The Washington Post - Sunday, April 7, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
OSCAR WILDE ON TRIAL
Damaging Evidence Against Him in Police Court.
HIS FRIEND TAYLOR IS ARRESTED
Bail
Has Been Refused and Both Prisoners Are in Jail—The Maximum Penalty for the Crime
Is Two Years’ Imprisonment—The Friends of Wilde Are Zealous in His
Behalf—The Death-knell of Wildeism and Prurience in Literature Has Been Rung.
London, April 6.—Although Oscar Wilde is languishing in jail as a criminal without bail on a heinous charge, he still has a number of influential friends, who are zealous in his defense, notwithstanding that they are intimate enough with him to know most of the secrets of his private life. Lord Douglas, of Hawaick, second and eldest living son of the Marquis of Queensberry, is one of these. He is altogether the manliest looking of the family. Before the death of his elder brother, Viscount Drumlaneyg, he was well and favorably known as plain Percy Douglas. He has an unsmirched reputation and entirely differs in every respect from his effeminate next young brother, Lord Alfred Douglass.
Oscar Wilde still has a number of influential friends who are zealous in his defence, notwithstanding that they are intimate enough with him to know most of the secrets of his private life. Lord Douglas of Hawick, second and eldest living son of the Marquis of Queensberry, is one of them. He is altogether the manliest-looking of the family. Before the death of his elder brother, Viscount Drumlanrig, he was well and favorably known as plain Percy Douglas. He has an unsmirched reputation, and entirely differs in every respect from his effeminate next younger brother, Lord Alfred Douglas.
LONDON, April 6. -- Although Oscar Wilde is languishing in jail as a criminal without bail on a heinous charge, he still has a number of influential friends who are zealous in his defense, notwithstanding that they are intimate enough with him to know most of the secrets of his private life. Lord Douglas of Hawick, second and eldest living son of the Marquis of Queensberry, is one of these. He is altogether the manliest-looking of the family. Before the death of his elder brother. Viscount Drumlanrig, he was well and favorably known as plain Percy Douglas. He has an unsmirched reputation, and entirely differs in every respect from his effeminate next younger brother. Lord Alfred Douglas. Since his return from Australia last Fall Lord Douglas of Hawick has been an almost constant associate of Oscar Wilde. He is willing at any time to go upon the witness stand in Wilde's behalf, and is vehement in his denunciation of Wilde's counsel for having withdrawn the suit.
Since his return from Australia last fall Lord Douglas, of Hawaick, has been an almost constant associate of Oscar Wilde. In an interview this afternoon he said that every one in his family, excepting his father, has refused to believe the accusations against Wilde. He himself, he said, was willing at any time to go upon the witness stand in Wilde’s behalf, and he was vehement in his denunciation of Wilde’s counsel for having withdrawn the suit.
Since his return from Australia last fall, Lord Douglas of Hawick has been an almost constant associate of Oscar Wilde. In an interview this afternoon, he said that everyone of his family, except his father, has refused to believe the accusations against Wilde. He, himself, he said, was willing at anytime to go up on the witness stand in Wilde's behalf, and he was vehement in his denunciation of Wilde’s counsel for having withdrawn the suit.
The Lord Douglas of Warwick referred to above recently returned from Australia became a fast friend and constant associate of Wilde. He is said to have an unsmirched reputation. In an interview this afternoon he said everyone in his family except his father refused to believe the accusations against Wilde. He himself was willing at any time to go upon the witness stand in Wilde's behalf and he was vehement in his denounciation of Wilde's counsel for having withdrawn the suit.
One thing is certain, however, that no matter what may be the outcome of the case, whether Wilde goes free or is sent to prison, the death-knell of Wildeism has been rung and the corpse is prepared for burial. The prurient plays of Wilde and the cognate productions, "The Second Ms. Tanqueray" and "The Notorious Mrs. Ebbsmith," which are now called "Pinerotic," are doomed and there is a strong reaction toward a healthier treatment of stage representation, while the current decadent literature will also get a setback.
