Reynolds's Newspaper - Sunday, May 5, 1895

OSCAR WILDE'S CASE

The trial of Oscar Wilde and the young man Taylor has resulted in an impotent conclusion, the jury being unable to agree on any of the main issues, and having been, consequently, discharged. There will now be a new trial, the Judge having taken the somewhat unusual course of refusing bail in what is, however grave the ultimate issues, on the face of it a misdemeanour. The counsel for the prosecution had, it should be remembered, withdrawn the conspiracy charges, and, therefore, a verdict of "Not guilty" on those specific charges was, of course, ordered to be entered. So far as the other counts in the indictment are concerned, the whole dirty business will have to be gone over again, and, meanwhile it is probable that the jury represent fairly accurately the feeling of the public mind. This feeling was confirmed by the summing-up of Mr. Justice Charles, who delivered himself of a very cautious and balanced review of the whole case. The great point in favour of Wilde undoubtedly is the character of the witnesses upon whom the prosecution relied. Young blackmailers, incapable of honest, sustained industry, who run through their money as fast as they get it, social parasites of the worst type, living by preying on the weaknesses and follies of others, it is certainly not easy to convict any man of shameful crimes on the testimony of despicable creatures like these, unless it is so absolutely proven that no sane man can doubt it. This seems to us to be the stage to which the case of Oscar Wilde has come.

But whatever may happen, it is certain that this whole case has stamped as pernicious the kind of literature with which Wilde,s name is closely identified. That literature is one of the most diseased products of a diseased time. Indeed, so far as English writers are concerned, we do not know where we should find all the worst characteristics of our decadent civilization--its morbidity, its cold, heartless brilliance, its insolent cynicism, its hatred of rational restraint, its suggestiveness--more accurately mirrored in the writings of Oscar Wilde. In his powerful book on "Degeneration," Max Nordau has dissected Wilde's absurdities with great ability.

What strikes us, and what the public will view with the gravest displeasure and suspicion in connection with this terrible trial, is the deliberate suppression of names by the Public Prosecutor. In no other civilized country would such a thing be possible, especially as the trial is a criminal one. The memory of the escape of the Cleveland-street gang with--as was freely asserted and believed at the time--the connivance of the authorities, makes us more inclined to the belief that because the persons whose named were not made public are in the high social position, therefore the Government, who are responsible for this prosecution as representing the crown, ordered their suppression.

If this is not a case of one law for the rich, and another for the poor, we should like to know how else it could be described?

Is the scandal to be repeated on the new trial? We could ourselves supply some of these names, but it is not our business: it is that of the authorities. A fortnight ago we appealed to the Home Secretary to use his influence in favour of openness; but, as the event shows, that appeal has met with no favourable response. If the mysterious persons referred to are innocent the mention of their names can do no harm. If otherwise, let them be brought to justice. A suspicion of conspiring to shield persons of position is most damaging to any Government, but more especially to a Radical Government. Would there be any concealment if the persons were poor and obscure? And what responsibility has the Government not undertaken in allowing the voice of scandal unjustly to alight on individuals who have no connection with the case, but whom Rumour, with her busy tongue, has associated with one of the most painful criminal investigations of modern times?

The Old Bailey trial naturally raises other associations, not directly connected with that case. As assistant surgeon attached to one of the chief hospitals in London has been declaring that the increase of immorality in the metropolis, especially among the young, is assuming alarming proportions. This we can well believe amid social surroundings such as we possess, and with the example of a heedless section of the community, whose very religion is a form of amusement.