Irish Daily Independent - Friday, April 5, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
OSCAR WILDE AND THE MARQUIS OF QUEENSBERRY.
END OF THE PLAINTIFF’S CROSS-EXAMINATION.
EXTRAORDINARY
LETTERS.
London, Thursday Evening.
The Marquis of Queensberry again surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court, London, charged with publishing a defamatory libel concerning Mr Oscar Wilde. The doors were opened at half-past nine, and even at that comparatively early hour the Junior Bar not only monopolised the greater part of the sitting accommodation, but overflowed into the adjacent passages in such numbers as to seriously obstruct the view from many points. For some time the chief usher was occupied in finding seats for holders of cards of admission, and the Aldermanic Bench soon became as crowded as yesterday.
The Marquis of Queensberry again surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court, Loudon, charged with publishing a defamatory libel concerning Mr Oscar Wilde. The doors were opened at half-past nine, and even at that comparatively early hour the Junior Bar not only monopolised the greater part of the sitting accommodation, but overflowed into the adjacent passages in such numbers as to seriously obstruct the view from many points. For some time the chief usher was occupied in finding seats for holders of cards of admission, and the Aldermanic Bench soon became as crowded as yesterday.
The Marquess of Queensberry again surrendered to his bail to-day at the Central Criminal Court, charged with publishing a defamatory libel concerning Mr. Oscar Wilde. The doors were opened at half-past nine, and even at that comparatively early hour the Junior Bar not only monopolised the greater part of the sitting accommodation, but overflowed into the adjacent passages in such numbers as to seriously obstruct the view from many points. For some time the chief usher was occupied in finding seats for holders of cards of admission, and the Aldermanic Bench soon became as crowded as yesterday.
Lord Alfred Douglas, a pale, slim, fairhaired youth, sat in a remote corner close to the door through which the judge usually enters from the robing room. The Marquis was again attired in the semi-sporting costume which goes far to making him a distinctive personality.
Lord Alfred Douglas, a pale, slim, fair-haired youth, sat is a remote corner close to the door through which the judge usually enters from the robing room. The Marquis was again attired to the semi-sporting costume which goes far to making him a distinctive personality.
Lord Alfred Douglas, a pale, slim, fair-haired youth, sat in a remote corner close to the door through which the judge usually enters from the robing-room. The Marquess was again attired in the semi-sporting costume which seems to go far towards making him a distinctive personality.
Mr Wilde,with his flowing hair brushed back and falling neglected upon the heavy black velvet collar of his overcoat, sat chatting to his solicitor for some time before the reappearance of the jury.
Mr Wilde, with his flowing hair brushed back and falling neglected upon the heavy black velvet collar of his overcoat, sat chatting to his solicitor for some time before the reappearance of the jury.
Mr. Wilde, with his flowing hair brushed back and falling negligently upon the heavy black velvet collar of his overcoat, sat chatting to his solicitor for some time before the reappearance of the jury. Lord Queensberry took his place in the dock at half-past ten, and a few minutes later Mr. Justice Collins came in.
Lord Queensbury took his place in the dock at half-past ten, and a few moments later Mr Justice Collins came in.
Lord Queensbury took his place in the dock at half-past ten, and a few moments later Mr Justice Collins came in.
As Mr Wilde stepped into the witness box, holding a glass of water, the defendant wrote a note and passed it down to his counsel.
As Mr Wilde stepped into the witness box, holding a glass of water, the defendant wrote a note and passed it down to his counsel.
As Mr. Wilde stepped into the witness-box holding a glass of water, the defendant wrote a note and passed it down to his counsel.
Mr Carson, Q C, at once resumed the cross-examination by putting to Mr Wilde questions about his relationship with the man Taylor. He used to go to the upper part of a house occupied by Taylor where there were tea parties. Taylor's rooms did not strike him as peculiar, except that they were more tasteful than usual.
Mr Carson, Q C, at once resumed the cross-examination by putting to Mr Wilde questions about his relationship with the man Taylor. He used to go to the upper part of a house occupied by Taylor where there were tea parties. Taylor’s rooms did not strike him as peculiar, except that they were more tasteful as usual.
Mr. Carson, Q.C., at once resumed his cross-examination by putting to Mr. Wilde questions about his relationship with the man Taylor. He used to go to the upper part of a house occupied by Taylor, where there were tea parties. Taylor's rooms did not strike him as peculiar except that they were more tasteful than usual.
Were they not luxurious for the upper part of a house, 13 Little College street ? They were pretty rooms.
Were they not luxurious for the upper part of a house, 13 Little College street? They were pretty rooms.
Were they not luxurious for the upper part of a house—13, Little College Street?—They were pretty rooms.
Did you ever see the curtain otherwise than drawn? Yes.
Were you ever there at any time when light was let into the rooms, and when a double set of curtains were not drawn across? Yes, once, in March.
