London Star - Monday, April 22, 1895
This report was originally published in English. Machine translations may be available in other languages.
OSCAR WILDE.
LORD ALFRED DOUGLAS
APPEALS FOR FAIR PLAY.
SIR JOHN BRIDGE IS ACCUSED
OF "FLAGRANT
PREJUDICE."
Lord Queensberry's "Precious Bit of
Cant and Bad Grammar" Do Not
Alienate the Sympathy of Mr. Robert
Buchanan, Who
Only Wants to See
"Queensberry Rules" Observed in the
Trial.
TO THE EDITOR OF "THE STAR."
SIR,--When the great British public has made up its great British mind to crush any particular unfortunate whom it holds in its power, it generally succeeds in gaining its object, and it is not fond of those who dare to question its power, or its right to do as it wishes. I feel, therefore, that I am taking my life in my hands in daring to raise my voice against the chorus of the pack of those who are now hounding Mr. Oscar Wilde to his ruin, the more so as I feel assured that the public has made up its mind to accept me, as it has accepted everybody and everything connected with this case, at Mr. Carson's valuation. I, of course, am the undutiful son who, in his arrogance and folly, has kicked out against his kind and affectionate father, and who has further aggravated his offence by not running away and hiding his face after the discomfiture of his friend. It is
A most extraordinary letter, written by Lord Alfred Douglas, appeared in at least one of the evening papers last night. In it he says, among other things: "I feel that I am taking my life in my hands in daring to raise my voice against the chorus of the pack of those who are now hounding Mr. Oscar Wilde, to his ruin; more as I feel assured that the public has made up its mind to accept me as it accepted everybody and everything connected with this case at Mr. Carson's valuation. Of course I am an undutiful son, who in his arrogance and folly has kicked against his kind and affectionate father and who has further aggravated his offence by not running away and hiding his face after the discomfiture of his friends.
NOT A PLEASANT POSITION
to find oneself to with regard to the public, and the situation is not without an element of grim humor, and it is no part of my intention to try and explain my attitude or defend my position. I am simply the "vox in solitudine clamantis" raising my feeble protest; not in the expectation of making head against the wave of popular or newspaper clamor, but rather dimly hoping to catch the ear and sympathy of one or two of those strong and fearless men and women who have before now defied the shrieks of the mob. To such as these I appeal to interfere and to stay the hand of "Judge Lynch." And I submit that Mr. Oscar Wilde has been tried by the newspapers before his has been tried by jury, that his case has been
HOPELESSLY PREJUDICED
in the eyes of the public from whein the jury who must try his case will be drawn, and that his is practically being delivered over bound to the fury of a cowardly and brutal mob. Sir John Bridge, in refusing bail to-day, stated that he knew of no graver offence than that which Mr. Wilde is charged. Mr. Wilde, as a matter of fact, is charged with a "misdemeanor" punishable by two years' imprisonment with or without hard labor as a maximum penalty; therefore, the offence with which he is charged is, in the eyes of the law, which Sir John Bridge is supposed to represent, comparatively trifling. I should very much like to know how, in view of this fact, Sir John Bridge can reconcile what he said with his conscience, and with his position as the absolutely impartial exponent of the law, and whether it is not obvious that, in saying what he did, he allowed
in the eyes of the public from whom the jury who must try his case will be drawn, and that he is practically being delivered over bound to the fury of a cowardly and brutal mob. Sir John Bridge, in refusing bail to-day, stated that he knew of no graver offence than that which Mr. Wilde is charged. Mr. Wilde, as a matter of fact, is charged with a "misdemeanour" punishable by two years' imprisonment with or without hard labour as a maximum penalty; therefore, the offence with which he is charged is, in the eye of the law, which Sir John Bridge is supposed to represent, comparatively trifling. I should very much like to know how, in view of this fact, Sir John Bridge can reconcile what he said with his conscience, and with his position as the absolutely impartial exponent of the law, and whether it is not obvious that, in saying what he did, allowed
"Sir John Bridge in refusing bail stated that he knew of no graver offence than that which Mr. Wilde is charged. Mr. Wilde, as a matter of fact, is charged with a misdemeanour punishable by two years' imprisonment, with or without hard labor, 'as a maximum penalty.' Therefore the offence with which he is charged is, in the eye of the law, which Sir John Bridge is supposed to represent, comparatively trifling. I should very much like to know how, in view of this fact, Sir John Bridge can reconcile what he said with his conscience and with his position as an absolutely impartial exponent of the law, and whether it is not obvious that in saying what he did he allowed his personal feelings on a particular point to override his sense of abstract justice to the prejudice of a man who is charged before him.
HIS PERSONAL FEELINGS
on a particular point to override his sense of abstract justice, to the prejudice of the man charged before him. If a police magistrate of 20 years' experience shows such flagrant prejudice, what can be expected from the men who will at the Old Bailey form the jury of what the law humorously terms Mr. Oscar Wilde's "peers"?
on a particular point to override his sense of abstract justice, to the prejudice of the man charged before him. If a police-Magistrate of twenty years' experience shows such flagrant prejudice, what can be expected from the men who will at the Old Bailey form the jury of what the law humorously terms Mr. Oscar Wilde's "peers"?
"If a police magistrate of twenty years' experience shows such flagrant prejudice, what can be expected from men who will at the Old Bailey form the jury of what the law humorously terms Mr. Oscar Wilde's 'peers'?"
There are a thousand other things that might be said, but I am not the person to say them, nor is it my place to make any reply to the precious bit of cant and bad grammar which appears over Lord Queensberry's signature in your issue to-day, and which I feel I may safely leave to the tender mercies of Mr. Robert Buchanan, whom I hereby beg to thank, in the name of justice, of sanity, and of Christian charity, for his noble letter.--Your obedient servant,
There are a thousand other things that might be said, but I am not the person to say them, nor is it my place to make any reply to the precious bit of cant and bad grammar which appears over Lord Queensberry's signature in your issue to-day, and which I feel I may safely leave in the tender mercies of Mr. Robert Buchanan, whom I hereby beg to thank, in the name of justice, of sanity, and of Christian charity, for his noble letter.
ALFRED DOUGLAS.
Chalcott House, Long Ditton, 19 April.