Flag of Ireland - Saturday, June 1, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
The End of the Wilde Case.
The trial of Oscar Wilde terminated on Saturday evening in a verdict of guilty on all the counts, and he was sentenced, along with Taylor, previously convicted, to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The jury expressed surprise that a warrant had not up to the present been issued for the arrest of Lord Alfred Douglas, and the learned judge said he was confident that his title would not be permitted to shield him from justice.
The trial of Oscar Wilde terminated on Saturday evening in a verdict of guilty on all the counts, and he was sentenced, along with Taylor, previously convicted, to two years’ imprisonment with hard labour. The jury expressed surprise that a warrant had not up to the present been issued for the arrest of Lord Alfred Douglas, and the learned judge his confidence that his title would not be permitted to shield him from justice.
The Press Association says on the Saturday evening immediately following the passing of the sentence on Wilde and Taylor the prisoners were removed to the cells in Newgate Prison, adjoining the Central Criminal Court, pending preparations of legal warrants authorising their detention for two years. Both were suffering from nervousness, and betrayed their mental anxiety. From the first they were separated, but travelled in the same prison van to Pentonville Prison, where they will serve the preliminary portion of the sentence, a period to be eventually decided by the officials of the gaol. When handed over to the Governor of Pentonville Prison the prisoners were taken separately to the reception ward, and each had to give details of his identity and religion, and submit to medical examination, after which they passed through the hands of the prison bath-room attendants and exchanged their own clothes for the prison, being afterwards handed over to the care of the chaplain. On Sunday they attended the prison chapel with other occupants of the gaol, and with the exception of exercise time they were confined to their cells, where they will in future be kept unless their health becomes such as to entitle them to infirmary treatment, in which event the prison doctor will decide the nature of the work they must perform. By the terms of their sentence they will be isolated from their friends except on four occasions each year, and even this privilege may be forfeited by indifferent conduct.
The Press Association says—On last Saturday evening, immediately following the passing of the sentence on Wilde and Taylor, the prisoners were removed to the cells in Newgate Prison, adjoining the Central Criminal Court, pending the preparation of the legal warrants authorising their detention for two years. Both were suffering from nervousness, and betrayed their mental anxiety. From the first they were separated, but travelled in the same prison van to Pentonville Prison, where they will serve the preliminary portion of the sentence, a period to be eventually decided by the officials of the jail. When handed over to the governor of Pentonville the prisoners were taken separately to the reception ward, and each had to give details of his identity, religion, and submit to medical examination, after which they passed through the hands of the prison bathroom attendants and barber, and exchanged their own clothes for the prison garb, being afterwards handed over to the care of the chaplain. Yesterday they attended the prison chapel with the other occupants of the jail, and, with the exception of exercise time, they were confined to their cells, where they will in future be kept, unless their health becomes such as to entitle them to infirmary treatment, in which event the prison doctor will decide the nature of the work they must perform. By the terms of their sentence they will be isolated from their friends, except upon four occasions each year, and even this privilege may be forfeited by indifferent conduct.
On Saturday evening, immediately following the passing of the sentence, Wilde and Taylor were removed to cells in Newgate Prison, adjoining the Central Criminal Court pending the preparation of the legal warrants authorizing their detention for two years. Both were suffering from nervousness and betrayed great mental anxiety. From the first they were separated, but traveled in the same prison van to Pentonville Prison, where they will serve the preliminary portion of the sentence. When handed over to the Governor of Pentonville the prisoners were taken separately to the reception ward, and each had to give details of his identity and religion and submit to a medical examination, after which they passed through the hands of the prison bathroom attendants and barber and exchanged their own clothes for prison garb, being afterward handed over to the care of the chaplain. Yesterday they attended the prison chapel with the other occupants of the gaol, and with the exception of exercise time they were confined to their cells, where they will in future be kept unless their health becomes such as to entitle them to infirmary treatment.
Lord Alfred Douglas, writing from Rouen in reference to the fracas which occurred between his father, the Marquis of Queensbery, and Lord Douglas of Hawick, otherwise Lord Percy Sholts Douglas, states that the latter, both personally and through his solicitor, having frequently begged the Marquis to cease writing letters containing objectionable language to Lord Douglas and his wife, and having received no more satisfactory answer from Lord Queensbery than the challenge to fight to the finish for £1,000 aside, was reluctantly compelled to apply to Mr Hannay for a summons against Lord Queensbery in order to have him bound over. Mr Hannay refused the application, saying he declined to have any more dirty linen washed in his court. Lord Queensbery continued his annoyances, and a second application was made to Mr Hannay, who, after consultation, still refused a summons. At last the annoyance become intolerable, and Lord Douglas was reduced to the absolute necessity of adopting the course he did, of publicly assaulting Lord Queensbery. The writer proceeds to criticise adversely the action of Mr Hannay in refusing a summons, and adds, referring to the cheering in the street, for such feats Lord Queensbery seems to be rapidly taking the place of the great Duke of Wellington in the hearts of the British public.
Lord Alfred Douglas, writing from Rouen in reference to the fracas which occurred between his father, the Marquis of Queensberry, and Lord Douglas of Hawick, otherwise Lord Percy Sholto Douglas, states that the latter, both personally and through his solicitor, having frequently begged the Marquis to cease writing letters containing objectionable language to Lord Douglas and his wife, and having received no more satisfactory answer from Lord Queensberry than a challenge to fight to a finish for £1,000 a side, was reluctantly compelled to apply to Mr Hannay for a summons against Lord Queensberry in order to have him bound over. Mr Hannay refused the application, saying he declined to have any more dirty linen washed in his court. Lord Queensberry continued his annoyances, and a second application was made to Mr Hannay, who, after consultation with Mr Newton, still refused a summons. At last the annoyance become intolerable, and Lord Douglas was reduced to the absolute necessity of adopting the course he did of publicly assaulting Lord Queensberry. The writer proceeds to criticize adversely the action of Mr Hannay in refusing the summons, and asks, referring to the cheering in the street, for which of his feats Lord Queensberry seems to be rapidly taking the place of the great Duke of Wellington in the hearts of the British public.
