LONDON GOSSIP.

Evening Star, Issue 9751, 6 July 1895, Page 4 (Supplement)

LONDON GOSSIP.

[From Odr Special Correspondent.]

London, May 17. THE PREMIER’S HEALTH.

Though the Radical party are trying to make as little as possible ox the incident, there can be no doubt that Lord Rosebery’s breakdown at the National Liberal Club reception has given rise to great uneasiness. The Premier’s readiness and fluency have always been his strongest points, and the old parliamentary bauds could hardly believe either eyes or ears when they saw him suddenly falter and stop short. Robert Lowe, upon a similar weakness overtaking him, sat down altogether, too unnerved to go on. Lord Rosebery was, however, all right after Mr Campbell-Bannerman had picked up the thread for him, and ended his discourse vigorously enough. Nevertheless, the Premier’s weakness made it clear that he is very far from being in a condition to conduct an election campaign efficiently. As for Sir William Harcourt, he has no notion of doing a Prime Minister’s duties minus the Prime Minister’s office and prestige. The right hon. gentleman speaks very confidently in public, as, indeed, do most of Her Majesty’s Ministers; but 1 don’t suppose any Government which has existed in modern times had ever less expectation of being returned to power than has this one. They know they’re bound to fall, but they want to fall lightly, if possible. SIR ROBERT PEEL. Few personalities were better known in London than that of the late Sir Robert Peel, whose jolly face, surmounted by a much belled and portentously ourlybrimmed tile, rakishly worn on one side of the head, was familiar to every bus conductor from Hampstead to Camberwell. >Sir Robert favored this mode of conveyance above all others. He liked its freedom and its uneonventionality, and always chatted breezily with the driver and his neighbors, ventionality was Sir Robert’s particular bugbear. “Of all things I abhor,” he once said to Bishop Wilberforce, “it is conventionality that I abhor most, and, though I hate many of your opinions, I admire you for having the courage of your views and apparently glorying in their unpopularity.” Politically, Sir Robert was unstable as water, and therefore he never excelled. He had plenty of ability and eloquence, his sonorous voice making him specially useful as a platform orator. He was also a great admirer of other fine speakers, and would take any amount of trouble to hear John Bright, or Father Ignatius, or Mr Gladstone. Only last week Sir Robert was at the Armenian atrocities meeting, where he paid a high tribute to Lady Henry Somerset’s touching and pathetic address. “ Why don’t you speak too. Sir Robert, )J a. friend asked. “Ah ! my uear lady,” he answered, “ I’m too old.” And in thirty-six hours he was dead. A greater contrast than the breezy, buoyant, and rather noisy Sir Robert and his younger brother, the grave and dignified Speaker, it would be difficult to imagine. Quite a dramatic scene occurred in the House a few years back, when Mr Speaker had to call the head of his family sharply to order for denouncing a Ministerial move as a “dirty trick.” Sir Robert Peel, when speaking as a candidate for Brighton in October, 1889, thus sketched his own political character : “ In the House of Commons he had, he said, always exercised an independent judgment. He had spoken against the Liberal party on several occasions, and he was not ashamed of it. He had not, however, transgressed against the principles of the Liberal party. He was talking to a Tory in Brighton the other day, and he (the Tory) said he was sick of the Tories—they wanted a good allround sort of every-day man ; and he ventured to say that he was that nun.” Mr Ritchie during the Brighton contest made a very acrimonious personal attack on Sir Robert Peel. “He had,” said Mr Ritchie, “the eflrontery to allude to the name of his revered father as one who would countenance the course he was then pursuing.” Mr Ritchie, however, next evening got an answer which probably made him regret that he had entered the lists with Sir Robert “ Referring to Mr Ritchie’s speech,” said Sir Robert, “ it had been stated that Mr Ritchie was funny. He could not conceive of Mr Ritchie being funny. He had more fun in the twinkle of his eye than Mr Ritchie had in his whole body. He would tell them what Mr Disraeli once told him about Mr Ritchie. He once asked him what he thought of Mr Ritchie, and Mr Disraeli’s reply was ‘He is a pompous ass.’—(Loud laughter.) These gentlemen ought to be very careful how they touched him; he knew more about people then perhaps they gave him credit tor. His answer to those who raked up this ancient history was that he had advanced with the stream.”

