Reference must be made here to one unpleasant incident in the Prince of Wales' later career—unpleasant in its results and in the comments of the press and pulpit. To playing cards for an occasional evening's amusement the Prince was always partial, but not to the extent which was sometimes asserted.
CARDS AND THE BACCARAT AFFAIR
During his journeys abroad he seldom or never played and he made a strict and early rule against playing in clubs. His friends say that he used to frequently dissuade younger men or the sons of old friends from forming a habit in this connection and as a well-known man of the world, without affectation and with wide experience and a naturally commanding influence, his views no doubt had great weight. Hence the most regrettable feature in the famous Baccarat case of 1890 which was, for a time, one of the most talked-of and preached-at incidents in modern social life. To understand the matter it is necessary to look at the Prince's environment. He was the leader of society and society, together with a large proportion of people everywhere, saw no harm in a game of cards, or even in the accompaniment of playing for ordinary money stakes, any more than they saw harm in racing and betting upon the results, or in dancing and its accompaniment of late hours and perhaps frivolous dissipation. Yet to many people in the United Kingdom and the Empire danger and evil lurked in one or all of these amusements and it was a shock to them to find that the Heir Apparent actually indulged in card-playing; although everyone had known that he patronized the other two pursuits referred to.
The history of the affair may be told briefly. On September 8th, during the Doncaster races, Mr. Arthur Wilson, a very wealthy shipowner, was entertaining a large party at Tranby Croft, near Hull, which included the Prince of Wales, Lord Coventry, General Owen Williams, Sir William Gordon-Cumming, Lord Craven, Lord and Lady Brougham and Lord Edward Somerset. When each day's racing was over and the company had returned to Tranby Croft and finished dinner, Baccarat was introduced as the amusement of the evening and played for a couple of hours. The stakes were moderate—for such a party—and ran from five shillings to ten pounds. About seventeen people, ladies and gentlemen, usually sat down and the Prince of Wales was the life of the party, as he generally was, whatever the occupation or sport. On the date mentioned, Mr. Stanley Wilson, the host's son, thought he saw Sir W. Gordon-Cumming using his counters fraudulently and informed Lord Coventry and General Williams of his suspicions. On the third evening a committee of five—two ladies and three gentlemen—watched the baronet and unanimously agreed that they saw him cheating. He was privately accused of the offence, denied it vehemently, and brought the matter before the Prince, who practically acted as judge and regretfully told him that there could be no doubt of his guilt.
It was, perhaps the most difficult position the Prince of Wales had ever been placed in. To hand a friend and fellow-guest and well-known soldier over to justice meant in this case ruin to the man himself, disgrace to their host and his family and a considerable amount of discredit to the Prince. Of the latter point it is probable that the Prince thought least, as his fidelity to friends was always well-known. Yet to let the apparently guilty man go without punishment or restriction was impossible from every standpoint. The Prince, therefore, tried to square his duty all round by a compromise and made Sir W. Gordon-Cumming sign a pledge to never play at cards again. The natural result followed where at least seven people hold a secret of much importance. It became known, or rather rumored, the resignation of the baronet from the Army was not accepted pending inquiry and, finally, he precipitated the issue by sueing the committee of five—Mrs. Arthur Wilson, Mr. Stanley Wilson, Mr. and Mrs. Lycett Green and Mr. Berkeley Levett—for scandal. Sir Charles Russell acted for the defence and Sir Edward Clarke for the plaintiff and, after a sensational trial, the action was dismissed.
The case created the most intense interest and for a time His Royal Highness was the most criticised man in the United Kingdom. Press and pulpit thundered forth denunciations of gambling and card-playing, and lectured the Prince upon his duty to the nation and his responsibility for public morality. Every extreme religious speaker or writer, every Radical paper, or pamphleteer, or lecturer found the Heir to the Throne an excellent subject for abuse, while the best papers abroad teemed with reflections which could hardly be termed generous. Speaking of the counters which had been used in these games and which were brought by the Prince personally to Tranby Croft the New York Tribune declared that in them he had "fingered the fragments of the Crown of England." Upon one point all the home papers were united and that was that in trying to arrange and settle the matter the Prince had contravened the Army regulations.
The better class of papers were very serious upon the subject. The London Times declared that the Heir Apparent could not put off his responsibilities as he did his official dress and, while admitting the assiduity and tact and good-humour with which he performed his dull round of routine duties, it yet bitterly regretted the example he had now set. The Daily News thought that the Prince had only been guilty of an indiscretion, so far as his action toward Gordon-Cumming was concerned, but went on to say that what was blameless as an example in meaner men, was very different in one of his exalted position. The Standard denounced the whole affair from beginning to end. "The Prince of Wales is not as other men. His position demands a sobriety, a self-restraint, and a dignity from which people of less exalted position and lighter responsibilities are absolved." The religious press put no bounds to its denunciation. The Christian World spoke of the matter as an "outrage to the public conscience" and the British Weekly thought it "enough to sober the strongest supporters of the Monarchy." Resolutions were passed at some Church meetings of a similar character.
AFTERMATH OF THE INCIDENT
Then the re-action came. His Royal Highness expressed to the Military authorities and the House of Commons his apologies for an unintentional infraction of Army regulations; it was pointed out that playing a game of cards in a private house was not setting a public example and that the situation was so unique that any man in the Prince's place would have been pardoned in not knowing what to do; the cause of the trouble was dismissed from the Army and expelled from his clubs. The Daily Telegraph pointed out that the carrying of the Baccarat counters, which was apparently deemed the most serious part of the matter by many commentators, was a very common habit with players of this game as the symbols for money tended to moderation in playing, and were better in every way than slips of paper. Years afterwards, Mr. Arnold White stated it as a fact that these famous bits of pasteboard were actually a present from the Princess of Wales. The public came to feel after the first hasty judgment was given that, after all, the Prince had risked a good deal for a friend and the Observer went so far as to say that "under the most difficult and trying circumstances His Royal Highness has acted as ninety-nine Englishmen out of a hundred would have done." The Rev. Dr. Charles A. Berry, the eminent Non-conformist divine, declared that the people were not going to be unduly severe in their judgment. "They recognize the fact that he does a great deal of public work and is compelled to live almost continually a life of unnatural pressure. It is, therefore, to say the least, understandable that he should seek pleasure and relaxation in some form of excitement."