London Daily News - Friday, April 5, 1895

THE ALLEGED LIBEL ON MR. OSCAR WILDE.

At the Central Criminal Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Collins, the trial was continued of the Marquis of Queensberry on a charge of having published a false and defamatory libel of and concerning Mr. Oscar Wilde, by leaving the same written on a card at Mr. Wilde's Club—the Albemarle. The Marquis of Queensberry denied that the words were libellous, and pleaded that they were justifiable and published for the public benefit. Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys appeared for the prosecution; Mr. Carson, Q.C., and Mr. C.F. Gill for the Marquis of Queensberry; and Mr. Besley and Mr. Monckton watched the case on behalf of Lord Douglas of Hawick.

Mr. Oscar Wilde was further cross-examined by Mr. Carson, Q.C. He said that the man Taylor arranged the meeting between him and Wood about the letters. He had been to afternoon tea parties at Taylor’s house. Taylor’s rooms did not strike him as being peculiar except that they displayed more taste than usual. He thought they were most pretty rooms; not luxurious. He knew Mr. Sydney Mavor. He had not seen him for twelve months. He was not told that Mavor had disappeared within the last week. He did not know whether Mr. Taylor kept a lady's costume at his rooms. He had no business with Taylor. He was a young man of great taste and intelligence.—Mr. Carson: Was he a literary man ?—I have never seen any work of his.—Used he to talk of literature ?—He used to listen. I suppose as an intellectual treat also— Certainly. Witness, continuing, said he invited Taylor to dine with him at various restaurants. Fred Atkins was a friend of Taylor’s. He liked Fred. He always called people by their Christian names if he liked them. He did not know that Taylor was being watched by the police at his rooms. He knew that Taylor and Parker were arrested by the police at a raid on a house in Fitzroy-square. He had never heard that Taylor was notorious for introducing young men to older men. He had introduced about five young men to him with whom he had become friendly to a degree of calling them by their Christian names. These young men were all about 21 years of age. He did not know whether any of them had any occupation. He had given money or presents to all the five. One of the five was Charles Parker. He had no knowledge that he was a gentleman’s servant out of employment. He became friendly with any one he liked. He didn’t know his age; he didn't keep a census.—Mr. Carson: Was he an educated man?—Culture was not his strong point. He did not know what his past was. He never inquired into people’s past. He met Parker first at a West-end restaurant. He was brought there by Taylor. He told Taylor to come and to bring any friends he liked, and he brought Parker and his brother. He gave Parker 5l. because he was poor and because he liked him, and what better reason could they have.—Mr. Carson: Did you know that one gentleman was a valet and the other gentleman a groom ?—I did not know, nor should I have cared. I don’t care twopence if I like them.—Mr. Carson: What enjoyment did you have in entertaining this valet and groom ?—The pleasure of being with the young, the bright, the happy, and the careless. He called Parker "Charley" on the first evening.— And did you have good wines ?—Yes. For the groom and valet?—No, for Mr. Taylor and his friends. The dinner was in a private room.—Did you give them an intellectual treat?—They seemed deeply impressed. He did not give them plenty of champagne. They had what they wanted. Mr. Carson: As much as they could drink ?— If you imply that I forced wines upon them, certainly not. You did not stint them in drink ?—(Indignantly) What gentleman would stint his friends? Mr. Carson: What gentleman would stint his valet? Mr. Wilde: I strongly object to that remark. Witness was next asked what there was in common between these young men and himself, and he said he liked the society of young people. He recognised no social distinctions of any sort or kind, and the mere fact of youth was so wonderful to him that he would sooner talk with a young man for half an hour than be cross-examined in court. So I understand that you would pick a boy up in the street as a companion ?—Oh, I have talked with street arabs.—And taken them into your rooms ? Be it so. Witness was next examined as to having dined at other places with Parker, and he admitted that he had, and that Parker had been at tea with him. Witness, further examined, said he read that Parker and Taylor were arrested at the raid on the house on Fitzroy-square, when men were found in women’s clothing. This made no difference in his friendship for Taylor. Freddy Atkins was connected with a firm of bookmakers, and was a young man. He met Atkins at a dinner, at which Taylor was present. He thought he was very good company. He seemed idle, and his ambition was to go on the music-hall stage. He did not discuss literature with him. The art of the music-hall was as far as they got. He subsequently met Atkins at the Café Royal. He took him to Paris at the request of a gentleman. He never suggested that he should go in the capacity of his secretary. Such a suggestion was a gross libel. Atkins stayed at the same hotel with him. He gave Atkins 3l. 15s. to buy his first song on the music-hall stage, as he told him that poets who wrote for the music-hall stage never took less. He did not know that Ernest Scarp was a valet. Taylor introduced him to him. Quite unexpectedly ?—It was not a shock. Some days afterwards they dined together. He asked him to dinner because he (witness) was so good- natured. It was one of the best ways of pleasing a person not in one’s social position to ask him to dine. He did not give him any money, but a cigarette case. It was his custom to give cigarette cases. Sydney Mayburn was introduced to him by a gentleman whose name had been privately given. He had not heard of that gentleman for two years, and could not say whether he was in England. He might have given him a cigarette case value 4l. 11s. 6d. He gave these things because he liked the persons. Mayburn stayed a night at an hotel in Albemarle-street with him. They dined together, and Mayburn stayed. He was living at Notting-hill, but it pleased him to stay at a very nice, pleasing hotel. He knew Walter Granger, a servant at rooms in Oxford. He was a peculiarly plain boy—he was very ugly, and he pitied him for it. Pressed by counsel as to why he had made the allusion to the boy’s ugliness, witness said, "I mentioned it because you stung me by an insolent question.Your questions sting me, and you try to unnerve me, and at times one speaks flippantly when one should be serious."

