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
Dublin Daily Express - Thursday, April 4, 1895
Dublin Daily Express - Thursday, April 4, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
Bristol Mercury - Saturday, April 6, 1895
Bristol Mercury - Saturday, April 6, 1895
Difference
London, Wednesday.The Marquis of Queensberry surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court and was indicted for
publishing a defamatory libel of Oscar Wilde by addressing to him a card at the Albemarle Club. There was a crowded attendance of the public. 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. Another letter came to the plaintiff through Mr Tree, the actor. It was handed to that gentleman who in turn gave it to plaintiff. It
was couched in extravagant terms, but it did not bear the suggestion made in this case. Coming to Lord Queensberry’s action, the learned counsel said the
jury might have doubts whether the defendant was responsible for his actions.
Sir E Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said a very grave issue had been raised because the defendant in the pleadings alleged
that the 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.
Mr Wilde 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 suggestions in the pleadings.
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 him as to the teaching in Dorian Gray and Phrases and Philosophies, and the plaintiff replied that he looked at
these matters from a point of view of art; the Priest and Acolyte was twaddle, but he had not dissociated himself from Camelion, in which it appeared The
man Wood was an unemployed clerk, 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 any misconduct as regards 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 he denied misconduct.
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.
The court adjourned.