5 Apr 1895 - The Globe (London): Difference between revisions
DaleSheldon (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: visualeditor |
DaleSheldon (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Sir E. Clarke: Did you, in consequence of these letters, give him ₤10? - I certainly lent or gave him ₤5 about that time. | Sir E. Clarke: Did you, in consequence of these letters, give him ₤10? - I certainly lent or gave him ₤5 about that time. | ||
Counsel proceeded to read other letters from Shelley, in which the writer said he would be very thankful if Mr. Wilde would use his influence to try to get him (Shelley) some employment at a publisher's or newspaper office. He declared that he could not go on living in the present manner. | |||
In answer to Sir E. Clarke, Mr. Wilde said he had no other relations with Shelley than those described in these letters. In regard Alfonso Conway, whom he met at Worthing, witness said he never heard that he was a newspaper boy, nor, indeed, that he had any connection with literature in any form (a laugh). When the various young men were introduced by Taylor, witness had no reason to suspect them to be disreputable persons, and nothing led him to think there was anything against their characters. It was on account of the very strong pressure put upon him by the Queensberry family that he did not take action against the defendant when the letters which had been read were received from the Marquis. After the interview with the defendan in Tite-street, witness saw an M.P. representing the Queensberry family, and strong pressure was put upon him not to proceed in the matter. | |||
At the request of Mr. Carson, a postcard from Lord Alfred Douglas to his father was read. It contained the following: - | |||
"Ever since your exhibition at O.W.'s house, I have made a point of appearing with him at many public restaurants. I shall continue to go to any of these places whenever I choose, and with whom I choose. I am of age and my own master. If O.W. prosecuted you for libel in the criminal courts, you would get seven years' penal servitude for your outrageous libels. Much as I despise you, I am anxious to avoid this for the sake of the family, and if you try to assault me, I shall defend myself with a loaded revolver which I always carry, and if either he or I shoots you, we should be justified as acting in self-defence against a violent and dangerous rough, and I think if you were dead not many people would miss you." | |||
Answering a question by a juryman, witness said the editor of the "Chameleon" was not a personal friend of his. The magazine was not for private, but for public circulation. | |||
==THE DEFENSE== | |||
Mr. Carson then opened the case for the defense. He said he could not but feel that a very grave responsability rested upon him in placing the case before the jury. So far as Lord Queensberry was concerned, in any act he had done, in any letter he had written, or in the card which had put him in his present position, he withdrew nothing. What he had done he had done premeditatedly. He had tried, at all hazards, to save his son. Whether he was right or wrong, the jury had now, to some extent, the information upon which form of judgment. Lord Queensberry, notwithstanding the many elements of prejudice which Sir E. Clarke though fit, in his opening address, to introduce in the case, had acted absolutely consistently all through, and if the facts stated in his letter as to Mr. Wilde's reputation and acts were correct, then he was justified in doing all th ecould to stop what he believed might prove disasterous to his son. It was said that the names of eminet and distinguished persons were introduced in Lord Queensberry's letters. For his (Mr. Carson's) part he was glad that these letters had been read, because the suggestion apparently had been that at some time these eminent person were in some way or other mixed up with these charges against Mr. Wilde. It was quite clear, now that these letters had been placed before the court, that there was no ground for this suggestion. The matters with which these distinguished persons were connected were purly political. One of Lord Queensberry's sons had been made a meber of the House of Lords, and, rightly or wrongly, Lord Queensberry did not see why this honour should have been conferred upon his eldest son, while it was not conferred upon himself. Therefore the names of these eminent politicians and statesman had been introduced. From the beginning to the end, Lord Queensberry had been influenced as regarded Mr. Wilde by the one hope that he might save his son. Mr. Wilde's character had been made known to Lord Queensberry - a character which he had gained by his writings, and the scandals connected with the Savoy Hotel. He had been going about with young men who were not his co-equals, he had been associated with men who, it would be proved, were well known as some of the most immoral characters in London. Counsel next strongly commented on the absence of Taylor from the witness box; but stated that he was not surprised that this man had not been called. The jury owuld hear from witnesses - and nothing could be more painful than to have to call those witnesses - of the manner Wilde acted towards them. The jury would hear a good deal more about Taylor form the witnesses as the case went on; they would hear of the kind of life this man led; and of the extraordinary den that he kept in Little College - street. The curtains were always dawn at this house; there were luxurious and gorgeous hangings at the windows; the room was luxuriously furnished; and the jury wold hear the extraordinary life that Taylor was leading there. | |||
