THE BACCARAT CASE--BIRTH OF LADY ALEXANDRA DUFF--THE KING’S FIFTIETH
BIRTHDAY--ILLNESS OF PRINCE GEORGE
During the winter of 1890 various rumours had been rife as to a _cause
célèbre_ in which King Edward was to be called as a witness. These
reports proved to have had substantial foundation in the following
spring, when Sir William Gordon-Cumming, a cavalry officer of good
family, who had distinguished himself in the Egyptian campaign, and was
understood to enjoy the personal friendship of the King, brought an
action for slander against five defendants--Mrs. Arthur Wilson, Mrs. A.
S. Wilson, Mr. and Mrs. Lycett Green, and Mr. Berkeley Levett--who had
accused him of cheating at baccarat at Tranby Croft, the Wilsons’ place
near Hull.
The trial opened early in June before Lord Chief-Justice Coleridge,
and the King was accommodated with a seat on the bench. The Court
throughout wore the air of a theatre rather than of a Court of Justice,
the bench and both the galleries being filled with ladies, who used
their opera-glasses with freedom to discover the notable personages
in Court, and to watch Sir William Gordon-Cumming under examination.
The great counsel of the day were engaged. Sir Edward Clarke
(Solicitor-General), with Mr. C. F. Gill as his junior, conducted
the case for Sir William Gordon-Cumming; and Sir Charles Russell
(afterwards Lord Chief-Justice), with Mr. Asquith, appeared for the
defendants, the Attorney-General having withdrawn from the case.
The Solicitor-General made a speech of singular power and skill on
behalf of his client. The point of the defence was that Sir William
Gordon-Cumming--who was accused of the trick known as _la poussette_,
by which a player at baccarat increases his stake after he sees that
the cards are in his favour or the _coup_ has been declared--had simply
been playing on a system. This theory Sir William supported in the
witness-box with great steadiness, and though his cross-examination
was most severe, he maintained that on no occasion had he wrongfully
increased the stake. When the cross-examiner came to a document which
the plaintiff had signed, practically admitting his guilt, and which
had been witnessed by the King, Sir William’s explanation was, in
effect, that he was hopeless of convincing those round him of his
innocence, and that he desired for his own sake and that of others to
avoid a scandal.
King Edward entered the witness-box and was sworn in the ordinary
way on the second day. Sir Edward Clarke addressed him as “Sir” and
“Your Royal Highness,” and Sir Charles Russell did the same. His
Majesty gave his evidence with much frankness, but it was largely of
a formal character. He did, however, say that at the time when, as
banker, he questioned Sir William Gordon-Cumming on the largeness of
his winnings, he did not think he had been cheating; but he added, in
cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell, that in advising Sir William
Gordon-Cumming to sign the document, he considered he had been acting
most leniently.
As the King was leaving the witness-box an amusing incident occurred. A
juryman rose from the back of the jury-box, and with _naïf_ frankness
put two important questions--whether the King had ever seen Sir William
Gordon-Cumming cheating, and whether he believed him to be guilty. In
reply to the first question the King answered that the banker would not
be in a position to see foul play, and that among friends it would not
be expected; and to the second he replied that, Sir William’s accusers
being so numerous, he could not but believe them. Having elicited these
very important facts, the little juryman sat down, and the King left
the box with a smile and a bow.
The King’s evidence was followed by that of General Owen Williams,
who, with Lord Coventry, drew up the document signed by the plaintiff.
General Williams made two important statements--that he believed Sir
William guilty, and that the King had objected to his placing his hands
on the table in such a way that the counters could not properly be
seen. In the course of the evidence it came out that the stakes played
for on the two evenings were not large, but that Sir William won in all
£225, which was paid him by cheque and which he retained.
The trial lasted seven days, and on 9th June the jury, after ten
minutes’ deliberation, returned a verdict for the defendants.
The most extraordinary interest was taken in the case, both in this
country and on the Continent and in America, no doubt chiefly owing to
the Heir-Apparent’s connection with it. A Prince of Wales has rarely
been called as a witness in a case, although, of course, in the theory
of English law, all men are equal, and the privileges, if any, which
would attach to him would not attach to him in his capacity as Prince
of Wales or Heir-Apparent to the Throne, but simply in his capacity as
a peer of the United Kingdom.
