Full Text Archive logoFull Text Archive — Books, poems, drama…

Part 4 out of 4

Adobe PDF icon
Download this document as a .pdf
File size: 0.5 MB
What's this? light bulb idea Many people prefer to read off-line or to print out text and read from the real printed page. Others want to carry documents around with them on their mobile phones and read while they are on the move. We have created .pdf files of all out documents to accommodate all these groups of people. We recommend that you download .pdfs onto your mobile phone when it is connected to a WiFi connection for reading off-line.

in Russia. The consequences of this tyranny of an uneducated middle class and
a barbarian aristocracy are shown in detail in the trial of Oscar Wilde and in
the savagery with which he was treated by the English officers of justice.

CHAPTER XV--THE QUEEN VS. WILDE: THE FIRST TRIAL

As soon as I heard that Oscar Wilde was arrested and bail refused, I tried to
get permission to visit him in Holloway. I was told I should have to see him
in a kind of barred cage; and talk to him from the distance of at least a yard.
It seemed to me too painful for both of us, so I went to the higher authorities
and got permission to see him in a private room. The Governor met me at the
entrance of the prison: to my surprise he was more than courteous; charmingly
kind and sympathetic.

"We all hope," he said, "that he will soon be free; this is no place for him.
Everyone likes him, everyone. It is a great pity."

He evidently felt much more than he said, and my heart went out to him. He left
me in a bare room furnished with a small square deal table and two kitchen
chairs. In a moment or two Oscar came in accompanied by a warder. In silence
we clasped hands. He looked miserably anxious and pulled down and I felt that
I had nothing to do but cheer him up.

"I am glad to see you," I cried. "I hope the warders are kind to you?"

"Yes, Frank," he replied in a hopeless way, "but everyone else is against me:
it is hard."

"Don't harbour that thought," I answered; "many whom you don't know, and whom
you will never know, are on your side. Stand for them and for the myriads who
are coming afterwards and make a fight of it."

"I'm afraid I'm not a fighter, Frank, as you once said," he replied sadly,
"and they won't give me bail. How can I get evidence or think in this place
of torture? Fancy refusing me bail," he went on, "though I stayed in London
when I might have gone abroad."

"You should have gone," I cried in French, hot with indignation; "why didn't you
go, the moment you came out of the court?"

"I couldn't think at first," he answered in the same tongue; "I couldn't think
at all: I was numbed."

"Your friends should have thought of it," I insisted, not knowing then that
they had done their best.

At this moment the warder, who had turned away towards the door, came back.

"You are not allowed, sir, to talk in a foreign language," he said quietly.
"You will understand we have to obey the rules. Besides, the prisoner must not
speak of this prison as a place of torture. I ought to report that; I'm sorry."

The misery of it all brought tears to my eyes: his gaolers even felt sorry for
him. I thanked the warder and turned again to Oscar.

"Don't let yourself fear at all," I exclaimed. "You will have your chance again
and must take it; only don't lose heart and don't be witty next time in court.
The jury hate it. They regard it as intellectual superiority and impudence.
Treat all things seriously and with grave dignity. Defend yourself as David
would have defended his love for Jonathan. Make them all listen to you. I
would undertake to get free with half your talent even if I were guilty; a
resolution not to be beaten is always half the battle. . . . . Make your trial
memorable from your entrance into the court to the decision of the jury. Use
every opportunity and give your real character a chance to fight for you."

I spoke with tears in my eyes and rage in my heart.

"I will do my best, Frank," he said despondingly, "I will do my best. If I were
out of this place, I might think of something, but it is dreadful to be here.
One has to go to bed by daylight and the nights are interminable."

"Haven't you a watch?" I cried.

They don't allow you to have a watch in prison," he replied.

"But why not?" I asked in amazement. I did not know that every rule in an
English prison is cunningly devised to annoy and degrade the unfortunate
prisoner.

Oscar lifted his hands hopelessly:

"One may not smoke; not even a cigarette; and so I cannot sleep. All the past
comes back; the golden hours; the June days in London with the sunshine dappling
the grass and the silken rustling of the wind in the trees. Do you remember
Wordsworth speaks 'of the wind in the trees'? How I wish I could hear it now,
breathe it once again. I might get strength then to fight."

"Is the food good?" I asked.

"It's all right; I get it from outside. The food doesn't matter. It is the
smoking I miss, the freedom, the companionship. My mind will not act when I'm
alone. I can only think of what has been and torment myself. Already I've been
punished enough for the sins of a lifetime."

"Is there nothing I can do for you, nothing you want?" I asked.

"No, Frank," he answered, "it was kind of you to come to see me, I wish I could
tell you how kind."

"Don't think of it," I said; "if I'm any good send for me at any moment: a word
will bring me. They allow you books, don't they?"

"Yes, Frank."

"I wish you would get the 'Apologia of Plato'," I said, "and take a big draught
of that deathless smiling courage of Socrates."

"Ah, Frank, how much more humane were the Greeks. They let his friends see him
and talk to him by the hour, though he was condemned to death. There were no
warders there to listen, no degrading conditions."

"Quite true," I cried, suddenly realising how much better Oscar Wilde would have
been treated in Athens two thousand years ago. "Our progress is mainly change;
we don't shed our cruelty; even Christ has not been able to humanise us."

He nodded his head. At first he seemed greatly distressed; but I managed to
encourage him a little, for at the close of the talk he questioned me:

"Do you really think I may win, Frank?"

"Of course you'll win," I replied. "You must win: you must not think of being
beaten. Take it that they will not want to convict you. Say it to yourself
in the court; don't let yourself fear for a moment. Your enemies are merely
stupid, unhappy creatures crawling about for a few miserable years between earth
and sun; fated to die and leave no trace, no memory. Remember you are fighting
for all of us, for every artist and thinker who is to be born into the English
world. . . . . It is better to win like Galileo than to be burnt like Giordano
Bruno. Don't let them make another martyr. Use all your brains and eloquence
and charm. Don't be afraid. They will not condemn you if they know you."

"I have been trying to think," he said, "trying to make up my mind to bear
one whole year of this life. It's dreadful, Frank, I had no idea that prison
was so dreadful."

The warder again drew down his brows. I hastened to change the subject.

"That's why you must resolve not to have any more of it," I said; "I wish I had
seen you when you came out of court, but I really thought you didn't want me;
you turned away from me."

"Oh, Frank, how could I?" he cried. "I should have been so grateful to you."

"I'm very shortsighted," I rejoined, "and I thought you did. It is our foolish
little vanities which prevent us acting as we should. But let me know if I can
do anything for you. If you want me, I'll come at any moment."

I said this because the warder had already given me a sign; he now said:

"Time is up."

Once again we clasped hands.

"You must win," I said; "don't think of defeat. Even your enemies are human.
Convert them. You can do it, believe me," and I went with dread in my heart,
and pity and indignation.

Be still, be still, my soul; it is but for a season:
Let us endure an hour and see injustice done.

The Governor met me almost at the door.

"It is terrible," I exclaimed.

"This is no place for him," he answered. "He has nothing to do with us here.
Everyone likes him and pities him: the warders, everyone. Anything I can do
to make his stay tolerable shall be done."

We shook hands. I think there were tears in both our eyes as we parted.
This humane Governor had taught me that Oscar's gentleness and kindness--his
sweetness of nature--would win all hearts if it had time to make itself known.
Yet there he was in prison. His face and figure came before me again and again:
the unshaven face; the frightened, sad air; the hopeless, toneless voice. The
cleanliness even of the bare hard room was ugly; the English are foolish enough
to degrade those they punish. Revolt was blazing in me.