Sir Robert Peel’s careless goo;! humor went down very well when lie was in Ireland. ‘ The Times’ says he thought that he had solved the Irish question when he made excursions incoyuUo through the country on a jaunting car, and interviewed the peasants in the style of a modern Haroun-al-Raschid. His speeches on Ireland were full of the cheeriest optimism. But, before his official career at the Castle came to an end, Fenianism had begun to raise its head. Irish debates became more embittered, and Sir Robert Peel’s way of dealing with its parliamentary apologists was not calculated to promote peace. On one occasion (says the ‘ Daily News ’) he referred in Parliament to a meeting in the Rotunda over which The O’Donoghue had presided as one at which “ a few mannikin traitors tried to rival the cabbage-garden heroes of 1848, but met with no response. The was no one to follow, and there was not a single man of respectability who answered the appeal,” The O’Donoghue was angry, and likely, as Lord Palmerston foresaw, to send a challenge. Sir Robert w r as therefore reminded by his leader in a letter that a hostile message for anything said in the House was a breach of privilege. He was warned not to infringe that privilege or make himse'f a party to a public scandal by accepting the challenge. Major Gavin called on Sir Robert Peel and conveyed the challenge by the delicate suggestion that he should name a friend. Sir Robert Peel found time for telling the Prime Minister the turn things had taken by requiring Major Gavin to write to him, and loud were the cheers and laughter when Lord Palmerston told an eagerly listening House of Commons: “I requested my right hon. friend to refer to me.” The simple and impulsive Major Gavin fell into the Ministerial trap. He thought, as he told the much-amused House, that there was no right hon. member who would so readily respond to anything of the kind as Lord Palmerston, and so the Major called upon the Prime Minister and gravely demanded explanations of the Chief Secretary’s language. The response filled him with disgust. Lord Palmerston told him what the rules of the House were. “ Oh, my lord,” said Major Gavin, “ if you take this up officially it is no use my taking up your time any farther.” OSCAR WILDE. The May sessions of the Central Criminal Court commence next Monday, and Oscar Wilde’s case is to be taken first. Mr Justice Wills, instead of Mr Justice Charles, will preside, and Mr Poland may conduct the prosecution cither with or without Mr Gill. On dit, the manner in which the Crown’s cisc was presented last mouth has been •severely criticised in legal circles. Mr Russell (who acted for Lord Quecnsberry in the civil trial) scoffs at the ineptitude of the Treasury solicitors, and at their failing to secure a verdict. The evidence, properly handled, was, in his view, impossible to combat, but the Treasury bad offended their most important witnesses before they put them in the box. On the other hand Sir Edward Clarke made the very most of every point for Oscar. Nevertheless, it is stated the manner in which the jury divided was erroneously announced. Instead of being fairly divided for and against conviction, a juror writes On each of the three vital issues ten were for conviction and two for acquittal.” A great many people are of opinion that, looking at the terrible completeness of Wilde’s professional, social, and financial ruin, he has been already sufficiently punished. At the second trial Justice Wills presided, and Wilde came into court accompanied by his bondsmen, Lord Douglas, of Hawick, and the Rev. Stewart Headlam, of the London School Board. The latter said: “ I fell that the public mind was prejudiced before the ease began, and I was anxious to

