Compare Documents

In the Wilde-Queensberry libel case yesterday Mr. Carson had not concluded his address to the jury when the Court adjourned. Counsel said the Marquis of Queensberry withdrew nothing, and what he had done was premeditatively done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case, and was absent. The various men mentioned in the case would be called on the defendant's behalf, and would prove for what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Wilde. The man Wood, whom plaintiff had given money to go to America, and who was supposed to be out of the way, would be produced, and give evidence. Mr. Carson alleged that Mr. Wilde had conceived a passion for Lord Alfred Douglas, who had be come so dominated by Wilde that he had even threatened to shoot his own father ; and Lord Queensberry was, he contended, bound to have acted as he had done in the interests of his son.

The hearing of the charge of criminal libel brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed at the Old Bailey, London, yesterday morning, before Mr Justice Collins. The court was again densely crowded. Mr Oscar Wilde occupied a seat at the solicitor' table. 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 Bealey, Q.C., with Mr Monckton, watching the proceedings on behalf of Lord Douglas of Hawick, the eldest son of the Marquis.

Mr Oscar Wilde again went into the witness box, and his cross-examination by Mr Carson was continued. Replying to questions, witness said he had continued on intimate terms with Taylor down to the present time, and it was he who arranged the interview with Wood relating to the letters at Great College street. He used to visit witness at his house, his chambers, and at the Savoy. Witness used to go to afternoon tea parties at Taylor's lodgings. He did not know whether he did his own cooking, but there would be nothing wrong in that.

Mr Carson—Have I suggested anything wrong?—

No, but cooking is an art.

Another art?—Yes.

Were the rooms luxurious?—The place was furnished with more than usual taste.

Was it not luxurious?—No, I said in good taste. I thought them pretty rooms. Witness denied that day and night the rooms were lighted with candles and gas, and that heavy double curtains were always drawn over the windows.

Were the rooms strongly perfumed?—Yes; I have known him to burn perfumes in his rooms—a charming idea. I burn perfumes in my rooms.

Did you see Wood there at tea?—No, except on the occasion referred to. I have seen Sydney Mavor there. He was a friend of mine, but I have not the remotest idea where he is now.

Have you had any communication with him?—Yes, last Sunday I got Taylor to go to his mother's house to say I wanted to see him. He was not there, and I don't know where he is.

Were you told he has disappeared within the last week?—No; I heard he was away.

Have you found him since?—What do you mean by finding him? I object to the phrase. I have not seen him since. Answering further questions, witness said he had never seen Taylor wearing a lady's fancy costume. He had sent telegrams to Taylor. He had no business with him.

Was he a literary man?—He was a young man of great taste and intelligence, educated at a very good public school.

Did you discuss literary matters with him?—He used to listen on the subject.

And get an intellectual treat also?—Certainly. Witness said he never got him to arrange dinners for him. He had never seen Fred Atkins at Taylor's, and did not know that Taylor was being watched by the police at his rooms. He knew that Taylor and Parker, whom he also knew, were last year arrested at a home in Fitzroy square. He had seen Parker in Taylor's rooms subsequently occupied in Chapel street. Taylor had introduced to witness about five young men, with whom he had become friendly. He liked the society of young men.

Had any of them any occupation?—That I can hardly say.

Did you give money to each?—Yes; I should think to all five—money or presents.

Did they give you anything?—Me? No.

Among the five was Charles Parker?—Oh, yes.

Was he a gentleman's servant out of employment?—I never heard that, not should I have minded.

How old was Parker?—I don't keep a census. He was young, and that was one of his attractions. I have never asked him his age, I think it is rather vulgar to do so (laughter).

Was he an educated man?—Culture was not his strong point(laughter).

Did you become friendly with Parker's brothers?—They were my guests at table.

Did you know that one was a gentleman's valet and the other a gentleman's groom?—I did not know it nor should I have cared. I do not care "tuppence" for social position.

What inducement was there for you to entertain them?—The pleasure of being with those who are young, bright, happy, careless, and original. I do not like the sensible, and I do not like the old.

Was it a good dinner?—I forget the menu at the present moment. It was certainly Kettner at his best. It was in honour of Mr Alfred Taylor's birthday.

In the course of further cross-examination the witness said—The dinner at Kettner's was given by me March, 1893. It was one of the best they could provide. "Charley" Parker did not accompany me to the Savoy hotel that night, and I strongly deny that there has been any misconduct between us. From October, 1893 to April, 1894, I had rooms in St. James's place. Taylor wrote to me while I was staying there telling me that Parker was in town, and I asked him to come and have "afternoon tea" with me. He came to see me five or six times. I liked his society. I gave him a silver cigarette case and about £3 or £4 in money.

Mr Carson—What was there in common between you and these young men?—Well, I will tell you. I like the society of people much younger than myself. I recgonize no social distinctions at all. The mere effect of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk with a young man for half an hour than ever be cross-examined in court (laughter).

Cross examination continued—A common boy I met in the street might be a pleasing companion, I took Parker to lunch with me at various places.

Witness went on to say that Parker had written a letter to him asking whether he might have the pleasure of dining with him that evening; and he (Mr Wilde) was to send an answer by the messenger. The writer hoped it would be convenient "that we should spend the evening together." He never paid visits to 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 different 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 on Wednesday 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 impropriety ever occured. Freddy suggested that 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 young men named Scarfe and Maver. The latter met him on his return from Scotland in October, and they stayed at the same hotel in town. He gave Maver a cigarette case.

Further cross-examined—He knew a masseur at the Savoy hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in 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 Carter's Hotel to Lord A. Douglas, the defendant called upon his son to cease his infamous intimacy with the man Wilde; his blood had turned cold at the sight of their horrible faces. The writer continued: "I hear on good authority that his (Wilde's) wife is petitioning for a divorce on the ground of unnatarual crimes. The horror has crossed my mind you may be brought into this. If I thought the actual thing true I should feel justified in shooting him at sight." Lord Alfred replied by wire, "Queensberry, what a funny little man you are." Plaintiff denied the suggestion of the divorce petition. Lord Queensberry, in a further letter, called Lord Alfred "an impertinent jacksnapes," and threatened to cut off supplies. In another letter, addressed by the defendant to the father of his former wife, he repeated the accusations against Wilde, to whom he referred in the followng terms:—"He plainly showed the white feather. He is a s— cur and a coward of the Rosebery type." Then, alluding to his former wife, Lord Queensberry said: "I am convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone Royal insult that came to me through my other son—she worked that. I saw Drumlanrig 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 (which makes her as bad as him), and to Gladstone, but also has made a life long quarrel between my son and me." Lord Queensberry in August addressed Lord Alfred as an abortion. The letter continued, "How right I was to face misery rather than bring others into the world. That was the reason I broke off with your mother."

Mr Carson addressed the jury for the defense and had not concluded when the curt adjourned. Counsel said the Marquis of Queensberry withdrew nothing, and what he had done was premeditatively done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case, and was absent. Various men mentioned in the case would be called on defendant's behalf, and would prove what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Wilde. The man Wood, whom plaintiff had given money to go to America, and who was supposed to be out of the way, would be produced and give evidence. Mr Carson alleged that Wilde had conceived a vile, abominable passion for Lord Alfred Douglas, who had become so dominated by Wilde that he even threatened to shoot his own father, and Lord Queensberry was, he contended, bound to have acted as he had done in the interests of his son.