As I went away I looked up at the mediaeval castellated gateway of the place,
and thought how perfectly the architecture suited the spirit of the institution.
The whole thing belongs to the middle ages, and not to our modern life. Fancy
having both prison and hospital side by side; indeed a hospital even in the
prison; torture and lovingkindness; punishment and pity under the same roof.
What a blank contradiction and stupidity. Will civilisation never reach humane
ideals? Will men always punish most severely the sins they do not understand and
which hold for them no temptation? Did Jesus suffer in vain?

. . . . . . .

Oscar Wilde was committed on the 19th of April; a "true bill" was found against
him by the grand jury on the 24th; and, as the case was put down for trial at
the Old Bailey almost immediately, a postponement was asked for till the May
sessions, on the ground first that the defence had not had time to prepare their
case and further, that in the state of popular feeling at the moment, Mr. Wilde
would not get a fair and impartial trial. Mr. Justice Charles, who was to try
the case, heard the application and refused it peremptorily: "Any suggestion
that the defendant would not have a fair trial was groundless," he declared; yet
he knew better. In his summing up of the case on May 1st he stated that "for
weeks it had been impossible to open a newspaper without reading some reference
to the case," and when he asked the jury not to allow "preconceived opinions to
weigh with them" he was admitting the truth that every newspaper reference was
charged with dislike and contempt of Oscar Wilde. A fair trial indeed!

The trial took place at the Old Bailey, three days later, April 27th, 1895,
before Mr. Justice Charles. Mr. C. F. Gill and A. Gill with Mr. Horace Avory
appeared for the Public Prosecutor. Mr. Wilde was again defended by Sir Edward
Clarke, Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Travers Humphreys, while Mr. J. P. Grain
and Mr. Paul Taylor were counsel for the other prisoner. The trial began on a
Saturday and the whole of the day was taken up with a legal argument. I am not
going to give the details of the case. I shall only note the chief features of
it and the unfairness which characterised it.

Sir Edward Clarke pointed out that there was one set of charges under the
Criminal Law Amendment Act and another set of charges of conspiracy. He urged
that the charges of conspiracy should be dropped. Under the counts alleging
conspiracy, the defendants could not be called on as witnesses, which put
the defence at a disadvantage. In the end the Judge decided that there were
inconveniences; but he would not accede to Sir Edward Clarke's request. Later
in the trial, however, Mr. Gill himself withdrew the charges of conspiracy,
and the Judge admitted explicitly in his summing up that, if he had known the
evidence which was to be offered, he would not have allowed these charges of
conspiracy to be made. By this confession he apparently cleared his conscience
just as Pilate washed his hands. But the wrong had already been done. Not only
did this charge of conspiracy embarrass the defence, but if it had never been
made, as it should never have been made, then Sir Edward Clarke would have
insisted and could have insisted properly that the two men should be tried
separately, and Wilde would not have been discredited by being coupled with
Taylor, whose character was notorious and who had already been in the hands of
the police on a similar charge.

This was not the only instance of unfairness in the conduct of the prosecution.
The Treasury put a youth called Atkins in the box, thus declaring him to be at
least a credible witness; but Atkins was proved by Sir Edward Clarke to have
perjured himself in the court in the most barefaced way. In fact the Treasury
witnesses against Wilde were all blackmailers and people of the lowest
character, with two exceptions. The exceptions were a boy named Mavor and a
youth named Shelley. With regard to Mavor the judge admitted that no evidence
had been offered that he could place before the jury; but in his summing up he
was greatly affected by the evidence of Shelley. Shelley was a young man who
seemed to be afflicted with a species of religious mania. Mr. Justice Charles
gave great weight to his testimony. He invited the jury to say that "although
there was, in his correspondence which had been read, evidence of excitability,
to talk of him as a young man who did not know what he was saying was to
exaggerate the effect of his letters." He went on to ask with much solemnity:
"Why should this young man have invented a tale, which must have been unpleasant
to him to present from the witness box?"

In the later trial before Mr. Justice Wills the Judge had to rule out the
evidence of Shelley "in toto", because it was wholly without corroboration.
If the case before Mr. Justice Charles had not been confused with the charges
of conspiracy, there is no doubt that he too would have ruled out the evidence
of Shelley, and then his summing up must have been entirely in favour of Wilde.

The singular malevolence of the prosecution also can be estimated by their use
of the so-called "literary argument." Wilde had written in a magazine called
"The Chameleon. The Chameleon" contained an immoral story, with which Wilde had
nothing to do, and which he had repudiated as offensive. Yet the prosecution
tried to make him responsible in some way for the immorality of a writing which
he knew nothing about.

Wilde had said two poems of Lord Alfred Douglas were "beautiful." The
prosecution declared that these poems were in essence a defence of the vilest
immorality, but is it not possible for the most passionate poem, even the most
vicious, to be "beautiful"? Nothing was ever written more passionate than one
of the poems of Sappho. Yet a fragment has been selected out and preserved by
the admiration of a hundred generations of men. The prosecution was in the
position all the time of one who declared that a man who praised a nude picture
must necessarily be immoral. Such a contention would be inconceivable in any
other civilised country. Even the Judge was on much the same intellectual
level. It would not be fair, he admitted, to condemn a poet or dramatic writer
by his works and he went on:

"It is unfortunately true that while some of our greatest writers have passed
long years in writing nothing but the most wholesome literature--literature of
the highest genius, and which anybody can read, such as the literature of Sir
Walter Scott and Charles Dickens; it is also true that there were other great
writers, more especially in the eighteenth century, perfectly noble-minded men
themselves, who somehow or other have permitted themselves to pen volumes which
it is painful for persons of ordinary modesty and decency to read."

It would have been more honest and more liberal to have brushed away the
nonsensical indictment in a sentence. Would the Treasury have put Shakespeare
on trial for "Hamlet" or "Lear," or would they have condemned the writer of
"The Song of Solomon" for immorality, or sent St. Paul to prison for his
"Epistle to the Corinthians"?

Middle-class prejudice and hypocritic canting twaddle from Judge and advocate
dragged their weary length along for days and days. On Wednesday Sir Edward
Clarke made his speech for the defence. He pointed out the unfairness of the
charges of conspiracy which had tardily been withdrawn. He went on to say that
the most remarkable characteristic of the case was the fact that it had been the
occasion for conduct on the part of certain sections of the press which was
disgraceful, and which imperilled the administration of justice, and was in the
highest degree injurious to the client for whom he was pleading. Nothing, he
concluded, could be more unfair than the way Mr. Wilde had been criticised in
the press for weeks and weeks. But no judge interfered on his behalf.

Sir Edward Clarke evidently thought that to prove unfairness would not even
influence the minds of the London jury. He was content to repudiate the attempt
to judge Mr. Wilde by his books or by an article which he had condemned, or by
poems which he had not written. He laid stress on the fact that Mr. Wilde had
himself brought the charge against Lord Queensberry which had provoked the whole
investigation: "on March 30th, Mr. Wilde," he said, "knew the catalogue of
accusations"; and he asked: did the jury believe that, if he had been guilty,
he would have stayed in England and brought about the first trial? Insane would
hardly be the word for such conduct, if Mr. Wilde really had been guilty.
Moreover, before even hearing the specific accusations, Mr. Wilde had gone
into the witness box to deny them.

Clarke's speech was a good one, but nothing out of the common: no new arguments
were used in it; not one striking illustration. Needless to say the higher
advocacy of sympathy was conspicuous by its absence.

Again, the interesting part of the trial was the cross-examination of Oscar
Wilde.

Mr. Gill examined him at length on the two poems which Lord Alfred Douglas had
contributed to "The Chameleon", which Mr. Wilde had called "beautiful." The
first was in "Praise of Shame," the second was one called "Two Loves." Sir
Edward Clarke, interposing, said:

"That's not Mr. Wilde's, Mr. Gill."

