Bristol Mercury - Friday, April 5, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
QUEENSBERRY LIBEL CASE.
MR OSCAR WILDE IN THE BOX.
CROSS-EXAMINATION CONTINUED.
The hearing of the charge of criminal libel brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed at the Old Bailey, London, yesterday morning, before Mr Justice Collins. The court was again densely crowded. Mr Oscar Wilde occupied a seat at the solicitor' table. Sir E Clarke, Q.C., Mr C. Mathews, and Mr Travers Humphreys appeared to prosecute; while Mr Carson, Q.C., Mr C. F. Gill, and Mr A. Gill (instructed by Mr Charles Russell) represented the Marquis of Queensberry; Mr Bealey, Q.C., with Mr Monckton, watching the proceedings on behalf of Lord Douglas of Hawick, the eldest son of the Marquis.
London, Friday.
The hearing of the libel action brought by Mr Oscar Wilde against the Marquis of Queensberry was resumed to-day at the Old Bailey. Sir E Clarke, Q C; Mr C Mathews, and Mr Travers Humphreys attended to prosecute. Mr Carson, Q C; Mr C F Gill, and Mr A Gill (instructed by Mr Charles Russell), represented the Marquis of Queensberry, : Mr Besley, Q C, with Mr Monckton, watching the proceedings on behalf of Lord Douglas of Hawick, the eldest son of the Marquis.
Mr Oscar Wilde again went into the witness box, and his cross-examination by Mr Carson was continued. Replying to questions, witness said he had continued on intimate terms with Taylor down to the present time, and it was he who arranged the interview with Wood relating to the letters at Great College street. He used to visit witness at his house, his chambers, and at the Savoy. Witness used to go to afternoon tea parties at Taylor's lodgings. He did not know whether he did his own cooking, but there would be nothing wrong in that.
Mr. Oscar Wilde again went, into the witness-box, and his cross-examination by Mr. Carson was continued. Replying to questions, witness said he had continued on intimate terms with Taylor down to the present time, and it was he who arranged the interview with Wood relating to the letters at Great College-street. He used to visit witness at his house, his chambers, and at the Savoy. Witness used to go to afternoon tea-parties at Taylor's lodgings. He did not know whether he did his own cooking, but there would be nothing wrong in that.
Mr Wilde again went into the witness box on Thursday, and his cross-examination by Mr Carson was continued. Replying to questions, witness said he had continued on intimate terms with Taylor down to the present time, and it was he who arranged the interview with Wood relating to the letters at Great College street. He used to visit witness at his house, his chambers, and at the Savoy. Witness used to go to afternoon tea parties at Taylor's lodgings. He did not know whether he did his own cooking, but there would be nothing wrong in that.
Mr Wilde again went into the witness box on Thursday, and his cross-examination by Mr Carson was continued. Replying to questions, witness said he had continued on intimate terms with Taylor down to the present time, and it was he who arranged the interview with Wood relating to the letters at Great College street. He used to visit witness at his house, his chambers, and at the Savoy. Witness used to go to afternoon tea parties at Taylor's lodgings. He did not know whether he did his own cooking, but there would be nothing wrong in that.
Mr Carson—Have I suggested anything wrong?—
No, but cooking is an art.
Another art?—Yes.
Were the rooms luxurious?—The place was furnished with more than usual taste.
Were the rooms luxurious?--The place was furnished with more than usual taste.
Were the rooms luxurious?--The place was furnished with more than usual taste.
Was it not luxurious?—No, I said in good taste. I thought them pretty rooms. Witness denied that day and night the rooms were lighted with candles and gas, and that heavy double curtains were always drawn over the windows.
Was it not luxurious?--No, I said in good taste. I thought them most pretty rooms. Witness denied that day and night the rooms were lighted with candles and gas, and that heavy double curtains were always drawn over the windows.
Was it not luxurious?--No, I said in good taste. I thought them most pretty rooms. Witness denied that day and night the rooms were lighted with candles and gas, and that heavy double curtains were always drawn over the windows.
Witness denied that day and night the rooms were lighted with candles and gas, and that heavy double curtains were always drawn over the windows.
Were the rooms strongly perfumed?—Yes; I have known him to burn perfumes in his rooms—a charming idea. I burn perfumes in my rooms.
