Compare Paragraphs
This page compares two reports at the paragraph level. The column on the left shows the first report in its entirety, and the column in the middle identifies paragraphs from the second report with significant matching content. The column on the right highlights any differences between the two matching paragraphs: pink shows differences in the first report and purple in the second report. The Match percentage underneath each comparison row in this column shows the percentage of similarity between the two paragraphs.
Original paragraph in
Bristol Mercury - Friday, April 12, 1895
Bristol Mercury - Friday, April 12, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday, April 14, 1895
Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday, April 14, 1895
Difference
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock at Bow street, London, yesterday. The Extradition Court was thronged when Sir
John Bridge took his seat. Mr Gill again appeared for the Treasury; Sir Edward Clarke and Mr Travers Humphreys defended Wilde, and Mr Arthur Newton,
solicitor, appeared for Taylor. Both prisoners had altered somewhat in appearance. Wilde was thinner and paler, and Taylor had lost that jaunty and
contemptuous bearing with which he surveyed his surroundings on the last occasion.
Sir E. Clarke said he appeared to defend Mr Oscar Wilde. He did not propose to cross-examine the witnesses called on Saturday, and he
should probably take the same course with the other witnesses. His desire was to shorten the proceeding in that court.
The Magistrate said it was incumbent on all of them to get the matter over as speedily as possible.
Sir John Bridge: It seems incumbent upon all of us to get the matter through as quickly as possible.
Charles Parker, recalled, was cross-examined by Mr Newton. He admitted being arrested in August last in Fitzroy square, but denied that he
was a friend of many of the men arrested there. Taylor might not have heard Wilde ask witness to go to the Savoy. Witness knew a man named Atkins, but was
not aware that he was a notorious blackmailer.
Mr Gill said he did not know why this cross-examination was being pursued.
Mr Newton replied that he was entitled to show that this witness was an associate of most notorious and degraded characters.
Parker, replying to further questions, admitted receiving from two men £80, being part of a sum which had been obtained from a gentleman
with an accusation of crime committed with witness himself. He denied being discharged from a situation as valet for being a thief.
Frederick Atkins, 20, who described himself as a comedian, detailed the circumstances under which, in November, 1892, he accompanied Wilde
to Paris.
The next witness was Edward Shelley, who said he was formerly employed at a firm of publishers with whom the defendant Wilde had business.
Witness made Wilde's acquaintance in February, 1892, and dined with him at the Albemarle hotel. After dinner they went to a private sitting room and had
drink.
After evidence had been called as to Wilde's visits to Parker at different addresses, the proprietor of the Hotel Aibemarle said he
pressed Wilde for a small bill to deter him from frequenting that house. This was in consequence of something he had seen on the occasion of visits of
young men to Wilde.
After a brief examination of Mr Mathews, publisher, former employer of the youth Shelley, Police Inspector Richards deposed to having on
the 5th inst. visited the Cadogan hotel and apprehended Wilde. Testimony was afterwards adduced as to the arrest of Taylor.
Mr Gill announced that he did not propose to go further that day.
Sir J. Bridge thereupon remanded the prisoners until Friday next week, and again declined to accept bail.