Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday, April 21, 1895

WILDE AND TAYLOR
COMMITTED FOR TRIAL.
A MOCK MARRIAGE.
THE SCENE IN COURT.
SPECIAL REPORT.

The interest so keenly displayed in the Wilde case all through has by no means died out. In fact, it shows no sign of abatement at all. On Friday, long before ten o'clock, the pavement adjacent to Bow-street Police Court and beneath the piazza of Covent Garden Theatre begun to be lined with people. By eleven o'clock there was quite a crowd on each side of the way. Strange to say, many of these curious spectators waiting for the arrival of the prisoners were women. The great majority, of course, were men, and many of them were young fellows, though several of them-a very large number altogether - were well dressed, even fashionably-dressed, men. For more than an hour they waited, walking up and down, smoking cigarettes, laughing and joking, trying to learn what truth there was in the report that further arrests were intended. It was a remarkable and saddening spectacle.

The doors of the small Extradition Court were opened about eleven, and so the rush of the previous occasions was avoided. Few, however, were let in, though the few soon mounted up to more than a hundred, and before quarter to twelve every inch of space was occupied.

Meanwhile, the great black 'bus from Holloway had drawn up outside. The Extradition Court is a long way from the front of the building, and nothing was heard of the arrival. The groans and hisses made by the crowd outside did not reach the crowd inside. They were not so vehement as before although the throng was larger.

Mr. J. P. Grain, Q.C., on Friday watched the case on behalf of the witness Mavor, the lad with ambitions for the music-hall stage. Mavor is a tall young follow, clean shaven and with a slight cast in his eye. He appeared in court, dressed in the height of fashion, with immaculate black frock coat, brilliant silk hat, and a collar 4in deep. It was ten minutes past twelve before Mr. C.F. Gill arrived, and at twenty past the Magistrate and Sir Edward Clarke were still missing. In another minute or two Sir John BrIdge took his seat and

THE PRISONERS WERE BROUGHT INTO COURT.

Wilde came first and strode heavily into the dock, followed by Taylor. Wilde has changed in a startling degree. His face is gray and haggard, his cheeks seem fallen in, his hair unkempt, and his general mien is one of great depression and sudden age. Even his clothes-the gray coat with the velvet cuffs, the silk hat and the gloves -seemed to have deteriorated. Taylor, on the contrary, remained dapper and apparently careless. No sooner was he in the dock than he began to smile in a way which was painful to watch. On the application of Mr. Newton the prisoners were permitted to sit down, and the privilege seemed very welcome to Wilde, who sank heavily into the corner of the seat, and let his head fall on his hand.

Mr. Gill recalled Charles Parker to examine him as to indecencies with Taylor, and the young man, having related those under considerable pressure, created a great sensation by giving evidence which went to suggest against Taylor the suggestion and attempt, if not the commission, of the gravest offence. Taylor laughed contemptuously at some of the witness's statements, but his colour heightened, and for the first time he betrayed something like uneasiness. Parker also told of a more fantastic episode, in which Taylor and the lad Charlie Mason went through

A MOCK CEREMONY OF MARRIAGE.

Taylor, he said, wore female garments. Mason played the bridegroom, and the ceremony was followed by a wedding breakfast.

William Parker was also recalled, and he declared against Tavlor an attempt in the Little College-street rooms at the same grave offence. The evidence was quite unreportable, and the manner of delivering it was revolting. In the cross-examination of each, Mr. Newton learned that these attempts they spoke of were made more than a couple of years ago.

Mr. Frederick Kearley, a superannuated detective-inspector of the Metropolitan Police, was the next witness. He deposed that he was employed by Lord Queensberry's solicitors to make inquiries on which his justification of the libel on Oscar Wilde was based, and in the course of those inquiries obtained from Mrs. Grey the landlady of 3, Chapel-street, a leather hat-box containing papers, including cheques, telegrams, tradesmen's bills, &c. Among the cheques were two for 30s, and £2 made payable to Sidney Mavor and certain telegrams addressed to Taylor at Little College-street. One read: "Cannot manage the dinner tomorrow; am so sorry. - OSCAR." And another, "Obliged to see--at five o'clock. So don't come to Savoy. Let me know at once about Fred. - OSCAR."

Mr. Charles Robinson, bookkeeper at the Savoy Hotel, proved that Wilde stayed at that hotel from March 3 to 29, 1893, and occupied the rooms spoken to by other witnesses.

