The Yorkshire Evening Post - Wednesday, May 1, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
TO-DAY'S LATE NEWS.
THE WILDE PROSECUTION.
SUMMING-UP BY THE JUDGE.
THE JURY RETIRE TO
DELIBERATE.
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock, at the Central Criminal Court this morning, on the several indictments preferred against them. There was a crowded attendance of the public.
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court this morning, on the several indictments preferred against them. There was a crowded attendance of the public.
Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on the several indictments preferred against them.
London, Wednesday.Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on the several indictments preferred against them.
LONDON, WEDNESDAY.Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor again appeared in the dock at the Central Criminal Court to-day on the several indictments preferred against them.
Mr. Justice Charles took his seat at half-past ten, and at once began his summing-up to the jury. His Lordship said the prosecution had adopted a wise course in withdrawing the allegation of conspiracy, and for himself he did not know why that specific charge was preferred. He would direct a verdict of not guilty upon that part of the case, as well as upon another count preferred against Taylor, to which he would hereafter allude. For weeks past it had been impossible to open a newspaper without finding references to the matters involved in these proceedings, but he appealed to the jury to discard any impressions which might have been produced upon their minds. It was a rule of law that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted, but there was corroboration of the witnesses in the sense which the law required. Had there been nothing in the nature of corroboration it would have been his duty to advise the jury to find a verdict of acquittal. Parker, Wood, and Atkins had been properly described by Sir Edward Clarke as blackmailers. Atkins had confessed to gross and most deliberate falsehoods thereupon. They were not only accomplices, but when the jury came to consider the details of their evidence they would have to look at the question of character. After a brief allusion to the proceedings in Wilde v. Queensberry and the plea of justification entered therein, his Lordship commented on what had been described as the literary part of the case, and here he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place any unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorian Grey." They were told yesterday that a great writer said, "Judge no man by his books." He (Mr. Justice Charles) would rather say, "Confound no man with the persons he creates." While it might be said with perfect truth that Scott and Dickens never wrote a line that could not be read with advantage, there were noble-minded men in the eighteenth century who committed to the pen volumes which it was painful for any person of ordinary modesty or decency of mind to read again. As "The Priest and the Acolyte" was not the work of Wilde, it would be absurd to hold him responsible for it. He called the attention of the jury especially to the sonnet "To Love," written by Lord Alfred Douglas, to Wilde's letters, and to the prisoner's answers given in reply to the questions addressed to him upon them. In an elaborate cross-examination during the hearing of Wilde v. Queensberry Mr. Carson had insisted that Wilde's letters disclosed a horrible passion. Wilde, on the other hand, had asserted that they breathed passion, but not unnatural passion. Upon this the jury must of course exercise their own judgment. They had also Wilde's assertion that Lord A. Douglas's poem "In Praise of Shame" meant shame in the sense of modesty. Having concluded his references to the literary questions raised, his Lordship approached a consideration of the various charges in the order of their date. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was corroborated quite sufficiently to entitle the jury to consider it. Shelley had sought to persuade the jury that what took place at the Albemarle Hotel was against his will but that could hardly be having regard to what was alleged to have occurred on the second occasion. Shelley had no copy of the letter which he alleged he wrote to Wilde breaking off acquaintance with him because he (Wilde) was an immoral man, but there were in existence certain friendly letters which Shelley wrote to Wilde, and these the learned judge spent some time in quoting. In one of these Shelley said: "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane. I was arrested for assaulting my father, and could not have been in sound mind then." An interesting part of the jury's task would be to deal with the evidence of this individual witness. He had told a nauseous tale. Was it to be accounted for by disorder of mind? There was evidence of excitability, but to accuse Shelley of being an insane man would be to exaggerate the effect of his letters. In judging Shelley's evidence the task before the jury was undoubtedly serious and most responsible. Next, as to the evidence of Atkins. If Atkins alone was the only person speaking upon the matters related in his evidence it would be totally unsafe to rely upon him, because after denying that he and Burton were conveyed to Rochester Row Police Station in June, 1891, for blackmailing a Birmingham gentleman, he (Atkins) was recalled before the close of the day, and then confessed to the grossest falsehoods as to that incident. The jury were the judges of witnesses, but it was plain that Atkins was untruthful and unscrupulous. It might be urged that though Atkins was a blackmailer he was not so in the case now under consideration, and with these observations he left the question to the jury. A most serious question arose for their consideration when they came to consider the Savoy Hotel evidence. There was a conflict of testimony here between the Crown witnesses and Wilde. There appeared to have been no concealment or locking of rooms, and he confessed he could not assist the jury in coming to a conclusion. There was the evidence of the chambermaid Cottar, and of the masseur, Migge. If what they had said was true then Wilde had spoken untruthfully. There was nothing against Cottar or Migge, and the jury must decide whether they were witnesses of truth. In relation to the case of Alfred Wood, who was accused by Sir Edward Clarke of being a member of a society of blackmailers, he seemed to have fallen into evil courses, one of his acts being to extract £300 from a gentleman caught with Parker. It was urged that Wilde, in giving him money to carry him to America, was really doing an act of benevolence, but then came Wood's extraordinary action in regard to the letters written by Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas. His Lordship next recalled the attention to the facts as to the introduction of Charles and William Parker to Wilde by Taylor, and to the specific allegations against Taylor and his fellow prisoners. On this part of the case this inquiry, said his Lordship, was of great importance to the public at large, and he committed those questions to the jury with the utmost confidence.
