Part 7

Then there were the events described as having occured at the Savoy Hotel in March 1892. He would ask the jury to be careful in the evidence of the chamber-maid, Jane Cotter, and the interpretation they put upon it. If her evidence and that of the Masseur Mijji, were true, then Wilde's evidence on that part of the case was untrue, and the jury must use their own discretion. He did not wish to enlarge upon this most unpleasant part of the whole unpleasant case, but it was necessary to remind the jury as discreetly as he could that the chamber-maid had objected to making the bed on several occasions after Wilde and Atkins had been in the bed-room alone together. There were, she had affirmed, indications on the sheets that conduct of the grossest kind had been indulged in. He thought it his duty to remind the jury that there might be an innocent explanation of these stains, though the evidence of Jane Cotter certainly afforded a kind of corroboration of these charges and of Atkins's own story. In reference to the case of Wood, he contrasted Wood's account with that of Wilde.

It seemed that Lord Alfred Douglas had met Wood at Taylor's rooms. In response to a telegram from the former, Wood went to the Café Royal and there met Wilde for the first time, Wilde speaking first. On the other hand, Wilde represented that Wood spoke first. The jury might think that, in any case, the circumstances of that meeting were remarkable, especially when taken in conjunction with what followed. There was no doubt that Wood had fallen into evil courses and he and Allen had extracted the sum of £300 in blackmail. The interview between Wilde and Wood prior to the latter's departure for America was remarkable. A sum of money, said to be £30, was given by Wilde to Wood, and Wood returned some of Wilde's letters that had somehow come into his possession. Wood, however, kept back one letter which got into Allen's possession. Wood got £5 more on the following day, went to America, and while there wrote to Taylor a letter in which occured the passage. "Tell Oscar if he likes he can send me a draft for an Easter Egg." It would be for the jury to consider what would have been the inner meaning of these and other transactions.

As to the prisoner Taylor, he had, on his own admission, led a life of idleness, and got through a fortune of £45,000. It was alleged that the prisoner had virtually turned his apartments into a bagnio or brothel, in which young men took the place of prostitutes, and that his character in this regard was well known to those who were secretly given to this particular vice. One of the offences imputed to Taylor had reference to Charles Parker, who had spoken of the peculiar arrangement of the rooms. There were two bedrooms in the inner room with folding doors between and the windows were heavily draped, so that no one from the opposite houses could possibly see what was going on inside. Heavy curtains, it was said, hung before all the doors, so that it could not be possible for an eave's-dropper to hear what was proceeding inside. There was a curiously shaped sofa in the sitting-room and the whole aspect of the room resembled, it was asserted, a fashionable resort for vice.

Wilde was undoubtedly present at some of the tea parties given there, and did not profess to be surprised at what he saw there. It had been shown that both the Parkers went to these rooms, and further, that Charles Parker had received £30 of the blackmail extorted by Wood and Allen.

Charles Parker's evidence was therefore doubly-tainted like that of Wood and Atkins, but his evidence was to some extent confirmed by that of his brother William. Some parts of Charles Parker's evidence were also corroborated by other witnesses, as for instance, by Marjorie Bancroft, who swore that she saw Wilde visit Charles Parker's rooms in Park Walk.

It was admitted that this Parker visited Wilde at St. James' Place. Charles Parker had been arrested with Taylor in the Fitzroy Square raid and this went to show that they were in the habit of associating with those suspected of offences of the kind alleged. Both, however, were on that occasion discharged and Parker enlisted in the army. It was quite manifest that Charles Parker was of a low class of morality.

That concluded the various charges made in this case and he had very little to add. Mavor's evidence had little or no value with reference to the issues now before the jury, except as showing how he became acquainted with Wilde and Taylor. So far as it went, Mavor's evidence was rather in favour of Wilde than otherwise and nothing indecent had been proved against that witness.

In conclusion, his lordship submitted the case to the jury in the confident hope that they would do justice to themselves on the one hand, and to the two defendants on the other. The learned judge concluded by further directing the jury as to the issues, and asked them to form their opinions on the evidence, and to give the case their careful consideration.

The judge left the following questions to the jury:--

FIRST, whether Wilde committed certain offences with Shelley, Wood, with a person or persons unknown at the Savoy Hotel, or with Charles Parker?