It was pointed out by many that the conduct attributed to Sir William
Gordon-Cumming was obviously not that of an officer and a gentleman,
and in the House of Commons a week after the trial the Secretary of
State for War expressed the regret of the King that he had not required
Sir William to submit his case to the Commander-in-Chief.
The criticism which was directed against the King’s connection with
this lamentable business was largely based on ignorance of all the
circumstances. His Majesty’s own view is clearly stated in a private
letter which he wrote about two months afterwards to his old friend
Dr. Benson, who was then Archbishop of Canterbury, and which was
first published in that prelate’s life, some years later. King Edward
wrote:--
“R. YACHT ‘OSBORNE,’ COWES, _13th August 1891_.
“MY DEAR ARCHBISHOP--Your kind letter of the 10th instant
has touched me very much, as I know the kind feelings which
prompted you to write to me on a subject which we have
discussed together, and which you are aware has caused me deep
pain and annoyance.
“A recent trial, which no one deplores more than I do, and
which I was powerless to prevent, gave occasion for the Press
to make most bitter and unjust attacks on me, knowing that
I was defenceless, and I am not sure that politics were not
mixed up in it! The whole matter has now died out, and I think
therefore it would be inopportune for me in any public manner
to allude again to the painful subject which brought such a
torrent of abuse upon me not only by the Press but by the Low
Church, and especially the Nonconformists.
“They have a perfect right, I am well aware, in a free country
like our own, to express their opinions, but I do not consider
that they have a just right to jump at conclusions regarding
myself without knowing the facts.
“I have a horror of gambling, and should always do my utmost to
discourage others who have an inclination for it, as I consider
that gambling, like intemperance, is one of the greatest curses
which a country could be afflicted with.
“Horse-racing may produce gambling or it may not, but I have
always looked upon it as a manly sport which is popular with
Englishmen of all classes, and there is no reason why it should
be looked upon as a gambling transaction. Alas! those who
gamble will gamble at anything. I have written quite openly
to you, my dear Archbishop, whom I have had the advantage of
knowing for so many years.
“Thanking you again for your kind letter, and trusting that you
will benefit by your holiday, believe me, sincerely yours,
“ALBERT EDWARD.”
The King became a grandfather for the first time this spring, for on
17th May the Duchess of Fife gave birth to a daughter at East Sheen
Lodge. The question was immediately raised whether the infant should
take Royal rank as a Princess of the Blood. When Sir William Beechey
painted his portrait of Princess Victoria, the distance between the
Duke of Kent’s little daughter and the throne was as great as, or even
greater than, that of the little daughter of Princess Louise at her
birth. It was ultimately settled, in accordance with the wishes, it was
understood, of both King Edward and the Duke of Fife, that the infant
should simply take the rank and precedence of a Duke’s daughter, and be
called Lady Alexandra Duff.
The child was christened on 29th June in the Chapel-Royal, St.
James’s. Queen Victoria came to London to act as sponsor to her
great-granddaughter, and King Edward and Queen Alexandra were
joint sponsors for their grandchild. The Archbishop of Canterbury
administered the rite of baptism. Queen Alexandra took the child from
the nurse and placed her in the arms of Queen Victoria, who gave the
names of Alexandra Victoria Alberta Edwina Louise.
This autumn the King celebrated his fiftieth birthday, and it was
computed that in his half-century of existence His Majesty must have
been prayed for aloud in Anglican churches alone at least a hundred
million times. On this occasion the theatrical managers of London
presented a magnificent gold cigar-box, weighing 100 ounces, to His
Majesty.
The month of December has been one of peculiar ill-omen to the Royal
Family, and it seemed as if December 1891 was to prove no exception.
For Queen Alexandra and her daughters, who had been to Livadia on a
visit to the Tsar, were recalled by the illness of Prince George, and
the King and Queen went through some days of terrible anxiety. As soon
as Prince George was declared to be suffering from enteric fever he
was removed from Sandringham to London, and it was there that he was
nursed. The illness evoked a remarkable degree of public sympathy,
though perhaps the serious nature of the Prince’s condition was hardly
realised till all danger was practically over.