Mr. Gill: "I am not aware that I said it was."

Sir Edward Clarke: "I thought you would be glad to say it was not."

Mr. Gill insisted that Mr. Wilde should explain the poem in "Praise of Shame."

Mr. Wilde said that the first poem seemed obscure, but, when pressed as to the
"love" described in the second poem, he let himself go for the first time and
perhaps the only time during the trial; he said:

"The 'love' that dare not speak its name in this century is such a great
affection of an older for a younger man as there was between David and Jonathan,
such as Plato made the very base of his philosophy and such as you find in the
sonnets of Michaelangelo and Shakespeare--a deep spiritual affection that is as
pure as it is perfect, and dictates great works of art like those of Shakespeare
and Michaelangelo and those two letters of mine, such as they are, and which is
in this century misunderstood--so misunderstood that on account of it, I am
placed where I am now. It is beautiful; it is fine; it is the noblest form of
affection. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between an elder and
younger man, when the elder man has intellect, and the younger man has all the
joy, hope and glamour of life. That it should be so the world does not
understand. It mocks at it and sometimes puts one into the pillory for it."

At this stage there was loud applause in the gallery of the court, and the
learned Judge at once said: "I shall have the Court cleared if there is the
slightest manifestation of feeling. There must be complete silence preserved."

Mr. Justice Charles repressed the cheering in favour of Mr. Oscar Wilde with
great severity, though Mr. Justice Collins did not attempt to restrain the
cheering which filled his court and accompanied the dispersing crowd into the
street on the acquittal of Lord Queensberry.

In spite, however, of the unfair criticisms of the press; in spite of the unfair
conduct of the prosecution, and in spite of the manifest prejudice and
Philistine ignorance of the Judge, the jury disagreed.

Then followed the most dramatic incident of the whole trial. Once more Sir
Edward Clarke applied for bail on behalf of Oscar Wilde. "After what has
happened," he said, "I do not think the Crown will make any objection to this
application." The Crown left the matter to the Judge, no doubt in all security;
for the Judge immediately refused the application. Sir Edward Clarke then
went on to say that, in the case of a re-trial, it ought not to take place
immediately. He continued:

"The burden of those engaged in the case is very heavy, and I think it only
right that the Treasury should have an opportunity between this and another
session of considering the mode in which the case should be presented, if indeed
it is presented at all."

Mr. Gill immediately rose to the challenge.

"The case will certainly be tried again," he declared, "whether it is to be
tried again at once or in the next sessions will be a matter of convenience.
Probably the most desirable course will be for the case to go to the next
sessions. That is the usual course."

Mr. Justice Charles: "If that is the usual course, let it be so."

The next session of the Central Criminal Court opened on the 20th of the same
month.

Not three weeks' respite, still it might be enough: it was inconceivable that
a Judge in Chambers would refuse to accept bail: fortunately the law allows him
no option.

. . . . .

The application for bail was made in due course to a Judge in Chambers, and in
spite of the bad example of the magistrate, and of Mr. Justice Charles, it was
granted and Wilde was set free in his own recognizance of L2,500 with two other
sureties for L1,250 each. It spoke volumes for the charm and fascination of the
man that people were found to undertake this onerous responsibility. Their
names deserve to be recorded; one was Lord Douglas of Hawick, the other a
clergyman, the Rev. Stewart Headlam. I offered to be one bail: but I was not a
householder at the time and my name was, therefore, not acceptable. I suppose
the Treasury objected, which shows, I am inclined to think, some glimmering of
sense on its part.

As soon as the bail was accepted I began to think of preparations for Oscar's
escape. It was high time something was done to save him from the wolves. The
day after his release a London morning journal was not ashamed to publish what
it declared was a correct analysis of the voting of the jury on the various
counts. According to this authority, ten jurors were generally for conviction
and two against, in the case of Wilde; the statement was widely accepted because
it added that the voting was more favourable to Taylor than to Wilde, which was
so unexpected and so senseless that it carried with it a certain plausibility:
"Credo quia incredible".

I had seen enough of English justice and English judges and English journals to
convince me that Oscar Wilde had no more chance of a fair trial than if he had
been an Irish "Invincible." Everyone had made up his mind and would not even
listen to reason: he was practically certain to be convicted, and if convicted
perfectly certain to be punished with savage ferocity. The judge would probably
think he was showing impartiality by punishing him for his qualities of charm
and high intelligence. For the first time in my life I understood the full
significance of Montaigne's confession that if he were accused of stealing the
towers of Notre Dame, he would fly the kingdom rather than risk a trial, and
Montaigne was a lawyer. I set to work at once to complete my preparations.

I did not think I ran any risk in helping Oscar to get away. The newspapers had
seized the opportunity of the trials before the magistrate and before Mr.
Justice Charles and had overwhelmed the public with such a sea of nauseous filth
and impurity as could only be exposed to the public nostrils in pudibond
England. Everyone, I thought, must be sick of the testimony and eager to have
done with the whole thing. In this I may have been mistaken. The hatred of
Wilde seemed universal and extraordinarily malignant.

I wanted a steam yacht. Curiously enough on the very day when I was thinking of
running down to Cowes to hire one, a gentleman at lunch mentioned that he had
one in the Thames. I asked him could I charter it?

"Certainly," he replied, "and I will let you have it for the bare cost for the
next month or two."

"One month will do for me," I said.

"Where are you going?" he asked.

I don't know why, but a thought came into my head: I would tell him the truth,
and see what he would say. I took him aside and told him the bare facts. At
once he declared that the yacht was at my service for such work as that without
money: he would be too glad to lend it to me: it was horrible that such a man as
Wilde should be treated as a common criminal.

He felt as Henry VIII felt in Shakespeare's play of that name:

". . . . there's some of ye, I see,
More out of malice than integrity,
Would try him to the utmost, . . . ."

It was not the generosity in my friend's offer that astonished me, but the
consideration for Wilde; I thought the lenity so singular in England that I feel
compelled to explain it. Though an Englishman born and bred my friend was by
race a Jew--a man of the widest culture, who had no sympathy whatever with the
vice attributed to Oscar. Feeling consoled because there was at least one
generous, kind heart in the world, I went next day to Willie Wilde's house in
Oakley Street to see Oscar. I had written to him on the previous evening that
I was coming to take Oscar out to lunch.

Willie Wilde met me at the door; he was much excited apparently by the notoriety
attaching to Oscar; he was volubly eager to tell me that, though we had not been
friends, yet my support of Oscar was most friendly and he would therefore bury
the hatchet. He had never interested me, and I was unconscious of any hatchet
and careless whether he buried it or blessed it. I repeated drily that I had
come to take Oscar to lunch.

"I know you have," he said, "and it's most kind of you; but he can't go."

"Why not?" I asked as I went in.

Oscar was gloomy, depressed, and evidently suffering. Willie's theatrical
insincerity had annoyed me a little, and I was eager to get away. Suddenly
I saw Sherard, who has since done his best for Oscar's memory. In his book
there is a record of this visit of mine. He was standing silently by the wall.

"I've come to take you to lunch," I said to Oscar.

"But he cannot go out," cried Willie.

"Of course he can," I insisted, "I've come to take him."

"But where to?" asked Willie.

"Yes, Frank, where to?" repeated Oscar meekly.

"Anywhere you like," I said, "the Savoy if you like, the Cafe Royal for choice."

"Oh, Frank, I dare not," cried Oscar.

"No, no," cried Willie, "there would be a scandal; someone'll insult him and
it would do harm; set people's backs up."

"Oh, Frank, I dare not," echoed Oscar.

"No one will insult him. There will be no scandal," I replied, "and it will
do good."

"But what will people say?" cried Willie.