give Wilde any help possible to enable him to stand his trial in good health and spirits.” Taylor was tried first, and he was put on the witness stand, and repeated the statements he made previously. Replying to a question in regard to the visitors at his rooms, he asked to be allowed to write their names. The judge said : “If the names are written I will read them aloud; Ido not approve of mystery.” Taylor did not write the names, but mentioned a few who have been connected with the case. There were no notable names among them. He denied that he had gone through a marriage ceremony with a man named Mason. After the libel trial of Wilde against Lord Queensberry the latter’s solicitor, ho said, had asked him to make a statement against Wilde, but this he had refused to do. He admitted he had written a letter to the man Mason signing himself “ With love.” At the close of the day’s proceediOjpFthe Marquis of Queeasberry and his eldest son had an encounter at the corner of Albemarle street and Piccadilly, in which the latter got a black eye. They afterwards appeared before the police magistrate at the Old Bailey, and were bound over to keep the peace. The crowd cheered the Marquis as he drove away, and as vigorously hooted the son as he drove away. The son’s wife received this characteristic telegram from her father-in-law : “I must congratulate you on the result, but I cannot congratulate you on Percy's appearance. He looks like a dug-up corpse. I fear there is too much madness in kissing. Taylor is guilty. It will be Wilde’s turn to-morrow.”

The principal witnesses against Wilde were the youth Shelley, Parker’s servants, and the servants at the Savoy. Wilde, called ou to testify on his own behalf, related that he had been on terms of intimacy with the Marquis of Quccnsberry’s family for years, and entirely denied the charges made against him. Sir Frank Lockwood subjected the defendant to half an hour’s severe cross-examina-tion. When Wilde was asked about the famous letters he had written to Lord Douglas, which were read at the time of the first trial, he said it was a beautiful way in which an artist would write to a cultured young man. Taking up the letter Wilde had written to Lord Alfred praising his “red roseleaf lips” and “slim gilt soul” that “ walked between poetry and passion,” Sir Frank asked the defendant whether he considered this letter decent. Wilde replied : “Decency does not come into the question.” “Do you understand the meaning of the word ?” asked the counsel sternly. “Yes,” replied Wilde. Wilde admitted that he made repeated visits to the rooms of Alfred Taylor, where he met a number of young men. Wilde also admitted his association with the other young men whose names were mentioned in the previous trial. Bir Edward Clarke, in his address to the jury, asked them to save the defendant from the ruin of his reputation, which, he added, had been nearly quenched by the torrent of prejudice in the Press.—(Applause.) The Solicitor-General, in addressing the jury, commented severely on the prisoner’s intimacy with Lord Alfred Douglas, and his conduct at hotels and public places in and about London. Referring to the letters Wilde wrote to Lord Alfred Douglas, counsel said the jury had been told that they were too low to appreciate such poetry, and he thanked God it was so, for it showed that they were above the level of beasts. Sir F. Lockwood asked the jury to return a verdict which would prevent “such detestable and abominable vice from rearing its head uublushingly in this country.” The summing-up of the judge was, on the whole, favorable to Wilde. During its delivery the foreman of the jury asked whether, in view of the intimacy between Lord Alfred Douglas and Alfred Wood, one of the men whose names had been brought prominently in the case, a warrant for Lord Alfred’s arrest had ever been issued. The judge replied that he thought not. The foreman then asked if it had ever been thought of. To this the judge replied that he could not say. He added that the suspicion that Lord Alfred Douglas would be spared if guilty was a -wild idea, and a matter that they could not discuss. The present inquiry was as to whether the man in the dock was guilty of immoral practices with certain men.

