The Times - Wednesday, May 1, 1895

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT, April 30.
(Before Mr. Justice Charles.)

The trial of OSCAR WILDE, 40, author, and ALFRED TAYLOR, 33, upon an indictment charging them under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act with committing acts of gross indecency, some of the counts charging Taylor with procuring the commission of those acts, and other counts charging the prisoners with conspiring together to commit and to procure the commission of those acts, was resumed.

Mr. C. P. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory conducted the prosecution on the part of the Director of Public Prosecutions; Sir Edward Clarke, Q.C., Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended

Wilde; and Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Paul Taylor defended Taylor; Mr. Leonard Kershaw and Mr. A. F. S. Pasmore held watching briefs.

Mr. GILL said that he and Mr. Avory had had an opportunity of considering the indictment, and had come to the determination not to ask fora verdict on the counts charging the prisoners with conspiracy.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE said that if those counts had been withdrawn in the first instance he should have asked that the prisoners be tried separately. Of course, his learned friend Mr. Gill could say at any time that there was no evidence of conspiracy--that was all he could do.

Mr. JUSTICE CHARLES.--After the evidence had been given it occurred to my own mind that the counts for conspiracy were really unnecessary counts altogether.

Mr. Gill said that was the conclusion which was arrived at on going through the evidence.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE said he wanted know what exactly was position. Would his learned friend to adopt the course of asking his Lordship to strike out the conspiracy counts from the indictment?

Mr. GILL said he was adopting the course of not asking for a verdict on the conspiracy counts, because it would be suggested that there would be a difficulty with regard to calling the prisoners in consequence of the conspiracy counts being in the indictment, and that he himself might take advantage under the conspiracy counts of cross-examining to matters outside the specific charge. For that reason he desired to take the course of not asking for a verdict on the conspiracy counts to avoid any difficulty being placed in the way of the prisoners giving evidence.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES said that Mr. Gill was entitled to take that course.

Sir EDWARD CLARKE.-- I ask for a verdict of not guilty at once on those counts.

Mr. JUSTICE CHARLES.-- I cannot assent to that course.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE.--I am entitled to a verdict of not guilty at one time or other because the prisoners have been given in charge.

MR. JUSTICE CHARLES.-- I think at the present stage of the trial it is my duty to say that I accede to Mr. Gill's application.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE.-- Then I say that at some stage of the case I shall ask for a verdict of not guilty to be entered on those counts.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE then opened the case for the defence of Wilde. He said that the announcement which had been made by Mr. Gill was one on which he should think it his duty to comment later on in the day. At that moment he thought it better to say nothing about it, as he should like to weigh the observations which he desired to make on that very remarkable incident in a very remarkable trial. He was going to call Mr. Oscar Wilde as a witness. That decision to call him as a witness had not been arrived at in consequence of the statement made by Mr. Gill--but he certainly felt strengthened in that resolution to call Mr. Wilde by the fact of this tardy withdrawal of charges which, if they were not intended to be proceeded with, ought not to have been put into the indictment--nor in consequence of the statement which his learned friend Mr. Gill had made with regard to what he felt to be the proper limits of cross-examination--limits which, if they had been applied at the beginning of yesterday instead of to-day, would have saved the trouble of reading a good deal of the cross-examination which was read yesterday. That cross-examination had been read, and there were some topics in it upon which he must address some observations. He trusted that the calling of Mr. Wilde would not materially lengthen the trial. On a consideration of the notes of the cross-examination read yesterday it became very clear to him that in justice to Mr. Wilde he should have asked that some notes of his examination in chief should be read before the jury. But then it occurred to his mind that the jury would naturally prefer to hear Mr. Wilde's statement made in the witness-box before them instead of being asked to rely on the evidence given at the hearing of the charge of libel. If the evidence in chief were to be read at all, he came to the conclusion that the jury would prefer to hear to-day Mr. Wilde's denial on oath. He was aware that that would entitle Mr. Gill to the right of reply, and that it would expose himself to the necessity of having that evidence and his own observations upon it commented upon by his learned friend and criticized by him after his mouth was closed. But he never had at any time during his professional life attached nearly half so much importance to what was called the last word that some great advocate who taught him his profession had attached to it. The conduct of a portion of the Press in reference to the ease had been disgraceful--it was conduct calculated to imperil the administration of justice and was in the highest degree prejudicial to the interests of the prisoners. Mr..Gill asked the jury to dismiss from their minds anything which they might have seen in newspapers. Mr. Gill in saying that was quite fair, but it was not fair for him to have insisted upon having the cross-examination of Mr. Wilde on his writings which they had heard. It was not fair to judge of a man by his own books. Coleridge said long ago, "Judge no one by his books. Man is more and greater than his book." The strange unfairness in the case had been that an attempt had been made, and that attempt was repeated by the reading of the cross-examination yesterday, not to judge Mr. Wilde by his own book, but by books which he did not write and to judge him by an article which he did not write and which he repudiated as horrible and disgusting. He himself should have no difficulty in defending the story of "The Picture of Dorian Gray " if it was necessary. Of all strangely unfair cross-examinations which were ever addressed in a Court of justice the cross-examination addressed to Mr. Wilde on literature with which he had nothing to do was the most unfair, and now that cross-examination was dragged in again for the purpose of biasing the minds of the jury against Mr. Wilde. He himself denounced that as violating every canon of fairness. The question of the literature was an entirely different question from that which the jury had now to determine. The last date mentioned in the indictment was 18 months ago.The jury would, no doubt, ask themselves how it was that this question now arose. The reason was that Mr. Wilde insisted on having it investigated before the public. It was Mr. Wilde's act and his act alone in charging Lord Queensberry with libel which had brought the matter before the public. Mr. Wilde's counsel and not Mr. Wilde were responsible for the course taken in withdrawing from that charge of libel. If Mr. Wilde were a guilty man, would he have provoked this investigation? It was a remarkable fact that there was only one statement in Mr. Wilde's evidence which the prosecution had called a witness to contradict--that was, the statement that he had never been to see Charles Parker at Park-walk, and the prosecution had called a witness who said that one night she was looking out of the window and saw a gentleman, whom she recognized as Mr. Wilde, getting into a hansom cab.. He should call Mr. Wilde, who would deny on oath that there was any truth in the allegations made on the part of the prosecution.