<b>Page 4, Column 4, Link</b> | <b>Page 4, Column 4, Link</b> | ||
Revision as of 06:01, 26 May 2024
Page 2, Column 2, Link
The following report of yesterday's proceedings appeared in our later editions last evening: -
Mr. Oscar Wilde, in re-examination by Sir E. Clarke, said that letters written by Lord Queensberry were communicated to him by the persons to whom they were addressed. These were read by councel. The first, addressed to Lord Alfred Douglas, ran: -
"Alfred, - It is extremely painful to me to have to write to you in the strain I must, but please understand I decline to receive any answers from you in writing in return. After your previous hysterical impertinent ones, I refuse to be annoyed with such, and must ask you, if you have anything to say, to come here and say it in person. First, 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 loaf and loll about and do nothing? All the time you were wasting at Oxford I was put off with the assurance that you were eventually to go into the Civil Service or to the Foreign Office, and then I was put off by an assurance of your going to the Bar. It appears to me you intend to do nothing.... I utterly decline, however, just to supply you with sufficient funds to loaf about. YOu are preparing a wretched future for yourself... Secondly, I come to a more painful part of this letter, your infamous intimacy with the man Wilde. It must either cease or I will disown you, and stop all money supply. I am not going to try and analyse this intimacy, and make no accusations.... No wonder people are talking as they are if you are seen as I saw you. Also, I now hear on good authority - but this may be false - that his wife is petitioning to divorce him... Is this true, or do you not know of it? The horror has come to my mind that it was possible you may perhaps be brought into this. If I thought the actual thing was true, and it becomes public property, I should be quite justified in shooting him at sight... - Your disgusted, so-called father, QUEENSBERRY"
Replying to a question, Mr. Wilde said there was not the slightest foundation for the remark as to divorce proceedings.
To the letter a telegram was sent in reply, "What a funny little man you are - ALFRED DOUGLAS". The next letter began, "You impertinent young Jackanapes," and went on: -
"If you come to me with any of your impertinence, I shall give you the thrashing you richly deserve. The only excuse for you ist hat you must be crazy. All I can say is that if I catch you with that man again, I will make a public scandal in a way you little dream of. It is already a supressed one. I prefer an open one."
A letter from the Marquis to Mr. Alfred Montgomery, his father-in-law, was next read: "Sir, - ... Your daughter is the person who is supporting my son to defy me... Last night I received a very quibbling sort of message from her, saying the boy denied having been at the Savoy for the last year.... As a matter of fact, he did so, and there has been a scandal every since... I saw Drumlanrig here (Maidenhead) on the river last night, which rather upset me..."
Another letter was read, and then,
Sir E. Clarke asked: Having regard to the contents of those lettes did you or did you not think it right to disregard the wishes referred to in them? - I thought it right to entirely disregard them.
And I think that your friendship with Lady Queensberry and her sons has continued up to the present time? - Yes.
In further re-examination the witness said that several of the young men whose names had been mentiond in the course of the case, were introduced to him by Taylor. He was introduced to Taylor in 1892 by a gentleman of high position and repute. At the itme of the introduction Taylor was living in Little College-street. He ahd lost a great deal of money he had inherited, but he (witness) believed he had still a share in an important businss. Taylor was educated at Marlborough, and was very accomplished. Witness had never any reason to believe that he was either immoral or disreputable. Witness was introduced to the young man Shelley by his publisher as a person who had literary tastes. He was the assistant to witness's publisher, and in the course of business witness naturally came in contact with him. They became intimate, and he presented Shelley with a copy of his works.
Sir E. Clarke put in several letters from Shelley to Mr. Wilde. In some of these the writer thanked Mr. Wilde for some pomegranates and tickets for the theatre, and stated that he could never forget his kindness. In another letter Shelley said he had had a horrible interivew with his father, and had been told to leave the house; that he was on the verge of despair, and that he was anxious to do some work. In April, 1894, he asked Mr. Wilde to help him, as he was in absolute poverty, and had lost his health and strength in trying to keep himself on ₤4, 3s. 4d per month. He added that he wanted to go and rest somewhere in Cornwall for two weeks, and expressed the determination to try to live a Christian life, and accept porverty as a part of his religion; but pointed out that he must have health.
Sir E. Clarke: Did you, in consequence of these letters, give him ₤10? - I certainly lent or gave him ₤5 about that time.
