THE SENSATIONAL LONDON SCANDAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume LVII, Issue 2525, 1 June 1895, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE SENSATIONAL LONDON SCANDAL.

Our London correspondent gives the following interesting particulars concerning the above horrible case. Writing under date of April 12th, he says:— Though tho public owes a debt of gratitude to the Marquis of Queensberry for branding the High Priest of a cult which has been a black disgrace to London for tbo last fifteen years, tho less said about his motives the better. Tbo role of affectionate father resolved at all costs to save his son from tho clutches of a foul fiend does not exactly suit. In tho words of Lord Douglas of Hawick, “My father has persecuted us ever since L can remember. Scandal after scandal lias been heaped upon us till I feel utterly unable to hold up my head.” Lord Queensberry disliked Oscar Wilde the first time be met him, and later intervened spasmodically in tho family affairs (as ho was in tho habit of doing from time to time) to stop Lord Alfred’s acquaintance with him. The sons Lords Percy and Alfred stood by their mother, who had divorced the estimable Q. for particularly objectionable conduct some time previously. They repudiated their father’s authority, and his interference re Oscar Wilde merely aggravated Lord Alfred's friendship for the apostle of “culohah.” Moreover, not content with defying his erratic parent (which probably wouldn’t have mattered much). Lord Alfred chaffed him and scoffed at him. In reply to an indignant epistle calling Oscar unpleasant names, tho son wired "Oh! you funny little man,” whilst Oscar himself calmly ignored tho Marquis. This treatment not unnaturally turned Lord Queensborry’s smouldering dislike into active malignity. Ho went about ravin" against Oscar, and the latter having many enemies and having grown careless with immunity, awkward evidence was soon in his lordship’s possession.' The statements tho Marquis made everywhere became very serious, and but for “ Old Q.” being a notorious " crank,” Wilde couldn’t possibly have ignored them as long as ho did.

The scene on the premiere of " Tho Importance of Being Earnest” brought things to a head. Mr Alexander expected Oscar to tako Lord Queensberry and his bouquet of vegetables as a joke to bo skillfully turned against tho joker. But Oscar seemed terrified, sent for the police, and had every entrance strictly guarded. The actors and actresses wore amazed.

Two days later a very influential personage in tlio art world intimated to Oscar that Lord Queensberry’s mouth must bo stopped. His allegations were too specific to bo ignored. Mr Wilde thereupon pledged himself to take action at the first opportunity. This was the time to holt or rather to “ leave England for an indefinite period.” Oscar neglected the opportunity. His conceit and egotism were colossal. He had turned many awkward corners in the past. Mother wit and brazen impudence must enable him to negotiate this one. Lord Queensberry like “brer Babbit” lay low. The proceedings at the I/olicc Court reassured Oscar greatly. It was rumoured the defence meant to rely on the “Priest and the Acolyte,” and the “ Portrait of Dorian Gray ” chiefly, " and they,” as Oscar said to “ Boysoy ” (Lord Alfred Douglas) “ won't settle us.” A UNITED FAMILY. Lord Douglas of Hawick stated to a reporter on Friday that “ every member of our family, excepting my father, utterly and absolutely disbelieves the allegations of the defence concerning Mr Wilde.” This, however, was promptly contradicted by his lordship's uncle, the Hon and Bev Lord Archibald Douglas, who, on behalf of Lady Queensberry and his sister, stated that they did “ most certainly believe the allegations against Wilde, and repudiated all sympathy with his nephew’s statement.”

Between the police court] proceedings in the libel case and the trial, Lord Queensberry sent Oscar a contemptuous message, advising' him to bolt, but not to tako Lord Alfred with him. If ho did, the Marquis might follow, and shoot him. Oscar’s reply was to go abroad at once with Lord Alfred and to send “ Old Q.” his address. PUBLIC OPINION. Great is the power of the verdict of a British jury. On Friday morning last the plaintiff in the Queensberry libel case was “Mr Oscar Wilde,” the “apostle of culture,” and an undoubted leader of London society. Despite the rumours concerning his gross and foetid immorality which have been freely current for over twenty years there were very few smart houses whore he was not an honoured guest. To be quite just, certain well-known persons, as for instance Lord and Lady Bath and Mr and Mrs Gladstone, have never stomached him. But those exceptions were not numerous. Even as late as Thursday night Oscar was the hero of a big “ crush.” It was his. last. Twenty-four hours later the reporters no longer prefixed the wellknown . name with “ Mr.” He became “ Wilde,” or “ the man Wilde,” or the “ infamous Wilde.” The papers with one or two exceptions passed by the trial without comment. The Daily Twaddlcyraph, which has on many occasions "gushed” fnlsoraely anont Oscar’s “coruscatingwit" and "undoubted genius," now dilated on his “ spurious brilliancy, inflated egotism, diseased vanity and shameless disavowal of all morality.” I preferred the tone c£ the Chronicle, which summed up the situation and its moral accurately thus " For long past London life, or—lot us. say—a small and obscure section of it, has been under the shadow of a black cloud. Everybody has suspected and feared ; nobody—no decent person—has known. There was some centre whence a most deadly infection spread; it was apparent in a certain class of literature. Now the jury has declared that even a man of unattractive character has done a public benefit in branding one of the most prominent figures in our drama, our literature, and a by no means ‘unfashionable’ section of society. Upon the genesis of this pose—upon the causes of this degradation of great natural abilities and talents almost amounting to genius—we will nr.t dwell. Suffice it to know that as soma return for the undamming of this putrid stream, our life—to go no stop beyond the verdict of the jury yesterday—is rid for ever of a pestiferous poseur. ‘Decadence’ among us has received a death-blow, and the way has been cleared for an increased wholesomeness of life. Public opinion has been so sharply screwed up during the past two days that certain things in current art and literature, no less than in conduct, will be intolerable for at least a long time to come. “One aspect of this sombre and dreadful case forces itself on the public view, and cannot be withheld from it. We seem for some unhappy hours to have been the shuddering witnesses of a bastard revival of society under the later Eoman Empire, or of the dark background of the Italian Eouaissance. That is a grave fact, which must be recorded, albeit we set it dowu with ‘ mourning and lamentation and woo.’ The rostbetio movement has been dragged into the mud. Great names are associated with its earlier influences, names as great as those of Keats, and of Buskin, and of Dante Gabriel Eossetti, and as pure and high as the name of Christina Eossetti. But all things—oven the noblest —are subject to contamination, and we must boar, with what patience wo may, the fooling that essentially right and inevitable tendencies in art and in literature have been foully prostituted.”