Were the rooms strongly perfumed?--Yes; I have known him to burn perfumes in his rooms--a charming idea. I burn perfumes in my rooms.
Were the rooms strongly perfumed?--Yes; I have known him to burn perfumes in his rooms--a charming idea. I burn perfume in my rooms.
Were the rooms strongly perfumed? Yes; I have known him to burn perfumes in his rooms. I burn perfumes in my rooms.
Did you see Wood there at tea?—No, except on the occasion referred to. I have seen Sydney Mavor there. He was a friend of mine, but I have not the remotest idea where he is now.
Did you see Wood there at tea?--No, except on the occasion referred to. I have seen Sydney Mavor there. He was a friend of mine, but I have not the remotest idea where he is now.
Did you see Wood there at tea?--No except on the occasion referred to. I have seen Sydney Mavor there. He was a friend of mine, but I have not the remotest idea where he is now.
Have you had any communication with him?—Yes, last Sunday I got Taylor to go to his mother's house to say I wanted to see him. He was not there, and I don't know where he is.
Have you had any communication with him?--Yes, last Sunday I got Taylor to go to his mother's house to say I wanted to see him. He was not there, and I don't know where he is.
Have you had any communication with him?--Yes, last Sunday I got Taylor to go to his mother's house to say I wanted to see him. He was not there, and I don't know where he is.
Were you told he has disappeared within the last week?—No; I heard he was away.
Were you told he has disappeared within the last week?--No; I heard he was away.
Were you told he has disappeared within the last week?--No; I heard he was away.
Have you found him since?—What do you mean by finding him? I object to the phrase. I have not seen him since. Answering further questions, witness said he had never seen Taylor wearing a lady's fancy costume. He had sent telegrams to Taylor. He had no business with him.
Have you found him since?--What do you mean by finding him? I object to the phrase. I have not seen him since. Answering further questions, witness said he had never seen Taylor wearing a lady's fancy costume. He had sent telegrams to Taylor. He had no business with him.
Have you found him since?--What do you mean by finding him? I object to the phrase. I have not seen him since. Answering further questions, witness said he had never seen Taylor wearing a lady's fancy costume. He had sent telegrams to Taylor. He had no business with him.
Was he a literary man?—He was a young man of great taste and intelligence, educated at a very good public school.
Was he a literary man?--He was a young man of great taste and intelligence, educated at a very good public school.
Was he a literary man?--He was a young man of great taste and intelligence, educated at a very good public school.
Was he a literary man ? — He was a young man of great taste and intelligence, and bad been brought up at a very good English public school. I have never seen any created work of his.
Did you discuss literary matters with him?—He used to listen on the subject.
Did you discuss literary matters with him? He used to listen on the subject.
Did you discuss literary matters with him?--He used to listen on the subject.
Did you discuss literary matters with him?--He used to listen on the subject.
Did you discuss literature with him ? — He used to listen on the subject.
Did you discuss literary matters with him? — He used to listen, said Mr Wilde — and the court laughed.
And get an intellectual treat also?—Certainly. Witness said he never got him to arrange dinners for him. He had never seen Fred Atkins at Taylor's, and did not know that Taylor was being watched by the police at his rooms. He knew that Taylor and Parker, whom he also knew, were last year arrested at a home in Fitzroy square. He had seen Parker in Taylor's rooms subsequently occupied in Chapel street. Taylor had introduced to witness about five young men, with whom he had become friendly. He liked the society of young men.
And get an intellectual treat also?--Certainly. Witness said he never got him to arrange dinners for him. He had never seen Fred Atkins at Taylor's, and did not know that Taylor was being watched by the police at his rooms. He knew that Taylor and Parker, whom he also knew, were last year arrested at a house in Fitzroy square. He had seen Parker in Taylor's rooms subsequently occupied in Chapel street. Taylor had introduced to witness about five young men, with whom he had become friendly. He liked the society of young men.
And get on intellectual treat also?--Certainly. Witness said he never got him to arrange dinners for him. He had never seen Fred Atkins at Taylor's and did not know that Taylor was being watched by the police at his rooms. He knew that Taylor and Parker, whom he also knew, were last year arrested at a house in Fitzroy square. He had seen Parker in Taylor's rooms subsequently occupied in Chapel street. Taylor had introduced to witness about five young men, with whom he had become friendly. He liked the society of young men.
