Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday, June 16, 1895

ABOUT OSCAR WILDE.
MR. W.T. STEAD ON THE CASE.

In the number of the Review of Reviews just published, Mr. W.T. Stead writes:--

"It is impossible to deny that the trial and the sentence bring into very clear belief the ridiculous disparity there is between the punishment meted out to those who corrupt girls and those who corrupt boys. If Oscar Wilde, instead of indulging in dirty tricks of indecent familiarity with boys and men, had ruined the lives of half a dozen innocent simpletons of girls, or had broken up the home of his friend by corrupting his friend's wife, no one could’ve laid a finger upon him. The mail is sacro-sanct: the female is fair game. To have burdened Society with a dozen bastards, to you have destroyed a happy home by his lawless lust--of these things the criminal law takes no account. But let him act indecently to a young rascal who is very well able to take care of himself, who can by no possibility bring a child into the world as a result of his corruption, then Judges can hardly contain themselves from indignation when inflicting the maximum sentence the law allows.

"Another contrast, almost as remarkable as that which sends Oscar Wilde to hard labor, is that between the universal excretion heaped upon Oscar Wilde and the tacit universal acquiescence of the very same public in the same kind of vice in our public schools. If all persons guilty of Oscar Wilde's offenses were to be clapped into gaol there would be a very surprising exodus from Eton and Harrow, Rugby and Winchester, to Pentonville and Halloway. It is to be hoped that our headmasters will pluck up a little courage from the result of the Wilde trial, and endeavor to rid our protestant schools of a foul and unnatural vice which is not found in Catholic establishments, at all events in this country. But meanwhile public school boys are allowed to indulge with impunity in practices which, when they leave school, would consign them to hard labor."

TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLD’S NEWSPAPER.

SIR,--I have read with interest the letter of "A Foreigner" in your last issue, and permit me to add that, as far as my information goes, in no other country would Wilde have met with the severe treatment which he has met with here. Moreover, had this "scandal" case occurred a few years back, though he might have been condemned by public opinion after the Queensberry case, there would have been no prosecution. The law under which he was convicted, and about which some misapprehension appears to exist, was passed only an 1885. It was introduced with the intention, as its promoters said, of bringing the English law into agreement with the French. I am informed, however, that Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which deals with the offenses in question, differs materially from the French code. The French law was framed especially for the protection of the young, and only applicable when one of the parties is under age. And it can hardly be said that Stead’s act, as the hurried legislation of 1885 is called, with its newly made misdemeanors, has been conducive to the cause of public morality, for it seems to have raised up a tribe of blackmailer’s, whose evidence has been excepted without direct corroboration, while they themselves are screened from punishment. And the fact that the case was not the result of spontaneous action on the part of persons with a grievance (for youths who make a trade of such vices cannot be called aggrieved parties) will cause many persons to keep an open mind as to the prisoner's guilt, especially as the self desired accomplices could only speak as to actions alleged to have been committed to and three years ago!

All honour to the Rev. Stewart Headlam for coming forward to befriend our great playwright (the greatest since Sheridan) in the hour of his need. His recently published letter speaks volumes for his noble courage and kindness of heart. It is so rare to see a helping hand held out to anyone who is crushed beneath a mountain of prejudice. The Press generally would bury the case in oblivion without discussion. This may be conventional usage, but it is not just. I venture to send those few lines to you, your columns standing almost alone and according the unhappy prisoner fair play.—Yours obediently,

H. A. B.

Chelsea, June 10.
TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLD’S NEWSPAPER.

DEAR SIR,—A man of great culture and rare gift, a "comeing man" in literature, an educated and refined man, is looked upon by the powers that be with disgust and pious horror because he has been condemned and found guilty of a grave misdemeanor.

