CHAPTER XV

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 Asquith, appeared for the defendants, the Attorney-General having withdrawn from the case.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.