And get an intellectual treat also? Certainly. Witness said he never got him to arrange dinners for him. He had never seen Fred Atkins at Taylor's, and did not know that Taylor was being watched by the police at his rooms. He knew that Taylor and Parker, whom he also knew, were last year arrested at a house in Fitzroy-square. He had seen Parker in Taylor's rooms subsequently occupied in Chapel-street. Taylor had introduced to witness about five young men, with whom he had become friendly. He liked the society of young men.
Had any of them any occupation?—That I can hardly say.
Did you give money to each?—Yes; I should think to all five—money or presents.
Did you give money to each?--Yes; I should think to all five-money or presents.
Did you give money to each?--Yes; I should think to all five-money or presents.
Did they give you anything?—Me? No.
Among the five was Charles Parker?—Oh, yes.
Was he a gentleman's servant out of employment?—I never heard that, not should I have minded.
Was he a gentleman's servant out of employment?--I never heard that, nor should I have minded.
Was he a gentleman's servant out of employment?—I have no knowledge; I never heard it.
How old was Parker?—I don't keep a census. He was young, and that was one of his attractions. I have never asked him his age, I think it is rather vulgar to do so (laughter).
How old was Parker?--I don't keep a census. He was young, and that was one of his attractions. I have never asked him his age, I think it is rather vulgar to do so (laughter).
How old was Parker?--I don't keep a census. He was young, and that was one of his attractions. I think it is rather vulgar to do so (laughter).
How old was he ? — Really, I do not keep a census. He may be about 20. He was young, and that was one of his attractions. I have never asked him his age. I think it vulgar to ask people their age.
Was he an educated man?—Culture was not his strong point(laughter).
Did you become friendly with Parker's brothers?—They were my guests at table.
Did you become friendly with Parker's brothers?--They were my guests at table.
Did you become friendly with Parker's brothers?--They were my guests at table.
Did you become friendly with his brother ? — They were my guests at table.
Did you become friendly with his brother?—They were my guests at the restaurant.
Did you know that one was a gentleman's valet and the other a gentleman's groom?—I did not know it nor should I have cared. I do not care "tuppence" for social position.
Did you know that one was a gentleman's valet and the other a gentleman's groom?--I did not know it, nor should I have cared, "I do not care "tuppence" for social position.
Did you know that one was a gentleman's valet and the other a gentleman's groom?--I did not know it nor should I have cared, I do not care "tuppence" for social position.
Did you know that one was a gentleman's valet and the other a gentleman's groom ? — I did not know it, and if I had I should not have cared. I do not care twopence about social position.
Did you know that one of them was a gentleman's valet, and the other a gentleman's groom?—I did not know it, and if I had known it I should not have cared. I do not care twopence about social position.
Did you know one was a gentleman's valet and the other a gentleman's groom? - I did not know nor should I have cared, sir.
Did you know one was a gentleman's valet and the other a gentleman's groom? - I did not know nor should I have cared, sir.
What inducement was there for you to entertain them?—The pleasure of being with those who are young, bright, happy, careless, and original. I do not like the sensible, and I do not like the old.
What inducement was there for you to entertain them?--The pleasure of being with those who are young, bright, happy, careless, and original. I do not like the sensible, and I do not like the old.
What inducement was there for you to entertain them?--The pleasure of being with those who are young, bright, happy, careless, and original. I do not like the sensible, and I do not like the old.
Was it a good dinner?—I forget the menu at the present moment. It was certainly Kettner at his best. It was in honour of Mr Alfred Taylor's birthday.
Was it a good dinner?--I forget the menu at the present moment. It was certainly Kettner at his best. It was in honour of Mr. Alfred Taylor's birthday.
Was it a good dinner?--I forget the menu at the present moment. It was certainly Kettner at his best. It was in honour of Alfred Taylor's birthday.
In the course of further cross-examination the witness said—The dinner at Kettner's was given by me March, 1893. It was one of the best they could provide. "Charley" Parker did not accompany me to the Savoy hotel that night, and I strongly deny that there has been any misconduct between us. From October, 1893 to April, 1894, I had rooms in St. James's place. Taylor wrote to me while I was staying there telling me that Parker was in town, and I asked him to come and have "afternoon tea" with me. He came to see me five or six times. I liked his society. I gave him a silver cigarette case and about £3 or £4 in money.