The jury returned at half-past five o’clock, having been absent from court about four hours, and gave in a verdict of guilty. Wilde was found guilty on all the points of the indictment, including the charge with reference to persons unknown who were also pronounced guilty. This probably referred to the Savoy Hotel evidence. Y While the jury were out Wilde’s counsel procured from him, at the request of a representative of the Associated Press, the following signed statement:—“ The charges against me are entirely untrue. Youth in every form always fascinated me because youth has naturally that temperament to which the artists try to attain. All works of art are produced in the moment of youth. I have no sense at all of social grades. I love society and the rich and well-born on account of their luxury, culture, the grace of their lives, and the external accidents of comely life. But anyone, a ploughboy, fisherman, or street arab has an interest for me. Mere humanity is so wonderful. I do not ask of the young what they do, I don’t care who they are. Their ignorance has its mode of wisdom. Their lack of culture leaves them open to fresh and vivid impressions. v The judge, in passing sentence, expressed his regret that he was unable to make the punishment more severe. [The finish of the trial reaches us via San Francisco. —Eo. E.S.] .1 ABE/ UALKOI’K. Jabez Balfour, who looks the kindliest and most genial of misused old gentlemen, has been brought up two or three times at Bow street, and the endless charges against him partially gone into. The evidence shows more clearly than ever on each occasion what an extraordinary influence this remarkable man had over colleagues and subordinates. His method seems to have been to get his company businesses, by means of complicated cross transactions, into a hopeless tangle, of which he alone held the key. If any of his colleagues displayed inconvenient curiosity or criticism, Jabez was quite equal to the situation. “ Either, gentlemen,” he would say, “I must do things my way or you must yourselves shoulder the company’s concerns. Just now we are not doing very well, and our contracts, etc., look far from promising. I shall be delighted to hand over the responsibility to you.” At the prospect of having to take over an involved business, of which they were well aware they knew nothing, the good men blenched (as Balfour knew they would), and ho was left to his own devices. When Balfour’s trial comes on I shall endeavor to outline the most serious charges against him, but till then I spare you any business details. The interest in the man has waned materially since his landing, and crowds no longer frequent Bow street in the hope of a glance at him, THE qUKEN or MEBYIA. If anything could lend an air of respectability to the vulgar exposures of the divorce courts it would be the appearance of Royalty in those tribunals. Hitherto such remarkable romances as that of divorced couples burying the past and becoming reconciled and remarried with all the freshness and ardor of first love have been supposed to be peculiar to America. But the case of Queen Natalie, of Servia., furnishes a noteworthy exception. She was married when young to Prince Milan, afterwards King of Servia, who chiefly distinguished his brief but eventful reign by his penchant for such loyal vices as fondness for the society of ladies of doubtful character and for the excitement of the gaming table. The Queen, a Russian, entertaining strong objections to this conduct, aired her grievances in public, with the result that she was forcibly expelled the country. The King, with the aid of a subservient clergy, secured a divorce, and the Queen took to intriguing. Ultimately the King, whose tastes were sufficiently extravagant to plunge a little State like Servia into bankruptcy, was induced to abdicate in favor of his son and accept a pension. Then he went to Paris and played high jinks until his exchequer ran dry. In this impecunious condition he met his divorced consort on the Riviera, and a reconciliation was effected. Then, in defiance of his bargain with the Skupshina, or Parliament, Milan returned to Belgrade, and stuck on like a limpet until that complacent body decreed that both King Alexander’s parents might reside

