London Star - Wednesday, May 1, 1895

WILDE.
IMPRESSIVE SUMMING UP BY MR. JUSTICE
CHARLES.
HE CAN SEE NOTHING IMMORAL IN "DORIAN GRAY," OR IN WILDE'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE "CHAMELEON," BUT IS OF OPINION THAT THERE IS LEGAL CORROBORATION OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE PRINCIPAL WITNESSES.

The fifth and positively last day of the protracted trial of Wilde and Taylor. It is long since any Old Bailey trial has lasted five days, and longer since there has been so much uncertainty as to the issue of a case of equal importance with this. For the last time Wilde and Taylor were brought down from Holloway in the prison van, and their counsel betrayed the nervous tension in which four days' hard fighting has left them by attending unusually early. Simultaneously with the three loud raps upon the door which announced the approach of the judge the prisoners were brought into the dock. Wilde is grown

POSITIVELY GREY

in the face and can no longer keep out of his eyes the haggard consciousness of his terrible position. Taylor has changed less. He still wore a weakly amiable smile.

His lordship embarked at once upon a summing-up which was sure to be long. He described the charges against the prisoners, of committing acts of indecency, and as against Taylor of procuring the commission of such acts and expressed satisfaction that the counts charging them with conspiracy have been withdrawn. He was sure he did not know why those counts were ever inserted at all. It was a highly inconvenient course to join counts with regard to one of which the prisoners could give evidence, while with regard to the other they could not, and he should

DIRECT AN ACQUITTAL

upon the charges of conspiracy against both the prisoners, as well as upon one count of the indictment against Taylor to which he used not now further allude but as to which there was not evidence proper for the jury's consideration. He asked the jury to apply their minds only to the evidence. For weeks it had been impossible to open a newspaper without reading some reference in the case, and especially to the prisoner Wilde, but his lordship earnestly hoped that the jury would not allow any preconceived opinions to weigh with them in trying two persons, both of good education, and one of high intellectual gifts. As to the witnesses, where acts of indecency were alleged to have been committed with the consent of the witnesses, these persons were accomplices in the wicked act, and by a wholesome practice of the Court for certainly 200 years no defendant could be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice in his crime. Otherwise innocent people might be exposed to terrible dangers by designing or spiteful persons. In this case, therefore, had there been no corroboration of the evidence of the young men to whom the jury had listened it would have been at once his lordship's duty to direct an acquittal. But he was of the opinion that

THERE WAS CORROBORATION

of the kind the law requires in all the cases. Not that of an eye-witness of the acts, but as to the acquaintanceship of the young men and as to many of the incidents. They were not only accomplices, but in the case of Parker, Wood, and Atkins they had been properly described by Sir Edward Clarke as blackmailers; and with regard to Atkins, he was out of his own mouth convicted of having told the grossest and most deliberate falsehoods. They therefore not only required corroboration, but the jury had to remember their characters. His lordship did not propose to deal at any length with the incidents of the Queensberry trial, but it must be remembered that the evidence which Wilde gave at that trial was given upon oath, and must not be lost sight of in considering that he gave yesterday in his own defence. They all know how the case arose. Lord Queensberry published a card which undoubtedly libeled Wilde, who at once initiated proceedings for criminal libel, which led to the trial on which they were now embarked. The libel referred to occurrences in 1892, but was

NOT PUBLISHED TILL 1895.

After Wilde had been examined and cross-examined, but before any evidence had been called for the plea of justification, Wilde by his counsel agreed to a verdict that Lord Queensberry was not guilty of criminal libel, and that the publication of the card was for the public benefit. That verdict, it was necessary to remember, was in no way binding on the present jury. His lordship referred to the nature of the plea of justification and to the reason of why such offences as it alleged in connection with the lads Conway and Grainger were not included in the present indictment, having occurred out of the jurisdiction of the court. On the conclusion of the Queensberry trial Wilde and Taylor were arrested to answer the charges for which they now awaited the jury's verdict. A very large portion of the evidence of Wilde at the Queensberry trial was devoted to what Sir Edward Clarke had called the literary part of the case. It was attempted to show by cross-examination of Wilde as to works he has published; especially "Dorian Gray," that he was a man of

MOST UNPRINCIPLED CHARACTER

with regard to the relation of men to boys; and, secondly, with regard to a magazine called the "Chameleon," published in the autumn of last year, and in which it was alleged that Wilde had given the sanction of his name to the most abominable doctrines. His lordship had not read "Dorian Gray," and assumed that the jury had not, but they had been told that it was the story of a youth of vicious character whose face did not reveal the abysses of wretchedness into which he had fallen, but whose picture painted by an artist friend revealed all the consequences of his passion. In the end he stabs the picture, whereupon he himself falls dead, and on his vicious face appears all the signs which before had been upon the future. His lordship did not think that in a criminal case the jury should place any unfavorable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorian Gray." Sir Edward Clarke had quoted from Coleridge, "Judge no man by his books," but his lordship would