"No one ever knows what people will say," I retorted, "and people always speak
best of those who don't care a damn what they do say."

"Oh, Frank, I could not go to a place like the Savoy where I am well known,"
objected Oscar.

"All right," I agreed, "you shall go where you like. All London is before us.
I must have a talk with you, and it will do you good to get out into the air,
and sun yourself and feel the wind in your face. Come, there's a hansom at
the door."

It was not long before I had conquered his objections and Willie's absurdities
and taken him with me. Scarcely had we left the house when his spirits began
to lift, and he rippled into laughter.

"Really, Frank, it is strange, but I do not feel frightened and depressed any
more, and the people don't boo and hiss at me. Is it not dreadful the way they
insult the fallen?"

"We are not going to talk about it," I said; "we are going to talk of victories
and not of defeats."

"Ah, Frank, there will be no more victories for me."

"Nonsense," I cried; "now where are we going?"

"Some quiet place where I shall not be known."

"You really would not like the Cafe Royal?" I asked. "Nothing will happen to
you, and I think you would probably find that one or two people would wish
you luck. You have had a rare bad time, and there must be some people who
understand what you have gone through and know that it is sufficient punishment
for any sin."

"No, Frank," he persisted, "I cannot, I really cannot."

At length we decided on a restaurant in Great Portland Street. We drove there
and had a private room.

I had two purposes in me, springing from the one root, the intense desire to
help him. I felt sure that if the case came up again for trial he would only be
convicted through what I may call good, honest testimony. The jury with their
English prejudice; or rather I should say with their healthy English instincts
would not take the evidence of vile blackmailers against him; he could only be
convicted through untainted evidence such as the evidence of the chambermaids
at the Savoy Hotel, and their evidence was over two years old and was weak,
inasmuch as the facts, if facts, were not acted upon by the management. Still
their testimony was very clear and very positive, and, taken together with that
of the blackmailers, sufficient to ensure conviction. After our lunch I laid
this view before Oscar. He agreed with me that it was probably the
chambermaids' testimony which had weighed most heavily against him. Their
statement and Shelley's had brought about the injurious tone in the Judge's
summing up. The Judge himself had admitted as much.

"The chambermaids' evidence is wrong," Oscar declared. "They are mistaken,
Frank. It was not me they spoke about at the Savoy Hotel. It was ----. I was
never bold enough. I went to see ---- in the morning in his room."

"Thank God," I said, "but why didn't Sir Edward Clarke bring that out?"

"He wanted to; but I would not let him. I told him he must not. I must be true
to my friend. I could not let him."

"But he must," I said, "at any rate if he does not I will. I have three weeks
and in that three weeks I am going to find the chambermaid. I am going to get a
plan of your room and your friend's room, and I'm going to make her understand
that she was mistaken. She probably remembered you because of your size: she
mistook you for the guilty person; everybody has always taken you for the
ringleader and not the follower."

"But what good is it, Frank, what good is it?" he cried. "Even if you convinced
the chambermaid and she retracted; there would still be Shelley, and the Judge
laid stress on Shelley's evidence as untainted."

"Shelley is an accomplice," I cried, "his testimony needs corroboration.
You don't understand these legal quibbles; but there was not a particle of
corroboration. Sir Edward Clarke should have had his testimony ruled out.
'Twas that conspiracy charge," I cried, "which complicated the matter.
Shelley's evidence, too, will be ruled out at the next trial, you'll see."

"Oh, Frank," he said, "you talk with passion and conviction, as if I were
innocent."

"But you are innocent," I cried in amaze, "aren't you?"

"No, Frank," he said, "I thought you knew that all along."

I stared at him stupidly. "No," I said dully, "I did not know. I did not
believe the accusation. I did not believe it for a moment."

I suppose the difference in my tone and manner struck him, for he said, timidly
putting out his hand:

"This will make a great difference to you, Frank?"

"No," I said, pulling myself together and taking his hand; and after a pause I
went on: "No: curiously enough it has made no difference to me at all. I do not
know why; I suppose I have got more sympathy than morality in me. It has
surprised me, dumbfounded me. The thing has always seemed fantastic and
incredible to me and now you make it exist for me; but it has no effect on my
friendship; none upon my resolve to help you. But I see that the battle is
going to be infinitely harder than I imagined. In fact, now I don't think we
have a chance of winning a verdict. I came here hoping against fear that it
could be won, though I always felt that it would be better in the present state
of English feeling to go abroad and avoid the risk of a trial. Now there is
no question: you would be insane, as Clarke said, to stay in England. But
why on earth did Alfred Douglas, knowing the truth, ever wish you to attack
Queensberry?"

"He's very bold and obstinate, Frank," said Oscar weakly.

"Well, now I must play Crito," I resumed, smiling, "and take you away before
the ship comes from Delos."

"Oh, Frank, that would be wonderful; but it's impossible, quite impossible. I
should be arrested before I left London, and shamed again in public: they would
boo at me and shout insults. . . . . Oh, it is impossible; I could not risk it."

"Nonsense," I replied, "I believe the authorities would be only too glad if you
went. I think Clarke's challenge to Gill was curiously ill-advised. He should
have let sleeping dogs lie. Combative Gill was certain to take up the gauntlet.
If Clarke had lain low there might have been no second trial. But that can't be
helped now. Don't believe that it's even difficult to get away; it's easy. I
don't propose to go by Folkestone or Dover."

"But, Frank, what about the people who have stood bail for me? I couldn't leave
them to suffer; they would lose their thousands."

"I shan't let them lose," I replied, "I am quite willing to take half on my own
shoulders at once and you can pay the other thousand or so within a very short
time by writing a couple of plays. American papers would be only too glad to
pay you for an interview. The story of your escape would be worth a thousand
pounds; they would give you almost any price for it.

"Leave everything to me, but in the meantime I want you to get out in the air
as much as possible. You are not looking well; you are not yourself."

"That house is depressing, Frank. Willie makes such a merit of giving me
shelter; he means well, I suppose; but it is all dreadful."

My notes of this talk finish in this way, but the conversation left on me a deep
impression of Oscar's extraordinary weakness or rather extraordinary softness of
nature backed up and redeemed by a certain magnanimity: he would not leave the
friends in the lurch who had gone bail for him; he would not give his friend
away even to save himself; but neither would he exert himself greatly to win
free. He was like a woman, I said to myself in wonder, and my pity for him grew
keener. He seemed mentally stunned by the sudden fall, by the discovery of how
violently men can hate. He had never seen the wolf in man before; the vile
brute instinct that preys upon the fallen. He had not believed that such
exultant savagery existed; it had never come within his ken; now it appalled
him. And so he stood there waiting for what might happen without courage to do
anything but suffer. My heart ached with pity for him, and yet I felt a little
impatient with him as well. Why give up like that? The eternal quarrel of the
combative nature with those who can't or won't fight.

Before getting into the carriage to drive back to his brother's, I ascertained
that he did not need any money. He told me that he had sufficient even for the
expenses of a second trial: this surprised me greatly, for he was very careless
about money; but I found out from him later that a very noble and cultured
woman, a friend of both of us, Miss S----, a Jewess by race tho' not by
religion, had written to him asking if she could help him financially, as she
had been distressed by hearing of his bankruptcy, and feared that he might be in
need. If that were the case she begged him to let her be his banker, in order
that he might be properly defended. He wrote in reply, saying that he was
indeed in uttermost distress, that he wanted money, too, to help his mother as
he had always helped her, and that he supposed the expenses of the second trial
would be from L500 to L1,000. Thereupon Miss S---- sent him a cheque for
L1,000, assuring him that it cost her little even in self-sacrifice, and
declaring that it was only inadequate recognition of the pleasure she had had
through his delightful talks. Such actions are beyond praise; it is the perfume
of such sweet and noble human sympathy that makes this wild beasts' cage of a
world habitable for men.

