Sir, Oscar Wilde is not a good example of a victim of injustice, as suggested by Matthew Parris (“A clever trick: say sorry, condemn the past and look good, with no cost”, Aug 26).
Although sodomy was unlawful, the authorities showed no interests in Wilde’s sexual behaviour until he brought the legal problem on himself. In 1895 he initiated a private prosecution against the Marquess of Queensbury, who was trying to “out” Wilde because of the playwright’s relationship with Queensbury’s son, Lord Alfred Douglas. The Crown took over this prosecution — on the now obsolete charge of criminal libel — and Queensbury was arrested before the trial in which he faced imprisonment.
It was only after Wilde’s evidence was discredited and Queensbury acquitted that Wilde was himself investigated for “committing acts of gross indecency”.
He could have been prosecuted for perjury and/or attempting to pervert the course of justice, much like Lord Archer a century later. Of those two, Wilde’s offence was the more venal. Archer’s case, albeit pursued with initial success, was a civil defamation suit against a publisher and did not directly threaten anyone with prison.
Advertisement
ANDY THOMPSON
Worcester Park, Surrey