Mr Justice Charles took his seat at half-past ten, and at once began his summing up to the jury. His lordship said that the prosecution had adopted a wise course in withdrawing the allegation of conspiracy, and for himself he did not know why that specific charge was preferred. He would direct a verdict of not guilty upon that part of the case as well as upon another count preferred against Taylor, to which he would hereafter allude. For weeks past it had been impossible to open a newspaper without finding references to the matters involved in these proceedings; but he appealed to the jury to discard any impressions which might have been produced upon their minds. It was a rule of law that the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice could not be accepted; but there was corroboration of the witnesses in the sense which the law required. Had there been nothing in the nature of corroboration it would have been his duty to advise the jury to find a verdict of acquittal. Parker, Wood, and Atkins had been properly described by Sir Edward Clarke as blackmailers. Atkins had confessed to gross and most deliberate falsehoods; therefore, they were not only accomplices, but when the jury came to consider the details of their evidence they would have to look at the question of character. After a brief allusion to the proceedings in the Wilde v Queensbury case, and the plea of justification entered therein, his lordship commented on what had been described as the literary part of the case, and here he did not think that in a criminal case the jury ought to place any unfavourable inference upon the fact that Wilde was the author of "Dorian Grey." They were told yesterday that a great writer said, "Judge no man by his books." He (Mr Justice Charles) would rather say "Confound no man with the persons he creates," while it might be said with perfect truth that Scott and Dickens never wrote a line that could not be read with advantage. There were noble-minded men in the eighteenth century who committed to the pen volumes which it was painful for any person of ordinary modesty or decency of mind to read. Again, as "The Priest and the Acolyte" was not the work of Wilde, it would be absurd to hold him responsible for it. He called the attention of the jury to the sonnet "To Love," written by Lord Alfred Douglas, to Wilde’s letters, and to the prisoner’s answers given in reply to questions addressed to him upon them. In an elaborate cross-examination during the hearing of Wilde v Queensbury, Mr Carson had insisted that Wilde’s letters disclosed a horrible indecent passion. Wilde, on the other hand, had asserted that they breathed passion, but not unnatural passion. Upon this the jury must, of course, exercise their own judgment. They had also Wilde’s assertion that Lord A Douglas’s poem, "In Praise of Shame," meant shame in the sense of modesty. Having concluded his references to the literary questions raised, his lordship approached a consideration of the various charges in the order of their date. Shelley was undoubtedly in the position of an accomplice, but his evidence was corroborated quite sufficiently to entitle the jury to consider it. Shelley had sought to persuade the jury that what took place at the Albermarle Hotel was against his wish, but that could hardly be, having regard to what was alleged to have occurred on the second occasion. Shelly had no copy of the letter which he alleged he wrote to Wilde, breaking off acquaintance with him because he (Wilde) was an immoral man, but there were in existence certain friendly letters which Shelly wrote to Wilde, and these the learned judge spent some time in quoting. In one of these Shelley said, "I am afraid sometimes I am not very sane. I was arrested for assaulting my father and could not have been in sound mind then." An interesting part of the jury’s task would be to deal with the evidence of this individual witness. He had told a nauseous tale. Was it to be accounted for by disorder of mind. There was evidence of excitability, but to accuse Shelley of being an insane man would be to exaggerate the effect of his letters. In judging Shelley’s evidence the task before the jury was undoubtedly serious and most responsible. Next, as to the evidence of Atkins. If Atkins alone was the only person speaking upon the matters related in his evidence, it would be totally unsafe to rely upon him, because, after denying that he and Burton were conveyed to Rochester row Police-station in June, 1891, for blackmailing a Birmingham gentleman, he (Atkins) was recalled before the close of the day, and confessed to the grossest falsehoods as to that incident. The jury were the judges of the witnesses, but it was plain that Atkins was untruthful and unscrupulous. It might be urged that though Atkins was a blackmailer he was not so in the case now under consideration, and with these observations he left the question to the jury. A most serious question arose for their consideration when they came to consider the Savoy Hotel evidence. There was a conflict of testimony here between the Crown witnesses and Wilde. There appeared to have been no concealment or locking of Wilde’s rooms, and he confessed that he could not assist the jury in coming to a conclusion. There was the evidence of the chambermaid Cottar, and of the masseur, Migge. If what they had said was true, then Wilde had spoken untruthfully. There was nothing against Cottar or Migge, and the jury must decide whether they were witnesses of truth. In relation to the case of Alfred Wood, who was accused by Sir Edward Clarke of being a member of a society of blackmailers, he seemed to have fallen into evil courses, one of his acts being to extract £300 from a gentleman caught with Parker. It was urged that Wilde, in giving him money to carry him to America, was really doing an act of benevolence, but then came Wood’s extraordinary action in regard to the letters written by Wilde to Lord Alfred Douglas. His lordship next recalled the attention of the jury to the facts as to the introduction of Charles and William Parker to Wilde by Taylor, and to the specific allegations against Taylor and his fellow-prisoner. On this part of the case this inquiry, said his lordship, was of great importance to the public at large, and he committed the questions to the jury with the utmost confidence.
The jury retired to consider their verdict at 1.35.
The verdict will be published on Page 4 when received.