Mr. Theo. Leigh, of the London and Westminster Bank's Marylebone Branch, put in a copy of Taylor's banking account, and was only of interest-as no details of the account were made public-because he was the first to divulge the whole of Taylor's name, which is "Alfred Waterhouse Somerset."

In September, 1898. Taylor moved his banking business from Marylebone to Westminster; so Mr. Reginald Brook, from Westminster Branch, produced a copy of the Taylor account up to date.

Mr. Brooks, a clerk in the Westminster Branch of the same bank, produced a copy of the prisoner Wilde's banking account from January 1, 1892, or April 9 last, the significance of the evidence being again left to the imagination. Transcripts of the evidence taken by shorthand writers at the recent trial at the Old Bailey were also put in.

Two shorthand writers put in transcripts of their notes of the evidence given at the Old Bailey in the memorable trial of the Marquis of Queensberrry only a fortnight ago. That completed the evidence for the prosecution.

Mr. Gill handed to Sir John Bridge the transcripts, remarking that he had marked the passages upon which he sought to have the prisoners committed for trial. Sir John read them to himself.

Mr. Humphreys and Mr. Newton then asked to be informed what the charges were to be upon which the committal was to be made.

Mr. Alexander, the Magistrate's clerk, read out the list. It was a long and a sensational one. It included indictments against Wilde of committing acts of gross indecency, and of conspiring for that purpose with Taylor; against Taylor of conspiring with Wilde and of attempting himself to commit an abominable offence.

Sir John Bridge: Now you have heard the offences of which you stand charged and the evidence given against you, do you wish to anything in answer to the charge?

Wilde, standing up, quietly answered, "No, not at present, your Worship."

There was not a trace of emotion and the cultured voice was under perfect control.

Sir John Bridge: Do you, Taylor?

Mr. Newton said that before Taylor answered the question he would like to ask if Sir John Bridge thought it right to commit his client on the serious charge named in the last indictment on the uncorroborated testimony of the two discredited witnesses chiefly concerned. He submitted that the evidence of such witnesses was wholly unworthy of credence.

Sir John Bridge said there was general corroboration as to the nature of Taylor's life which made the evidence of the Parkers inadmissible. "Certainly," he said, "I shall commit. The

PRISONERS ARE COMMITTED FOR TRIAL."

In asking for bail for Wilde, Mr. Travers Humphries called Sir John Bridge's attention to the fact that the indictment against Wilde was one only of misdemeanour, not of felony, and that the evidence necessary to defend him could only be procured with great difficulty. Documents would have to be read and people seen, and it would be difficult to prepare this evidence unless Mr. Wilde were at liberty to assist his legal representatives.

Mr. Newton, in asking for bail for Taylor, argued that there was no evidence whatever to prove that Taylor had committed the abominable acts mentioned.

Sir John Bridge said that in the exercise of his discretion he must refuse bail. To his mind there was no offence so grave as that with which the prisoners were charged. As to the evidence he would day no more that he did not think it slight. Therefore he refused bail.

The prisoners showed no disappointment at this decision, which could not have surprised them. They were immediately removed to the cells, and later in the afternoon were taken back to Holloway.

THE QUESTION OF BAIL

Wilde having been committed for trial only on the charges of misdemeanour is entitled to bail as soon as his counsel chooses to make application to the Queen's bench. The Judges have no power to refuse an application for bail upon the case as it stands, as bail for a misdemeanour is compulsory by statute law.

The sessions at the Old Bailey is open on Monday next. There is some opinion that, contrary to the usual practice of taking the heavy trials after all the lighter ones have been disposed of, a day will be fixed for the Wilde case. It may be taken even as soon as Tuesday next; the authorities are anxious to have it disposed of t the soonest moment. It is expected to last at least a couple of days. In the event of a postponement of the trial Mr. Wilde's counsel would apply to the Queen's Bench for bail.

NAMES SUPPRESSED.

The Central News is responsible for the statement that a decision has been arrived at to proceed against certain persons other than Wilde and Taylor. So far as could be gathered on Friday morning, this statement is likely to prove a little premature. There are, however, so many whose names have been suppressed, yet against whom evidence has by accident accumulated, that it is not impossible some step may force the hand of the authorities.