SECONDLY, whether Taylor procured the commission of those acts or any of them?

THIRDLY, did Wilde or Taylor, or either of them attempt to get Atkins to commit certain offences with Wilde, and FOURTHLY, did Taylor commit certain acts with either Charles Parker or Wood?

The Jury retired at 1.35, the summing-up of the judge having taken exactly three hours.

At three o'clock a communication was brought from the jury, and conveyed by the Clerk of arraigns to the Judge, and shortly afterwards the jury had luncheon taken in to them.

At 4.15 the judge sent for the Clerk of arraigns, Mr. Avory, who proceeded to his lordship's private room.

Subsequently, Mr. Avory went to the jury, apparently with a communication from the judge and returned in a few minutes to the judge's private room.

Shortly before five o'clock the usher brought a telegram from one of the jurors, and after it had been shown to the clerk of arraigns it was allowed to be despatched.

Eventually the jury returned into court at a quarter past five o'clock.

THE VERDICT

THE JUDGE.--"I have received a communication from you to the effect that you are unable to arrive at an agreement. Now, is there anything you desire to ask me in reference to the case?"

THE FOREMAN.--"I have put that question to my fellow-jurymen, my lord, and I do not think there is any doubt that we cannot agree upon three of the questions."

THE JUDGE.--"I find from the entry which you have written against the various subdivisions of No. 1 that you cannot agree as to any of those subdivisions?"

THE FOREMAN.--"That is so, my lord."

THE JUDGE.--"Is there no prospect of an agreement if you retire to your room?"

THE FOREMAN.--"I fear not."

THE JUDGE.--"You have not been inconvenienced; I ordered what you required, and there is no prospect that, with a little more deliberation, you may come to an agreement as to some of them?"

THE FOREMAN.--"My fellow-jurymen say there is no possibility."

THE JUDGE.--"I am very unwilling to prejudice your deliberations, and I have no doubt that you have done your best to arrive at an agreement. On the other hand I would point out to you that the inconveniences of a new trial are very great. If you thought that by deliberating a reasonable time you could arrive at a conclusion upon any of the questions I have asked you, I would ask you to do so."

THE FOREMAN.--"We considered the matter before coming into court and I do not think there is any chance of agreement. We have considered it again and again."

THE JUDGE.--"If you tell me that, I do not think I am justified in detaining you any longer."

Sir EDWARD CLARKE.--"I wish to ask, my lord, that a verdict may be given in the conspiracy counts."

Mr. GILL.--"I wish to oppose that."

THE JUDGE.--"I directed the acquittal of the prisoners on the conspiracy counts this morning. I thought that was the right course to adopt, and the same remark might be made with regard to the two counts in which Taylor was charged with improper conduct towards Wood and Parker. It was unfortunate that the real and material questions which had occupied the jury's attention for such a length of time were matters upon which the jury were unable to agree. Upon these matters and upon the counts which were concerned with them, I must discharge the jury."

Sir EDWARD CLARKE.--"I wish to apply for bail, then for M. Wilde."

Mr. HALL.--"And I make the same application on behalf of Taylor."

THE JUDGE.--"I don't feel able to accede to the applications."

Sir EDWARD.--"I shall probably renew the application, my lord."

THE JUDGE.--"That would be to a judge in chambers."

Mr. GILL.--"The case will assuredly be tried again and probably it will go to the next Sessions."

The two prisoners, who had listened to all this very attentively, were then conducted from the dock. Wilde had listened to the foreman of the jury's statement without any show of feeling.

It was stated that the failure of the jury to agree upon a verdict was owing to three out of the twelve being unable upon the evidence placed before them to arrive at any other conclusion than that of "Not Guilty."

The following day Mr. Baron Pollock decided that Oscar Wilde should be allowed out on bail in his own recognisances of £2,500 and two sureties of £1,250 each. Wilde was brought up at Bow Street next day and the sureties attended. After a further application, bail in his case was granted and he went out of prison, for the present a free man, but with NEMESIS, in the shape of the second trial, awaiting him!

* * * * *

The second trial of Oscar Wilde, with its dramatic finale, for no one thought much of its consequences to Alfred Taylor, came on in the third week of May at the Old Bailey.