Were you ever there at any time when light was let into those rooms, and when a double set of curtains were not drawn across?—Yes; once in March.
Were you ever there at any time when light was let into those rooms, and when a double set of curtains were not drawn across? Yes, once, in March.
Were not those rooms always strongly perfumed? I would not say always; but Taylor burnt perfumes.
Were not these rooms always strongly perfumed?—I would not say always, but Taylor burned perfumes.
Were not these rooms always strongly perfumed? I would not say always; but Tayolr burnt perfumes.
Did you meet Wood there? Yes.
And another person (named)? Yes ; but I have not seen him for a year, and have not the remotest idea where he is at present.
And another person (named)?—Yes; but I have not seen him for a year, and have not the remotest idea where he is at present.
And another person (named)? Yes ; but I have not seen him for a year, and have not the remotest idea where he is at present.
Have you been told he has disappeared within the last week ? No ; his mother was asked by Taylor where he was and was told he would be back home on Monday.
Have you been told he has disappeared within the last week? No ; his mother was asked by Taylor where he was and was told he would be back home on Monday.
Have you been told he has disappeared within the last week—No. Taylor's mother was asked where he was, and was told he would be back home on Monday.
Did you see Taylor with a lady's costume on ? No.
Further cross-examined — He had not constantly sent telegrams to Taylor, but he had wired him respecting Woods' possession of the letters referred to yesterday. Do you know that Taylor and a man named Parker were arrested in a raid on a house in Fitzroy square last year ? Yes.
How many men did Taylor introduce you to? About five.
Did you give money to all ? Yes.
Was Parker a gentleman's servant out of employment ? I don't know.
If you had known it would you have been friendly with him ? I would be friendly with any human being I liked (laughter).
If you had known it would you have been friendly with him?—I would be friendly with any human being I liked. (Laughter.)
If you had known it would you have been friendly with him? I would be friendly with any human being I liked (laughter).
If he had been such, would you have been friendly with him? - I would be friendly with any human being that I liked.
Was he a literary man ?
Witness (airily)—Culture was not his strong point (laughter).
What pleasure could you have is the company of grooms and coachmen ? The pleasure of being with those who were young, bright, and happy (laughter).
What pleasure could you have in the company of grooms and coachmen?—The pleasure of being with those who were young, bright, and happy. (Laughter.)
What pleasure could you have in the company of grooms and coachmen? The pleasure of being with those who were young, bright, and happy (laughter).
What enjoyment was it to you to be entertaining grooms and coachmen ? — The pleasure of being with those who are young, bright, happy, careless, and original.
You invited Taylor to dinner and he brought a valet and a groom? That is your account of it, not mine.
You invited Taylor [...] and he brought a valet and a groom? That is your account of it, not mine.
You invited Taylor to dinner and he brought a valet and a groom?—That is your account of it not mine. It was at Kettner's restaurant.
Taylor accepted your invitation by bringing a valet and a groom ? — That is your account, not mine.
It was at Kettner's restaurant, and was the wine Kettner's best ? Yes (laughter).
It was at Kettner’s restaurant, and was the wine Kettner’s best? Yes (laughter).
Did you give them an intellectual treat? They seemed deeply impressed (much laughter).
Did you give them an intellectual treat?—They seemed deeply impressed. (Much laughter.)
Did you give them an intellectual treat? They seemed deeply impressed (much laughter).
Did you give them an intellectual treat?—They seemed deeply impressed. (Laughter.)
Did you give them also an intellectual treat ? — They were deeply impressed (laughter).
Did you give them an intellectual treat? - They seemed deeply impressed.
Did you give them an intellectual treat? - They seemed deeply interested.
Did they have plenty of champagne? What gentleman would stint his guests?
Did they have plenty of champagne? What gentleman would stint his guests?
Did they have plenty of champagne?—Plaintiff: What gentleman would stint his guests?
Had they plenty of champagne ? — What gentleman would stint his guests? (laughter).
Mr Carson—Yes, what gentleman would stint his valet ? (Great laughter.)
Mr Carson—Yes, what gentleman would stint his valet? (Great laughter.)
Plaintiff — I strongly object to that description.
The learned counsel asked if witness did not after that dinner drive one of the men to the Savoy, where he had a private room, give him iced champagne, and committed an act of criminality.
The learned counsel asked if witness did not after that dinner drive one of the men to the Savoy, where he had a private room, give him iced champagne, and committed an act of criminality.
The learned counsel asked if witness did not after dinner drive one of the men to the Savoy, where he had a private room, and gave him iced champagne.
Witness absolutely denied the suggestion; also that he gave the man £2 and invited him to dinner the following night. The ambition of one of the men was to go on the stage. He never visited Parker at a house in Camera square. He had presented Parker with a cigarette case, and had given him about £4. Parker had never been in his bedroom at Chelsea, nor had he ever visited this man at 12 Park walk, Chelsea, at half-past 12 o'clock at night.
