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
The Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday, April 19, 1895
The Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday, April 19, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
London Star - Friday, April 19, 1895
London Star - Friday, April 19, 1895
Difference
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor were again placed in the dock at Bow Street to-day—before Sir John Bridge—on charges of indecency. There
was again a crowded attendance of the public, the Extradition Court being inconveniently filled.
When the magistrate took his seat Mr. Arthur Newton, the solicitor defending Taylor, was the first legal gentleman to put in an
appearance, Mr. J. P. Grain, barrister, arriving almost immediately after, and, as the learned counsel had not previously held a brief in the case, there
was some speculation as to whom he was concerned for. This was set at rest by the announcement that Mr. Grain was watching the proceedings in the
interests of a witness already examined—namely, Mr. Sydney Mayor. Mr. Newton and Mr. Grain were holding a brief consultation when Mr. Travers Humphreys,
who is acting as Sir Edward Clarke's junior in the defence of Wilde, took his seat at the barristers' table.
Mr. Humphreys passed a note to Mr. Newton, and following this the two gentlemen had a conversation as to the proposed course of
procedure.
Mr. C.F. Gill, instructed by the Hon. Hamilton Cuffe, of the Treasury, again conducted the prosecution. The prisoners were brought into
court at twenty minutes past twelve o'clock. Wilde, who was more pallid and much thinner than when he last appeared in the dock, stood a moment with a
disconsolate air. On being given permission to be seated, he threw himself upon the bench with a gesture of weariness and rested his head heavily upon his
arm. Taylor presented much the same appearance as before, and listened eagerly to every question put by counsel. He smiled on hearing replies affecting
himself, and with great alertness prompted his solicitor when he thought occasion required his interference.
Charles Parker was first recalled, and was further examined by Mr. Gill. In answer to a question he said, "I forget now."
Mr. Gill: Don't say you forget now. You made statements about this, you know, more than once.
Witness, after hesitating for some time, then admitted that Taylor did on once occasion make a proposition to him.
Mr. Gill: Do you remember him telling you about a man named Charlie Mason?—Yes.
William Parker was next recalled, and gave evidence with regard to 13, Little College Street.
Mr. Frederick Curley deposed that he was a superannuated detective inspector, and he had acted for Messrs. Day & Russell,
solicitors, in certain inquiries. As a result of those inquiries he visited 3, Chapel Street, Park Walk, a house occupied by Mrs. Gray. After a statement
had been taken from Mrs. Gray he went to Chapel Street, and she handed him a leather hat-box containing papers. Among them were certain papers selected
for the purposes of this case. The witness having identified these, Mr. Gill put further questions upon them. Two were cheques signed Sidney Mayor, the
first for 30s. and the second for £2, March 7, 1893. A telegram despatched from 369, Strand, to Alfred Taylor, 13, Little College Street, Westminster,
"Can you call at six o'clock?"—Oscar, Savoy"; another August 21, 1893, from Goring, Reading, to Taylor, 13, Little College Street, Westminster, "Cannot
manage the dinner tomorrow. Am very sorry.—Oscar"; another to Alfred Taylor, "Obliged to see Tree at five o'clock, so don't come to Savoy. Let me know at
once about Fred.—Oscar"; a Christmas card from Sidney Mayor; and a piece of paper with the address 10 and 11, St. James's Place.
Mr. Charles Robinson, bookkeeper at the Savoy Hotel, said Wilde stayed there from the 2nd to the 29th March, 1893. Witness produced a
duplicate of the bill supplied to the prisoner.
Mr. Theodore Leigh, clerk at the Marylebone Branch of the London and Westminster Bank, produced a certified copy of the account of the
prisoner, Alfred Waterhouse Somerset Taylor, from 1st January, 1892, to 29th December, 1893. He did not know Taylor by sight.
Mr. Newton: There will be no dispute about it.
Sir John Bridge: The only name I have now before me is "Alfred Taylor."
Mr. Newton: There will be no dispute about the name, sir?
Mr. Reginald William Brooks, a clerk in the Westminster branch of the London and Westminster Bank, produced a certified copy of
Wilde's account from the end of 1892 to 9th April of this year.