Mr. GRAIN said he should also call the prisoner Taylor, but he only proposed to make one speech.

The prisoner Wilde was then called as a witness, and, in reply to Sin EDWARD CLARKE, he said he was married and had two sons. He had the rooms in St. James's-place because he wanted to be quiet for literary purposes. His own house was small, and his two sons were not at school, so he took the rooms in St. James's-place in order to be able to write there without being disturbed. In his evidence given at the trial of Lord Queensberry on the charge of libel he gave a denial to all the charges, and that evidence was entirely true.

Being asked by SIR EDWARD CLARKE,-- Is there any truth in any one of the allegations of indecent

conduct made against you? Wilde replied.-- There is no truth whatever in any one of those allegations.

In cross-examination by Mr. GILL, Wilde repeated that there was no truth whatever in the allegations, and said that the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution who made any allegation of indecency against him was entirely untrue.

The prisoner Taylor was then called as a witness, and in answer to Mr. GRAIN he said that his father, who was now dead, carried on a large business which was now a limited company. He was educated at Marlborough, and then went to a private tutor at Preston, near Brighton. He afterwards entered the Militia, with the intention of going into the Army, but he gave it up. In 1883 he came into a sum of 45,000. He lived in town, and had no occupation. There was no truth whatever in the allegations made against him on the part of the prosecution.

Taylor was cross-examined by Mr. Gill, and reiterated his denial of the allegations.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE, addressing the Jury for the defence of Wilde, said that the question which the Jury had to decide as to Mr Wilde was in a great degree distinct from the question which they had to decide with regard to Taylor. He said he would make some observations on the remarkable course taken by the prosecution in this ease, which he did not remember to have been taken in any other case. The jury would recollect that he himself made an objection to the indictment on the ground that in the indictment there were two sets of counts, one set of counts charging offences on the part of the defendants and the other set of counts charging conspiracy between the defendants, and that on one set of counts the defendants could be called as witnesses and on the other set of counts they could not. The learned Judge recognized the inconvenience of the way in which the law now stood, but said that the indictment containing those counts might be put before the jury. He himself accepted his Lordship's expression of opinion on the point loyally. But what about the prosecution? Had the prosecution evidence which required the counts for conspiracy to be put in the indictment or not? If they had not, then why were those counts put in the indictment, and why were the prisoners to be put to the embarrassment of having to meet an indictment upon part of which they could give evidence and on part of which they could not? He did not make any complaint against his learned friends. If there was any point of law on the indictment it still remained in spite of the course taken by the prosecution of withdrawing the counts charging the prisoners with conspiracy. But counsel for the Crown ought to have made up their minds whether they were going to allege conspiracy or not. His Lordship would tell the jury that the conversation alleged to have taken place between Taylor and the Parkers at the St. James's restaurant when they first met was no evidence at all against Mr. Wilde.

Mr. Justice Charles said it was evidence against Taylor only.

SIR EDWARD CLARKE, continuing, proceeded to refer to the evidence of the witnesses called out on the part or the prosecution. With reference to the witness Shelley, he pointed out that Shelley himself stated that when he wrote the letters which were read to him in cross-examination he thought that people were under the impression that his mind was disordered. William Parker and Mavor stated that no impropriety took place between Mr. Wilde and themselves. The only witnesses who said anything against Mr. Wilde were Atkins, Wood, and Charles Parker. Sir Edward Clarke contended that Atkins had been concerned in blackmailing, and that Wood and Charles Parker had participated in a sum of money which had been obtained from a gentleman by means of blackmail. Atkins, Wood, and Charles Parker, three blackmailers, were the only persons who said anything against Mr. Wilde. To support the charge the evidence ought to be convincing--evidence which the jury believed to be honest; untainted, and in all degrees true. Could the jury say that with regard to any one piece of the evidence which attacked the conduct of Mr. Wilde that those epithets could be applied? The jury were dealing with matters which were alleged to have taken place a long time ago, and consequently it was impossible that witnesses could be called by Mr. Wilde, who could only meet the allegations by the statement that they were false. The reason why Mr. Wilde was introduced to the young men was that he liked the society of the youthful. Sir Edward Clarke asked the jury to fix their minds firmly on the tests which ought to be applied to the evidence, and that he trusted that the result would gratify those thousand hopes which were waiting upon their verdict and to clear one of our most renowned and accomplished men of letters from the charge made against him.

Mr. GRAIN then addressed the jury for the defence of Taylor. He contended that the evidence against Taylor was uncorroborated.

Mr. GILL replied on the part of the prosecution.

The hearing of the case was adjourned until to-morrow.