se 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 charac