"How horrible!" they exclaim. "Men guilty of such a thing are not fit to live. A week or two afterwards a stranger comes from a far land; he is accompanied by a boy. Anyone who has travelled in that far land knows quite well why the boy is with him. The powers that be know quite well, but pretend not to, or treat it with a sly grin or knowing wink. The stranger is loaded and feted by them: nothing is too good for him; he is the lion of the season, the hero of the year. Ye gods! was ever hypocrisy and humbug more clearly shown forth? What Mr. Justice So-and-So say to this stranger that such a man as he could not know what shown meant? Would Mr. Sergeant So-and-So tell him he was not fit to live? Would solicitor General So-and-So curl his nose at him in high disdain? Humbug and hypocrisy! All is humbug and hypocrisy! – Faithfully yours,

London.
J. JAMES

TO THE EDITOR OF REYNOLD’S NEWSPAPER.

DEAR SIR,—It did many hearts good to read the letters published in Reynolds's newspaper of June 9 about the Oscar Wilde case, and especially that noble letter written to the church Reformer by the Rev. Stewart Headlam. Thank God the unfortunate prisoner is not utterly without friends and sympathies in his terrible trial, for hard is his punishment. I should think his greatest enemy might pity him now. Conceive being held up to the loathing and contempt of the whole world after having been the idol of so many. I had begun to think, until I read those letters, that there was no gleam of pity or charity for him, for, according to a very "large section of the Press," all seemed merciless. He was, in fact, condemned before he was convicted; everyone, apparently, was so ready to believe in those incorruptible spirits – those high-souled, honourable gentleman, Mr. Parker, Wood, and Co. Many believe that Mr. Oscar Wilde is, indeed, innocent. Can no appeal be made to the powers that be to mitigate the terrible sentence? Surely hundreds, if not thousands, will be ready to sign such an appeal with right good will if once it was started by any one of influence. – Yours faithfully,

A WOMAN WHO BELIEVES OSCAR WILDE.
St. Helens, Jersey, June 9, 1895.

I have received, says Mr. Labouchere, a long letter from Lord Alfred Douglas, in which he says, after explaining that he will not enter into discussion with me on a subject upon which I am "quite bigoted," deploring "the cruelty and prejudice" which condemns Oscar Wilde "to the treatment of felons," that I am unfair on him in terming him a coward. He continues:—

I stayed for three weeks after Mr. Wilde’s arrest, and visited him every day, and I did everything my mind could desire to help him, and I left on the day before his trial at his own most urgent request, and at the equally urgent request of his legal advisors, who assured me that my presence in the country could only do him harm and that if I were held as a witness I should, infallibly destroyed what small chance he had of acquittal. Mr. Wilde’s own counsel absolutely declined to call me as witness, fearing the harm I might do him in cross-examination, so that had I been held as a witness at all it would have only been under a subpoena from the prosecution. Now, all you must give the devil his due, and grant it, for the sake of argument, that I am an exceptional young scoundrel, you have no right to call me a coward. Perhaps you will pause to consider whether or not I am consistent with how it is to do what I did--remain for three weeks in London with the daily and momentary exception of being arrested and consigned to a fate like Mr. Wilde‘s, receiving every day letters of warning, employed by all my friends and relations to go and save myself, and held up to exploration, by every catchpenny rag in England.

Two ladies, one "Mother" from Dublin, the other "A Friend to the Orphan, and write to us indignantly protesting against the treatment of Oscar Wilde.

"One Who Admires and Pities Wilde and "– another woman correspondent – inquires why the confirmed sensualists in the highest circles are allowed to go scot free whilst Wilde – who at any rate used his brain and was a man of generous instincts – is condemned.

"Sidney Fitzherbert" sends to us comments on the bold and brazen development of blackmailing as a profession, the direct result of the Wilde case. He quotes a case were a number of blackguards concocted a plot to accuse a certain nobleman of grave offenses. One of them calls at the victim's club and, being invited to his house to receive his hush money, was handed over to a detective, who had been in hiding.

The Brussels Soir asks how can the punishment of hard labour quote "reform" and a man of Wilde’s mental attainments and independent views? The Soir should understand that the English prison system is designed to brutalize, and not to reform, and that a late Judge, Sir J. Stephen, said in passing sentence he acted on the principles of revenging Society as the criminal. That is why we have so large a proportion of confirmed gaol-birds in this country.