Witness absolutely denied the suggestion; also that he gave the man £2 and invited him to dinner the following night. The ambition of one of the men was to go on the stage. He never visited Parker at a house in Camera square. He had presented Parker with a cigarette case, and had given him about £4. Parker had never been in his bedroom at Chelsea, nor had he ever visited this man at 12 Park walk, Chelsea, at half-past 12 o’clock at night.
Witness absolutely denied what was suggested, also that he gave the man £2 and invited him to dinner the following night. The ambition of one of the men was to go on the stage. He never visited Parker at a house in Camera Square. He had presented Parker with a cigarette case, and had given him about £4. Parker had never been in his bedroom at Tight Street, Chelsea, nor had he ever visited this man at 12, Park Walk, Chelsea, at half-past twelve o'clock at night.
Asked why be associated with young men of a different class, witness replied, " I recognize no social distinctions and I would sooner talk to a young man half an-hour than be cross-examined in court" (laughter).
Asked why he associated with young men of a different class, witness replied, "I recognise no social distinctions, and I would sooner talk to a young man half an-hour than be cross-examined in court" (laughter).
Asked why he associated with young men of a different class, witness replied: "I recognise no social distinctions, and I would sooner talk to a young man half an hour than be cross-examined in court. (Laughter.)
You knew Parker and Taylor were arrested in a raid? Yes. I read it in the newspapers.
You knew Parker and Taylor were arrested in a raid?—Yes; I read it in the newspapers.
You knew Parker and Taylor were arrested in a raid? Yes. I read it in the newspapers.
Did you know that at the time they were arrested they were in company with several men in women’s clothes? My recollection is that two men in women's clothes drove up to the house and were arrested outside; but whether the men were at the concert inside in women's clothes I do not know.
Did you know that at the time they were arrested they were in company with several men in women's clothes?—My recollection is that two men in women's clothes drove up to the house and were arrested outside, but whether the men were at the concert inside in women's clothes I do not know.
Did you know that at the time they were arrested they were in company with several men in women’s clothes? My recollection is that two men in women’s clothes drove up to the house and were arrested outside; but whether the men were at the concert inside in women’s clothes I do not know.
Did you not think it a serious thing that your friend, Taylor, and your friend, Charles Parker should be arrested in a police raid? When I read it I was greatly distressed, but the magistrate took a different view because he dismissed the case.
Did you not think it a serious thing that your friend Taylor and your friend Charles Parker should be arrested in a police raid?—When I read it I was greatly distressed, but the magistrate took a different view, because he dismissed the case.
Did you not think it a serious thing that your friend, Taylor, and your friend, Charles Parker should be arrested in a police raid? When I read it I was greatly distressed, but the magistrate took a different view because he dismissed the case.
They were charged with a felonious practice, were they not? I don’t know.
They were charged with a felonious practice, were they not?—I don't know.
They were charged with a felonious practice, were they not? I don’t know.
But the magistrate fined some who were there, did he not ? I do not know at all.
But the magistrate fined some who were there, did he not?—I do not know at all.
But the magistrate fined some who were there, did he not? I do not know at all.
Did you not hear of one of these men in connection with the Cleveland street scandals ? Never.
Did you not hear of one of these men in connection with the Cleveland Street scandals?—Never.
Did you not hear of one of these men in connection with the Cleveland street scandals? Never.
Was not one of them a notorious personage? I never heard of him.
Did the arrest in Filzroy square make any difference to your friendship with Taylor? I was distressed to bear of it, and I wrote to him.
Did the arrest in Fitzroy square make any difference to your friendship with Taylor? I was distressed to hear of it, and I wrote to him.
Did the arrest in Fitzroy Square make any difference to your friendship with Taylor?—I was distressed to hear, and I wrote to him.
Was not this the same Taylor who lunched with yon on Tuesday last ? I did not invite him to lunch. He came to my house.
Was not this the same Taylor who lunched with you on Tuesday last?—I did not invite him to lunch. He came to my house.
Was not this the same Taylor who lunched with you on Tuesday last? I did not invite him to lunch. He came to my house.
Further cross-examined—He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins who was connected with bookmakers, and met him at dinner with a gentleman whose name was written down and passed to counsel yesterday. He called Atkins "Freddy," and "Freddy" addressed him as "Oscar." "Freddy" had an ambition for the music hall stage. He could not discuss literature. The art of the music hall was as far as he had got (laughter). He took "Freddy" to Paris, engaging three bedrooms at the hotel. He took "Freddy" out to lunch.
Further cross-examined—He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins who was connected with bookmakers, and met him at dinner with a gentleman whose name was written down and passed to counsel yesterday. He called Atkins "Freddy," and "Freddy" addressed him as "Oscar." "Freddy" had an ambition for the music hall stage. He could not discuss literature. The art of the music hall was as far as he had got (laughter). He took "Freddy" to Paris, gaging three bedrooms at the hotel. He took "Freddy" out to lunch.
