London Star - Tuesday, April 23, 1895

OSCAR WILDE.
MR. BUCHANAN PLEADS FOR A BROTHER ARTIST.
And Says That Wilde Has Already Lost Everything That Can Make Life Toler- able--Another Correspondant Holds Different Views of "Christian Charity."

TO THE EDITOR OF "THE STAR."

SIR,--Just one word before you close this discussion, in answer to your correspondent "Common Sense." What I claim for Mr. Wilde I should certainly claim for any untried prisoner, Mr. William Sikes included; and I certainly do not think that a question of the liberty of the subject should be postponed sine die on any possible plea of inexpedience. When an outrage on liberty is commited or threatened is the right time to protest against it.

But I will even go a little further. Just in so far as a man has been respected by us, has amused us, has afforded us harmless pleasure, should he receive delicate consideration. Treatment which would not in the least trouble Mr. Sikes may break the heart of a gentleman and a scholar like Mr. Oscar Wilde; and if we who follow his calling do not speak the needful word on his behalf, who is to do so? Whatever he is, whatever he may be assumed to be, he is a man of letters, a brother artist, and no criminal prosecution whatever will be able

TO ERASE HIS NAME

from the records of English literature. That I say advisedly, though we are far as the poles asunder in every artistic instinct of our lives, and though on more than one occasion I have ridiculed some of his opinions. And I say in conclusionthat even if he is as guilty as some suppose him, he has already been terribly and cruelly punished; for while Mr. Sikes would lose nothing by conviction, Mr. Wilde would lose everything--he has already lost everything--that can make life tolerable. I have hopes that even a British jury will perceive this, and, not for the first time, temper justice with mercy; for already, I think, the public are awakening to the fact that they have gone too far. "Alas for the rarity of Christian charity under the sun!" Now, as ever, the priests of all creeds are dumb, and it is left for an ordinary citizen to write as I have written.

--Yours, &c.,

22 April. ROBERT BUCHANAN

SIR,--The two letters which you publish to-day appear to be specimens of the opposite views held on the Wilde case. It is a matter for regret that an epistle like that of "Helvellyn" should be produced as the views of anyone.

However, that expression carries its own mark with it, and requires no general comment. The two or three points in it will hardly bear touching. That affectation of heavy sarcasm as to Christian Charity is an example of inanity which might hardly have been surpassed by any of the correspondents whose contributions are for various reasons unpublished. To publish a letter like that is hardly charitable to the writer, and there are few who would be deceived by its contents. The writer seems unable to appreciate the fact that in the action at law now concluded, Wilde had tacitly admitted, with the ablest counsel on his side, that he was compelled to abandon the attempt to refute another man's right to address him in terms of the grossest condemnation.

When vice cannot be openly palliated the last resort is [...] a sneer at Christian Charity. Perhaps "Helvellyn" will learn that Christian Charity does not mean weakness and toleration of Pagan viciousness. Moreover, virtue is something in itself, and is older than Christianity. Everyone who believes in virtue is not tied to Christianity; but everyone who disbelieves in the one is sure to oppose the other. A sneer is not always the fruit of moral or intellectual superiority.

When a man has offended the ears of all decent people, in the most ordinary sense, by openly flaunting the universal and not too exacting code of this world's morals, and by posing as

THE APOSTLE OF CORRUPTION,

and all that is opposed to civilisation itself, it is not Christian Charity that has anything to do with it--until he has reversed his ways and rendered some satisfaction to an outraged public. The howls of execration, if they have reached "Helvellyn," are a healthy sign; and as to the erasure of a name from playbills, I say emphatically that I wonder why the productions themselves have not been withdrawn. Along with broad opinions on many subjects, it is possible to have a narrow aversion to countenancing even the works of the man who has, with diffidence, been compelled to expose himself to the contempt of mankind.

There is no question as to Sir John Bridge's treatment of Wilde. Everyone is aware that but for the serious nature of the charge, and that the evidence was in Sir J. Bridge's estimation "not slight," he could have been released on bail. With this in mind it is not to be supposed that the loss of cigarettes, but with the advantage of good meals--not possible to many others--renders the man a martyr? It is puerile nonsense to suggest he is not well enough treated.

On the other hand many people are asking why the indictment has been drawn under the Act involving the minor penalties. If rumor is but tinged with truth the reason is a good one--and as bad as it could be.--Yours, &c. DIKE.
Whitehall, S.W., 22 April.

[We have received another large batch of letters on this subject, some of them from Liverpool, Middlesbrough, and other far-off centres, but none expresses views different from those which have been published from other correspondents.]