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
Evening Herald - Wednesday, April 3, 1895
Evening Herald - Wednesday, April 3, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
Dublin Daily Express - Thursday, April 4, 1895
Dublin Daily Express - Thursday, April 4, 1895
Difference
The Marquis of Queeneberry surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court, London, indicted for publishing defamatory libel
of Oscar Wilde, by addressing to him a postcard 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.
Sir E Clarke, in opening for the prosecution, said that 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 offenses. 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
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 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 impartial. He
described a stormy interview in his own house with Lord Queensberry, who accused him of a nameless offence. He told defendant he did not know what the
Queensberry rules were, but the Oscar Wilde rule was to shoot at sight. In ordering 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 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.
Mr Carson cross-examined as to the teaching in "Dorian Gray," and "Phrases and Philosophies." 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 Cameleon," in which it appeared. The
man, Wood, was an unemployed clerk. Plaintiff said, in further cross-examination, that 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 misconducting himself 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. Proceeding.
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.