Dublin Evening Telegraph - Friday, April 5, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
POLITICAL AND SOCIAL.
London, Friday Morning. [...] The length at which the London papers, both morning and evening, have reported the evidence in the Queensberry libel suit has excited a good deal of remark. The St James’s Gazette, with rather ostentatious self-righteousness, issued a placard yesterday describing itself as "the only paper containing no report of the Wilde libel suit," which undoubtedly must have been a recommendation in the eyes of many, if not most, newspaper readers. The Freeman, however, without any such proclamation, confined its report to the briefest and baldest account of the case. In the later edition of the St James’s the following note appeared—"The editor of the Daily Chronicle presents his compliments to the editor of the St James’s Gazette, and while, in view of the grave public questions involved, he does not see his way to a complete suppression of the report of the Queensberry case, he desired to co-operate with the editor of the St. James’s in preserving the public from familiarity with the grosser aspects of the trial in its further developments." This is a very proper attitude, and doubtless it will be imitated by the London papers before the case has concluded. [...]
[...]The length at which the London papers, both morning and evening, have reported the evidence in the Queensberry libel suit has excited a good deal of remark. The St James's Gazette, with rather ostentations self-righteousness, issued a placard yesterday ascribing itself as "the only paper containing no report of the Wilde libel suit," which undoubtedly must have been a recommendation in the eyes of many, if not most, newspaper readers. The Freeman, however, without any such proclamation, confined its report to the briefest and baldest account of the case. In the later edition of the St James's the following note appeared—"The editor of the Daily Chronicle presents his compliments to the editor of the St James's Gazette, and while, in view of the grave public questions involved, he does not see his way to a complete suppression of the report of the Queensberry case, he desires to operate with the editor of the St. James's in preserving the public from familiarity with the grosser aspects of the trial in its further developments." This is a very proper attitude, and doubtless it will be imitated by the London papers before the case concluded.