Before parting we had agreed to meet a few nights afterwards at Mrs. Leverson's,
where he had been invited to dinner, and where I also had been invited. By that
time, I thought to myself, all my preparations would be perfected.

Looking back now I see clearly that my affection for Oscar Wilde dates from his
confession to me that afternoon. I had been a friend of his for years; but what
had bound us together had been purely intellectual, a community of literary
tastes and ambitions. Now his trust in me and frankness had thrown down the
barrier between us; and made me conscious of the extraordinary femininity and
gentle weakness of his nature, and, instead of condemning him as I have always
condemned that form of sexual indulgence, I felt only pity for him and a desire
to protect and help him. From that day on our friendship became intimate: I
began to divine him; I knew now that his words would always be more generous
and noble than his actions; knew too that I must take his charm of manner and
vivacity of intercourse for real virtues, and indeed they were as real as the
beauty of flowers; and I was aware as by some sixth sense that, where his vanity
was concerned, I might expect any injustice from him. I was sure beforehand,
however, that I should always forgive him, or rather that I should always accept
whatever he did and love him for the charm and sweetness and intellect in him
and hold myself more than recompensed for anything I might be able to do, by his
delightful companionship.

CHAPTER XVI--ESCAPE REJECTED: THE SECOND TRIAL AND SENTENCE

In spite of the wit of the hostess and her exquisite cordiality, our dinner at
Mrs. Leverson's was hardly a success. Oscar was not himself; contrary to his
custom he sat silent and downcast. From time to time he sighed heavily, and his
leaden dejection gradually infected all of us. I was not sorry, for I wanted
to get him away early; by ten o'clock we had left the house and were in the
Cromwell Road. He preferred to walk: without his noticing it I turned up
Queen's Gate towards the park. After walking for ten minutes I said to him:

"I want to speak to you seriously. Do you happen to know where Erith is?"

"No, Frank."

"It is a little landing place on the Thames," I went on, "not many miles away:
it can be reached by a fast pair of horses and a brougham in a very short time.
There at Erith is a steam yacht ready to start at a moment's notice; she has
steam up now, one hundred pounds pressure to the square inch in her boilers;
her captain's waiting, her crew ready--a greyhound in leash; she can do fifteen
knots an hour without being pressed. In one hour she would be free of the
Thames and on the high seas--(delightful phrase, eh?)--high seas indeed where
there is freedom uncontrolled.

"If one started now one could breakfast in France, at Boulogne, let us say, or
Dieppe; one could lunch at St. Malo or St. Enogat or any place you like on the
coast of Normandy, and one could dine comfortably at the Sables d'Olonne, where
there is not an Englishman to be found, and where sunshine reigns even in May
from morning till night.

"What do you say, Oscar, will you come and try a homely French bourgeois dinner
tomorrow evening at an inn I know almost at the water's edge? We could sit out
on the little terrace and take our coffee in peace under the broad vine leaves
while watching the silver pathway of the moon widen on the waters. We could
smile at the miseries of London and its wolfish courts shivering in cold grey
mist hundreds of miles away. Does not the prospect tempt you?"

I spoke at leisure, tasting each delight, looking for his gladness.

"Oh, Frank," he cried, "how wonderful; but how impossible!"

"Impossible! don't be absurd," I retorted. "Do you see those lights yonder?"
and I showed him some lights at the Park gate on the top of the hill in front
of us.

"Yes, Frank."

"That's a brougham," I said, "with a pair of fast horses. It will take us for
a midnight visit to the steam yacht in double-quick time. There's a little
library on board of French books and English; I've ordered supper in the cabin--
lobster a l'Americaine and a bottle of Pommery. You've never seen the mouth of
the Thames at night, have you? It's a scene from wonderland; houses like blobs
of indigo fencing you in; ships drifting past like black ghosts in the misty
air, and the purple sky above never so dark as the river, the river with its
shifting lights of ruby and emerald and topaz, like an oily, opaque serpent
gliding with a weird life of its own. . . . . Come; you must visit the yacht."

I turned to him, but he was no longer by my side. I gasped; what had happened?
The mist must have hidden him; I ran back ten yards, and there he was leaning
against the railing, hung up with his head on his arm shaking.

"What's the matter, Oscar?" I cried. "What on earth's the matter?"

"Oh, Frank, I can't go," he cried, "I can't. It would be too wonderful; but
it's impossible. I should be seized by the police. You don't know the police."

"Nonsense," I cried, "the police can't stop you and not a man of them will see
you from start to finish. Besides, I have loose money for any I do meet, and
none of them can resist a 'tip.' You will simply get out of the brougham and
walk fifty yards and you will be on the yacht and free. In fact, if you like
you shall not come out of the brougham until the sailors surround you as a guard
of honour. On board the yacht no one will touch you. No warrant runs there.
Come on, man!"

"Oh, Frank," he groaned, "it's impossible!"

"What's impossible?" I insisted. "Let's consider everything anew at breakfast
to-morrow morning in France. If you want to come back, there's nothing to
prevent you. The yacht will take you back in twenty-four hours. You will not
have broken your bail; you'll have done nothing wrong. You can go to France,
Germany or Siberia so long as you come back by the twentieth of May. Take it
that I offer you a holiday in France for ten days. Surely it is better to spend
a week with me than in that dismal house in Oakley Street, where the very door
gives one the creeps."

"Oh, Frank, I'd love to," he groaned. "I see everything you say, but I can't.
I dare not. I'm caught, Frank, in a trap, I can only wait for the end."

I began to get impatient; he was weaker than I had imagined, weaker a hundred
times.

"Come for a trip, then, man," I cried, and I brought him within twenty yards of
the carriage; but there he stopped as if he had made up his mind.

"No, no, I can't come. I could not go about in France feeling that the
policeman's hand might fall on my shoulder at any moment. I could not live
a life of fear and doubt: it would kill me in a month." His tone was decided.

"Why let your imagination run away with you?" I pleaded. "Do be reasonable for
once. Fear and doubt would soon be over. If the police don't get you in France
within a week after the date fixed for the trial, you need have no further fear,
for they won't get you at all: they don't want you. You're making mountains out
of molehills with nervous fancies."

"I should be arrested."

"Nonsense," I replied, "who would arrest you? No one has the right. You are
out on bail: your bail answers for you till the 20th. Money talks, man;
Englishmen always listen to money. It'll do you good with the public and the
jury to come back from France to stand your trial. Do come," and I took him
by the arm; but he would not move. To my astonishment he faced me and said:

"And my sureties?"

"We'll pay 'em," I replied, "both of 'em, if you break your bail. Come,"
but he would not.

"Frank, if I were not in Oakley Street to-night Willie would tell the police."

"Your brother?" I cried.

"Yes," he said, "Willie."

"Good God!" I exclaimed; "but let him tell. I have not mentioned Erith or the
steam yacht to a soul. It's the last place in the world the police would
suspect and before he talks we shall be out of reach. Besides they cannot do
anything; you are doing nothing wrong. Please trust me, you do nothing
questionable even till you omit to enter the Old Bailey on the 20th of May."

"You don't know Willie," he continued, "he has made my solicitors buy letters
of mine; he has blackmailed me."

"Whew!" I whistled. "But in that case you'll have no compunction in leaving him
without saying 'goodbye.' Let's go and get into the brougham."

"No, no," he repeated, "you don't understand; I can't go, I cannot go."

"Do you mean it really?" I asked. "Do you mean you will not come and spend
a week yachting with me?"

"I cannot."

I drew him a few paces nearer the carriage: something of desolation and despair
in his voice touched me: I looked at him. Tears were pouring down his face;
he was the picture of misery, yet I could not move him.