LORD ALFRED DOUGLAS STICKS TO HIS FRIEND

Lord Alfred Douglas, writing to the Star yesterday, says:-

I submit that Mr. Oscar Wilde has been tried by the newspapers before he has been tried by a jury, that his case has been almost

HOPELESSLY PREJUDICED

in the eyes of the public from whom the jury who must try his case will be drawn, and that he is practically being delivered over bound to the fury of a cowardly and brutal mob. Sir John Bridge, in refusing bail to-day, stated that he knew of no graver offence than that which Mr. Wilde is charged. Mr. Wilde, as a matter of fact, is charged with a "misdemeanour" punishable by two years' imprisonment with or without hard labour as a maximum penalty; therefore, the offence with which he is charged is, in the eye of the law, which Sir John Bridge is supposed to represent, comparatively trifling. I should very much like to know how, in view of this fact, Sir John Bridge can reconcile what he said with his conscience, and with his position as the absolutely impartial exponent of the law, and whether it is not obvious that, in saying what he did, allowed

HIS PERSONAL FEELINGS

on a particular point to override his sense of abstract justice, to the prejudice of the man charged before him. If a police-Magistrate of twenty years' experience shows such flagrant prejudice, what can be expected from the men who will at the Old Bailey form the jury of what the law humorously terms Mr. Oscar Wilde's "peers"?

There are a thousand other things that might be said, but I am not the person to say them, nor is it my place to make any reply to the precious bit of cant and bad grammar which appears over Lord Queensberry's signature in your issue to-day, and which I feel I may safely leave in the tender mercies of Mr. Robert Buchanan, whom I hereby beg to thank, in the name of justice, of sanity, and of Christian charity, for his noble letter.

IMPORTANT CONFERENCE

The Central News says: "Important conferences were held at Whitehall on Friday by the authorities regarding the disclosures which have been made in the case against Oscar Wilde. Some of the witnesses have been under close examination. So far no further arrests have been made."

AN OSCAR WILDE DUEL

The Oscar Wilde revelations have been the cause of trouble in Paris. An action at law is pending between an English journal, Mr. Sherrard, and an Irish-English official, Mr. McCarthy, over some references made regarding the scandals. But two Frenchmen have also come at loggerheads over the matter.

A paragraph over M. Jules Huret's signature appeared in the Petite Chronique des Lettres, referring to the amicable relations which existed between M. Catulle Mendes and Oscar Wilde. When M. Catulle Mendes saw this paragraph he sat down and wired to the well-known journalist: "Sir-If you acted as reported you are very badly informed. If you wished to be funny, you are a fool."

This uncomplimentary message was duly published in the Parisian papers. When Jules Huret came home he got the telegram, and replied: "I have just returned from the country, and I find your telegram in my Petite Chronique des Lettres. I had only intended to allude to the literary relations existing between Oscar Wilde and yourself. As it pleases you to interpret my words in a more general sense, I cannot combat an opinion on good grounds for which you know better than myself. 'Vous étes un homme d'esprit.'"

As a consequence of the quarrel the two gentlemen fought a duel in the neighbourhood of Paris on Wednesday afternoon. The weapons used were swords, and the encounter resulted in M. Mendes receiving a slight wound.

It is believed that other duels arising out of the same motive are pending.

"B 24" IN GAOL.

TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLDS'S NEWSPAPER
Sir, - A notorious person has been committed for trial. At present he is innocent n the eye of the law and should be detained, and nothing else. He ought to be allowed to live in the House of Detention exactly as he would had he been out on bail, so as to have no hindrance in preparing his defence. He has been accustomed to smoke: now he is forbidden-a severe punishment. He has been accustomed to drink claret with his dinner and lunch; he is now limited to half a pint, and offered tea with his rice-pudding. What a disgusting mixture! He is not allowed a table-cloth, or a glass to drink out of; in other words, he is suffering daily, and hourly, and nightly irritating and exasperating aggravations, amounting to a severe punishment. This man has money and at least one influential friend, and can pay a solicitor. What persecution amounting to semi-torture cannot be inflicted on a poor man, who has no friends and cannot pay a solicitor. This power of inflicting severe punishment on innocent poor men has long been a formidable weapon in the hands of rural Magistrates. Don't let us lose sight of the important principle involved because we have no sympathy with any particular prisoner to whom bail was refused.-Your faithful servant,
April 18, 1895 A.M., CANTAE.

[We publish this letter from an esteemed correspondent, because, as is plain, the writer is not advocating exemption for any particular person, but treatment for untried prisoners in accordance with the theory of the English law that "a person is supposed to be innocent until he is proved guilty." - Ed., R.N.]