It was agreed to take the cases of the prisoners separately, Taylor's first. Sir Edward Clarke, who still represented Wilde, stated that he should make an application at the end of Taylor's trial that Wilde's case should stand over till the next sessions. His lordship said that application had better be postponed till the end of the first trial, significantly adding, "If there should be an acquittal, so much the better for the other prisoner." Meanwhile Wilde was to be released on bail.

Sir Francis Lockwood, who now represented the prosecution, then went over all the details of the intimacy of the Parkers and Wood with Taylor and Wilde and called Charles Parker, who repeated his former evidence, including a very serious allegation against the prisoner. He stated in so many words that Taylor had kept him at his rooms for a whole week during which time they rarely went out, and had repeatedly committed sodomy with him. The witness unblushingly asserted that they slept together and that Taylor called him "Darling" and referred to him as "my little Wife." When he left Taylor's rooms the latter paid him some money, said he should never want for cash and that he would introduce him to men "prepared to pay for that kind of thing." Cross-examined; Charles Parker admitted that he had previously been guilty of this offence, but had determined never to submit to such treatment again. Taylor over-persuaded him. He was nearly drunk and incapable, the first time, of making a moral resistance.

Alfred Wood also described his acquaintance with Taylor and his visits to what he termed the "snuggery" at Little College Street, but which quite as appropriately could have been designed by a name which would have the additional merit of strictly describing it and of rhyming with it at the same time! It was not at all clear, however, that Taylor was responsible, at least directly, for the introduction of Alfred Wood to Wilde as the indictment suggested. This was effected by a third person, whose name had not as yet been introduced into the case.

Mrs. Grant, the landlady at 13 Little College Street, described Taylor's rooms. She was not aware, she said, that they were put to an improper use, but she had remarked to her husband the care taken that whatever went on there should be hidden from the eyes and ears of others. Young men used to come there and remain some time with Taylor, and Wilde was a frequent visitor. Taylor provided much of his own bed-linen and she noticed that the pillows had lace and were generally elaborate and costly.

The prosecution next called a new witness, Emily Becca, chambermaid at the Savoy Hotel, who stated that she had complained to the management of the state in which she found the bed-linen and the utensils of the room. When pressed for particulars the witness hesitated, and after stating that she refused to make the bed or empty the "chamber," she said she handed in her notice but was prevailed upon to withdraw it. Then by a series of adroit questions Counsel obtained the particulars. The bed-linen was stained. The colour was brown. The towels were similarly discoloured. One of the pillows was marked with face-powder. There was excrement in one of the utensils in the bedroom. Wilde had handed her half a sovereign but when she saw the state of the room after he had gone she gave the coin to the management.

Evidence with regard to Wilde's rooms at St. James' Place was given by Thomas Price, who was able to identify Taylor as one of the callers.

Mrs. Gray--no relation, haply, to the notorious "Dorian"--of 3 Chapel Street, Chelsea, deposed that Taylor stayed at her house from August 1893 to the end of that year. Formal and minor items of evidence concluded the case for the prosecution of Taylor, and Mr. Grain proceeded to open his defence by calling the prisoner into the witness-box. Mr. Grain examined him.

Mr. GRAIN.--"What is your age?"

WITNESS.--"I am thirty-three."

Mr. GRAIN.--"You are the son of the late Henry Taylor, who was a manufacturer of an article of food in large demand?"

WITNESS.--"I am."

Mr. GRAIN.--"You were at Marlborough School?"

WITNESS.--"Till I was seventeen."

Mr. GRAIN.--"You inherited £45,000 I believe?"

WITNESS.--"Yes."

Mr. GRAIN.--"And spent it?"

WITNESS.--"It went."

Mr. GRAIN.--"Since then you have had no occupation?"

WITNESS.--"I have lived upon an allowance made me."

Mr. GRAIN.--"Is there any truth in the evidence of Charles Parker that you misconducted yourself with him."

WITNESS.--"Not the slightest."

Mr. GRAIN.--"What rooms had you at Little College Street?"

WITNESS.--"One bedroom, but it was sub-divided and I believe there was generally a bed in each division."

Mr. GRAIN.--"You had a good many visitors?"

WITNESS.--"Oh, yes."

