The Evening News - Wednesday, May 1, 1895

[...]Judge’s[...]

[...] THE [...] UP.

Mr. Justice Charles [...] change in the [...] state of the [...] evidence on [...] the [...]. Would add [...] counts of conspiracy [...] the defendant’s [...] on these counts, [...]

[...] rest of the case, [...] me ask you [...] everything [...] The newspapers [...]. Of this trial, [...] especially the [...] they came there [...] with unbiased [...] men of education, [...] they must think of nothing but the evidence.

CONCERNING THE WITNESSES.

One [...] witnesses [...] such cases as [...] evidence were accomplices [...] by the practice of the [...] no one could be [...] uncorroborated testimony of an [...] Lord Bramwell [...] case to the jury at all on [...] of an accomplice, and the [...] was a good one, for otherwise to what [...] innocent people be [...] corroboration, there [...] of the young men in the [...] his duty to [...] and he had [...] watched the evidence [...] He was clearly of opinion that there [...] law [...] and any [...] rendered it impossible for him to withdraw the case from consideration [...] that in [...]of Parker, Wood, [...] the witnesses were properly [...] by Sir Edward Clarke in his [...]speech as blackmailers, and [...] the grossest, the [...]

[...] with a quail, looked [...] round. The learned Judge then went on to deal with [...] Queensberry trial. He did propose to dwell long upon that, but [...] must not overlook the fact that what he said upon oath on a previous occasion [...] with them equally [...] the box [...] that the charges [...] inquiring took place in [...]. till 1894 that Lord Queensberry published the libel, and that it was Wilde himself who took the steps [...] the matter to trial. He [...] verdict in the previous case was not at all binding on them, so it was [...] to on the question [...] Sir Edward Clarke before [...] evidence [...] on Lord Queensberry [...] matters stood at present.

A [...] of the evidence given by Wilde [...] Queensberry trial was [...] had been called the literary [...] case, in which it was [...] a cross-examination of Wilde [...] that he was a man [...] character [...] between men. That [...] into two [...] "Dorian Gray," [...] "Chameleon." [...] "You and I [...] hurriedly, "I [...] not read it. [...] youth addicted to [...] undescribed, whose [...] reveal the abysses of [...] the results of which [...] picture." In a few words, the judge [...] the story, and [...] gentlemen, that it is my [...] ought not to [...] on "Dorian Gray said, "Judge no man by his [...] say, "Confound [...] he creates." [...] writers, such as Scott [...] that was not [...] writers, especially in the [...] which it was [...] modesty to read [...] must not be influenced [...] by "Dorian Gray," [...] it was published last [...] the offence charged, [...] Wilde was that of [...] the "Phrases [...] of them were amusing, [...] some of them, if [...] But in the [...] of which the [...] a narrative disgusting [...] Wilde had nothing to do with it, [...] anything on the score of "The Priest and the Acolyte" was not only [...] but utterly absurd.

THE TWO POEMS.

In "The Chameleon" were also two poems by Lord Alfred Douglas, "In Praise of shame" and "Two Loves." It was alleged that these two poems [...] an immoral tendency, and as Wilde [...] they became more material to [...] the two letters from Wilde [...] Then the learned judge, with [...] read two poems. Mr. Wilde [...] cross-examined on these, and [...] which were written prior to [...] the poems. These stood [...] to the other [...] They had been cross-examined [...] great length, it had been [...] they were of an immoral character. What did Oscar Wilde himself say? He said he was in no sense ashamed of the letter, although they breathed the language of affection and passion, they did not breathe the language of unnatural passion. He had called them prose poems, and he said that to his mind there was nothing impure about the affection of an elder man for a youth, that it was the love David had for Jonathan, that Plato called the beginning of wisdom. Now upon this part of the case, the jury must exercise their own judgment. Wilde had said that the word "shame" in the poem meant modesty, shame in the sense that was felt by our first parents in the Garden of Eden. They must weigh this, and they must remember that as for the first letter Wilde produced it himself, in his examination-in-chief. That concluded the literary part of the case.

THE CHARGES AGAINST THE PRISONERS.