Sir E. Clarke, Q.C. then rose to re-examine Mr. Oscar Wilde, but before doing so put in and read a number of remarkable letters written by the Marquis of Queensberry to his son, Lord Alfred Douglas, and other persons, suggesting the existence of a gross scandal. To the first sent to Lord Alfred Douglas the Marquis received a telegram, "What a funny little man you are." (Laughter.) To this Lord Queensberry replied calling his son "an impertinent young jackanapes," and in the course of the letter he said that his son's reputation accounted for a good deal that had happened, and that if he caught him again with "that man" he would make a public scandal of what was at present only a suppressed one. He also threatened to cut off Lord Alfred's allowance. The next letter was from Lord Queensberry, dated July 6, to the father of Lady Queensberry, who was divorced from him, in which he said that Lady Queensberry had been stirring his son up to defy him. As a matter of fact he did defy him, and there had been a scandal. One or two other letters couched in decisive language were also read.

Witness, in answer to Sir E. Clarke, said Taylor was a well-educated young man, with accomplishments. He played the piano very charmingly, and he had no reason to believe he was an immoral and disreputable person. Taylor explained that he was invited to the house that was raided in Fitzroy-square to play at a benefit concert, and from his explanation he (witness) thought his arrest was a monstrous thing. He was introduced to Shelley.

Sir E. Clarke then read a number of letters from Shelley to witness, in which Shelley recognized the great kindness he had received from Mr. Wilde, and spoke to him of his position and prospects. He said he knew he was an artist, and that he meant to live a Christian life, and asked for a loan of 10l.—Witness said he certainly lent or gave him 5l. about that time.

Sir E. Clark said in another letter Shelley wrote: "You have deadly enemies in London, vide the article in "The Daily News." Is that an article on a book of yours?—Witness: It was an article not quite appreciative of my poem entitled the Sphinx. There never was any relation between him and Shelley except that between a man of letters and a person who admires his works. After his interview with Lord Queensberry the reason why he did not then take proceedings against him was on account of the very strong pressure put upon him by the Queensberry family.

Mr. Carson, Q.C., asked permission to put in a postcard written by Lord Alfred Douglas to his father.

Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., objected, but his lordship decided on the admissibility of the card.

Mr. Carson read the contents, in the course of which Lord Alfred Douglas said that since his (Lord Queensberry’s) interview with Mr. Wilde he (Lord Douglas) had taken, and should continue to take, every opportunity of appearing in public with Mr. Wilde. He also threatened to use a revolver if his father assaulted him, and the postcard concluded, "I think if you were dead not many people would miss you."

In reply to the jury, witness said he had never seen the editor of "The Chameleon" when he wrote asking him to contribute. He did not think "The Chameleon" was intended for publication. He was not aware that the article "The Priest and the Acolyte" was going to appear. Sir E. Clarke, Q.C., said that was the case for the prosecution.

Sir Carson, Q.C., then proceeded to address the jury for the defence. He said that Lord Queensburry withdrew nothing that he had said or written, having done everything with premeditation and a determination at all risks and hazards to try and save his son. His conduct had been absolutely consistent throughout. Mr. Wilde has been going about with young men who were not his equals either in position or education. He thought it would be proved that these men were known as some of the most immoral characters in London, and he especially referred to Taylor, who was the right man to assist Wilde in all these orgies. Had they been able to cross-examine Taylor they would have learned what went on. Taylor was the pivot of the case, yet Sir E. Clark had not dared to put him in the witness-box. With regard to the books, they were being continually told by Mr. Wilde that they were by an artist for artists, but there was the greatest contrast between his books, which were for the select and not for the ordinary individual, and the way he chose his friends. He took up with Charlie Parker, a gentleman’s servant, whose brother is a gentleman's servant; with young Conway, whose brother sold papers on the pier at Worthing; and with Scarfe, also a gentleman’s servant. Then his excuse was no longer that he was dwelling in regions of art, but that he had such a magnanimous, such a noble, such a democratic soul that he drew no social distinctions, and that it was quite as much pleasure to have the sweeping boy from the streets to lunch or dine with him as the greatest litterateur or artist. He (Mr. Carson) considered the positions absolutely irreconcilable. He thought if they had rested the case alone upon Wilde’s literature they would have been absolutely justified in the course which Lord Queensberry had taken. Mr. Wilde never complained of the immorality of the story of "The Priest and the Acolyte." He knew no distinction, in fact, between a moral and an immoral book. Nor did he care whether the article was in its very terms blasphemous. All that Mr. Wilde said was that he did not approve of the story from an artistic point of view. Exactly the same idea ran through the two letters to Lord A. Douglas and through "Dorian Grey."

The learned counsel was still speaking when the court adjourned.