Further cross-examined: He was introduced to a young man named Freddy Atkins who was connected with bookmakers, and met him at dinner with a gentleman, whose name was written down and passed to counsel yesterday. He called Atkins "Freddy," and "Freddy" addressed him as "Oscar." "Freddy" had an ambition for the music-hall stage. He could not discuss literature -the art of the music-hall was as far as he had got. (Laughter.) He took "Freddy" to Paris, engaging three bedrooms at the hotel. He took "Freddy" out to lunch.
After lunch did you suggest that he should have his hair curled? (Laughter.) No.
After lunch did you suggest that he should have his hair curled? (Laughter.) No.
After lunch did you suggest he should have his hair curled? (Laughter.)—No.
Did he get his hair curled? I should have been very angry with him if he had (laughter).
Did he get his hair curled?—I should have been very angry with him if he had. (Laughter.)
Did he get his hair curled? I should have been very angry with him if he had (laughter).
Was there plenty of champagne? If you suggest that I plied the man with wine it is detestable and monstrous, and I won't have it (laughter).
Was there plenty of champagne? If you suggest that I plied the man with wine it is detestable and monstrous, and I wont have it (laughter).
Was there plenty of champagne?—If you suggest that I ply a man with wine it is detestable and monstrous, and I won't have it. (Laughter.)
Did you give Freddy a sovereign to go to the Moulin Rouge? Yes.
Counsel here put a specific question to witness as t0 what happened at the hotel after Freddy returned from the Moulin Rouge.
Counsel here put a specific question to witness as to what happened at the hotel after Freddy returned from the Moulin Rouge.
Counsel here put a specific question to witness as to what happened at the hotel after Freddy returned from the Moulin Rouge.
Witness met it with a flat negative.
If anyone came here and said they witnessed your conduct would it be a mistake? It would be an infamous lie. The gentleman whose name had been written came to Paris while Freddy was there. The gentleman and Freddy afterwards visited him in London, plaintiff being ill in bed at the time. The gentleman whose name had been written down also introduced him to two young men named Scarp and Mabor. To the latter he gave a cigarette case. They afterwards stayed at the same hotel in town, Mabor having met him at the railway station on his return from Scotland. No indecency took place. He had also dined with Mabor at Kettner's and at the Solferino. Taylor being present. He knew a youth named Granger at Lord Alfred Douglas' rooms in High street, Oxford.
If anyone came here and said they witnessed your conduct would it be a mistake? It would be an infamous lie. The gentleman whose name had been written came to Paris while Freddy was there. The gentleman and Freddy afterwards visited him in London, plaintiff being ill in bed at the time. The gentleman whose name had been written down also introduced him to two young men named Searp and Mabor. To the latter he gave a cigarette case. They afterwards stayed at the same hotel in town, Mabor having met him at the railway station on his return from Scotland. No indecency took place. He had also dined with Mabor at Kettner’s and at the Solferino, Taylor being present. He knew a youth named Granger at Lord Alfred Douglas’ rooms in High street, Oxford.
If anyone came here and said they witnessed your conduct would it be a mistake?—It would be an infamous lie. The gentleman whose name had been written came to Paris while Freddy was there. The gentleman and Freddy afterwards visited him in London, plaintiff being ill in bed at the time. The gentleman whose name had been written down also introduced him to two young men named Searpand Mabor. To the latter he gave a cigarette case. They afterwards stayed at the same hotel in town, Mabor having met him at the railway station on his return from Scotland. He had also dined with Mabor at Kettner's and at the Solferino. Taylor being present. He knew a youth named Granger at Lord Alfred Douglas's rooms, in High Street Oxford.
Did you ever kiss or embrace Granger? No, he was ugly!
Mr Carson (sharply) — Why do you mention ugliness?
Witness — It is difficult to imagine such a thing under any circumstances.
Witness—It is difficult to imagine such a thing under any circumstances.
I ask you why did you mention his ugliness? Because you stung me with an insolent question.
I ask you why did you mention his ugliness?—Because you stung me with an insolent question.
I ask you why did you mention his ugliness? Because you stung me with an insolent question.
Why did you mention the boy's ugliness ? — Perhaps yon stung me by an insulting question.
Further cross-examined — He brought Granger to Goring in June, 1893, he having taken a house there. He knew a masseur at the Savoy Hotel, but he denied that the masseur ever saw anything incriminating on entering his bedroom one morning for massage, He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to his behaviour on visits to Paris.
Further cross-examined — He brought Granger to Goring in June, 1893, he having taken a house there. He knew a masseur at the Savoy Hotel, but he denied that the masseur ever saw anything incriminating on entering his bedroom one morning for massage. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to his behaviour on visits to Paris.
Further examined: He brought Granger to Goring in June, 1893, he having taken a house there. He knew a masseur at the Savoy Hotel, but he denied that the masseur ever saw anything improper. He also repudiated certain suggestions with regard to his visits to Paris.