"Come into the carriage," I said, hoping that the swift wind in his face would
freshen him up, give him a moment's taste of the joy of living and sharpen the
desire of freedom.

"Yes, Frank," he said, "if you will take me to Oakley Street."

"I would as soon take you to prison," I replied; "but as you wish."

The next moment we had got in and were swinging down Queen's Gate. The mist
seemed to lend keenness to the air. At the bottom of Queen's Gate the coachman
swept of himself to the left into the Cromwell Road; Oscar seemed to wake out of
his stupor.

"No, Frank," he cried, "no, no," and he fumbled at the handle of the door, "I
must get out; I will not go. I will not go."

"Sit still," I said in despair, "I'll tell the coachman," and I put my head out
of the window and cried: "Oakley Street, Oakley Street, Chelsea, Robert."

I do not think I spoke again till we got to Oakley Street. I was consumed with
rage and contemptuous impatience. I had done the best I knew and had failed.
Why? I had no idea. I have never known why he refused to come. I don't think
he knew himself. Such resignation I had never dreamt of. It was utterly new
to me. I used to think of resignation in a vague way as of something rather
beautiful; ever since, I have thought of it with impatience: resignation is the
courage of the irresolute. Oscar's obstinacy was the obverse of his weakness.
It is astonishing how inertia rules some natures. The attraction of waiting and
doing nothing is intense for those who live in thought and detest action. As we
turned into Oakley Street, Oscar said to me:

"You are not angry with me, Frank?" and he put out his hand.

"No, no," I said, "why should I be angry? You are the master of your fate.
I can only offer advice."

"Do come and see me soon," he pleaded.

"My bolt is shot," I replied; "but I'll come in two or three days' time, as
soon as I have anything of importance to say. . . . . Don't forget, Oscar, the
yacht is there and will be there waiting until the 20th; the yacht will always
be ready and the brougham."

"Good night, Frank," he said, "good night, and thank you."

He got out and went into the house, the gloomy sordid house where the brother
lived who would sell his blood for a price!

. . . . . . .

Three or four days later we met again, but to my amaze Oscar had not changed
his mind. To talk of him as cast down is the precise truth; he seemed to me as
one who had fallen from a great height and lay half conscious, stunned on the
ground. The moment you moved him, even to raise his head, it gave him pain and
he cried out to be left alone. There he lay prone, and no one could help him.
It was painful to witness his dumb misery: his mind even, his sunny bright
intelligence, seemed to have deserted him.

Once again he came out with me to lunch. Afterwards we drove through Regent's
Park as the quietest way to Hampstead and had a talk. The air and swift motion
did him good. The beauty of the view from the heath seemed to revive him.
I tried to cheer him up.

"You must know," I said, "that you can win if you want to. You can not only
bring the jury to doubt, but you can make the judge doubt as well. I was
convinced of your innocence in spite of all the witnesses, and I knew more
about you than they did. In the trial before Mr. Justice Charles, the thing
that saved you was that you spoke of the love of David and Jonathan and the
sweet affection which the common world is determined not to understand. There
is another point against you which you have not touched on yet: Gill asked you
what you had in common with those serving-men and stable boys. You have not
explained that. You have explained that you love youth, the brightness and the
gaiety of it, but you have not explained what seems inexplicable to most men,
that you should go about with servants and strappers."

"Difficult to explain, Frank, isn't it, without the truth?" Evidently his mind
was not working.

"No," I replied, "easy, simple. Think of Shakespeare. How did he know Dogberry
and Pistol, Bardolph and Doll Tearsheet? He must have gone about with them.
You don't go about with public school boys of your own class, for you know them;
you have nothing to learn from them: they can teach you nothing. But the stable
boy and servant you cannot sketch in your plays without knowing him, and you
can't know him without getting on his level, and letting him call you 'Oscar'
and calling him 'Charlie.' If you rub this in, the judge will see that he is
face to face with the artist in you and will admit at least that your
explanation is plausible. He will hesitate to condemn you, and once he
hesitates you'll win.

"You fought badly because you did not show your own nature sufficiently; you did
not use your brains in the witness box and alas--" I did not continue; the truth
was I was filled with fear; for I suddenly realised that he had shown more
courage and self-possession in the Queensberry trial than in the trial before
Mr. Justice Charles when so much more was at stake; and I felt that in the next
trial he would be more depressed still, and less inclined to take the initiative
than ever. I had already learned too that I could not help him; that he would
not be lifted out of that "sweet way of despair," which so attracts the artist
spirit. But still I would do my best.

"Do you understand?" I asked.

"Of course, Frank, of course, but you have no conception how weary I am of the
whole thing, of the shame and the struggling and the hatred. To see those
people coming into the box one after the other to witness against me makes me
sick. The self-satisfied grin of the barristers, the pompous foolish judge
with his thin lips and cunning eyes and hard jaw. Oh, it's terrible. I feel
inclined to stretch out my hands and cry to them, 'Do what you will with me, in
God's name, only do it quickly; cannot you see that I am worn out? If hatred
gives you pleasure, indulge it.' They worry one, Frank, with ravening jaws,
as dogs worry a rabbit. Yet they call themselves men. It is appalling."

The day was dying, the western sky all draped with crimson, saffron and rosy
curtains: a slight mist over London, purple on the horizon, closer, a mere wash
of blue; here and there steeples pierced the thin veil like fingers pointing
upward. On the left the dome of St. Paul's hung like a grey bubble over the
city; on the right the twin towers of Westminster with the river and bridge
which Wordsworth sang. Peace and beauty brooding everywhere, and down there
lost in the mist the "rat pit" that men call the Courts of Justice. There they
judge their fellows, mistaking indifference for impartiality, as if anyone could
judge his fellowman without love, and even with love how far short we all come
of that perfect sympathy which is above forgiveness and takes delight in
succouring the weak, comforting the broken-hearted.

. . . . . . .

The days went swiftly by and my powerlessness to influence him filled me with
self-contempt. Of course, I said to myself, if I knew him better I should be
able to help him. Would vanity do anything? It was his mainspring; I could but
try. He might be led by the hope of making Englishmen talk of him again, talk
of him as one who had dared to escape; wonder what he would do next. I would
try, and I did try. But his dejection foiled me: his dislike of the struggle
seemed to grow from day to day.

He would scarcely listen to me. He was counting the days to the trial: willing
to accept an adverse decision; even punishment and misery and shame seemed
better than doubt and waiting. He surprised me by saying:

"A year, Frank, they may give me a year? half the possible sentence: the middle
course, that English Judges always take: the sort of compromise they think
safe?" and his eyes searched my face for agreement.

I felt no such confidence in English Judges; their compromises are usually
bargainings; when they get hold of an artist they give rein to their intuitive
fear and hate.

But I would not discourage him. I repeated:

"You can win, Oscar, if you like:--" my litany to him. His wan dejected smile
brought tears to my eyes.

. . . . . . .

"Don't you want to make them all speak of you and wonder at you again? If you
were in France, everyone would be asking: will he come back or disappear
altogether? or will he manifest himself henceforth in some new comedies, more
joyous and pagan than ever?"

I might as well have talked to the dead: he seemed numbed, hypnotised with
despair. The punishment had already been greater than he could bear. I began
to fear that prison, if he were condemned to it, would rob him of his reason;
I sometimes feared that his mind was already giving way, so profound was his
depression, so hopeless his despair.

. . . . . . .

The trial opened before Mr. Justice Wills on the 21st of May, 1895. The
Treasury had sent Sir Frank Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., to lead Mr. C. F. Gill,
Mr. Horace Avory, and Mr. Sutton. Oscar was represented by the same counsel
as on the previous occasion.