In the course of further cross-examination the witness said--The dinner at Kettner's was given by me in March 1893. It was one of the best they could provide. "Charley" Parker did not accompany me to the Savoy hotel that night, and I strongly deny that there has been any misconduct between us. From October, 1893, to April 1894, I had rooms in St. James's place. Taylor wrote to me while I was staying there telling me that Parker was in town, and I asked him to come and have "afternoon tea" with me. He came to see me five or six times. I liked his society. I gave him a silver cigarette case and about £3 or £4 in money.
In the course of further cross-examination the witness said--The dinner at Kettner's was given by me in March, 1893. It was one of the best they could provide. "Charley" Parker did not accompany me to the Savoy hotel that night, and I strongly deny that there has been any misconduct between us. From October, 1893, to April 1894, I had rooms in St. Jame's place. Taylor wrote to me while I was staying there telling me that Parker was in town, and I asked him to come and have "afternoon tea" with me. He came to see me five or six times. I liked his society. I gave him a silver cigarette case and about £3 or £4 in money.
In the course of further cross-examination, the witness said: "Charley", Parker did not accompany me to the Savoy Hotel, and I strongly deny that there has been any misconduct between us. From October, 1893, to April, 1894, I had rooms in St. James's-place. Taylor wrote to me while I was staying there, telling me that Parker was in town, and I asked him to come and have " afternoon tea " with me. He came to see me five or six times. I liked his society. I gave him a silver cigarette case and about £3 or £4 in money.
Mr Carson—What was there in common between you and these young men?—Well, I will tell you. I like the society of people much younger than myself. I recgonize no social distinctions at all. The mere effect of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk with a young man for half an hour than ever be cross-examined in court (laughter).
Mr Carson--What was there in common between you and these young men?--Well, I will tell you. I like the society of people much younger than myself. I recognize no social distinctions at all. The mere effect of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk with a young man for half an hour than ever been cross-examined in court (laughter).
Mr. Carson: What was there in common between you and these young men? Well, I will tell you. I like the society of people much younger than myself. I recognise no social distinctions at all. The mere effect of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk with a young man for half an hour than even be cross-examined in court. (Laughter.)
Mr Carson--What was there in common between you and these young men?--Well, I will tell you. I like the society of people much younger than myself. I recognize no social distinction at all. The mere effect of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk with a young man for half an hour then ever be cross-examined in court (laughter).
Then Mr Carson asked; Now, Mr Wilde, I ask you what was there in common between you and this young fellow? — I will tell you. I like the society of people who are younger than myself. I recognise no social distinctions of any kind. To me the mere fact of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk to a young man for half an hour than even be cross-examined by you in court.
What did you find attractive in a young man of this class? — I like to be in the society of people much younger than myself. I recognise no social distinctions of any kind, and to me youth, the mere fact of youth, is so wonderful that I would sooner talk to a young man for half an hour than even be examined in court (laughter).
What was there in common between you and this young man? - Well, I will tell you. I delight in the society of those much younger than myself. I like those who may be called idle and careless. I recognise no social distinctions at all of any kind. The mere fact is that youth is so wonderful I would sooner talk to a young man for half an hour than even be cross-examined in court. (Laughter.) Yes, I would talk to street arab with pleasure.
What was there in common between you and a young man in the position of this young man ?—Well, I will tell you. I delight in the society of men younger than myself. I like those who may be glad, young, and careless. I recognise no social distinctions of any kind between them and myself, and to me the mere fact of youth is so wonderful that I would sooner talk to a young man for half an hour than be cross-examined in Court even. (Laughter.)
What was there in common between you and Parker? - Well, I will tell you I delight in the society of those much younger than myself. I like those who may be called idle and careless. I recognise no social distinctions at all of any kind. The mere fact is that youth is so wonderful I would sooner talk to a young man for half an hour than even be cross-examined in court. (Laughter.) Yes, I would talk to a street arab with pleasure.
Cross examination continued—A common boy I met in the street might be a pleasing companion, I took Parker to lunch with me at various places.
Cross-examination continued--A common boy I met in the street might be a pleasing companion. I took Parker to lunch with me at various places.
Cross-examination continued--A common boy I met in the street might be a pleasing companion, I took Parker to lunch with me at various places.
Cross-examination continued: A common boy I met in the street might be a pleasing companion. I took Parker to lunch with me at various places.