Mr Carson having concluded his cross-examination, Sir Edward Clarke began his re-examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Qneensberry upon which questions were put to plaintiff. The first of the series was dated. Carters Hotel, W, April 1st, and was from Lord Queensberry to Lord Alfred Douglas. The writer began — "Alfred, it is exceedingly painful for me to have to address you in this style, but I decline to receive any letters from you. Any which may come in a disguised handwriting or in other people's will be put in the fire unread. Am I to understand that having left Oxford as you did, with discredit to yourself, the reasons of which were fully explained to me by your tutor, you now intend to lounge about town. I was put off with the assurance that you were going into the Civil Service or the Foreign Office. Then the assurance was given me that you were going to the Bar. It appears to me you intend to do nothing. You are too late now for any profession, and I utterly decline to supply you with sufficient funds to enable you to loaf. You are preparing a wretched future for yourself, and it would be cruel and wrong for me to encourage you in this. Do you seriously intend to make no attempt to help yourself? Secondly, your infamous intimacy with thin mau Wilde must cease or I will disown you and stop all money supplies and, if necessary, I will go personally and tell him s0. I am not going to try to analyze this intimacy and make no accusations, but to pose as a thing is as bad as to be it. With my own eyes from this window I saw you in disgusting and loathsome familiarity. It was proved by your manner and the expression of your countenances. It turned my blood cold. Never have I seen such a sight in human nature as I saw in your horrible faces. I hear now on good authority that his wife is petitioning for a divorce from him, on the grounds of —— and unnatural crimes. Is this true and do you know it ? If it is what is your position going about with him as a woman. The horror has crossed my mind that you may possibly be brought into this. Whether true or not, posing seems to me to be equivalent to a criminal relationship. If I thought the actual thing true I should be justified in shooting him on the spot. These English Christian cowards—men they call themselves—want waking up. I will stand this no longer. I will stop all money or insist on your leaving the country. Your disgusted so-called father, QUEENSBERRY."
Sir Edward Clarke began his re-examination by putting in certain letters of Lord Queensberry upon which questions were put to plaintiff. The first of the series was dated, Carters Hotel, W, April 1st, and was from Lord Queensberry to Lord Alfred Douglas. The writer began—"Alfred, it is exceedingly painful for me to have to address you in this style, but I decline to receive any letters from you. Any which may come in a disguised handwriting or in other peoples will be put in the fire unread. Am I to understand that having left Oxford as you did, with discredit to yourself, the reasons of which were fully explained to me by your tutor. You now intend to lounge about town. I was put off with the assurance that you were going into the Civil Service or the Foreign Office. Then the assurance was given me that you were going to the Bar. It appears to me you intend to do nothing. You are too late now for any profession, and I utterly decline to supply you with sufficient funds to enable you to loaf. You are preparing a wretched future for yourself, and it would be cruel and wrong for me to encourage you in this. Do you seriously intend to make no attempt to help yourself? Secondly, your infamous intimacy with this man Wilde must cease or I will disown you and stop all money supplies, and, if necessary, I will go personally and tell him so. I am not going to try to analyse this intimacy and make no accusations, but to pose as a thing is as bad as to be it. With my own eyes from this window I saw you in disgusting loathsome familiarity. It was proved by your manner and the expression of your countenances. It turned my blood cold. Never have I seen such a sight in human nature as I saw in your horrible faces. I hear now on good authority that his wife is petitioning for a divorce from him, on the grounds of —— and unnatural crimes. Is this true and do you know it? If it is what is your position going about with him as a woman. The horror has crossed my mind that you may possibly be brought into this. Whether true or not, posing seems to me to be equivalent to a criminal relationship. If I thought the actual thing true I should be justified in shooting him on the spot. These English Christian cowards—men they call themselves—want waking up, I will stand this no longer. I will stop all money or insist on your leaving the country. Your disgusted so-called father, QUEENSBERRY."
"Alfred—It is exceedingly painful for me to have to address you in this style, but I decline to receive any letters from you. Any which may come in a disguised handwriting, or in other people's, will be put in the fire unread. Am I to understand that having left Oxford as you did, with discredit to yourself, the reasons of which were fully explained to me by your tutor, you now intend to lounge about the town? I was put off with the assurance that you were going into the Civil Service or the Foreign Office. Then the assurance was given me that you were going to the bar. It appears to me you intend to do nothing. You are too late now for any profession, and I utterly decline to supply you with sufficient funds to enable you to loaf. You are preparing a wretched future for yourself, and it would be cruel and wrong for me to encourage you in this. Do you seriously intend to make no attempt to help yourself? Secondly, your infamous intimacy with this man Wilde must cease, or I will disown you and stop all money supplies, and if necessary I will go personally and tell him so. I am not going to try to analyse this intimacy, and make no accusations, but to pose as a thing is as bad as to be it. With my own eyes from this window I saw you in disgusting and loathsome familiarity. It was proved by your manner and the expression of your countenances. It turned my blood. Never have I seen such a sight in human nature as I saw in your horrible faces. I hear now on good authority that his wife is petitioning for a divorce from him."
