Galignani Messenger - Wednesday, May 22, 1895

THE SOCIETY SCANDAL
TRIAL OF TAYLOR.
PRISONER IN THE WITNESS BOX.
SENSATIONAL DISCLOSURES.
SUMMING-UP OF THE JUDGE.
VERDICT.

London, May 21.

The trial of Alfred Taylor in connection with the charges against Oscar Wilde was resumed at the Old Bailey this morning before Mr. Justice Wills. The Solicitor- General (Sir Frank Lockwood), Mr. C. F. Gill, Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. Sutton appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. J. G. Grain and Mr. W. Clark Hall for the defence.

Sir Frank Lockwood arrived, breezy and burly, before half past 10. Mr. C. F. Gill and Mr. Horace Avory were already in their places, arranging with Mr. Cuffe, the Public Prosecutor, the last stages of their case. Wilde did not put in an appearance to-day, and when the proceedings began his counsel,who yesterday stuck to their places persistently, were not in attendance.

Mr. Justice Wills had no sooner taken his seat than Mr. Grain called "Alfred Taylor," and the prisoner, with an alert light step, left the dock and passed across to the witness-box, where he was sworn. He deposed that he was now 33 years of age, and was the son of the late Henry Taylor, who was a manufacturer of an article of food in large demand. Till the age of 17 he was at Marlborough School. After that he was educated by a private tutor at Preston, near Brighton. In 1882 he joined a militia regiment with the intention of seeking a commission in the army. In 1883 he came of age and succeeded under the will of his father to a fortune of £45,000. He thereupon abandoned his military ambition and began a life of pleasure in town, which ended in his being made bankrupt. In 1893 he was living in Little College-street, but it was absolutely untrue that there or anywhere else he committed any act of indecency with either Charles or William Parker; and he certainly did not procure either of these persons to commit indecencies with Oscar Wilde. All this he said in a clear, composed voice, standing with his hands on his hips, and his blue cloth jacket thrown open, in an easy unconcerned attitude. He did not change his position when Sir Frank Lockwood rose to cross-examine, but his utterance became more nervous and staccato, and he rocked uneasily from one foot to the other.

"Since you left the militia," asked the Solicitor-General "have you had any fixed occupation?" No; Taylor had done nothing but spend his money. At Little College-street he had only one bedroom. He had a good many visitors there.
Boys of 16? I don't remember anyone as young as 16, except Mrs. Grant's children who brought up my milk in the morning.
Did Charles Mason stay with you? Yes ; about a week, when I first went there, in 1892. He is now 26 or 27.
Did he sleep in the same bed? Yes.
Were you on terms of affection with him? I don't understand your question. If you mean did I commit acts of indecency, I did not, I knew him very well. He was a great friend of mine.
How did you address him? As "dear Charlie."
In writing to him did you send him your love? Yes; I generally do.
When you are writing to a young man ? It depends who the man is. If he is a great friend of mine, I might say "with love," "Yours affectionately," or something of that kind.
And that is how Mason would address you ? I suppose so.
Do you remember going through a form of marriage with Mason? No, never.
Did you not tell Parker you had? Nothing of the kind.
No burlesque ceremony? No, nothing.
Had you articles of women's dress there? Only an Eastern costume.
A woman's costume? It was made for a woman. I wore it.
On what occasions? At fancy dress balls, at the carnivals at Olympia, at Covent Garden, and at Queen's-gate Hall.
You dressed as a woman? Hardly that. I wore knickerhockers and stockings under a long open cloak.
And a woman's wig? No; the wig was made for a ball to which I went dressed as Hick Whittington.
Women's stockings? Yes.

Asked how many different men had shared his bedroom, the witness with some hesitation recalled the names of Mason, the two Parkers, and Sidney Mavor. Then he stopped. Being pressed by the Solicitor-General he added the name of Harrington. Sir Frank Lockwood continued to urge him to disclose a complete list of his acquaintance, and he asked,
"Must I mention my other friend's name?" "Yes," said the Solicitor-General, in a tone which showed he meant it.
"May I not write it down on a piece of paper?"
"No! We will have no names kept back."
"I would rather write it down."

His lordship here quietly interposed, "If you write it I shall read it out. I don't approve of mystery in cases of this kind. It is sometimes done good-naturedly, and great mischief is caused. It is supposed that there is some kind of mystery, and that judge and everybody else are in a kind of conspiracy. We will have nothing of that kind."

The witness next succeeded in remembering the name of Ernest Macklin. He met him first at his mother's house. Must he mention where it was?
"No," said the Solicitor-General, "we will spare her that."

Macklin had slept at Little College-street. So had Freddy Atkins. So had Harrington.
And Martin? No, never.
Can't you remember any others? I'm trying to think. Perhaps you can assist me if you have the names.
Harrington introduced the Parkers to you? He did.
Is he here? I don't know.

