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.”