The Trial of Oscar Wilde Part 15

The plea of "Not Guilty" was recorded.

The case for the prosecution was opened by calling Edward Sh.e.l.ley, the young man who had been employed by the Vigo Street publishers. Sh.e.l.ley repeated the story of the beginning and the progress of his intimacy with Wilde. It began, he said, in 1891; in March 1893, they quarrelled. The witness had been subjected by the prisoner to attempts at improper conduct. Oscar had, to be plain, on several occasions, placed his hand on the private parts of the witness and sought to put his, witness's, hand in the same indelicate position as regards Wilde's own person. Witness resented these acts at the time; had told Wilde not to be 'a beast', and the latter expressed his sorrow. "But I am so fond of you, Edward," he had said.

The Witness wrote Wilde that he would not see him again. He spoke in the letter of these and other acts of impropriety and made use of the expression, "I was entrapped." Witness explained to the court, "He knew I admired him very much and he took advantage of me--of my admiration and--well, I won't say innocence. I don't know what to call it."

These are some of the letters which Sh.e.l.ley wrote to Wilde:

October 27, 1892.

Oscar: Will you be at home on Sunday evening next? I am most anxious to see you. I would have called this evening, but I am suffering from nervousness, the result of insomnia and am obliged to remain at home.

I have longed to see you all through the week. I have much to tell you. Do not think me forgetful in not coming before, because I shall never forget your kindness, and am conscious that I can never sufficiently express my thankfulness.

Another letter ran:

October 25, 1894.

Oscar: I want to go away and rest somewhere--I think in Cornwall for two weeks. I am determined to live a truly Christian life, and I accept poverty as part of my religion, but I must have health. I have so much to do for my mother.

Sir EDWARD CLARKE.--"Now, Mr. Sh.e.l.ley, do you mean to tell the jury that having in your mind, that this man had behaved disgracefully towards you, you wrote that letter of October 27, 1892?"

WITNESS.--"Yes. Because after those few occurrences he treated me very well. He seemed really sorry for what he had done."

Sir EDWARD.--"He introduced you to his home?"

WITNESS.--"Yes, to his wife. I dined with them and he seemed to take a real interest in me."

Sir EDWARD.--"You have met Lord Alfred Douglas?"

WITNESS.--"Yes, at his rooms at the 'Varsity'."

Sir EDWARD.--"He was kind to you?"

WITNESS.--"Yes. He gave me a suit of clothes while I was there."

Sir EDWARD.--"And you found two letters in one of the pockets?"

WITNESS.--"Yes."

Sir EDWARD.--"Who from?"

WITNESS.--"From Mr. Wilde to Lord Alfred."

Sir EDWARD.--"How did they begin?"

WITNESS.--"One was addressed, "Dear Alfred", and the other to "Dear Bogie."

SOLICITOR-GENERAL.--"When did you first meet Lord Alfred?"

WITNESS.--"At Taylor's rooms in Little College Street."

SOLICITOR-GENERAL.--"Then you visited him at the University?"

WITNESS.--"Yes."

The Solicitor-General then proceeded to ask the witness as to the terms upon which Wilde and Lord Alfred appeared to be; but this has been a prohibited topic from first to last and was now successfully objected to.

Charles Parker was called and he repeated his evidence at great length, relating the most disgusting facts in a perfectly serene manner. He said that Wilde invariably began his "campaign"--before arriving at the final nameless act--with indecencies. He used to require the witness to do what is vulgarly known as "tossing him off", explained Parker quite unabashed, "and he would often do the same to me. He suggested two or three times that I should permit him to insert "it" in my mouth, but I never allowed that." He gave other details equally shocking.

A few other witnesses were examined, and the rest of the day having been spent in the reading over of the evidence, Sir Edward Clarke submitted that in respect of certain counts of the indictment there was no evidence to go to the jury.

The Solicitor-General submitted that there was ample evidence to go to the jury, who alone could decide as to whether or not it was worthy of belief.

The Judge said he thought the point in respect to the Savoy Hotel incident was just on the line, but he thought that the wiser and safer course was to allow the count in respect of this matter to go to the jury. At the same time, he felt justified, if the occasion should arise, in reserving the point for the Court of Appeal. He was inclined to think it was a matter, the responsibility of deciding which, rested with the jury.

Sir Edward Clarke submitted next that there was no corroboration of the evidence of this witness. The letters of Sh.e.l.ley pointed to the inference that the latter might have been the victim of delusions, and, judging from his conduct in the witness-box, he appeared to have a peculiar sort of exaltation in and for himself.

The Solicitor-General maintained that Sh.e.l.ley's evidence was corroborated as far as it could possibly be. Of course, in a case of this kind there was an enormous difficulty in producing corroboration of eye-witnesses to the actual commission of the alleged act.

The judge held that Sh.e.l.ley must be treated on the footing of an accomplice. He adhered, after a most careful consideration of the point, to his former view, that there was no corroboration of the nature required by the Act to warrant conviction, and therefore he felt justified in withdrawing that count from the jury.

Sir Edward Clarke made the same submission in the case of Wood.

The Solicitor General protested against any decision being given on these questions other than by a verdict of the jury. In his opinion the case of the man Wood could not be withheld from the jury. He submitted that there was every element of strong corroboration of Wood's story, having regard especially to the strange and suspicious circ.u.mstances under which Wilde and Wood became acquainted.

Sir Edward Clarke quoted from the summing-up of Mr. Justice Charles on the last trial relative to the directions which he gave the jury in the law respecting the corroboration of the evidence of an accomplice.

The judge was of opinion that the count affecting Wood ought to go to the jury, and he gave reasons why it ought not to be withheld.

Sir Edward Clarke after a private pa.s.sage of arms with the Solicitor-General in respect to the need for corroborative evidence, then began a brief, but able appeal to the jury on behalf of his client, after which Wilde entered the witness-box. He formally denied the allegations against him. Sir Frank Lockwood, in cross-examination: "Now, Mr. Wilde, I should like you to tell me where Lord A. Douglas is now?"

WITNESS.--"He is in Paris, at the Hotel des Deux Mondes."

Sir FRANK.--"How long has he been there?"

WITNESS.--"Three weeks."

Sir FRANK.--"Have you been in communication with him?"

WITNESS.--"Certainly. These charges are founded on sand. Our friends.h.i.+p is founded on a rock. There has been no need to cancel our acquaintance."

Sir FRANK.--"Was Lord Alfred in London at the time of the trial of the Marquis of Queensberry?"

WITNESS.--"Yes, for about three weeks. He went abroad at my request before the first trial on these counts came on."

Sir FRANK.--"May we take it that the two letters from you to him were samples of the kind you wrote him?"

WITNESS.--"No. They were exceptional letters born of the two exceptional letters he sent to me. It is possible, I a.s.sure you, to express poetry in prose."