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
Sligo Champion - Saturday, June 1, 1895
Sligo Champion - Saturday, June 1, 1895
Most similar paragraph from
Sunday World - Sunday, June 2, 1895
Sunday World - Sunday, June 2, 1895
Difference
London, Thursday Night. [...] Mr Labouchere, writing on the Wilde case in this week's Truth, says:—"The verdict of the jury was amply
justified by the evidence set before it. On the first jury there were, I understand, ten for a verdict of guilty and two for an acquittal. One of the two
was a gentleman who, having returned a verdict on a court- martial which he subsequently thought wrong, declared that he never would incur this risk
again, and he was consequently impervious to all argument. Wilde and Taylor were tried on a clause in the Criminal Law Amendment Act which I had inserted
in order to render it possible for the law to take cognisance of proceedings like theirs. I took the clause mutatis mutandis from the French Code. As I
had drafted it the maximum sentence was seven years. The then Home Secretary and Attorney-General, both most experienced men, however, suggested to me
that in such cases convictions are always difficult, and that it would be better were the maximum to be two years. Hence the insufficiency of the severest
sentence that the law allows, which as Mr Justice Wills observed, is totally inadequate to the offence.
"The verdict of the jury was amply justified by the evidence set before it. On the first jury there were, I understand, ten for a
verdict of guilty and two for an acquittal. One of the two was a gentleman who, having returned a verdict on a court martial which he subsequently thought
wrong, declared that he never would incur this risk again, and he was consequently impervious to all argument. Wilde and Taylor were tried on a clause in
the Criminal Law Amendment Act which I had inserted in order to render it possible for the law to take cognisance of proceedings like theirs. I took the
clause ‘mutatis mutandis’ from the French Code. As I had crafted it the maximum sentence was seven years. The then Home Secretary and Attorney-General,
both most experienced men, however, suggested to me that in such cases convictions are always difficult, and that it would be better were the maximum to
be two years. Hence the insufficiency of the severest sentence that the law allows, which, as Mr Justice Wills observed, is totally inadequate to the
offence."