Sir E Clarke. — Is there any foundation for the statements as to a petition for divorce?
Sir E Clarke—Is there any foundation for the statements as to a petition for divorce?
Plaintiff—Not the slightest.
Sir E Clarke informed the jury that Lord Alfred Douglas replied to the latter by wiring "Queensbury. Carter's Hotel — What a funny little man you are!—ALFRED DOUGLAS." (Much laughter.) The answer of Lord Queensbury was dated — "Tuesday, April 3rd—You impertinent young jackanapes, I request you not to send me such messages by telegraph, and if you go on sending me impertinent messages I will give you the thrashing you so richly deserve. Your only excuse is that you must be crazy. I learn from an Oxford man that that was your reputation there. If I catch you with this man Wilde I will make a public scandal in a way you little dream of. It is already a suppressed one. I prefer an open one. Unless this acquaintance ceases I shall carry out mv threat and stop supplies. I will cut you down to a mere pittance, so you know what to expect. —QUEENSBERRY." The next letter, said the learned counsel, was from Lord Queensberry to Mr A Montgomery, the father of the lady who was formerly defendant’s wife. and who was the mother of Lord Alfred. The writer said:— "SIR.— I have changed my mind, and as I am not at all well, having been very much upset by what has happened during the last ten days, I do not see why I should dance attendance upon you, particularly as I do not know what it is you want to know, or whether it is only curiosity on your part. Your daughter is the person who is supporting my son in defying me. I received a quibbling and prevaricating message from her, saying the boy denied being at the Savoy Hotel this year. Why send such a telegram unless the boy denies staying there with Oscar Wilde. As a matter of fact, he did so, and there has been a —— scandal. I know that they were warned off, but the proprietor will not allow this. This hideous scandal has been going on for years. Your daughter must be mad, the way she is behaving. She evidently thinks I want to make out a case against my son. Nothing of the kind. I have made out a case against Oscar Wilde. I said to him : —I do not accuse you of being a ——, but you look like one. And you pose as one. If I were certain of the actual fact I would shoot the fellow at sight. I accuse him of posing. I will mark him if he does not stop. I don’t believe Wilde will now dare to defy me. He plainly showed the white feather. He is a damned cur and a coward of the Roseberry type. I am convinced that the Rosebery Gladstone Royal insult that came to me through my other son, that she worked that. I saw Drumlanrig on the river last night, and it rather upset me." Lord Drumlanrig, the learned counsel explained, was the defendant’s eldest son, who recently died. The letter continued—"It shall be known some day. Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen (which makes her as bad as him) and Gladstone, but also has made a life-long quarrel between my son and me." In a letter following from Scotland on 21st August, 1894, Lord Queensberry addressed Lord A Douglas as "an abortion and a reptile. You are no son of mine. and I never thought you were. On 29th August he addressed him as "You miserable creature," and went on—"If you are my son, it is only confirming to me how right I was to face horror and misery rather than bring others into the world. That was my reason for breaking off with your mother. So dissatisfied was I that when you were quite a baby I shed bitterest tears that I had brought such a creature into the world, that I had unintentionally committed such a crime. You must be demented. There is madness on your mother’s side. Few families in this Christian country are without it if you look into them. It all depends on yourself whether I make you any further allowances."