Witness went on to say that Parker had written a letter to him asking whether he might have the pleasure of dining with him that evening; and he (Mr Wilde) was to send an answer by the messenger. The writer hoped it would be convenient "that we should spend the evening together." He never paid visits to Parker at a house in Camera square. He did not know that certain men who were arrested in the Fitzroy square raid were connected with the Cleveland street scandals. The Fitzroy square arrest made no different in his friendship with Taylor. He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins, and took him to Paris, being joined there by a gentleman, whose name was written on Wednesday and passed to counsel. Atkins was addressed as Freddy, and was plaintiff's guest. He gave Freddy money to go to the Moulin Rouge. They stayed at the same hotel, but no impropriety ever occured. Freddy suggested that he should have his hair curled. Counsel—Did he have it curled? Witness—No; I should have been very angry if he had (laughter). The gentleman whose name had been written also introduced him to young men named Scarfe and Maver. The latter met him on his return from Scotland in October, and they stayed at the same hotel in town. He gave Maver a cigarette case.
Witness went on to say that Parker had written a letter to him asking whether he might have the pleasure of dining with him that evening; and he (Mr Wilde) was to send an answer by the messenger. The writer hoped it would be convenient "that we should spend the evening together." He never paid visits to Parker at a house in Camera square. He did not know that certain men who were arrested in the Fitzroy square raid were connected with the Cleveland street scandals. The Fitzroy square arrest made no difference in his friendship with Taylor. He was introduced to a young man named Fredy Atkins, and took him to Paris, being joined there by a gentleman whose name was written on Wednesday and passed to counsel. Atkins was addressed as Freddy, and was plaintiff's guest. He gave Freddy money to go to the Moulin Rouge. They stayed at the same hotel but no impropriety ever occured. Freddy suggested that he shoud have his hair curled. Counsel--Did he have it curled? Witness--No; I should have been very angry if he had (laughter). The gentleman whose name had been written also introduced him to young men named Scarfe and Maver. The latter met him on his return from Scotland in October, and they stayed at the same hotel in town. He gave Maver a cigarette case.
Witness went on to say that Parker had written a letter to him asking whether he might have the pleasure of dining with him that eveningl and he (Mr Wilde) was to send an answer by the messenger. The writer hoped it would be convenient "that we should spend the evening together." He never paid visits to Parker at a house in Camera square. He did not know that certain men who were arrested in the Fitzroy square raid were connected with the Cleveland street scandals. The Fitzroy square arrest made no difference in his friendship with Taylor. He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins, and took him to Paris, being joined there by a gentleman, whose name was written on Wednesday and passed to counsel. Atkins was addressed as Freddy, and was plaintiff's guest. He gave Freddy money to go to Moulin Rouge. They stayed at the same hotel, but no impropriety ever occurred. Freddy suggested that he should have his hair curled. Counsel-Did he have it curled? Witness--No; I should have been very angry if he had (laughter). The gentleman whose name had been written also introduced him to young men named Scarfe and Maver. The latter met him on his reutrn from Sookland in October, and they stayed at the same hotel in town. He gave Maver a cigarette case.
Further cross-examined—He knew a masseur at the Savoy hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in Paris.
Further cross-examined--He knew a masseur at the Savoy hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in Paris.
Further cross-examined--He knew a masseur at the Savoy hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in Paris.
Further cross-examined—He knew a masseur at the Savoy Hotel, but denied that the mas- made any incriminating discovery on entering his bedroom one morning. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to misconduct on certain occasions in Paris.
Further cross-examined, he said he knew a masseur at the Savoy Hotel, but denied that the masseur made any incriminating discovery. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to certain occasions in Paris.
