Compare Paragraphs

The hearing of the charge of criminal libel brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was begun at the Old Bailey, London, yesterday 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 gentleman, who in turn gave it to the plaintiff. It was couched in extravagant term, but it did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queensbery'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 brute in London." There was no foundation for the suggestions in the pleadings.

Mr Carson cross-examined as to the teaching in "Dorien Gray and "Phrases and Philosophies." The plaitiff 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-examination, 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.

The court adjourned.