Sir E Clarke informed the jury that Lord Alfred Douglas replied to the letter by wiring "Queensbury. Carter’s Hotel—What a funny little man you are!—ALFRED DOUGLAS." (Much laughter.) The answer of Lord Queensbury was dated—"Tuesday, April 3rd—You impertinent young jackanapes, I request you not to send me such messages by telegraph, and if you go on sending me impertinent messages I will give you the thrashing you so richly deserve. Your only excuse is that you must be crazy. I learn from an Oxford man that that was your reputation there. If I catch you with this man Wilde I will make a public scandal in a way you little dream of. It is already a suppressed one. I prefer an open one. Unless this acquaintance ceases I shall carry out my threat and stop supplies. I will cut you down to a mere pittance, so you know what to expect.—QUEENSBERRY." The next letter, said the learned counsel, was from Lord Queensberry to Mr A Montgomery, the father of the lady who was formerly defendant’s wife, and who was the mother of Lord Alfred. The writer said:—"SIR—I have changed my mind, and as I am not at all well, having been very much upset by what has happened during the last ten days, I do not see why I should dance attendance upon you, particularly as I do not know what it is you want to know, or whether it is only curiosity on your part. Your daughter is the person who is supporting my son in defying me. I received a quibbling and prevaricating message from her, saying the boy denied being at the Savoy Hotel this year. Why send such a telegram unless the boy denies staying there with Oscar Wilde. As a matter of fact, he did so, and there has been a —— scandal. I know that they were warned off, but the proprietor will not allow this. This hideous scandal has been going on for years. Your daughter must be mad, the way she is behaving. She evidently thinks I want to make out a case against my son. Nothing of the kind. I have made out a case against Oscar Wilde. I said to him:—’I do not accuse you of being a ——, but you look like one’ And you pose as one. If I were certain of the actual fact I would shoot the fellow at sight. I accuse him of posing. I will mark him if he does not stop. I don’t believe Wild will now dare to defy me. He plainly showed the white feather. He is a damned cur and a coward of the Rosebery type. I am convinced that the Rosebery Gladstone Royal insult that came to me through my other son, that she worked that. I saw Drumlanrig on the river last night, and it rather upset me." Lord Drumlanrig, the learned counsel explained, was the defendant’s eldest son, who recently died. The latter continued—"It shall be known some day. Rosebery not only insulted me by lying to the Queen (which makes her as bad as him) and Gladstone, but also has made a life-long quarrel between my son and me." In a letter following from Scotland on 21st August, 1894, Lord Queensberry addressed Lord A Douglas as "an abortion and a reptile. You are no son of mine, and I never thought you were. On 29th August he addressed him as "You miserable creature," and went on—"If you are my son, it is only confirming to me how right I was to face horror and misery rather than bring others into the world. That was my reason for breaking off with your mother. So dissatisfied was I that when you were quite a baby I shed bitterest tears that I had brought such a creature into the world, that I had unintentionally committed such a crime. You must be demented. There is madness on your mother’s side. Few families in this Christian country are without it if you look into them. It all depends on yourself whether I make you say further allowances."
Replying to his counsel, plaintiff said he utterly disregarded Lord Queensberry’s requests that he should discontinue seeing Lord Alfred Douglas. He made some modification in one passage of "Dorian Grey" obediently to a suggestion of the late Mr Walter Pa[...]er.
Replying to his counsel, plaintiff said he utterly disregarded Lord Queensberry’s requests that he should discontinue seeing Lord Alfred Douglas. He made some modification in one passage of "Dorian Grey" obediently to a suggestion of the late Mr Walter Pater.
On the Court reassembling after the adjournment, Mr Oscar Wilde apologised to his lordship for keeping the jury waiting some minutes.
On the Court reassembling after the adjournments, Mr Oscar Wilde apologised to his lordship for keeping the jury waiting some minutes.
Replying to Sir E Clarke, he said he helped the bookseller’s assistant Shelley because he was in difficulties, and was a young man interested in literary subjects. Taylor was educated at Marlborough. Nothing had come to plaintiff’s knowledge against the character of certain persons mentioned in cross-examination to-day. He had never been at Camera square or Park walk. He at first refrained from taking proceedings against Lord Queensberry owing to pressure brought upon him by the Queensberry family. On conclusion of the re-examination a letter was put in from Lord A Douglas to his father, accusing him of meanly depriving him of money. If necessary he should defend himself with a revolver "If he (Wilde) or I shoot you, we shall be acting in self-defence against a violent and dangerous rough. If you were dead nobody would miss you." After the reading of correspondence between Lord Queensberry and Mr Wilde's solicitors, the case for the plaintiff closed.
Mr Carson at once began his address to the jury for the defence. He said the Marquis of Queensberry withdrew nothing, and what he had done was premeditatively done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case, and he (the proprietor of tho extraordinary den in Little College street) was absent. These various men would be called on the defendent’s behalf, and would prove for what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Oscar Wilde, who had strange associates as a man of art, and who had so generous and democratic a soul that he could accommodate himself to the valet, the coachman, and the newspaper boy (laughter). From plaintiff’s writings and course of life the defendant was justified in assuming that Wilde was addicted to certain habits. The idea of "The Priest and the Acolyte" and of "Dorian Gray" was precisely the same idea as that disclosed in Wilde’s letters to Lord A Douglas. What would be the horror of any member of the jury finding that his own son, under the domination of a person like Mr Oscar Wilde, had written contributions to the "Chameleon" disclosing the results of that education in certain tendencies of mind? If they came to the conclusion that Mr Wilde’s book, "Dorian Grey," was of the description he had submitted to them, there could be no answer to the plea of justification, and Lord Queensberry was bound to have acted as he had in the interests of his own son. Wilde’s anxiety to get the letters from Wood was explained by the relations which had previously existed between them. He gave Wood £16 to get him of the America, and an additional £5 at a farewell luncheon. Wilde thought he had by this means got rid of Wood, but, observed the learned counsel, "he has not. Wood is here and will be examined." Mr Beerbohm Tree noted with the most perfect propriety in handing to Wilde a letter which had been addressed to the theatre. He was anxious this should be understood, because he was told Mr Tree had already cabled from America. Sir E Clarke agreed with him that there was not the slightest reflection upon Mr Beerbohm Tree.