At the conclusion of the cross-examination Sir E. Clarke began the re-examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Queensberry. In part of these, written from Carter's Hotel to Lord A. Douglas, the defendant called upon his son to cease his infamous intimacy with the man Wilde; his blood had turned cold at the sight of their horrible faces. The writer continued: "I hear on good authority that his (Wilde's) wife is petitioning for a divorce on the ground of unnatarual crimes. The horror has crossed my mind you may be brought into this. If I thought the actual thing true I should feel justified in shooting him at sight." Lord Alfred replied by wire, "Queensberry, what a funny little man you are." Plaintiff denied the suggestion of the divorce petition. Lord Queensberry, in a further letter, called Lord Alfred "an impertinent jacksnapes," and threatened to cut off supplies. In another letter, addressed by the defendant to the father of his former wife, he repeated the accusations against Wilde, to whom he referred in the followng terms:—"He plainly showed the white feather. He is a s— cur and a coward of the Rosebery type." Then, alluding to his former wife, Lord Queensberry said: "I am convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone Royal insult that came to me through my other son—she worked that. I saw Drumlanrig on the river last night, and it rather upset me. It shall be known some day that Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen (which makes her as bad as him), and to Gladstone, but also has made a life long quarrel between my son and me." Lord Queensberry in August addressed Lord Alfred as an abortion. The letter continued, "How right I was to face misery rather than bring others into the world. That was the reason I broke off with your mother."
At the conclusion of the cross-examination Sir E. Clarke began the re-examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Queensberry. In part of these, written from Carter's Hotel to Lord. A. Douglas, the defendant called upon his son to cease his infamous intimacy with the man Wilde; his blood had turned cold at the sight of their horrible faces. The writer continued: "I hear on good authority that his (Wilde's) wife is petitioning for a divorce on the ground of unnatural crimes. The horror has crossed my mind you may be brought into this. If I thought the actual thing true I should feel justified in shooting him at sight." Lord Alfred replied by wire, "Queensberry, what a funny little man you are." Plaintiff denied the suggestion of the divorce petitions. Lord Queensberry, in a further letter, called Lord Alfred "an impertinent jacksnapes," and threatened to cut off supplies. In another letter, addressed by defendant, to the father of his former wife, he repeated the accusations against Wilde, to whom he referred in the following terms:--"He plainly showed the white feather. He is a s------- cur and a corward of the Rosebery type." Then, alluding to his former wife, Lord Queensberry said: "I am convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone Royal insult that came to me through my other son-she worked that. I saw Dsumlanrig on the river last night, and it rather upset me. It shall be known some day that Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen (which makes her as bad as him), and to Gladstone, but also has made a life-long quarrel between my son and me." Lord Queensberry in August addressed Lord Alfred as an abortion. The latter continued, "How right I was to face misery rather than bring others into the world." That was the reason I broke off with your mother."
At the conclusion of the cross-examination Sir E. Clarke began the re-examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Queensberry. In part of these, written from Carter's Hotel to Lord A. Douglas, the defendant called upon his son to cease his infamous intimacy with the man Wilde, his blood had turned cold at the sight of their horrible faces. The writer continued "I hear on good authority that his (Wilde's) wife is petitioning for a divorce on the ground of unnatural crimes. The horror has crossed my mind you may be brought into this. If I thought that the actual thing true I should feel justified in shooting him at sight." Lord Alfred replied by wire, "Queensberry, what a funny little man you are." Plaintiff denied the suggestion of the divorce petitions. Lord Queensberry, in a further letter, called Lord Alfred "an impertinent jacksnapes," and threatened to cut off supplies. In another letter, addressed by defendant to the father of his former wife, he repeated the accusations against Wilde, to whom he referred in the following terms:--"He plainly showed the white feather. He s a s------- cur and a corward of the Rosebery type." Then, alluding to his former wife, Lord Queensberry said: "I am convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone Royal insult that came to me through my other son--she worked that I saw Dsumlanrig on the river last night, and it rather upset me. It shall be known some day that Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen (which makes her as bad as him), and to Gladtstone, but also has made a life-long quarrel between my son and me." Lord Queensberry in August addressed Lord Alfred as an abortion. The letter continued, "How right I was to face misery rather than bring others into the world. That was the reason I broke off with your mother."
At the conclusion of the cross-examination, Sir E Clarke began the re-examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Queensberry. In part of these, written from Carter’s Hotel to Lord A Douglas, the defendant called upon his son to cease his intimacy with the man Wilde. His blood had turned cold at the sight of their faces. The writer continued—"I hear on good authority that his (Wilde’s) wife is petitioning for a divorce on the grounds of crimes. The horror has crossed my mind you may be brought into this. If I thought the actual thing true, I should feel justified in shooting him at sight." Lord Alfred replied by wire—"Queensberry—What a funny little man you are." Plaintiff denied the suggestion of the divorce petition. Lord Queensbury in a further letter called Lord Alfred an impertinent jackanapes, and threatened to cut off supplies. In another letter addressed by the defendant to the father of his former wife he repeated the accusations against Wilde, to whom he referred in the following terms :—"He (plaintiff) showed the white feather. He is a d—cur and a coward of the Rosebery type." Then alluding to his former wife, Lord Queensberry said. "I am convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone Royal insult that came to me through my soc—it shall be known some day that Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen (which makes her as bad as him) and to Gladstone, but also had made a life-long quarrel between my son and me." Lord Queensberry in August addressed Lord Alfred in an offensive way. The letter continued—"How right I was to face misery rather than bring others into the world : that was the reason I broke off with your mother."
