London Star - Monday, April 22, 1895

OSCAR WILDE.
TWO VIEWS OF HIS PRESENT
POSITION.
Has he been Unfairly or Prematurely
Judged by Magistrate and Public, or
does His Case Illustrate the Need of
Prison Reform?

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE STAR."

SIR,--After some howls of execration, the expunging of an author's name from the public playbills, and other acts of Christian charity which have lately been witnessed, it may not be out of place to enter some kind of protest against this very hasty prejudgement of a case still pending. After all, in sexual errors, as in everything else, the real offence lies, and must always lie, in the sacrificing of another person in any way, for the sake of one's own pleasure or profit; and judged by this standard--which though not always the legal standard is certainly the moral standard--the accused is possibly no worse than those who so freely condemn him. Certainly it is strange that a society which is continually and habitually sacrificing women to the pleasure of men, should be so eager to cast the first stone--except that it seems to be assumed that women are always a man's lawful prey, and any appropriation of sacrifice of them for sex purposes quite pardonable and "natural."--
Yours, &c., HELVELLYN.

SIR,--I chanced to read two letters in your issue of this evening, one from Lord Alfred Douglas and another from Mr. Buchanan, in connection with the proceedings against Wilde in the law courts.

With regard to the sentiments of the first named, it is perhaps not altogether surprising that--because the offence with which Wilde is charged happens to be classified as a misdemeanor--his lordship should characterise it as "comparatively trifling." The statute at least provides for it a term of two years' imprisonment with hard labor, this being the maximum period of hard labor, if I mistake not, that our Legislature allows to be imposed for any offence whatever, it being considered the most that any human being is capable of enduring. I apprehend, however, that the majority of decent English folk will fully endorse Sir John Bridge's sentiments as to the gravity of the offence with which Wilde is charged. Be that, however, as it may, it seems to me that Lord Alfred Douglas is the very last man on the face of creation who is entitled to express any opinion on the case whatever. His allegation of unfairness against Sir John Bridge--one of the kindest-hearted and most just of magistrates that ever sat on the Bench--will be met by your readers with the disdain it merits.

With Mr. Buchanan the matter assumes an entirely different aspect. His position, disinterestedness, and ability entitle his utterances to receive

RESPECTUL ATTENTION

at all hands. With any little difference of opinion between him and Lord Queensberry I am not concerned in dealing. If he considers that the regime of our prisons, as regards persons awaiting their trial, is unduly severe, he has every right to say so; and for aught I know there may be much to be advanced both from his and other points of view. As a general question it is one that may very properly be discussed, but why it should in any way be attached to the case of Wilde more than to that of any poor wretch who is awaiting "presentation at court" I altogether fail to see. I am not aware that it has been alleged that Wilde has been subjected to different treatment from that accorded to any other individual in precisely similar circumstances. If there were any such evidence, there might be some grounds for raising the question in connection with this case, but as I believe there is none, I should advocate relegating the discussion of the matter to some more opportune moment. I daresay Wilde misses his cigarettes, but not one whit more than "Bill Sykes" would his "clay." I confess my sympathies would be rather with the latter; but that, again, is neither here nor there. Of one thing, however, I am convinced, and that is--if there is to be a dispassionate consideration of the merits or demerits of the existing regime of prison treatment, the surroundings of Wilde's case are peculiarly unfitted for attaining that end.--
Yours, &c., COMMON-SENSE.

London, 20 April.

[We have received a host of other letters bearing on the Wilde case, which, for various reasons, we have decided not to publish. --Ed. Star.]