Mr. J W. Lehmann, shorthand writer, said he, in conjunction with Mr. Howard, took a full shorthand note of the trial which took place
at the Central Criminal Court on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th of April—Queen against Lord Queensberry. He put in the transcript of the notes he took on the first
two days.
Mr. E. Howard also put in the transcript of the notes he took at the trial.
Mr. Gill said that would be the case for the prosecution. He then handed to Sir John Bridge a document which he said contained a list
of the charges upon which he asked that the prisoners should be committed for trial.
Sir John Bridge having read the document handed it to the clerk to be read aloud, and, addressing the prisoners, said: "These are the
charges which you have got to answer."
The clerk then read the list of alleged offences, which included charges of conspiracy against both prisoners to commit acts of gross
indecency with other male prisoners. There was a further allegation against Taylor that he did in September. 1893, attempt to commit an offence with one
Charles Parker, and that in April, 1893, he attempted to commit an offence with one William Parker.
Sir John Bridge, then addressing Wilde, asked him whether he wished to say anything.
Wilde: Not at present, your Worship.
Sir John: Do you wish to say anything, Taylor?
Mr. Newton replied that on behalf of Taylor he wished to take his Worship's ruling as to whether there was really any evidence upon
which he could commit Taylor for what was called an attempt to perpetrate an offence. He would say nothing about the misdemeanour. The charge rested
absolutely upon the evidence of two persons who he was sure Sir John would agree were in the highest sense of the word discredited persons. There was no
corroboration beyond the fact that undoubtedly they had stayed in the same place. Before he committed Taylor on that very serious matter he thought his
Worship would come to the conclusion that there ought to be some evidence other than that of those two persons.
Sir John Bridge thought the evidence on the whole was corroborated—certainly enough to commit.
Mr. Travis Humphreys then applied for bail on behalf of Wilde, who, he said, was prepared to find substantial sureties. There was no
charge of felony in Wilde's case—merely of misdemeanour.
Sir John said it was a matter within his discretion.
Mr. Newton also applied for bail on behalf of Taylor.
Sir John said that in the exercise of his discretion he had to consider the gravity of the offence and the strength of the evidence.
With regard to the offence, there was none to his mind so grave. As to the evidence adduced he would not say more than that he did not think it slight.
Therefore he must refuse to accede to the application for bail.
Prisoners were then formally committed to take their trial at the Central Criminal Court, and were conducted back to the cells.
LORD QUEENSBERRY AND MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN
The following letter from Lord Queensberry appears in to-day's Star:—
I have received many anonymous letters, and it is vexatious not to be able to reply to some of them. One, this morning, called my
attention to a letter of Mr. Buchanan. Can it possibly have come from himself? Or was it inspired by him? I have not the pleasure of Mr. Buchanan's
acquaintance, but he seems to address a question to myself in this letter to your paper of 16th April, when he says "Who are casting these stones?" and
"Are they without sin," or those "who are notoriously corrupt? Is Mr. Buchanan himself without sin? I certainly don't claim to be so myself, though I was
compelled to throw the first stone. Whether or not I am justly notoriously corrupt I am willing patiently to wait for the future to decide. Judge not that
you be not judged—I would add until you were qualified to know all the actual facts of a man's life and what he really was.—Yours, &c., QUEENSBERRY.
I have received many anonymous letters, and it is vexatious not to be able to reply to some of them. One this morning called my attention
to this letter of Mr. Buchanan. Can it possibly have come from himself? or was it inspired by him? I have not the pleasure of Mr. Buchanan's acquaintance,
but he seems to address a question to myself in this letter to your paper of 15 April when he says, "Who are casting theses stones?" and are they without
sin or those "who are notoriously corrupt"? Is Mr. Buchanan himself without sin? I certainly don't claim to be so myself, though I was compelled to throw
the first stone. Whether or not I am justly notoriously corrupt I am willing patiently for the future to decide. Judge not that you be not judged-I would
add, until you were qualified to know all the actual facts of a man's life, and what he really was. -Yours,&c., QUEENSBERRY. 18 April.