PREFER TO SAY

"Confound no man with the characters of the persons he creates." Because a novelist put into the mouth of his villain the most abominable sentiments it must not be assumed that he shared them. As to the "Chameleon," the only connection proved between that magazine and Wilde was that it was prefaced by two pages of "Phrases and Philosphies for the Use of the Young," by the prisoner, of which it was sufficient to say that some were amusing, some cynical, some, if his lordship might be allowed to criticise, silly, but wicked, no. The learned counsel who represented Lord Queensberry called attentions to a story, a filthy narrative of the most disgusting character, called "The Priest and the Acolyte," of which the author, who signed himself "X," should be thoroughly ashamed. With that story Wilde had nothing whatever to do, and to impute to him anything in it was quite absurd. To judge him by another man's works, which he had never seen, would be highly unjust. So much for the literary part of the case. His lordship would pass to another phase which had

MORE RELEVANCE

to the issue the jury were trying. In the same "Chameleon" were two sonnets by Lord Alfred Douglas, one called "In Praise of Shame" and the other "The Two Loves." It was alleged that theses sonnets had an immoral and unnatural tendency, and that Wilde had approved of them. What was it he had said with reference to them? His lordship, with an admirable elocutionary art, read the sonnet in praise of shame. Of the other he only quoted some lines, Wilde looked up with a fresh interest at this judicial appreciation of the literary form, if not of the sentiments of the poems. His lordship proceeded to make a big mistake. He quoted the Wilde letter beginning "Your sonnet is quite lovely, and it is a marvel that your red rose-leaf lips should be made so much for the music of song as for the madness of kissing." He imagined this applied to the sonnet in the "Chameleon," but

Sir Edward Clarke rose at once to point out that the letter bore a date long antecedent to the publication of the "Chameleon" and clearly referred to some other matter.

His lordship

RECOGNISED THE ERROR,

but went on to read the letter, as well as that other from the Savoy Hotel, written in 1893, in which Wilde began, "Dearest of all boys -- Your letter was delightful red and yellow wine to me, " and concluded, "I fear I must leave. I have no money, no credit, and a heart of lead." Abandoning the sonnets and dealing with these letters his lordship asked if Mr. Charles was right in regarding them as of a horrible and indecent character.

Wilde himself had said he was not in any case ashamed of either of those two letters, and that although they breathed the language of affection and passion it was not unnatural passion. He had described the first as a kind of prose poem, and had said that to his mind there was nothing unnatural or impure in the passionate affection of a man for a youth; and that the love mentioned in the sonnet entitled "The Two Loves" was like the love of David and Jonathan or that which Plato called the beginning of wisdom. This was a part of the case on which the jury must exercise their own judgement. Leaving it behind, his lordship would deal in order of date with the charges. The first which demanded the jury's attention was that in reference to Shelley. That offence was alleged to have been committed at the beginning of 1892, and it was a

MOST ANXIOUS TASK FOR THE JURY

to make up their minds whether that charge was made out or not. Shelley was undoubtedly, notwithstanding what he might say as to having been in a state of semi-intoxication, in the position of an accomplice, and if his evidence had not been corroborated his lordship would have had to withdraw the charge from the jury. on the other hand he was not tainted with the sort of offences with which Woods, Atkins, and Parker are charged, and in that sense was an untainted witness. He was employed in the publishing office of Messrs. Mathews and Lane, at a salary of 16s. to 18s. a week. He had been described as an office-boy, but it was clear from his letters that he was a person of some education with literary tastes, and a consuming admiration for the works of the defendant Wilde. Mathews and Lane being Wilde's publishers, he made the acquaintance of this lad, and took him to dine at the Albermarle Hotel, where, Shelley declares, indecencies took place between them. The jury were the best judges of the demeanor of the witness. He certainly appeared in the witness-box in a very excited state, and rather indicated that all this took place against his will. That could hardly be, having regard to what followed, for within the same week he went a second time to the Albermarle, besides going to more than one theatre with Wilde. The prisoner had positively denied the story of the indecencies, while he said it was true he was interested in the boy, and went about with him to some extent, Shelley had swore that he wrote a letter saying he would have no more to do with a man of Wilde's morality, and had been allowed to give to the best of his recollection the contents of that letter which Wilde denied that he had received. Other letters were forthcoming in which Shelley addressed Wilde in familiar terms, and in some of which he

BEGGED FOR MATERIAL ASSISTANCE.

How did this fit in with his statement that before this Wilde had taken unwelcome liberties with him?

