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 26, 1895
The Yorkshire Evening Post - Friday, April 26, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday, April 28, 1895
Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday, April 28, 1895
Difference
Oscar Wilde (40), author, and Alfred Taylor (33), no occupation, appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on several
indictments charging them with committing grave offences.
The approaches to the Old Bailey presented much the same aspect as during the hearing of the action Wilde v. the Marquess of
Queensberry, out of which the present prosecution has arisen, but by some alteration of the arrangements for admission made by the Under-Sheriff the
crowding within the building was less. There was no legion of junior members of the bar blocking up the passages, although the learned gentleman elbowed
each other in the seats usually reserved for counsel. The public galleries were filled long before the jury filed into their box.
Mr. C.F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill conducted the prosecution on behalf of the Treasury. Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., M.P.,
Mr. Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended Wilde. Taylor was represented by Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor. Mr. Kershaw held a watching brief for
the witness Sidney Mayor.
Mr. C.F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. A. Gill had charge of prosecution on behalf of the public prosecutor. Wilde was defended by Sir
Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys. Mr. J.P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor appeared for the prisoner Taylor, and Mr Leonard
Kershaw held a watching brief for the witness Mavor.
Mr. Justice Charles took his seat at half-past ten o'clock. Wilde, on taking his place in the dock, appeared pale and ill. He was
attired as he appeared at Bow Street, and wore a dark blue overcoat, with velvet-collar and cuffs. He leaned languidly on the bar. Taylor, whose greatcoat
of light brown cloth was in strong contrast with the darker attire of his companion, surveyed the Court with a somewhat impassive air, his gloved hands
joined in front of him.
The accused being called upon to answer, Sir E. Clarke rose and made a preliminary objection, the gist of which was that neither of
them could be asked to plead, because one part of the indictment being under the Criminal Law Amendment Act they could upon that be competent witnesses.
Upon the charge of conspiracy, which was another part of the indictment, they could not be competent witnesses. The learned counsel based his argument
upon certain cases in the law reports, and he submitted a demurrer on the ground that the counts had not been lawfully joined.
Mr. Gill having replied, his Lordship said there was very little assistance from authorities, as there were broad distinctions between
this case and those upon which decisions had been given. He, however, thought that the case Queen v. Owen, to which attention had been called by Mr. Gill,
pionted against his acceding to the request of Sir Edward Clarke. Though he felt the inconvenience of the present state of things, as already expressed by
the late Lord Chief Justice in the Queen v. Whelan case, he did not agree to the view of the learned counsel that the several counts could not be lawfully
joined.
Prisoners were accordingly asked to plead, and to the several indictments they replied "Not guilty."
Sir E. Clarke then raised the point that the prosecution must elect whether they would proceed on the count of conspiracy, or upon the
count of misdemeanour.
Mr. Gill submitted that it was entirely in the discretion of the learned judge.
His Lordship said he agreed, aud he felt it impossible in this case to put the prosecution to elect as to which of the counts they
would offer evidence upon.
Mr. Gill then opened to the jury, intimating at the outset that he was there to conduct the prosecution by the direction of the Public
Prosecutor. Though much had been published about the case, he appealed to them to approach its consideration without bias. Mr. Gill briefly sketched the
circumstances of the action of Wilde v. the Marquess of Queensberry, the subsequent arrest of Wilde, and the apprehension of Taylor during the preliminary
examination of Wilde at Bow Street, prefacing his statements with the observation that it was an extraordinary fact that a man like Wilde should have been
in contact at all with Taylor. The learned counsel detailed the circumstances under which Charles Parkor, valet, and William Parker, groom, were
introduced to Wilde by his fellow prisoner, and stated the nature of the evidence as to their subsequent relations at various addresses in London. Passing
from the incident of the mock wedding between Taylor and Charles Parker, Mr. Gill traced their later movements, Parker's visits to Wilde, and the
relations of the two prisoners as disclosed by correspondence in possession of the prosecution. The allegations in respect to other persons mentioned in
the several counts of the indictment were next described at considerable length, and in this connection Wilde's visit to Paris was alluded to, also his
conduct in making presents and in giving money Counsel next adverted to the alleged Savoy Hotel incidents, and finished his address at half-past twelve.
During the greater part of it Wilde had sat disconsolately, with a hand to the right side of his face. He moved restlessly from time
to time. Taylor closely followed Mr. Gill as he passed from point to point of the story.
The youth, Charles Parker, valet, was the first witness sworn. He described his introduction to Oscar Wilde by Taylor as a result of
an arrangement at St. James's Restaurant. He also detailed various acts. Counsel took the witness to another part of the case—that against Taylor. Wilde
gave him a cigarette case and a gold ring, Witness testified to visits which he had made to Wilde, and spoke of certain acts as to which details were not
adduced at Bow Street. He ceased to associate with the prisoner Taylor in 1894, and went away to the country where he embarked upon another occupation. He
enlisted.
The Court adjourned for luncheon.
The revelations made by the previous witness caused considerable sensation, and were of a more shocking character than those given
before the magistrate.
On the Court resuming after luncheon Sir E. Clarke began his cross-examination of Parker, who said it was after he joined his regiment
that Mr. Russell, the solicitor, found him. He had not in the meantime communicated with any person. He had spoken in his examination at Bow Street of
having received £30 as part of a sum of money extorted from a gentleman. The men who extorted the money were Wood and Allen.
How much money did Wood and Allen get?—£300 or £400. (Sensation.)
When you had spent your portion you went into the army?—Yes. I spent it in three or four days.
At Sir Edward's request Parker wrote the name of the gentleman in whose employ he had been as a valet before meeting Taylor. The name
was handed to his Lordship, the learned counsel remarking that as the gentleman had no connection whatever with this case there could be no object in
mentioning the name in open court.
Replying to further questions Parker said that after leaving this particular gentleman's employ, he received a letter from him
charging him with stealing clothing. He sent the articles back to his late employer. He told Wilde about his own parentage, and expressed a wish to go on
the stage. Wilde's rooms in St. James's Place were very "public," and servants came in and out.
Do you mean to assert that in rooms thus described this conduct went on again and again?—Yes.
Cross-examined by Mr Grain: When witness made Taylor's acquaintance Wood visited witness at Camera Square frequently.
Was £30 the only sum you ever received under similar circumstances?—Yes.
What means of subsistence had you when you met Taylor in St. James's Restaurant?—I had just left a situation.
How much money had you in your possession?—A few shillings.
Further cross-examined: He went to Paris with an operatic composer in 1893. It was as valet that he went. He was given two louis a
week.
Did you occupy the same apartments?—No. I stayed in a different place. I knew a man named Burton, and went with him to Monte
Carlo.
Re-examined by Mr. Gill: He knew Lord A. Douglas. The letters which Wood had possession of were supposed to be letters received by
Lord A. Douglas from Wilde.
Mr. Gill called attention to part of Parker's deposition at Bow Street, and examined the witness upon it with the view to prove there
was no discrepancy in his testimony as a whole.
William Parker, a groom, and Mrs. Grant, a married woman, also gave evidence.
The case was adjourned.
LORD ALFRED DOUGLAS.
The Central News is requested by Lord Alfred Douglas to state that, in response to an urgent telegram from his mother, he started
to-day for Italy to see her, but hopes to return to London in a few days.
The Central News is requested by Lord Alfred Douglas to state that in response to an urgent telegram from his mother he started on
Friday for Italy to see her, but hopes to return to London in a few days.