No matter what may be the outcome of the case, whether Wilde goes free or is sent to prison, the death knell of Wildeism has been rung and the corpse is prepared for burial. The prurient plays of Wilde and the cognate productions, "The Second Mrs. Tanqueray," and "The Notorious Mrs. Ebbsmith," which are now called "Dinerotic," are doomed, and there is a strong reaction towards a healthier treatment of stage representations, while the current decadent literature will also get a setback.
No matter what may be the outcome of the Wilde case, whether ho goes free or is sent to serve a term, the death knell of Wildeism has been rung. The prurient plays of Wilde and the cognate productions, "The Second Mrs. Tanquery" and "The Notorious Mrs. Ebbsmith," are doomed, and there is a strong reaction towards a healthier treatment of stage representations, while the current decadent literateur will get a setback.
Archibald Edward Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, has written a letter
repudiating the statement made to-day in the
course of an interview, by Lord Douglas, of Hawaick, eldest living son of the marquis,
to the effect that no member of the family except his father
believes the charges against Wilde. In refutation of this statement, the writer of
the letter says:
"My mother, my sister, and myself believe the
allegations made against Oscar Wilde."
Archibald Edward Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, has written a letter repudiating the statement made today in the course of an interview by Lord Douglas of Haywick, eldest living son of the Marquis, to the effect that no member of the family except his father believes the charges against Wilde. In refutation of this statement the writer of the letter says: "My mother, my sister, and myself believe the allegations made against Oscar Wilde."
Archibald Edward Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, has written a letter repudiating the statement made today in the course of an interview by Lord Douglas of Hawick, eldest living son of the Marquis, to the effect that no member of the family except his father believes the charges against Wilde. In refutation of this statement the writer of the letter says:"My mother, my sister and myself believe the allegations made against Oscar Wilde."
Archibald Edward Douglas, brother of the marquis of Queensberry, has written a letter repudiating the statement made today in the course of an interview by Lord Douglas of Hawich, eldest living son of the marquis, to the effect that no member of the family except his father believes the charges against Wilde. In refutation of this statement the writer of the letter says: "My mother, my sister and myself believe the allegations made against Oscar Wilde."
Archibald Edward Douglass, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, has written a letter repudiating the statement made to-day in the course of an interview by Lord Douglas, of Hawick, eldest living son or the Marquis, to the effect that no member of the family, except his father, believes the charges against Wilde. In refutation of this statement the writer of the letter says:— "My mother, my sister and myself believe the allegations against Oscar Wilde."
Archibald Edward Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, has written a letter repudiating a statement made yesterday in the course of an interview by Lord Douglas of Hawick, eldest living son of the Marquis, to the effect that no member of his family except his father believes the charges against Wilde. In refutation of this statement the writer of the letter says:— "My mother, my sister and myself believe all the allegations against Oscar Wilde."
London, April 6.- Rev. A. E. Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, has written a letter repudiating the statement made in an interview by Lord Douglas, of Hawick, eldest living son of the Marquis, that no member of the family, except his father believes the charges against Wilde. In refutation, the writer of the letter says: "My mother, my sister and myself believe the allegations against Oscar Wilde."
Archibald Edward Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, has written a letter repudiating the statement made to-day in the course of an interview by Lord Douglas of Hawick, eldest living son of the Marquis, to the effect that no member of the family except his father believes the charges against Wilde. In refutation of this statement the writer of the letter says:
Archibald Edward Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Queensberry, has written a letter repudiating the statement, made today in the course of an interview by Lord Douglas of Hawich, eldest living son of the marquis, to the effect that no member of the family except his father believes the charges against Wilde. In refutation of the statement the writer of the letter says:
Archibald Edward Douglas, brother of the Marquis of Ouceusberry, has written a letter repudiating the statement made to-day in the course of an interview by Lord Douglas, of Hawke, eldest living son of tbe Marquis, to the effect that no member of the family, except his father, believes the charges against Wilde.
The charge against Wilde in the meantime is being prosecuted under the criminal law amendment act, under which his offense is a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty being two years for each conviction.
The charge against Wilde is meantime being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which classes his offense as a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment for each conviction.
The charge against Wilde is meantime being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment act, which classes his offence as a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty for which is two years’ imprisonment for each conviction.
The charge against Wilde is meantime being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment act, which classes his offence as a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment for each conviction.
The charge against Wilde is meantime being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment act, which classes his offense as a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty for which is two years' imprisonment for conviction.