His lordship read these morbid and hysterical letters at length. Wilde meanwhile amused himself with making designs on blotting-paper with a quill pen. Taylor looked profoundly bored, and everybody began to ask "How long, my lord, how long?" when at half-past eleven his lordship was still dealing with the first of the series of charges.

His lordship continued that Shelley had accounted for the tone of his letters by adapting the suggestion that his mind had become disordered. Would this suggestion account for his making such nauseous admissions as his charge against Wilde involved? His correspondence showed excitability, but to suggest that it showed he did not know what he was saying was to exaggerate. The serious responsibility of accepting or rejecting his evidence must rest upon the jury. Why should he tell his shameful story at all

UNLESS IT WERE TRUE?

His lordship passed from the case of Shelley to that of Atkins, who is now 20 years old, and was introduced to Taylor by a young man named Schwabe in November, 1892. He met Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas at dinner in a private room in the Cafe Florence, and he alleges that at that dinner Wilde asked him to go to Paris with him as his private secretary. He agreed, and they went two days later, occupying rooms in the Boulevard des Capucines. Atkins spent the evening at the Moulin Rouge, which, his lordship gathered from the evidence, was a place where immoral women congregated. He alleges that on returning in the early hours of the morning he found Wilde and Schwabe occupying the same bed, and that next morning Wilde made improper overtures to him which he rejected. On their return to London he saw Wilde at Tite-st., and was asked to say nothing about the visit to Paris, and in December, 1893, when he was sickening for smallpox, Wilde visited him at the rooms at Osnaburch-st., which he shared with a man named Burton. The charge in reference to Atkins is not in reference to what occurred in Paris. That is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. The charge refers to the alleged agreement of Taylor and Wilde at the Café Florence to get hold of the lad for immoral purposes. Wilde's account of the matter is that he did meet the youth at dinner, and took him to Paris with him at the request of Schwabe, who had promised to take him over. Wilde was himself going to Paris on

LITERARY BUSINESS,

but denies that Atkins went in any way as his secretary. Atkins was a most unreliable, unscrupulous, and untruthful witness. He had the impudence to deny in cross-examination that he and the man named Burton were ever taken to Rochester-row Police-station for a gross case of blackmailing. But it turned out that he had told the grossest falsehoods--a falsehood so gross that the jury would be justified if they thought fair in declining to act on any of his evidence. He admitted that on 10 June, 1891, he and Burton were taken to the police station, where the gentleman who gave them into custody declined to charge them. Many other suggestions of blackmailing were made against him. Mr. Gill had said that he might be a blackmailer, but that there was no suggestion that he tried to blackmail the prisoners, and he therefore invited the jury to accept, in spite of his admissions, the story of the Café Florence dinner and the trip to Paris.

His lordship passed to the charges against Wilde of misconduct with two unknown boys at the Savoy Hotel in the March of 1893, when Lord Alfred Douglas also stayed in the hotel for a week. With this repulsive phase of the case he dealt with the same conscientious minuteness as had made him devote already two hours in the consideration of the evidence. He reminded the jury of the evidence of the hotel servants, and their

EXPLICIT STATEMENTS

that boys were seen in Wilde's bed. To his lordship's mind it seemed strange that if this gross misconduct was going on there should have been so little attempt at concealment, Wilde ringing up the chambermaid in light his fire and leaving his room open to the hotel masseur, who seemed to have entered in the morning without objections. If the servants told the truth Wilde's denial that boys had ever been in his bed at the Savoy must be untrue. It was for the jury to judge to which side the balance of credibility inclined.

There was more interest in the story of the relations between the prisoners and Wood. He made Taylor's acquaintance in the early part of 1893, spend three weeks with him in his rooms at Little College-st., and at the end of a month made Wilde's acquaintance. How? Not through an introduction by Taylor, but through Lord Alfred Douglas, who sent him to meet Wilde at the Cafe Royal. They went together to the Cafe Florence, dined together, and then drove to Wilde's house at Tite-st., where Wood alleges that misconduct occurred. There were other meetings, and Wilde bought him a silver watch and chain, and at various times gave him money. Wilde's account of all this was very different. He said Wood had applied to Lord Alfred Douglas for assistance in getting

EMPLOYMENT AS A CLERK.

Lord Alfred, who was at Salisbury, wrote to Wilde, asking him to do what he could for the lad, and at the same time telegraphed to Wood to introduce himself to Wilde at the Café Royal, which Wilde says he did. The jury must judge for themselves for what purpose the introduction was effected. Sir Edward Clarke had described Wood as a member of the regular society ol blackmailers. Certain it was that after a visit to America he was concerned with Allan and Parker to sharing £500, which was extorted from a gentleman who had been caught with Parker. The manner of his going to America was important.