The whole trial to me was a nightmare, and it was characterised from the very
beginning by atrocious prejudice and injustice. The High Priests of Law were
weary of being balked; eager to make an end. As soon as the Judge took his
seat, Sir Edward Clarke applied that the defendants should be tried separately.
As they had already been acquitted on the charge of conspiracy, there was no
reason why they should be tried together.

The Judge called on the Solicitor-General to answer the application.

The Solicitor-General had nothing to say, but thought it was in the interests
of the defendants to be tried together; for, in case they were tried separately,
it would be necessary to take the defendant Taylor first.

Sir Edward Clarke tore this pretext to pieces, and Mr. Justice Wills brought the
matter to a conclusion by saying that he was in possession of all the evidence
that had been taken at the previous trials, and his opinion was that the two
defendants should be tried separately.

Sir Edward Clarke then applied that the case of Mr. Wilde should be taken first
as his name stood first on the indictment, and as the first count was directed
against him and had nothing to do with Taylor. . . . . "There are reasons
present, I am sure, too, in your Lordship's mind, why Wilde should not be tried
immediately after the other defendant."

Mr. Justice Wills remarked, with seeming indifference, "It ought not to make the
least difference, Sir Edward. I am sure I and the jury will do our best to take
care that the last trial has no influence at all on the present."

Sir Edward Clarke stuck to his point. He urged respectfully that as Mr. Wilde's
name stood first on the indictment his case should be taken first.

Mr. Justice Wills said he could not interfere with the discretion of the
prosecution, nor vary the ordinary procedure. Justice and fair play on the one
side and precedent on the other: justice was waved out of court with serene
indifference. Thereupon Sir Edward Clarke pressed that the trial of Mr. Oscar
Wilde should stand over till the next sessions. But again Mr. Justice Wills
refused. Precedent was silent now but prejudice was strong as ever.

The case against Taylor went on the whole day and was resumed next morning.
Taylor went into the box and denied all the charges. The Judge summed up dead
against him, and at 3.30 the jury retired to consider their verdict: in forty-
five minutes they came into court again with a question which was significant.
In answer to the judge the foreman stated that "they had agreed that Taylor
had introduced Parker to Wilde, but they were not satisfied with Wilde's guilt
in the matter."

Mr. Justice Wills: "Were you agreed as to the charge on the other counts?"

Foreman: "Yes, my Lord."

Mr. Justice Wills: "Well, possibly it would be as well to take your verdict
upon the other counts."

Through the foreman the jury accordingly intimated that they found Taylor guilty
with regard to Charles and William Parker.

In answer to his Lordship, Sir F. Lockwood said he would take the verdict given
by the jury of "guilty" upon the two counts.

A formal verdict having been entered, the judge ordered the prisoner to stand
down, postponing sentence. Did he postpone the sentence in order not to
frighten the next jury by the severity of it? Other reason I could find none.

Sir Edward Clarke then got up and said that as it was getting rather late,
perhaps after the second jury had disagreed as to Mr. Wilde's guilt--

Sir F. Lockwood here interposed hotly: "I object to Sir Edward Clarke making
these little speeches."

Mr. Justice Wills took the matter up as well.

"You can hardly call it a disagreement, Sir Edward," though what else he could
call it, I was at a loss to imagine.

He then adjourned the case against Oscar Wilde till the next day, when a
different jury would be impanelled. But whatever jury might be called they
would certainly hear that their forerunners had found Taylor guilty and they
would know that every London paper without exception had approved the finding.
What a fair chance to give Wilde! It was like trying an Irish Secretary before
a jury of Fenians.

The next morning, May 23d, Oscar Wilde appeared in the dock. The Solicitor-
General opened the case, and then called his witnesses. One of the first was
Edward Shelley, who in cross-examination admitted that he had been mentally ill
when he wrote Mr. Wilde those letters which had been put in evidence. He was
"made nervous from over-study," he said.

Alfred Wood admitted that he had had money given him quite recently, practically
blackmailing money. He was as venomous as possible. "When he went to America,"
he said, "he told Wilde that he wanted to get away from mixing with him (Wilde)
and Douglas."

Charlie Parker next repeated his disgusting testimony with ineffable impudence
and a certain exultation. Bestial ignominy could go no lower; he admitted
that since the former trial he had been kept at the expense of the prosecution.
After this confession the case was adjourned and we came out of court.

When I reached Fleet Street I was astonished to hear that there had been a row
that same afternoon in Piccadilly between Lord Douglas of Hawick and his father,
the Marquis of Queensberry. Lord Queensberry, it appears, had been writing
disgusting letters about the Wilde case to Lord Douglas's wife. Meeting him
in Piccadilly Percy Douglas stopped him and asked him to cease writing obscene
letters to his wife. The Marquis said he would not and the father and son came
to blows. Queensberry it seems was exasperated by the fact that Douglas of
Hawick was one of those who had gone bail for Oscar Wilde. One of the telegrams
which the Marquis of Queensberry had sent to Lady Douglas I must put in just to
show the insane nature of the man who could exult in a trial which was damning
the reputation of his own son. The letter was manifestly written after the
result of the Taylor trial:

Must congratulate on verdict, cannot on Percy's appearance. Looks like a
dug up corpse. Fear too much madness of kissing. Taylor guilty. Wilde's
turn tomorrow.

Queensberry.

In examination before the magistrate, Mr. Hannay, it was stated that Lord
Queensberry had been sending similar letters to Lady Douglas "full of the
most disgusting charges against Lord Douglas, his wife, and Lord Queensberry's
divorced wife and her family." But Mr. Hannay thought all this provocation was
of no importance and bound over both father and son to keep the peace--an
indefensible decision, a decision only to be explained by the sympathy
everywhere shown to Queensberry because of his victory over Wilde, otherwise
surely any honest magistrate would have condemned the father who sent obscene
letters to his son's wife--a lady above reproach. These vile letters and the
magistrate's bias, seemed to me to add the final touch of the grotesque to the
horrible vileness of the trial. It was all worthy of the seventh circle of
Dante, but Dante had never imagined such a father and such judges!

. . . . . . .

Next morning Oscar Wilde was again put in the dock. The evidence of the
Queensberry trial was read and therewith the case was closed for the Crown.

Sir Edward Clarke rose and submitted that there was no case to go to the jury on
the general counts. After a long legal argument for and against, Mr. Justice
Wills said that he would reserve the question for the Court of Appeal. The view
he took was that "the evidence was of the slenderest kind"; but he thought the
responsibility must be left with the jury. To this judge "the slenderest kind"
of evidence was worthful so long as it told against the accused.

Sir Edward Clarke then argued that the cases of Shelley, Parker, and Wood failed
on the ground of the absence of corroboration. Mr. Justice Wills admitted that
Shelley showed "a peculiar exaltation" of mind; there was, too, mental
derangement in his family, and worst of all there was no corroboration of his
statements. Accordingly, in spite of the arguments of the Solicitor-General,
Shelley's evidence was cut out. But Shelley's evidence had already been taken,
had already prejudiced the jury. Indeed, it had been the evidence which had
influenced Mr. Justice Charles in the previous trial to sum up dead against the
defendant: Mr. Justice Charles called Shelley "the only serious witness."

Now it appeared that Shelley's evidence should never have been taken at all,
that the jury ought never to have heard Shelley's testimony or the Judge's
acceptance of it!

. . . . . . .

When the court opened next morning I knew that the whole case depended on Oscar
Wilde, and the showing he would make in the box, but alas! he was broken and
numbed. He was not a fighter, and the length of this contest might have wearied
a combative nature. The Solicitor-General began by examining him on his letters
to Lord Alfred Douglas and we had the "prose poem" again and the rest of the
ineffable nonsensical prejudice of the middle-class mind against passionate
sentiment. It came out in evidence that Lord Alfred Douglas was now in Calais.
His hatred of his father was the "causa causans" of the whole case; he had
pushed Oscar into the fight and Oscar, still intent on shielding him, declared
that he had asked him to go abroad.