The charge against Wilde is meantime being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which classes his offence as a misdemeanor, the maximum of penalty for which is two years imprisonment for each conviction.
The charge against Wilde is meantime being prosecuted under the criminal law amendment act, which classes his offence as a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment for each continuation.
The charge against Wilde is meantime being prosecuted under the criminal law amendment act, which classes his offence as a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment for each continuation.
The charge against Wilde is being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment act, which classes his offence is a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty for which is two years’ imprisonment for each conviction.
The charge against Wilde is being prosecuted under the criminal Law Amendment act, which classes his offence as a misdemeanor, the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment for each conviction.
The charge against Wilde is being prosecuted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which classifies his offense as a misdemeanor, the minimum sentence for which is two years' imprisonment for each conviction.
Oscar Wilde’s Arraignment.
Oscar Wilde’s friend, Taylor, was arrested and taken to the Bow street police station this morning.
Latar - Oscar Wilde's friend Taylor was arrested and taken to the Bow st. police station this morning.
LONDON, April 6. - Oscar Wilde's friend Taylor was arrested and taken to the Bow street police station this morning.
London, April 6 — Oscar Wilde’s friend Taylor was arrested and taken to the Bow Street Police Station this morning.
London, April 6. - Oscar Wilde's friend Taylor was arrested and taken to the Bow Street Police Station this morning.
LONDON, April 6 - Oscar Wilde's friend Taylor was arrested and taken to the Bow st police station this morning.
LONDON, April 6.– Oscar Wilde’s friend, Alfred Taylor, was arrested and taken to the Bow Street Police Station this morning.
London, Apr. 7. -- Oscar Wilde's friend Taylor was arrested and taken to the Bow street police station yesterday.
LONDON, April 6, 1895. - Oscar Wilde's friend, Alfred Taylor, was arrested and taken to the Bow Street Police Station this morning.
Oscar Wilde was arraigned before a magistrate this morning, charged with inciting young men to commit a foul crime, and also with having actually committed the crime himself.
Oscar Wilde was arraigned before a Magistrate this morning and charged with inciting young men to commit a foul crime and also with having actually committed the crime himself.
Oscar Wilde was arraigned before a magistrate this morning, and charged with inciting young men to commit a foul crime, and also with having actually committed the crime himself.
Oscar Wilde was arraigned before a magistrate this morning and charged with enticing young men to commit a foul crime and also with having actually committed the crime himself.
Wilde was arraigned before a magistrate this morning and charged with inciting young men to commit crime and also with having actually committed immoralities himself.
Oscar Wilde who spent the ningt in a cell, was arraigned before a magistrate this morning, and charged with enticing young men to commit a foul crime, and also with having actually committed the crime himself.
Wilde was arraigned before a magistrate this morning and charged with inciting young men to commit and also with having actually committed immoralities himself.
London, April 7 — Wilde’s friend, Taylor, was arrested today. Wilde was arraigned this morning charged with inciting young men to commit a foul crime and also having committed the crime himself.
London, April 6. — Wilde’s friend Taylor was arrested to-day. Wilde was arraigned this morning, charged with inciting young men to commit foul crime; also having committed the crime himself.
Oscar Wilde's friend, Alfred Taylor, was arrested and taken to the Bow street police station this morning. Oscar Wilde was arraigned before a public magistrate this morning and charged with inciting young men to commit a foul crime, and also with having actually committed the crime himself.
When Wilde was arraigned in the Bow street police court this morning Alfred Taylor was also placed in the prisoners’ dock, charged with being accessory to Wilde’s crimes. As Taylor stepped into the dock Wilde smilingly recognized him. Taylor is a man of medium size, with sharp features, and a fair complexion. Charles Parker, 19 years of age, was the first witness examined. He gave in detail the particulars of his introduction to Wilde by Taylor, and stated that the latter said Wilde was "good for money." Parker testified that he had frequently dined with Wilde at various restaurants, and detailed the conversation between them on these occasions.
He also told of visits to the Savoy Hotel with Wilde, and of meeting Wilde at his chambers in St. James’ place. He made frequent visits to the latter place. Parker described the conduct of himself and Wilde at these meetings, and swore that he had received money and other presents upon almost every occasion. The story told by Parker, if true, proves the case of the treasury against Wilde.