HIS OWN STORY

was that he wanted to get away from the evil company into which he had fallen, and that Wilde gave him £21 to take him to America. But there was the extraordinary circumstance that at the same interview some letters of Wilde's which had fallen into the hands of Wood, and which Wile was very anxious to get back, were restored to him. One, however, was in the possession of Allen, who had taken it from Wood's pocket and subsequently endeavored to extort money from Wilde for its surrender. After he was in America Wood wrote to Taylor, "Tell Oscar he can if he likes send me a draft for an Easter egg." Mr. Gill had said of Wood as of Atkins--that he did not seem to have endeavored to blackmail Wilde.

At one o'clock, when the court was beginning to weary of this thrice-told tale, his lordship had only reached the Parker incidents. He paused, however, to remark that Taylor seemed to be a man of good family and education, who had run through a large fortune of £45,000. He was charged with acts of indecency with both Charles and William Parker. According to his own account he was

INTRODUCED TO THEM

by a friend in the street outside the St. James's Restaurant, when Taylor spoke to them, talked of the money to be made in a certain way, and offered to introduce them to Wilde. They were first taken to Taylor's rooms at Little College-st. His lordship repeated in detail the description given by various witnesses of the odd way in which these rooms were decorated and furnished--of the burning of perfumes, and the presence of feminine garments and gold brooches in the rooms. Here there were frequent tea parties, at which Wilde--who had said the rooms struck him as Bohemian, but not strange--was often present. The attention of the police seems to have been attracted to the place, and for a time they kept it under supervision. Taylor had denied that he invited "Piccadilly young men" to his rooms, or that he himself had scouted men at the Albermarle or the Empire. The 8th of March was Taylor's birthday, and according to his own statements he was

INVITED BY WILDE

to dine with him at a restaurant, Solferino or Kettner's, and bring with him any friends he liked. The dinner did not take place, however, till 10 March, when he took with him the two Parkers, and introduced them to Wilde. Now, the evidence of Charles Parker was tainted, but that of William Parker, his brother, against whom no charge of blackmailing had been made. They both described with detail and circumstance a luxurious meal, and declared that Wilde, after paying for the dinner, said of Charles Parker, "This is the boy for me," and took him off to the Savoy Hotel. William Parker saw no more of Wilde, but accuses Taylor of indecent acts at Little College-st., and at Chapel-st., Chelsea. That charge, however, was not made when he first gave evidence against the prisoners, but only when he was re-called for the purpose at a subsequent hearing at the police-court.

The summing-up became so over-loaded with detail, being practically a repetition of the whole of the evidence which has been given in the case, that it is doubtful whether the effect was not rather

TO CONFUSE

than to elucidate the facts.

To further connect Wilde and Taylor with Charles Parker there was the evidence of Mrs. Margery Bancroft that she had seen both prisoners at Parker's lodgings in Park-walk in Chelsea. Wilde had denied on oath he ever was at Park-walk in his life. He admitted that Parker had been to his rooms at St. James's-place, but denied the utterly indescribably filthy action which Parker had said took place there, just as he denied that he ever took Parker to the Savoy Hotel, or was guilty of misconduct with him there. Charles Parker also alleged acts of indecency against the prisoner Taylor, in whose company he was arrested on the occasion of a raid on a house in Fitzroy-st. After that incident Parker enlisted and went away from London.

That, said his lordship, concluded the various charges made in the case, and he had very little more to say. Other witnesses had been called who had not charged either prisoner with misconduct. Sidney Mavor, who had stayed all night with Taylor and met Wilde and Lord Alfred Douglas at dinner, and had stayed all night at the Albermarle Hotel, had entirely denied that any misconduct took place, so that his evidence was rather in favor of Wilde than against him. His lordship had summed up with the great minuteness because the case was one of the utmost importance to the public at large. At the same time it was important that innocent men should not be convicted. Wilde was a man of high intellectual gifts, whom they would have supposed incapable of such practices. Taylor, too, was a man who had been well brought up. At the same time the jury were bound to

CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE

and if they deemed it conclusive most say that the prisoners were or that either prisoner was guilty. They were required to say whether Wilde committed the acts of indecency charged, whether Taylor procured the commission of those acts, and, thirdly, whether Taylor committed acts of indecency with the lads named Parker.

The jury retired at twenty-five minutes to two. The prisoners were at once removed from the dock, Wilde striding down the stairs without glancing to right or left, Taylor, as usual, looking intently into every corner of the court and gallery before diving down the stairs to the cells. His lordship for some time

KEPT HIS SEAT,

as though he did not expect the jury to be long absent. The popular idea was that they would have considerable difficulty in arriving at a verdict, and Mr. C.F. Gill was so far of this opinion that he left the court for a time.