Counsel proceeded to read other letters from Shelley, in which the writer said he would be very thankful if Mr. Wilde would use his influence to try to get him (Shelley) some employment at a publisher's or newspaper office. He declared that he could not go on living in the present manner.
In answer to Sir E. Clarke, Mr. Wilde said he had no other relations with Shelley than those described in these letters. In regard Alfonso Conway, whom he met at Worthing, witness said he never heard that he was a newspaper boy, nor, indeed, that he had any connection with literature in any form (a laugh). When the various young men were introduced by Taylor, witness had no reason to suspect them to be disreputable persons, and nothing led him to think there was anything against their characters. It was on account of the very strong pressure put upon him by the Queensberry family that he did not take action against the defendant when the letters which had been read were received from the Marquis. After the interview with the defendan in Tite-street, witness saw an M.P. representing the Queensberry family, and strong pressure was put upon him not to proceed in the matter.
At the request of Mr. Carson, a postcard from Lord Alfred Douglas to his father was read. It contained the following: -
"Ever since your exhibition at O.W.'s house, I have made a point of appearing with him at many public restaurants. I shall continue to go to any of these places whenever I choose, and with whom I choose. I am of age and my own master. If O.W. prosecuted you for libel in the criminal courts, you would get seven years' penal servitude for your outrageous libels. Much as I despise you, I am anxious to avoid this for the sake of the family, and if you try to assault me, I shall defend myself with a loaded revolver which I always carry, and if either he or I shoots you, we should be justified as acting in self-defence against a violent and dangerous rough, and I think if you were dead not many people would miss you."
Answering a question by a juryman, witness said the editor of the "Chameleon" was not a personal friend of his. The magazine was not for private, but for public circulation.
THE DEFENSE
Mr. Carson then opened the case for the defense. He said he could not but feel that a very grave responsability rested upon him in placing the case before the jury. So far as Lord Queensberry was concerned, in any act he had done, in any letter he had written, or in the card which had put him in his present position, he withdrew nothing. What he had done he had done premeditatedly. He had tried, at all hazards, to save his son. Whether he was right or wrong, the jury had now, to some extent, the information upon which form of judgment. Lord Queensberry, notwithstanding the many elements of prejudice which Sir E. Clarke though fit, in his opening address, to introduce in the case, had acted absolutely consistently all through, and if the facts stated in his letter as to Mr. Wilde's reputation and acts were correct, then he was justified in doing all th ecould to stop what he believed might prove disasterous to his son. It was said that the names of eminet and distinguished persons were introduced in Lord Queensberry's letters. For his (Mr. Carson's) part he was glad that these letters had been read, because the suggestion apparently had been that at some time these eminent person were in some way or other mixed up with these charges against Mr. Wilde. It was quite clear, now that these letters had been placed before the court, that there was no ground for this suggestion. The matters with which these distinguished persons were connected were purly political. One of Lord Queensberry's sons had been made a meber of the House of Lords, and, rightly or wrongly, Lord Queensberry did not see why this honour should have been conferred upon his eldest son, while it was not conferred upon himself. Therefore the names of these eminent politicians and statesman had been introduced. From the beginning to the end, Lord Queensberry had been influenced as regarded Mr. Wilde by the one hope that he might save his son. Mr. Wilde's character had been made known to Lord Queensberry - a character which he had gained by his writings, and the scandals connected with the Savoy Hotel. He had been going about with young men who were not his co-equals, he had been associated with men who, it would be proved, were well known as some of the most immoral characters in London. Counsel next strongly commented on the absence of Taylor from the witness box; but stated that he was not surprised that this man had not been called. The jury owuld hear from witnesses - and nothing could be more painful than to have to call those witnesses - of the manner Wilde acted towards them. The jury would hear a good deal more about Taylor form the witnesses as the case went on; they would hear of the kind of life this man led; and of the extraordinary den that he kept in Little College - street. The curtains were always dawn at this house; there were luxurious and gorgeous hangings at the windows; the room was luxuriously furnished; and the jury wold hear the extraordinary life that Taylor was leading there.
Page 4, Column 4, Link
On the resumption of the hearing to-day of the charge against the Marquis of Queensberry for libelling Mr. Oscar Wilde, the court at the Old Bailey was again crowded. The Judge took his seat at 10.36. Sir Edward 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. Besley, Q.C., with Mr. Monckton, watching the proceedings on behalf of Lord Douglas of Hawick, the eldest son of the Marquis.
Mr. Carson, continuing