Let him now address himself to the charges—the first one with reference to Shelley. That was [...] at the beginning of 1892, and it would be a most anxious task to decide upon it. Shelley, [...] the other witnesses, was undoubtedly, notwithstanding what he might say, in the position of an accomplice, and needed corroboration. What corroboration was, in a legal sense, forthcoming, and he was not tainted with the offences of Wood, Parker, or Atkins, in that limited sense he was an untainted witness. The learned Judge then went through Shelley’s story, the story of "the intellectual youth, consumed with admiration for Wilde’s works." They would remember this witness and they must be the judge of his demeanour in the box. He appeared excited, and rather indicated that what took place took place against his will. That could hardly be, for subsequently Shelley was found dining with Wilde, going to clubs and theatres, and writing him admiring letters. The acquaintance with Shelley was admitted by the prisoner but the charges contained in his evidence absolutely denied. Shelley’s story was that in March, 1893, he wrote breaking off the acquaintance with Wilde, but no copy of that letter was produced. Wilde denied having received it, and a number of letters were produced after that date in which Shelley was writing to Wilde in the most friendly terms. A number of these letters were read by the learned Judge, who commented on the contrast between their language and the feelings with which Shelley said he regarded Wilde at that time. The jury must carefully examine Shelley’s evidence, and form their own conclusions. Had his mind become disordered, and were these things he said the results of delusion? He said himself in his letters he was afraid he was not very sane, but perhaps that was an exaggerated view to take of the letters. A very serious responsibility rested upon them. Passing from Shelley he came to Atkins, and in every detail went through Atkins’s story—the dinner at which he met Wilde, the visit to Paris, the whole of the terrible narrative.

The cross-examination of Atkins, the judge went on to point out, revealed various discrepancies with his original story, and the only charge they had to deal with with reference to this witness was that alleged against Wilde and Taylor conjointly, as with the evidence of what took place in Paris they could not deal. Wilde gave evidence in the Queensberry case as to what he said were the true circumstances of the dinner at which he met Atkins, and, to a great extent, this was confirmed by the cross-examination of Atkins. The jury must remember the behaviour of Atkins in the box, and the way in which, after swearing that certain incidents never took place, how he was recalled, and how it turned out that he had told the grossest of falsehoods,—falsehoods so gross that they would be justified in declining to act upon any of his evidence. They were of course the judges of a witness’s credibility, but it was plain that Atkins was an untruthful, an unscrupulous witness.

Coming next to the charges with reference to the Savoy Hotel, here again a most question arose. The circumstances of Mr. Wilde’s stay at the Savoy were recounted, and the evidence of the chambermaid and the masseur carefully gone through by the learned Judge. It was an anxious matter they here had to determine. If they came to the conclusion that the chambermaid and the masseur were witnesses of truth, then there was undoubted evidence on which they could act with regard to the Savoy.

He turned now to Wood, and at some length went through his story.

THE MAN WOOD.

Since his return from America Wood certainly seemed to have fallen into very vicious courses, and it was suggested that he was one of a regular gang of blackmailers. His object in going to America was, according to his own story, to get away from bad associations, and the money given him by Wilde was, so they both said, for that purpose. But at that interview there was the extraordinary circumstance that Wilde got back some letters Wood had stolen, letters that he said he was not ashamed of in any way, but which he did not want handed about in public. With regard to Wood, the jury must note that, like Atkins, he was a blackmailer. He had given a pretty complete history of himself and of his veracity the jury must judge.

He arrived now at the case of the Parkers. Charles Parker and William Parker were introduced to Wilde by Taylor, and here he would briefly remind them of the evidence which had been laid before them by Taylor. Having shortly summarised Taylor’s evidence, the learned Judge said he was charged with acts of immorality with both Parkers. His story was that he was introduced to them in Piccadilly ; the Parkers’ story was that Taylor spoke to them in the St. James’s Restaurant. In detail the summing-up continued all through the evidence of the Parkers.

The jury retired at 1.35.

A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST WILDE.

The case of Lotzerich v. Wilde, which was an action by an hotel proprietor against Mr. Oscar Wilde, was down for hearing before His Honour Judge Lumley Smith, Q.C., in the Westminster County-court to-day, but no parties appeared and it was struck out. The claim was for £6 10s. 2d. for goods supplied.