me very much to be made much of.

Witness added that it did not occur to him that he could exercise any influence over these young men. He had no preference for one of the Parkers rather than the other. He called Charles Parker "Charlie," and told him to call him "Oscar." He did not remember ever taking a young man to the Savoy Hotel and dining with him alone at night. He did not dine there alone with Parker.

The Solicitor General next proceeded to cross-examine witness as to his relations with a man named Scarfe. Sir E. Clarke objected on the ground that it was not relevant. The Solicitor-General said he had a right to treat the witness as any other witness for the purpose of discrediting him. His Lordship overruled the objection, but said if the bounds of fair play were overstepped the consequence would recoil on those who overstepped it.

Witness said that Scaife had visited him at 10, St. James's Street, and had lived with him alone in a private room at an hotel. Witness also said he met a boy named Conway on the beach at Worthing and took him to Brighton for six weeks. He had also met a man named Harrington. With regard to Alfred Wood, he met him at the Cafe Royal. He had been asked to give Wood assistance.

Why did you not give it him? -I did.

Why prolong the interview? -If you mean taking him to supper, I wished to be kind to him.

Did you take him to dinner alone in a private room? -Yes.

Witness added that he afterwards met Wood again at the Café Royal. He was asked to interest himself in Wood. It was after that second meeting that he learned Wood was known to Taylor. He was afterwards told that Wood was minded to extort money from him on account of some letters which witness had written to Lord Alfred Douglas having come into possessiou. Witness afterwards met Wood and the latter gave him the letters.

What did you give him? -Ultimately I gave him £15.

What for? -Because he wished to go to America.

Do you mean to state that your payment of that money had no relation to the delivery of those letters? -None whatever.

You paid your money and you got the letters? -Yes.

Where are the letters? -I tore them up.

You had gone to buy? -No, to bargain.

To bargain for what? -Those letters.

And you took money for this purpose? -Yes.

You paid the money? -Yes.

And you got the letters? -Yes.

When did you destroy the letters? -I tore them up two or three days afterwards.

Witness added that on the next day he gave Wood a lunch at the Florence and an additional sum of £5. Wood afterwards went to America.

Now, I come to the Savoy Hotel. Were you visited at that hotel by many young men? -The majority of my friends are young.

You heard what the masseur said. Is that untrue? -Entirely.

You contradict his testimony wholly? -Wholly.

May I take it your testimony is the same as regards the evidence of the chambermaid? - Yes.

This concluded the cross-examination, and the Court adjourned for lunch.

(Continued on Page 4.)

On the Court resuming the prisoner, who had entered the dock, was again called into the witness-box. He was re-examined by Sir E. Clarke. Sir E. Clarke then addressed the jury on behalf of the defence. The trial was again adjourned.