"Call him," commanded the Solicitor-General with his finest brigadier-general air, and the shouts of the ushers promptly evoked a dark, good-looking young fellow with crisp black hair and a small moustache. Yes, that was Harrington, said the witness, who seemed more surprised than pleased at seeing him. He first met Harrington at the house of a man named Court in July, 1892.

Did you take him the same night to a restaurant in Victoria-street? Not the same night, I never took him at all. It was my friend.
Who is your friend? Must I mention his name?
Yes, you must. Schwabe.
That is the person you say introduced Wilde to you? Yes.
Was it not a man named Harold Henry? I think you are right. It was. I had dined with Schwabe and Harrington, but it was on another occasion.
Who is Henry? A musician; a clerk in a music publisher's.
Have you slept with him? Yes; he was staying with me at that time.
He was in your bedroom? Yes; whenever my friends came to see me they always saw all the rooms because they were rather interested in them.
The witness denied positively that he had been guilty of impropriety with Harrington.

Mr. Grain took objection to the question being raised with regard to a man who had not been called in the case, but his lordship held that as cross-examination to character the question was relevant.

Taylor adhered to his story that the Parkers were introduced to him by Harrington in the St. James's Restaurant bar, and that he invited them to his rooms because he found them "very nice."

In what way were they "very nice"-nice-looking? No; pleasant-spoken and amusing.
When you first met them did you mention the name of Oscar Wilde? No; not on that occasion.
Did you say that Oscar Wilde had lots of money? Not then.
When? Nor at any other time. Because I don't think he had.
Did you say he was fond of boys? I may have said he was fond of young people--that he liked their society. I did not put it in the way you mean.

He met the young fellows afterwards-at the Alhambra, the Empire, the Pavilion, and the St. James's Restaurant. The Solicitor-General did not ask how it came that valets and grooms out of place could afford to frequent such places, but he asked, "Who paid? These are not free institutions!"
"We all paid for ourselves," Taylor replied. "I was not in a position to pay for other people."

At this stage in the proceedings the Marquis of Queensberry came into court for the first time since his own acquittal. He was given a seat in the pew reserved for friends of the Corporation.

As to the charge of procuring the Parkers, the Solicitor-General cross-examined closely to show that Wilde had never set eyes on the lads till Taylor took them to dine with him at the Soho restaurant.

There were four of you at table, Oscar Wilde, yourself, the ex-groom, and the ex-valet? Yes.
Why did you take them? It was my birthday. They were my friends. Charlie Parker wanted to go on the stage. I thought Oscar Wilde would be a useful man to help them.
Your friends of a fortnight? "You might say three weeks," said the witness, who added that the birthday party was of a convivial character. They all laughed a good deal.
At the humours of the Parkers? No, the humours of Mr. Wilde.
It was he who was amusing? I supposed it amused him to amuse us.
Did you hear him say that Charles Parker was the boy for him? No, I did not.
Did Charles Parker leave the restaurant with Oscar Wilde? No.
Up to that point the story of the Parkers is true? Yes, up to that point.
And from that point? The Parkers went in with me into the St. James's and had drinks, and then both went with me to Westminster and slept at my place.
You say that distinctly? I do.

Taylor repeated his former story of the Fitzroy-square affair, and admitted that at the police-station on that occasion he saw Marling, whom he had known for some months. He did not think that it was Marling who introduced Scarfe to him. He (witness) introduced Scarfe to Oscar Wilde at St. James's-place. He never mentioned Wood's name to Wilde until he knew that they were acquainted.

Sir Frank Lockwood then read a letter from Charles Mason to the prisoner, which contained the phrase, "Come home soon, dear."

He examined witness, who said he saw nothing extraordinary in the letter about the choice of this phrase.

Sir Edward Clarke (interrupting): My lord------
Sir Frank Lockwood (turning round): You are not in this case.

In re-examination by Mr.Grain the prisoner repeated his denial of all the charges.

Mr. Grain, on behalf of the prisoner, maintained that Sir Frank Lockwood had elicited from him nothing whatever that could in any way discredit his evidence. He went carefully through the evidence, of the other witnesses with a view to showing that a great deal of it was tainted. He alluded to the introduction of Harrington as merely a dramatic incident which could have no possible object, except to imply that offences had been committed by him and Taylor, and so to discredit Taylor's evidence in the minds of the jury. He pointed out that Taylor had had ample reason during the past two years to know that he was under suspicion, and was being watched by the police. He had nothing to keep him in England, and he could not, had he gone abroad, have been extradited on any of the charges now brought against him. But instead of doing that he had preferred to await his trial, and had elected to-go into the witness-box, and to submit to the searching cross-examination of the counsel for the Crown.

