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
Flag of Ireland - Saturday, June 1, 1895
Flag of Ireland - Saturday, June 1, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
Bristol Mercury - Monday, May 27, 1895
Bristol Mercury - Monday, May 27, 1895
Difference
The trial of Oscar Wilde terminated on Saturday evening in a verdict of guilty on all the counts, and he was sentenced, along with
Taylor, previously convicted, to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The jury expressed surprise that a warrant had not up to the present been
issued for the arrest of Lord Alfred Douglas, and the learned judge said he was confident that his title would not be permitted to shield him from
justice.
The Press Association says on the Saturday evening immediately following the passing of the sentence on Wilde and Taylor the prisoners
were removed to the cells in Newgate Prison, adjoining the Central Criminal Court, pending preparations of legal warrants authorising their detention for
two years. Both were suffering from nervousness, and betrayed their mental anxiety. From the first they were separated, but travelled in the same prison
van to Pentonville Prison, where they will serve the preliminary portion of the sentence, a period to be eventually decided by the officials of the gaol.
When handed over to the Governor of Pentonville Prison the prisoners were taken separately to the reception ward, and each had to give details of his
identity and religion, and submit to medical examination, after which they passed through the hands of the prison bath-room attendants and exchanged their
own clothes for the prison, being afterwards handed over to the care of the chaplain. On Sunday they attended the prison chapel with other occupants of
the gaol, and with the exception of exercise time they were confined to their cells, where they will in future be kept unless their health becomes such as
to entitle them to infirmary treatment, in which event the prison doctor will decide the nature of the work they must perform. By the terms of their
sentence they will be isolated from their friends except on four occasions each year, and even this privilege may be forfeited by indifferent conduct.
Lord Alfred Douglas, writing from Rouen in reference to the fracas which occurred between his father, the Marquis of Queensbery, and
Lord Douglas of Hawick, otherwise Lord Percy Sholts Douglas, states that the latter, both personally and through his solicitor, having frequently begged
the Marquis to cease writing letters containing objectionable language to Lord Douglas and his wife, and having received no more satisfactory answer from
Lord Queensbery than the challenge to fight to the finish for £1,000 aside, was reluctantly compelled to apply to Mr Hannay for a summons against Lord
Queensbery in order to have him bound over. Mr Hannay refused the application, saying he declined to have any more dirty linen washed in his court. Lord
Queensbery continued his annoyances, and a second application was made to Mr Hannay, who, after consultation, still refused a summons. At last the
annoyance become intolerable, and Lord Douglas was reduced to the absolute necessity of adopting the course he did, of publicly assaulting Lord
Queensbery. The writer proceeds to criticise adversely the action of Mr Hannay in refusing a summons, and adds, referring to the cheering in the street,
for such feats Lord Queensbery seems to be rapidly taking the place of the great Duke of Wellington in the hearts of the British public.
Lord Alfred Douglas, writing in reference to the fracas which concurred between his father, the Marquis of Queensberry, and Lord Douglas
of Hawick, otherwise Lord Percy Sholto Douglas, states that the letter, both personally and through his solicitor having frequently begged the Marquis to
cease writing letters containing objectionable language to Lord Douglas and his wife, and having received no more satisfactory answer from Lord
Queensberry than a challenge to fight to a finish for £1000 a side, was reluctantly compelled to apply to Mr Hannay for a summons against Lord Queensberry
in order to have him bound over. Mr Hannay refused the application, saying he declared to have any more dirty linen washed in his court. Lord Queensberry
continued his annoyances, and a second application was made to Mr Hannay, who, after consultation with Mr Newton, still refused a summons. At last the
annoyance became intolerable and Lord Douglas was reduced to the absolutely necessity of adopting the course he did of publicly assaulting Lord
Queensberry. The writer proceeds to criticise adversely the action of Mr Hannay in refusing the summons, and asks, referring to the cheering in the
streets, for which of his feats Lord Queensberry seems to be rapidly taking the place of the great Duke of Wellington in the hearts of the British
public.