Lord Alfred Douglas, writing from Rouen in reference to the fracas which occurred between his father, the Marquis of Queensberry, and Lord Douglas of Hawick, otherwise Lord Percy Sholto Douglas, states that the latter, both personally and through his solicitor, having frequently begged the Marquis to cease writing letters containing objectionable language to Lord Douglas and his wife, and having received no more satisfactory answer from Lord Queensberry than a challenge to light to a finish for £1,000 a side, was reluctantly compelled to apply to Mr Hannay for a summons against Lord Queensberry in order to have him bound over. Mr Hannay refused the application, saying he declined to have any more dirty linen washed in this court. Lord Queensberry continued his annoyances, and the second application was made to Mr Hannay, who, after consultation with Mr Newton, still refused a summons. At last the annoyance became intolerable, and Lord Douglas was reduced to the absolute necessity of adopting the course he did of publicly assaulting Lord Queensberry. The writer proceeds to critice adversely the action of Mr Hannay in refusing the summons, and asks, referring to the cheering in the streets, for which of his feats Lord Queensberry seems to be rapidly taking the place of the great Duke of Wellington in the hearts of the British public?
London, Saturday.Lord Alfred Douglas, writing from Rouen in reference to the fracas which occurred between his father, the Marquis of Queensberry, and Lord Douglas of Hawick, otherwise Lord Percy Sholto Douglas, states that the latter, both personally and through his solicitor, having frequently begged the Marquis to cease writing letters containing objectionable language to Lord Douglas and his wife, and having received no more satisfactory answer from Lord Queensberry than a challenge to fight to a finish for £1,000 a side, was reluctantly compelled to apply to Mr Hannay for a summons against Lord Queensberry in order to have him bound over. Mr Hannay refused the application, saying he declined to have any more dirty linen washed in his court. Lord Queensberry continued his annoyances, and a second application was made to Mr Hannay, who, after consultation with Mr Newton, ill refused a summons. At last the annoyance become intolerable, and Lord Douglas was reduced to the absolute necessity of adopting the course he did of publicly assaulting Lord Queensberry. The writer proceeds to criticize adversely the action of Mr Hannay in refusing the summons, and asks, referring to the cheering in the street, for which of his feats Lord Queensberry seems to be rapidly taking the place of the great Duke of Wellington in the hearts of the British public.
Lord Alfred Douglas, writing in reference to the fracas which concurred between his father, the Marquis of Queensberry, and Lord Douglas of Hawick, otherwise Lord Percy Sholto Douglas, states that the letter, both personally and through his solicitor having frequently begged the Marquis to cease writing letters containing objectionable language to Lord Douglas and his wife, and having received no more satisfactory answer from Lord Queensberry than a challenge to fight to a finish for £1000 a side, was reluctantly compelled to apply to Mr Hannay for a summons against Lord Queensberry in order to have him bound over. Mr Hannay refused the application, saying he declared to have any more dirty linen washed in his court. Lord Queensberry continued his annoyances, and a second application was made to Mr Hannay, who, after consultation with Mr Newton, still refused a summons. At last the annoyance became intolerable and Lord Douglas was reduced to the absolutely necessity of adopting the course he did of publicly assaulting Lord Queensberry. The writer proceeds to criticise adversely the action of Mr Hannay in refusing the summons, and asks, referring to the cheering in the streets, for which of his feats Lord Queensberry seems to be rapidly taking the place of the great Duke of Wellington in the hearts of the British public.
Lord Alfred Douglas, writing from Rouen in reference to the fracas which occurred between his father, the Marquis of Queensberry, and Lord Douglas of Hawick, otherwise Lord Percy Sholto Douglas, states that the latter, both personally and through his solicitor, having frequently begged the Marquis to cease writing letters containing objectionable language to Lord Douglas and his wife, and having received no more satisfactory answer from Lord Queensberry than a challenge to fight to a [...] for £1,000 a [...], was reluctantly compelled to apply to Mr Hannay for [...] against Lord Queensberry in order to have him [...]. Mr Hannay refused the application, saying he declined to have any more dirty linen washed in his court. Lord Queensberry continued his annoyances, and the [...] to Mr Hannay, who, [...] Mr Newton, still refused a summons [...] the annoyances became intolerable, and Lord Douglas was reduced to the absolute [...] of adopting the [...] consulting Lord Queensberry [...] to criticise adversely [...] the cheering in the [...] Lord Queensberry [...] taking the place of the great [...] in the [...] of the British [...].
Lord Alfred Douglas, writing from Rouen in reference to the fracas which occurred between his father, the Marquis of Queensberry, and Lord Douglas of Hawick, otherwise Lord Percy Sholto Douglas, states that the latter, both personally and through his solicitor, having frequently begged the Marquis to cease writing letters containing objectionable language to Lord Douglas and his wife, and having received no more satisfactory answer from Lord Queensberry than a challenge to fight to a finish for a thousand pounds aside, was reluctantly compelled to apply to Mr Hannay for a summons against Lord Queensberry in order to have him bound over. Mr Hannay refused the application, saying he declined to have any more dirty linen washed in his court. Lord Queensberry continued his annoyances, and a second application was made to Mr Hannay, who, after consultation with Mr Newton, still refused a summons. At last the annoyance became intolerable, and Lord Douglas was reduced to the absolute necessity of adopting the course he did, of publicly assaulting Lord Queensberry.