Sir FRANK LOCKWOOD.--"Did Charles Mavor stay with you then?"

WITNESS.--"Yes, about a week."

Sir FRANK.--"When?"

WITNESS.--"When I first went there, in 1892."

Sir FRANK.--"What is his age?"

WITNESS.--"He is now 26 or 27."

Sir FRANK.--"Do you remember going through a form of marriage with Mavor?"

WITNESS.--"No, never."

Sir FRANK.--"Did you tell Parker you did?"

WITNESS.--"Nothing of the kind."

Sir FRANK.--"Did you not place a wedding-ring on his finger and go to bed with him that night as though he were your lawful wife?"

WITNESS.--"It is all false. I deny it all."

Sir FRANK.--"Did you ever sleep with Mavor?"

WITNESS.--"I think I did the first night--after, he had a separate bed."

Sir FRANK.--"Did you induce Mavor to attire himself as a woman?"

WITNESS.--"Certainly I did not."

Sir FRANK.--"But there were articles of women's dress at your rooms?"

WITNESS.--"No. There was a fancy dress for a female, a theatrical costume."

Sir FRANK.--"Was it made for a woman?"

WITNESS.--"I think so."

Sir FRANK.--"Perhaps you wore it?"

WITNESS.--"I put it on once by way of a lark."

Sir FRANK.--"On no other occasion?"

WITNESS.--"I wore it once, too, at a fancy dress ball."

Sir FRANK.--"I suggest that you often dressed as a woman?"

WITNESS.--"No."

Sir FRANK.--"You wore, and caused Mavor afterwards, to wear lace drawers--a woman's garment--with the dress?"

WITNESS.--"I wore knicker-bockers and stockings when I wore it at the fancy dress ball."

Sir FRANK.--"And a woman's wig, which afterwards did for Mavor?"

WITNESS.--"No, the wig was made for me. I was going to a fancy-ball as 'Dick Whittington'."

Sir FRANK.--"Who introduced you to the Parkers?"

WITNESS.--"A friend named Harrington at the St. James's Restaurant."

Sir FRANK.--"You invited them to your rooms?"

WITNESS.--"I did."

Sir FRANK.--"Why?"

WITNESS.--"I found them very nice."

Sir FRANK.--"You were acquainted with a young fellow named Mason?"

WITNESS.--"Yes."

Sir FRANK.--"He visited you?"

WITNESS.--"Two or three times only, I think."

Sir FRANK.--"Did you induce him to commit a filthy act with you?"

WITNESS.--"Never."

Sir FRANK.--"He has written you letters?"

WITNESS.--"That's very likely."

Sir FRANK.--"The Solicitor General proposes to read one."

The letter was as follows:--

"Dear Alf,

Let me have some money as soon as you can. I would not ask you for it if I could get any myself. You know the business is not so easy. There is a lot of trouble attached to it.

Come home soon, dear, and let us go out together sometimes. Have very little news. Going to a dinner on Monday and a theatre to-night.

With much love, Yours always, CHARLES."

The SOLICITOR GENERAL.--(Severely) "I ask you, Taylor, for an explanation, for it requires one, of the use of the words "come home soon, dear", as between two men."

TAYLOR.--(Laughing nervously) "I do not see anything in it."

The SOLICITOR GENERAL.--"Nothing in it?"

WITNESS.--"Well, I am not responsible for the expressions of another."

The SOLICITOR GENERAL.--"You allowed yourself to be addressed in this strain?"

WITNESS.--"It's the way you read it."

The summing-up followed and after a consultation of three-quarters of an hour, the jury returned a verdict against Taylor on the indecency counts, not agreeing, however, as to the charges of procuration. Sentence was postponed, pending the result of the trial of Oscar Wilde, which began next day.

* * * * *

Wilde had meanwhile been at large on bail. The one charge of "conspiring with Alfred Taylor to procure" had been dropped, and the indictment of misdemeanour alleged that the prisoner unlawfully committed various acts with Charles Parker, Alfred Wood, Edward Shelley, and certain persons unknown.

The plea of "Not Guilty" was recorded.

The case for the prosecution was opened by calling Edward Shelley, the young man who had been employed by the Vigo Street publishers. Shelley 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 Shelley 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. Shelley, 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 Shelley 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 Shelley'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.