William Parker, a brother of the first witness, called, was placed on the stand and confirmed the story of the first meeting between his brother and Wilde in March, 1893, Charles Parker was bound over in the sum of £85 to give evidence in the Old Bailey proceedings.
William Parker, a brother of the first witness called, was placed on the stand and confirmed the story of the first meeting between his brother and Wilde in March, 1893. Charles Parker was bound over in the sum of £85 to give evidence in the Old Bailey proceedings.
William Parker, a brother of the first witness called, was placed on the stand and confirmed the story of the first meeting between his brother and Wilde in March, 1893.
William Parker, a brother of the first witness called, was placed on the stand and confirmed the story of the first meeting between his brother and Wilde, in March, 1893.
Wm. Parler, a brother of the first witness called, was placed on the stand and confirmed the story of the first meeting between his brother and Wilde in March, 1893.
The landlady of the house in which Taylor lodged, was next examined, and gave testimony regarding the youths who attended the tea parties given by Taylor. She said she had heard Taylor address somebody as Oscar, but did not recognize Wilde as having been one of her lodger’s visitors.
The landlady of the house in which Taylor lodged was next examined, and gave testimony regarding the youths who attended the tea parties given by Taylor. She said she had heard Taylor address somebody as Oscar, but did not recognize Wilde as having been one of her lodger’s visitors.
The landlady of the house in which Taylor lodged was next examined, and gave testimony regarding the youths who attended the tea parties given by Taylor. She said she had heard Taylor address somebody as "Oscar," but did not recognize Wilde as having been one of her lodger’s visitors.
The landlady of the house in which Taylor lodged was next examined and gave testimony regarding the youths who attended the tea parties given by Taylor. She said she had heard Taylor address somebody as Oscar, but did not recognize Wilde as being one of her lodger’s visitors.
The landlady of the house in which Taylor lodged gave testimony regarding the youths who attended the tea parties given by Taylor. She said she heard Taylor addressed somebody as Oscar, but did not recognize Wilde as having been one of her lodgers’ visitors.
William Parker, a brother of the first witness called, was placed on the stand, and confirmed the story of the first meeting between his brother and Wilde In March, 1893. The landlady of the house in which Taylor lodged was next examined, and gave testimony regarding the youths who attended the tea parties given by Taylor. She said she had heard Taylor address somebody as Oscar, but did not recognize Wilde as having been one of her lodger's visitors.
Wood’s Relations with the Poet.
Alfred Wood, the man whose passage to America was paid by Wilde, upon being sworn, testified that he met Wilde at the Cafe Royal, in January, 1893. He went to Wilde’s house, No. 16 Tite street, Chelsea southwest, where he remained with Wilde in a bedroom for three hours. WItness described in detail what occurred during this time. He said he was drunk at the time of this visit. He also stated that Wilde had often given him money and had visited him at his lodgings, but strenuously denied that any wrong doing had occurred during these visits.
Alfred Wood, the man whose passage to America was paid by Wilde, upon being sworn, testified that he met Wilde at the Café Royal in January, 1893. He went to Wilde’s house, 16 Tite street, Chelsea, S.W., where he remained for some time. Witness described in detail what occured during this time. He said he was drunk at the time of this visit. He also said that Wilde had often given him money and had visited him at his lodgings, but strenuously denied that any wrongdoing had occured during these visits.
Alfred Wood, the man whose passage to America was paid by Wilde, testified that he met Wilde at the Cafe Royale in January, 1893. He went to Wilde's house, No. 16 Tite street, Chelsea, S. W., where he remained with Wilde in a room three hours. He said he was drunk at the time of this visit. He also stated that Wilde had often given him money and had visited him to his lodgings, but strenuously denied that any wrong-doing had occured during these visits.
In regard to this point the witness was strongly pressed by the magistrate, but reiterated his denials of misconduct, saying that Wilde had simply called upon him. Continuing, the witness said Wilde had given him altogether £35, upon the receipt of which sum he had handed over to Wilde a number of letters written by him. Subsequently, he went to America, remaining abroad fourteen months. He desired to go to America, he said, to get away from Wilde and certain other persons who are now absent from England.