Mr Carson at once began his address to the jury for the defence. He said the Marquis of Queensberry withdrew nothing, and what he had done was premeditatively done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case, and he (the proprietor of the extraordinary den in Little College street) was absent. These various men would be called on the defendant’s behalf, and would prove for what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Oscar Wilde, who had strange associates as a man of art, and who had so generous and democratic a soul that he could accommodate himself to the valet, the coachman, and the newspaper boy (laughter). From plaintiff’s writings and course of life the defendant was justified in assuming that Wilde was addicted to certain habits. The idea of "The Priest and the Acolyte" and of "Dorian Gray" was precisely the same idea as that disclosed in Wilde’s letters to Lord A Douglas. What would be the horror of any member of the jury finding that his own son, under the domination of a person like Mr Oscar Wilde, had written contributions to the "Chameleon" disclosing the results of that education in certain tendencies of mind? If they came to the conclusion that Mr Wilde’s book, "Dorian Grey," was of the description he had submitted to them, there could be no answer to the plea of justification, and Lord Queensberry was bound to have acted as he had in the interests of his own son. Wilde’s anxiety to get the letters from Wood was explained by the relations which had previously existed between them. He gave Wood £16 to get him off to America, and an additional £5 at a farewell luncheon. Wilde thought he had by this means got rid of Wood, but, observed the learned counsel, "he has not. Wood is here and will be examined." Mr Beerbohm Tree acted with the most perfect propriety in handing to Wilde a letter which had been addressed to the theatre. He was anxious this should be understood, because he was told Mr Tree had already cabled from America. Sir E Clarke agreed with him that there was not the slightest reflection upon Mr Beerbohm Tree.
Mr. Carson at once began his address to the jury for the defence. He said the Marquess of Queensberry withdrew nothing, and what he had done was premeditatively done. Taylor was the pivot of the whole case, and he, the proprietor of the extraordinary den in Little College Street, was absent. These various men would be called on defendant's behalf, and would prove for what purpose they were introduced by Taylor to Oscar Wilde, who had strange associates as a man of art, and who had so generous and democratic a soul that he could accommodate himself to the valet, the coachman, and the newspaper boy. (Laughter.) Prom plaintiff's writings and course of life defendant was justified in assuming that Wilde was addicted to certain habits. The idea of the "Priest and the Acolyte" and of "Dorian Gray" was precisely the same idea as that disclosed in Wilde's letters to Lord A. Douglas. What would be the horror of any member of the jury finding that his son, under the domination of a person like Mr. Oscar Wilde, had written contributions in the Chameleon disclosing the results of that education in certain tendencies. If they came to the conclusion that Mr. Wilde's book "Dorian Grey" was of the description he had submitted to them there could be no answer to the plea of justification, and Lord Queensberry was bound to have acted as he had in the interests of his own son. Wilde's anxiety to get the letters from Wood was explained by the relations which had previously existed between them. He gave Wood £16 to get him off to America, and an additional £5 at a farewell luncheon. Wilde thought he had by this means "got rid of Wood, but," observed the learned counsel, "he has not. Wood is here and will be examined." Mr. Beerbohm Tree acted with the most perfect propriety in handing to Wilde a letter which had been addressed to the theatre. He was anxious this should be understood, because he was told Mr. Tree had already cabled from America.
Mr Justice Collins — He acted with the most perfect propriety.
Mr Carson resumed his address with a reference to plaintiff’s correspondence with Lord A Douglas: — "MY OWN DEAR BOY—Your red rose-leaved lips were made for the music of song, no less than for the madness of kissing. Your slim gilt soul walks between passion and poetry. Hyacinthus whom Apollo loved so madly was you in Greek days."
"MY OWN DEAR BOY—Your red rose-leaved lips were made for the music of song, no less than for the madness of kissing. Your slim gilt soul walks between passion and poetry. Hyacinthus whom Apollo loved so madly was you in Greek days."
"Beautiful," exclaimed the learned counsel, "Abominable piece of disgusting immorality." His second letter, addressed from the Savoy Hotel, suggested the same thoughts. He (Mr Carson) was not there to suggest that anything took place between the young man and Wilde, but he was there to say that Wilde had conceived a vile, abominable passion for Lord Alfred Douglas, who was in a dangerous position, for he had become so dominated by Wilde that he even threatened to shoot his own father. Mr Carson was continuing his address at 4 30, when the court again adjourned.
"Beautiful," exclaimed the learned counsel, "Abominable piece of disgusting immorality." His second letter, addressed from the Savoy Hotel, suggested the same thoughts. He (Mr Carson) was not there to suggest that anything took place between the young man and Wilde, but he was there to say that Wilde had conceived a vile, abominable passion for Lord Alfred Douglas, who was in a dangerous position, for he had become so dominated by Wilde that he even threatened to shoot his own father Mr Carson was continuing his address at 4 30, when the court again adjourned.
Lord Queensberry was again admitted to bail.