At the conclusion of the cross-examination, Sir E. CLARKE began the re-examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Queensberry. In part of these, written from Chater’s Hotel to Lord A. Douglas, the defendant called upon his son to have nothing more to do with the man Wilde, whose wife he (defendant) had heard on good authority was petitioning for a divorce. Lord Alfred replied by wire:—"Queensberry, what a funny little man you are." The plaintiff denied the suggestion of a divorce petition. Lord Queensberry, in a further letter, called Lord Alfred an impertinent jackanapes, and threatened to cut off supplies. In another letter addressed to the father of his former wife he repeated the accusations against Wilde, to whom he referred in the following terms—"He plainly showed the white feather; he is a cur and a coward of the Rosebery type." Then alluding to his former wife Lord Queensberry also said, "I am convinced that the Rosebery-Gladstone Royal insult came to me through my other son, Drumlanrig, whom I saw on the river last night, and it rather upset me. It shall be known some day that Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen and to Gladstone, but also has made a life-long quarrel between my son and me." Other letters having been read, the case for the plaintiff closed, and Mr. Carson began his address for the defence.
Mr Carson addressed the jury for the defense and had not concluded when the curt adjourned. Counsel said the Marquis of Queensberry withdrew nothing, and what he had done was premeditatively done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case, and was absent. Various men mentioned in the case would be called on defendant's behalf, and would prove what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Wilde. The man Wood, whom plaintiff had given money to go to America, and who was supposed to be out of the way, would be produced and give evidence. Mr Carson alleged that Wilde had conceived a vile, abominable passion for Lord Alfred Douglas, who had become so dominated by Wilde that he even threatened to shoot his own father, and Lord Queensberry was, he contended, bound to have acted as he had done in the interests of his son.
Mr Carson addressed the jury for the defense, and had not concluded when the court adjourned. Counsel said the Marquis of Queensberry withdrew nothing and what he had done was premeditatively done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case and was silent. Various men mentioned in the case would be called on defendant's behalf and would prove for what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Wilde. That was Wood, whom plaintiff had given money to go to America, and who was supposed to be out of the way, would be produced and give evidence. Mr Carson alleged that Wilde had conceived a vile, abominable passion for Lord Alfred Douglas, who had become so dominated by Wilde that he even threatened to shoot his own father, and Lord Queensberry was, he contended, bound to have acted as he had done in the interests of his son.
Mr Carson addressed the jury for the defence, and had not concluded when the court adjourned. Counsel said the Marquis of Queensberry withdraw nothing and what he had done was premediatevely done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case, and was absent. Various men mentioned in the case would be called on defendant's behalf, and would prove for what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Wilde. The man "Wood", whom plaintiff had given money to go to the Americas, and who was supposed to be out of the way, would be prodced and give evidence. Mr. Carson alleged that Wilde had conceived a vile, abominable passion for Lord Alfred Douglas, who had become so dominated by Wilde that he even threatened to shoot his own father, and Lord Queensberry was, he contended, bound to have acted as he had done in the interests of his son.
In the Wilde-Queensberry libel case yesterday Mr. Carson had not concluded his address to the jury when the Court adjourned. Counsel said the Marquis of Queensberry withdrew nothing, and what he had done was premeditatively done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case, and was absent. The various men mentioned in the case would be called on the defendant's behalf, and would prove for what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Wilde. The man Wood, whom plaintiff had given money to go to America, and who was supposed to be out of the way, would be produced, and give evidence. Mr. Carson alleged that Mr. Wilde had conceived a passion for Lord Alfred Douglas, who had be come so dominated by Wilde that he had even threatened to shoot his own father ; and Lord Queensberry was, he contended, bound to have acted as he had done in the interests of his son.