in Servia with Civil List allowances. Meantime the divpece had been applied. But the Queen seems to have been in no hurry to rush into the arms of her hqsband, : and the King, having got hold of ; ready ' cash to the amount <of£l;000, went off on a holiday in Italy in preference to meeting the - Queens There was something of the irony of fate in the fact that the address of welcome was read by M. Christitch, who had formerly been one of her bitterest enemies. ! As to when Milan will return is dependent | upon tine length of time the £I,OOO will last, i Anyhow, this little domestic drama in Servia possesses no political significance. What is of vastly more importance to the creditors of the country is the question whether Servia will be able to steer clear of national bankruptcy. MATRIMONIAL TROUBLES OF “ YOURS MERRILY,” “ Yours merrily, John R. Rogers,” has in bis time played many parts, especially in connection with that frolicsome elderly ewe lamb Minnie Palmer. I remember him particularly well in the role of the inconsolable husband, whose strong heart had been wrung by “My Sweetheart’s” infidelity, but who was so forgiving and full of love that he would forget all providing only she would return to her”*' hubby.” On dit this phase lasted till Minnie’s failure as a “song and dance” actress was unmistakeably demonstrated. When Rogers recognised that she had ceased to be a draw he concluded that reunion would be folly, and sought financial salve for his badly bruised heart. Sir George Lewis, describing in court on Tuesday how divorce proceedings were brought against his client (Sir W. Rose), said thp,t Rogers demanded £5,000 from the latter as the. price of not allowing the case to proceed. In the end witness (who was, of course, Rose’s solicitor) yielded to £6OO being paid—£2oo for costs and £4oodamages. He produced letters from “ yours merrily,” in .which the injured husband threatened Sir William and made every effort to terrorise him into paying large sums of money. He even threatened l>s life. Volckman, J.P. (“ Yalckman’s Jams are the Best ”) also gave evidence. He was a friend of Rogers, and was aware that Sir W. Rose had paid that much-injured man a sum of money to cover the expenses of the trial, not as compensation. Coin of the realm could never heal his excoriated cardiac organ. Witness interviewed a friend of Rose’s yclept “ Maddox.” The latter said if Mr Rogers required co-respon-dents he could find him a dozen or two. “ Do you call Maddox,” (inquired the judge. Mr Yelverton (for petitioner) regretted that they bad been unable to discover the gentleman. Sir William Rose, interrogated, was not surprised to learn the difficulty experienced in finding Maddox, “for,” said he, in the words of the immortal Mrs Gamp, “there ain’t no sich person.” He had no partner of that name, and had nothing to do with' the imaginary statement of the non-existent Maddox. The judge said he had no doubt whatever that Mrs Minnie Palmer Rogers had committed adultery, but whether to pronounce a decree or not he felt dubious. There seemed to have been something suspiciously resembling collusion.

London, May 24. From the effusive manner in which the friends of Wilhelmina Rogers, otherwise Minnie Palmer, fell upon that sprightly little lady and congratulated her when Sir Francis Jeune gave “ yours merrily ” a decree nisi and costs last Tuesday afternoon they evidently (did not consider division from the injured husband an absolutely irreparable misfortune. The co-respondent in the present suit has been mixed up by many people with his predecessor in Rogers v. Rogers and Rose, but there is, as the papers say, “no connection.” Mr John L. Rogers, we learnt last week, dropped his action against Sir William Rose in consideration of certain financial transactions brutally rehearsed in the witness box by Sir George Lewis. The “Co.” in the present action is Mr Jerrard, who has recently been acting as Wilhelmina’s manager. The case was proved against the pair without the smallest difficulty, but Sir Francis Jeune suspected “ yours merrily ” of “ winking the other eye,” or, in legal parlance, of connivance. John R. was pained that the judge should misunderstand his broken and blighted heart. Sir Francis, however, insisted on putting Wilhelmina in the box. She was coquettishly arrayed, and wore plenty of diamonds. Miss Palmer angrily disclaimed the suspicion of connivance. “ I’ve not spoken to the man (meaning her devoted hubby) fqr three years.” Sir Francis was rude enough to ask if she’d had any of the £6OO that Rogers had extracted from Sir W. Rose. “Certainly not,” replied “My Sweetheart,” pouting; “I am no blackmailer.” Mr Claude Magniae, who proved to be the “Mr Maddox” vaguely referred to by various witnesses, explained the enigmatic speech he made anent the ease of providing many other co-respondents He met Rogers and a friend, on Sir W. Rose’s behalf, just to discuss matters. Rogers made some rude remarks about his wife, whereupon witness, in a jocular way, made the remarks sworn to. Sir Francis Jeune ultimately decided to pronounce the decree nisi, but intimated that he ({should send certain' papers to the Queen’s Proctor, who might intervene.