30 Apr 1895 - The Globe (London)
Page 4, Column 5, Link
On the Judge taking his seat at the Old Bailey this morning, for the further hearing of the charges against Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor.
Mr. Gill asked that the counts in regard to conspiracy of Wilde and Taylor might be withdrawn.
Sir E. Clarke said that if those counts had been withdrawn at the first he would have applied that the prisoners should be tried separately.
The Judge remarked that after the evidence which had been given it occurred to him that the counts for conspiracy were really altogether unnecessary.
Mr. Gill explained that he had withdrawn them as he desired to avoid any difficulty being placed in the way of either Wilde or Taylor giving evidence.
The Judge: You are entitled to take that course.
Sir E. Clarke: I ask then that a verdict of "not guilty" on these counts should at once be taken.
The Judge: I cannot assent to that now. I think at the present stage of the trial it is my duty to accede to Mr. Gill's application.
Sir E. Clarke, having asserted that at some part of the case he would ask for such a verdict on those counts, proceeded to address the jury. He said the announcement just made was one on the importance and significance of which he would find it necessary to comment later in the day. All he would say now was that it was a very remarkable incident in a very remarkable trial. He was going to call Mr. Wilde before the jury as a witness. That decision had not been arrived at in consequence of the statement of Mr. Gill, but certainly he had been strengthened in the resolution to call Mr. Wilde by the fact that the conspiracy charge being withdrawn, Mr. Wilde would go into the box and give an absolute and unqualified denial to the charges made against him. He asked the jury to consider the case with an open mind, for the recent trial was made the occasion for conduct on the part of a certain section of the Press which was disgraceful to the Press, imperiled the administration of justice, and was in the highest degree injurious to the interest of the client for whom he was acting. Turning to the literature which had been introduced in the present trial by the reading of the evidence in the case of Wilde v. Queensberry, the learned counsel said that Coleridge had written that no man should be judged by his books, but here an attempt was made not only to judge Mr. Wilde by his own books, but by writings which he repudiated in the witness-box. The charge in the former case was such as might have made relevant the reading of "The Picture of Dorian Grey," but to seek to prejudice the present case by its introduction was most grossly unfair to Mr. Wilde, and was a violation of every canon of fairness applied in the conduct of cases. As to the "Aphorisms for the Young," they were published more than a year after anything connected with the case was alleged to have occurred. For the prosecution to comment on phrases, whether silly or wise, which Mr. Wilde published in October, 1894, in order to make the jury think that in September, 1893, he committed acts complained of, was a course which he (Sir E. Clarke) hoped did not commend itself to their sense of fairness. The whole literary question was absolutely distinct and separate from the allegations in the case. Controversy as to the morality of the literature of great writers had been going on for centuries, but what had that to do with the question whether Mr. Wilde was to be convicted on evidence the jury had heard from the witness-box? It was Mr. Wilde who came forward to encounter these accusations at the first moment possible, and to insist on having them publicly investigated. It was his act alone which had placed him in the peril in which he no doubt stood after the evidence which had been given. He (the learned counsel) was responsible for the course adopted in the Queensberry case, and it was partly because of that that he was here again meeting on Mr. Wilde's behalf the accusations which could not be properly tried during the libel action. He appealed to the jury whether a guilty man would have been insane enough to court investigation of these hideous charges. He would call Mr. Wilde, and he trusted any doubt in the minds of the jury as to convicting Mr. Wilde would be removed when they heard his evidence.
Mr. Grain said he would call Taylor.
Mr. Wilde then left the dock and entered the witness-box. Answering Sir E. Clarke, he said that since taking his degree at Oxford he had devoted himself to literary work, and recently more especially to dramatic literature. Two of his plays had been produced at the St. James's Theatre, very near St. James's place, where he took rooms. There he did literary work because he was less disturbed than in his own house, his two little sons not being then at school. The evidence he gave at the last trial was entirely true.
Sir E. Clarke: Is there any truth in any one of the allegations made against you in this case?
Witness: There is no truth whatever in any one of these allegations - no truth whatsoever.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill, first with regard to Lord Alfred Douglas's poems on the "Chameleon," he said that the one "In Praise of Shame" had reference to modesty; the word shame was to be taken in that sense. As to the words in the sonnet "Two Loves," they referred to a deeply spiritual affection that was as pure as it was perfect. There were those who would not understand it and mocked at it, and sometimes put one in peril.
At the conclusion of this explanation there was hand clapping in the public gallery.
The Judge: I shall have this Court cleared if there is the slightest manifestation of feeling.
Witness when on to say that there was nothing in the letter written to Lord A. Douglas from the Savoy Hotel of which he was ashamed. It was one full of deep affection, but the other letter was more of a literary answer to one addressed to him. The Savoy letter was direct and simple, and was not literature. He repudiated the evidence of the chamber-maid at the Savoy as entirely untrue, the same remark applying to the evidence of the "masseur". He heard that the jury found the libel justified in the last case, but he was not in court nor did he read any account of it. The evidence of Edward Shelley was untrue in respect to the allegations.
Mr. Gill: With regard to the evidence of Charles Parker, what part is untrue? - I say he never came to the Savoy Hotel at all, but it is quite true he came to lunch once or twice at St. James's place. The allegations were untrue. Witness also denied the allegations at Atkins and of Alfred Wood.
Re-examined: Taylor was an accomplished pianist, and there used to be music at his rooms. Atkins wanted to go on the music-hall stage, and witness brought him his first song.
Sir E. Clarke: You produced the letter known as the "prose poem" in your examination-in-chief during the trial of the Marquis of Queensberry? - Yes.
Alfred Taylor was next place in the box, and examined by Mr. Grain. He said he was 33 years of age. His father was in a large way of business up to the time of his death, and that business was now carried on as a company. He was educated at Marlborough up to the age of 17, and then went to a private tutor, and afterwards entered the Militia, with the idea of getting through to the Army. In 1883 witness came into a sum of 45,000, and lived a life of pleasure in town, having no occupation. Witness denied the accusations of Charles Parker. Witness in cross-examination said he had no knowledge that the Parkers were servants out of a place. He discovered a good deal afterwards.
The court then adjourned for luncheon.
On the Court resuming , Sir E. Clarke addressed the jury upon the question with which they had to deal, and upon the evidence upon which they were asked to decide this question. It was, he said, a serious and grave question, whether upon the evidence given, they would find Mr. Wilde guilty of the terrible offences with which he was charged. Commenting on the course taken by the Crown, he said it was a course
Page 5, Column 1 (continued), Link
which he had never known in any case with which he had been associated. He asked if the prosecution had not evidence to sustain the charges of conspiracy, why were they inserted? Sir E. Clarke, continuing, maintained that the attack made upon Oscar Wilde with regard to the literature branch of the case was unjust, as he was in no way responsible for the production of the matter that had been alluded to, nor did the other circumstances under which that literature came to be published warrant the suggestion that Oscar Wilde was a party to its circulation, or prove any association between him and the persons whose names had been mentioned in the present investigation for base motives. Had not Mr. Wilde given to the world the best proof of his innocence? Let the jury, in considering the evidence, contrast that instinctive shrinking from publicity which came from the guilty man with the courage which brought his client into court to face, once for all, and to dispose of and defeat the accusations made against him.
The case is proceeding.