Sir Frank Lockwood, in reviewing the case for the prosecution, referred to Mr. Grain's contention of yesterday, that there was a complete absence of corroboration. He pointed out that corroboration in a matter of this kind could not possibly be of a direct nature; and short of that, he contended, there was quite sufficient corroboration to support the evidence. The truth of the evidence of the Parkers, he said, had to be admitted by Taylor in everything short of the actual commission of the offences charged. What better corroboration could there be than that? The general mode of living and the associations of Taylor were also matters which threw the clearest light on his conduct. Dealing with the names mentioned by Taylor, in the course of his evidence, he said that they were all those of young men who were without occupation. He commented on the discovery of female attire in Little College-street, and on Taylor's explanation of that. Dealing with the visits which Charles Parker said he had made to the Savoy Hotel, he pointed out that although a waiter appeared and said he had served supper there to Wilde and a young gentleman, there was no attempt made to prove that that young gentleman was not Parker, although his visit was so strongly denied. That, he said, was corroboration of the story which both the Parkers told of that visit to the Savoy Hotel. In the case of the Parkers alone there was corroboration both of procuration and of the subsequent commission of the offence for which the procuration was carried out. The suggestion was made that Parker was not to be believed because he was accused of having accepted money from blackmailers. Wood was suggested as the person who had actually conducted the operations. And Wood was a welcome visitor to Taylor at Little College-street. It was not suggested that Parker had ever attempted to blackmail either Taylor or Wilde. It appeared that he had cut himself adrift from his former surroundings. So that be had nothing to gain and very much indeed to lose by telling the story which he had told in the witness-box.

At this point the court adjourned for luncheon.

After the adjournment Sir Frank Lockwood went on to deal with the incidents which were alleged to have taken place, as a point on which Parker's evidence was as fully as possible corroborated. Passing on to the case of Wood, he admitted that Wood was a man who had fallen low enough to be a blackmailer and the associate of blackmailers--and yet he was the intimate friend of Alfred Taylor and stayed with him at his rooms.

His lordship, in summing up, began by laying before the jury a distinction between the different charges on which Taylor was being tried. He pointed out that a prisoner was never convicted on the uncorroborated evidence of persons who were his accomplices in the crime with which he was charged. He said that in the charge of procuration with regard to Wood there had not been corroboration, and on that charge he advised the jury to find a verdict of not guilty.

The second charge against Taylor, his lordship continued, was one of the commission of deeds revolting to human nature. Taylor under examination had given corroborative evidence as far as corroborative evidence could go in the direction of proving such an act. It was clear from his own statements he had sunk much lower than the level he had been associated with when a public schoolboy. The description of Taylor's rooms pointed to an unhealthy effeminacy, which in itself alone might be nothing, but the visits of the young men of questionable character to those rooms was something which the jury could not overlook.

But this was a very different charge from that made by Mr. Justice Charles. Throughout, his lordship seemed to be going directly in support of a verdict of guilty, not only against Taylor, but also, by very broad complication, against Wilde. He frequently contrasted sharply "the scholar and the gentleman" with "that ex-valet whom you have seen, and with whom yon can tell how far you would yourselves like to consort." In speaking of Taylor's admissions, too, that he had allowed the two Parkers to share his bed, he described them as "living as three decent people ought not to live, especially people in Taylor's position of life." Frequently he referred to Taylor's bringing up, his education at Marlborough, and the feeling of repugnance he ought to have felt; but then it was evident that he had sunk much lower than he was when he came into that fortune which was his ruin. He had never tried a case which gave him so much pain; but if they felt that the story of the prosecution was proved they must give their verdict fearlessly. If they fell short of that, then the defendant was entitled to acquittal.

At 3.20 the jury retired to consider their verdict.

At four p.m. the judge returned into court, and said he had received a communication from the jury which he did not understand, and the jury returned into court at 4.7 p.m.

The communication from the jury was a question, whether, in the event of their returning a verdict of guilty on the count of procuration, the verdict would carry with it a decision that Wilde was guilty of indecency, because, though they found Taylor guilty of procuring Charles Parker and Alfred Wood for improper purposes, they found no evidence to prove that Wilde had committed indecency with either.

Before attempting to answer the query, his lordship thought it well to ask for the verdict of the jury as to the charges of committing acts of gross indecency with Parker.

The jury replied that they found the prisoner guilty of acts of gross indecency.

The first count, as to procuration, became under those circumstances, his lordship decided, immaterial.

The jury's verdict of guilty was accepted, and they were discharged from further consideration of the question of procuration.

The Solicitor - General agreed, and Mr. Grain said he saw no advantage to his client in raising any objection.

Taylor was then told to stand down, sentence being deferred.

Sir Edward Clarke desired the charge against Wilde to be proceeded with at once, if a decision in respect of Wilde could not be taken in respect of the finding of the jury that Wilde was not proved to have committed the acts of indecency.

The Solicitor-General rose angrily and said he quite expected something of that kind. His learned friend had no doubt asked for a separate trial in order to avail himself of any such position which might arise.

Mr. Justice Wills terminated the dispute by deciding to take the Wilde case first thing to-morrow, and said he considered a fresh jury desirable under the circumstances.