Continuing, the witness said Wilde had given him altogether £35, upon the receipt of which sum he had handed over to Wilde a number of letters written by him. Subsequently he went to America, remaining abroad fourteen months. He desired to go to America, he said, to get away from Wilde and certain other persons who are now absent from England.
The witness said Wilde had given him altogether £35, upon the receipt of which sum he had handed over to Wilde a number of letters written by him. Subsequently he went to America, remaining abroad fourteen months. He desired to go to America, he said, to get away from Wilde and certain other persons who are now absent from England.
The witness said Wilde has given him altogether £35, upon tbe receipt of which sum he had handed over to Wilde a number of letters written by him. Subsequently he went to America, remaining abroad fourteen months. He desired to go to America, he said, to get away from Wilde and certain other persons, who are now absent from England.
The next witness was a youth named Mayor, who absolutely denied that he had been guilty of any misconduct with Wilde and also denied positively that he had admitted to the Marquis of Queensberry or the latter’s solicitor, that there had been anything wrong in his relations with Wilde.
The next witness was a youth named Mevor, who absolutely denied that he had been guilty of any misconduct with Wilde, and also denied positively that he had admitted to the Marquis of Queensberry or the latter’s solicitor that there had been anything wrong in his relations with Wilde.
The next witness was a youth named Maver, who absolutely denied that he had been guilty of any misconduct with Wilde and also denied positively that the had admitted to the Marquis of Queensberry or the latter’s solliciter that there had been anything wrong in his relations with Wilde.
The next witness was a youth named Mavor, who absolutely denied that he had been guilty of any misconduct with Wilde, and also denied positively that he bad admitted to the Marquis of Queensbury or the latters solicitor that there bad been anything wrong in his relations with Wilde.
Wilde and Taylor were remanded in custody. A request was made that the prisoners be admitted to bail, but bail was refused.
Wilde and Taylor were remanded in custody. A request was made that the prisoners be admitted to bail, but bail was refused.
Wilde and Taylor were remanded in custody. A request was made that the prisoners be admitted to bail, but bail was refused.
Wilde and Taylor were remanded in custody. A request was made that the prisoners be admitted to bail, but bail was refused.
Wilde and Taylor were remanded in custody. A request was made that the prisoners be admitted to bail, but bail was refused.
Wilde and Taylor were remanded in custody. A request was made that the prisoners be admitted to bail, but bail was refused.
Wilde and Taylor were remanded in custody. A request was made that the prisoners be admitted to bail, but bail was refused.
Wilde and Taylor were remanded in custody. A request was made that the prisoners be adinitted to ball, but bail was refused.
Wilde and Taylor were demanded in Court today. A request was made that the prisoners be admitted to bail, but bail was refused.
The Westminster Gazette, commenting on the result of Wilde’s prosecution of the Marquis of Queensberry, says: "The case proves that it is untrue to say that art has nothing to do with morality. Wilde’s art rests on a basis of rottenness and corruption."
The Westminster Gazette, commenting on the result of Wilde’s prosecution of the Marquis of Queensberry, says:— "This cave proves that it is untrue to say that art has noting to do with morality. Wilde’s art rests on a basis of rottenness and corruption."
The Westminster Gazette, commenting on the result of Wilde's prosecution of the Marquis of Queensberry. says: -"The case proves that it is untrue to say art has nothing to do with morality. Wilde's art rests on a basis of rottenness and corruption."
The Westminster Gazette, commenting on the result of Wilde's prosecution of the Marquis of Queensberry, says: "The case proves that it is untrue to say art has nothing to do with morality. Wilde’s art rests on a basis of rottenness and corruption."
The Westminster Gazette, commenting on the Wilde case, says: "The case proves that it is unsafe to say that art has nothing to do with immorality. Wilde’s art rests on a basis of rottenness and corruption."
The Westminster Gazette, commenting on the Wilde case says: The case proves that it is untrue to say art has nothing to do with morality. Wilde art rests on a basis of rottenness and corruption.
The Westminster Gazette, commenting on the Wilde case, says: It proves that it is untrue to say art has nothing to do with morality. Wilde's art rests on the basis of rottenness and corruption.