Sir Edward Clarke again did his poor best. He pointed out that the trial rested
on the evidence of mere blackmailers. He would not quarrel with that and
discuss it, but it was impossible not to see that if blackmailers were to be
listened to and believed, their profession might speedily become a more deadly
mischief and danger to society than it had ever been.

The speech was a weak one; but the people in court cheered Sir Edward Clarke;
the cheers were immediately suppressed by the Judge.

The Solicitor-General took up the rest of the day with a rancorous reply. Sir
Edward Clarke even had to remind him that law officers of the Crown should try
to be impartial. One instance of his prejudice may be given. Examining Oscar
as to his letters to Lord Alfred Douglas, Sir Frank Lockwood wanted to know
whether he thought them "decent"?

The witness replied, "Yes."

"Do you know the meaning of the word, sir?" was this gentleman's retort.

I went out of the court feeling certain that the case was lost. Oscar had not
shown himself at all; he had not even spoken with the vigour he had used at the
Queensberry trial. He seemed too despairing to strike a blow.

The summing up of the Judge on May 25th was perversely stupid and malevolent.
He began by declaring that he was "absolutely impartial," though his view of the
facts had to be corrected again and again by Sir Edward Clarke: he went on to
regret that the charge of conspiracy should have been introduced, as it had to
be abandoned. He then pointed out that he could not give a colourless summing
up, which was "of no use to anybody." His intelligence can be judged from one
crucial point: he fastened on the fact that Oscar had burnt the letters which
he bought from Wood, which he said were of no importance, except that they
concerned third parties. The Judge had persuaded himself that the letters were
indescribably bad, forgetting apparently that Wood or his associates had
selected and retained the very worst of them for purposes of blackmail and that
this Judge himself, after reading it, couldn't attribute any weight to it; still
he insisted that burning the letters was an act of madness; whereas it seemed to
everyone of the slightest imagination the most natural thing in the world for an
innocent man to do. At the time Oscar burnt the letters he had no idea that he
would ever be on trial. His letters had been misunderstood and the worst of
them was being used against him, and when he got the others he naturally threw
them into the fire. The Judge held that it was madness, and built upon this
inference a pyramid of guilt. "Nothing said by Wood should be believed, as he
belongs to the vilest class of criminals; the strength of the accusation depends
solely upon the character of the original introduction of Wood to Wilde as
illustrated and fortified by the story with regard to the letters and their
burning."

A pyramid of guilt carefully balanced on its apex! If the foolish Judge had only
read his Shakespeare! What does Henry VI say:

Proceed no straiter 'gainst our uncle Gloucester
Than from true evidence of good esteem
He be approved in practice culpable.

There was no "true evidence of good esteem" against Wilde, but the Judge turned
a harmless action into a confession of guilt.

Then came an interruption which threw light on the English conception of
justice. The foreman of the jury wanted to know, in view of the intimate
relations between Lord Alfred Douglas and the defendant, whether a warrant
against Lord Alfred Douglas was ever issued.

Mr. Justice Wills: "I should say not; we have never heard of it."

Foreman: "Or ever contemplated?"

Mr. Justice Wills: "That I cannot say, nor can we discuss it. The issue of such
a warrant would not depend upon the testimony of the parties, but whether there
was evidence of such act. Letters pointing to such relations would not be
sufficient. Lord Alfred Douglas was not called, and you can give what weight
you like to that."

Foreman: "If we are to deduce any guilt from these letters, it would apply
equally to Lord Alfred Douglas."

Mr. Justice Wills concurred in that view, but after all he thought it had
nothing to do with the present trial, which was the guilt of the accused.

The jury retired to consider their verdict at half past three. After being
absent two hours they returned to know whether there was any evidence of
Charles Parker having slept at St. James's Place.

His Lordship replied, "No."

The jury shortly afterwards returned again with the verdict of "Guilty" on all
the counts.

It may be worth while to note again that the Judge himself admitted that the
evidence on some of the counts was of "the slenderest kind"; but, when backed
by his prejudiced summing up, it was more than sufficient for the jury.

Sir Edward Clarke pleaded that sentence should be postponed till the next
sessions, when the legal argument would be heard.

Mr. Justice Wills would not be balked: sentence, he thought, should be given
immediately. Then, addressing the prisoners, he said, and again I give his
exact words, lest I should do him wrong:

"Oscar Wilde and Alfred Taylor, the crime of which you have been convicted is so
bad that one has to put stern restraint upon one's self to prevent one's self
from describing in language which I would rather not use the sentiments which
must rise to the breast of every man of honour who has heard the details of
these two terrible trials.

"That the jury have arrived at a correct verdict in this case I cannot persuade
myself to entertain the shadow of a doubt; and I hope, at all events, that those
who sometimes imagine that a Judge is half-hearted in the cause of decency and
morality because he takes care no prejudice shall enter into the case may see
that that is consistent at least with the utmost sense of indignation at the
horrible charges brought home to both of you.

"It is no use for me to address you. People who can do these things must be
dead to all sense of shame, and one cannot hope to produce any effect upon them.
It is the worst case I have ever tried. . . . . That you, Wilde, have been the
centre of a circle of extensive corruption of the most hideous kind among young
men it is impossible to doubt.

"I shall under such circumstances be expected to pass the severest sentence
that the law allows. In my judgment it is totally inadequate for such a case
as this.

"The sentence of the court is that each of you be imprisoned and kept to hard
labour for two years."

The sentence hushed the court in shocked surprise.

Wilde rose and cried, "Can I say anything, my lord?"

Mr. Justice Wills waved his hand deprecatingly amid cries of "Shame" and hisses
from the public gallery; some of the cries and hisses were certainly addressed
to the Judge and well deserved. What did he mean by saying that Oscar was a
"centre of extensive corruption of the most hideous kind"? No evidence of this
had been brought forward by the prosecution. It was not even alleged that a
single innocent person had been corrupted. The accusation was invented by this
"absolutely impartial" Judge to justify his atrocious cruelty. The unmerited
insults and appalling sentence would have disgraced the worst Judge of the
Inquisition.

Mr. Justice Wills evidently suffered from the peculiar "exaltation" of mind
which he had recognised in Shelley. This peculiarity is shared in a lesser
degree by several other Judges on the English bench in all matters of sexual
morality. What distinguished Mr. Justice Wills was that he was proud of his
prejudice and eager to act on it. He evidently did not know, or did not care,
that the sentence which he had given, declaring it was "totally inadequate,"
had been condemned by a Royal Commission as "inhuman." He would willingly
have pushed "inhumanity" to savagery, out of sheer bewigged stupidity, and
that he was probably well-meaning only intensified the revolt one felt at such
brainless malevolence.

The bitterest words in Dante are not bitter enough to render my feeling:

"Non ragioniam di lor ma guarda e passa."

The whole scene had sickened me. Hatred masquerading as justice, striking
vindictively and adding insult to injury. The vile picture had its fit setting
outside. We had not left the court when the cheering broke out in the streets,
and when we came outside there were troops of the lowest women of the town
dancing together and kicking up their legs in hideous abandonment, while the
surrounding crowd of policemen and spectators guffawed with delight. As I
turned away from the exhibition, as obscene and soul-defiling as anything
witnessed in the madness of the French revolution, I caught a glimpse of Wood
and the Parkers getting into a cab, laughing and leering.

These were the venal creatures Oscar Wilde was punished for having corrupted!

Book of the day: