Compare Documents

LONDON, April 3. -- The approaches to the central criminal court were crowded this morning in anticipation of sensational developments growing out of trial of the Marquis of Queensberry on the charge of libelling Oscar Wilde, the apostle of aestheticism. Tickets, however, had been issued by the clerk of the court for almost the entire seating capacity, a fact which was greeted with hoots and yells when it became known to the besieging throng. The favoured ticketholders were about equally divided between "the middle classes" and the "dipper ten;" hence the court room presented a much more attractive presence than is usually the case. The marquis and his accuser were among the earliest on the scene. Both sides were represented by formidable array of counsel, the marquis having as his leading attorney, Mr. Carson, M.P., queen's counsel. The case against the marquis is that on the 18th of February last he gave to the porter of the Albemarle club a card to be delivered to Oscar Wilde on which a sentence that constitutes the alleged libel. This card was not read or shown to the press at the preliminary investigation, and its content are known only to the principals and lawyers in the case. It is in fact doubtful whether the exact language will be made public in court to-day. The Marquis claims that he wrote the card to "save his son," Lord Alfred W. Douglas who has been very intimate with Oscar Wilde for several years past. The peculiar nature of the defense and the language employed suggests the notorious Cleveland street scandal of some years since, and the atrocious practices which at that time were exposed. Lord Queensberry pleads justification in reply to the indictment, asserting that it was necessary to the morality of his son to put a stop to his relations with Wilde. It is said, that the names of certain young members of the nobility, including one of exalted birth, may be brought into the case, if the defense be hard-pressed. Judge Collins, recently appointed to the criminal court, presides over the trial. In case of conviction, the sentence will probably be a heavy fine, although it is within the discretion of the judge, to impose a term of imprisonment.

Oscar Wilde charges the marquis with libel, by leaving on February 28, last, an uncovered card at the Albermale club, on which card was written certain foul epithets.

The marquis, who wore a shabby overcoat, was placed in the docket and answered to the indictment by pleading first, not guilty; and secondly, that the libel was true, and that it was published for the public good.

Letters, addressed by Oscar to Lord Alfred Douglas, second son of the Marquis of Queensberry, alleging to contain information that the plaintiff had solicited persons named to commit indecent offenses were presented.

Oscar Wilde took the stand and testified to a visit of the Marquis of Queensberry with another gentleman to his (Wilde's) home. When they arrived, the marquis ordered Oscar to sit down, whereupon the latter replied: "Lord Queensberry, I will not allow any one to talk that way in my house. I suppose you have come to apologize. Is it possible that you accuse your son and me of sodomy?"

Queensberry replied: "I don't say it, but you look like it, and appear like it."

A letter written by Oscar, which was alleged to reflect seriously upon Oscar's relations to Lord Douglas, referring to the latter as having "rose, red lips" and addressing him as "my own boy," and signed "With undying love, Oscar," was read by the judge.

Counsel, amid much laughter, explained that the letter might seem extravagant to those who were in the habit of writing commercial letters, but he added, it was "mere poetry."

Counsel for the Marquis of Queensberry quoted from one of Oscar Wilde's novels of modern life, "Dorian Gray," to show the author upheld sodomy. Oscar said the description of Dorian Gray, given on page 6, was taken from Shakespeare's sonnets.

Carson, attorney for Queensberry, cross-examined Wilde and brought out the story of certain intimacy with a newsboy 18 years of age. The cross examination regarding various other boys and men were so pointed as to be unprintable. To all of them, however, Wilde emphatically denied that he had done anything improper. The cross-examination was not completed when the court adjourned.

The hearing of the charge of criminal libel brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was begun at Old Bailey, London, on Wednesday morning, before Mr Justice Collins. The Court was densely crowded. Mr Oscar Wilde occupied a seat at the solicitor's table.

On taking his place in the dock, Lord Queensberry answered the indictment by pleading first "not guilty," and secondly, that the libel was true and was published for the public benefit.

Sir E. Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said very grave issues had been raised, because the defendant in the pleadings alleged that plaintiff had for some time solicited persons named to commit indecent offences. Certain letters addressed by the plaintiff to Lord A. Douglas were brought to him by a man who said he was in distress, and Mr Wilde gave him £15 or £20 to pay his passage to America. Another letter came to the plaintiff through Mr Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentlemen who in turn gave it to the plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant germs, but it did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queenberry's action the learned counsel said the jury might have doubts whether the defendant was responsible for his actions.

Plaintiff was examined by Sir Edward Clarke at length on the subject of the letters, which he said he did not regard as important. He described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told the defendant he did not know what the Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering the defendant out of the house he described him as "the most infamous bruts in London." There was no foundation for the suggestions in his pleadings.

Mr Carson cross-examined as to the teaching in "Dorien Gray" and "Phrases and Philosophies." The plaintiff replied that he looked at these matters from the point of view of art. "The Priest and Acolyte" was twaddle, but he had not dissociated himself from the "Chameleon," in which it appeared. The man Wood was an unemployed clerk, the plaintiff said in further cross-examinations, and he not only gave him £15 for his passage to America, but £5 more on the occasion of a champagne lunch before his departure. He denied misconduct with Wood. Lord A. Douglas had asked him to befriend the man when introducing him. Wood and plaintiff knew each other by their Christian names. A man named Allen also called on him with reference to the Douglas letters. He knew Allen as a blackmailer, and gave him 10s to show his contempt (laughter). After Allen came another person named Clyburne, and he was kind to Clyburne by giving him the same amount. To a bookseller's assistant he had given money on three occasions, but denied misconduct.

Mr Wilde again went into the witness box on Thursday, 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 most 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 perfume 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 on 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 house 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, nor 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 ask what his previous occupation was?--I never inquire about people's pasts (laughter).

Not their future?--Oh, that is a public matter (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 in 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 recognize no social distinction at all. The mere effect of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk with a young man for half an hour then 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 eveningl 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 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 on Wednesday and passed to counsel. Atkins was addressed as Freddy, and was plaintiff's guest. He gave Freddy money to go to Moulin Rouge. They stayed at the same hotel, but no impropriety ever occurred. 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 reutrn from Sookland 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 unnatural crimes. The horror has crossed my mind you may be brought into this. If I thought that 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 petitions. Lord Queensberry, in a further letter, called Lord Alfred "an impertinent jacksnapes," and threatened to cut off supplies. In another letter, addressed by defendant 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 s a s------- cur and a corward 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 Dsumlanrig 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 Gladtstone, 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 defence, and had not concluded when the court adjourned. Counsel said the Marquis of Queensberry withdraw nothing and what he had done was premediatevely 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 for what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Wilde. The man "Wood", whom plaintiff had given money to go to the Americas, and who was supposed to be out of the way, would be prodced 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.