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.