THE BACCARAT SCANDAL.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume V, Issue 643, 6 August 1891, Page 3

THE BACCARAT SCANDAL.

[Bt Mmcuby’s Cobmwxndxnt.l London, June 14, The baccarat scandal I It is an unpleasant Subject to write about, and one which I would gladly leave untouched ; but really people in London are talking just now of nothing else, politics, the Ascot meeting, and the omnibus (trike are scarcely mentioned j we hear little eyen of ths influenza itself; and one solitary topic of conversation is the notorioue action Which hae occupied the attention of the Law Courts. for theilaet week, and which has certainly aroused more public interest thin any ease since the Tichborne trial. The English nepers which you will receive by this mail will give you ample information conMZping the details of the trial. The only Mint really at issue was whether Sir W. Gordon Cumming did or did not cheat at baccarat by surreptitiously increasing his stake when cards favourable to him were turned up. The verdict was against him, and X feu there can be little dnubt that the jury were right. No client was ever defended With more ingenuity and eloquence than Wai Sir W. Gordon Cumming ; and U the ease had rested only on the evidence of the five ladles and gentle MM MB (swore te having seen the acts

of cheating, it is probable that the Solici-tor-General might have persuaded the jury that there might have been a mistake, and that they would have given Sir William the benefit of the doubt. But ihere was no getting over the fact that by signing a promise never to play cards again on condition of the matter being hushed up, he had made a virtual confession of guilt; nor could the jury be induced to believe that a man of his age and experience would so compromise himself merely to prevent the outside world from learning the fact that the Prince of Wales had played baccarat at Tranby Croft. The feelings of that august personage at the manner in which his conduct has been discussed and criticised during the past week may be better imagined than described. Every newspaper, without exception, has had a cut at him ; even the Conservative Standard; even the sedate and guarded Times; even (unkindest cut of all) the Morning Post, the professed flunkey and reporter of the aristocracy; and not content with making severe remarks of their own, they persist most cruelly in republishing the sarcastic jibes which appear in the Continental press. The plain fact is, that the people are becoming tired of hearing the Prince of Wales's name mentioned in connection with gambling and extravagance. Much in his past conduct has been over-looked in

consideration of ths circumstances by which he was surrounded. He was deprived of his father’s care and advice at an early age, and placed in a position in which he was, of course, exposed to peculiar temptations ; so that great allowances were made for him. But now even people who are not straight-laced are beginning to say that at the mature age of 50 be ought to show more discretion ; that he ought not to set the example of gambling to such youngsters as he played with at Trauby Croft; that if he does like an occasional game of baccarat, he ought at any rate not to be so wedded to that form cf amusement as to insist on playing in a private house against the expressed wish of his host, and that the spectacle of the future King of England travelling with a private set cf baccarat

counters in his portmanteau, like a professional billiard sharper with a lump of chalk in his pocket, is not edifying. Moreover, the Prince gives much offence by the peculiar choice of friends which he makes. It is said openly that hs prefers the society of parasites and parvenus because he can obtain from them a more ready compliance with his whims and caprices than he could from those who would be his more natural and fitting companions. There are several great Yorkshire houses where he might have stayed for the Doncaster races ;’but it is not easy to imagine Lord Fitzwilliam or Lord Harewood allowing hie drawing room to be turned into a gambling saloon, or submitting to dictation as to what games should be played in his own house, as poor Mr Wilson did. However, nobody, in all probability, is more heartily sick of the very name of baccarat or Tranby Croft than our future monarch. The best of it ie that, unless he is much maligned, he has only himself to thank for all the publicity which has been given to the unfortunate affair. Certain it is that everyone who had been in the secret denied on oath that he or ehs had ever said a word about it to anyone ; the Prince of Wales alone was not questioned on that point. It is said that he told the story—of course, under strict rows of secrecy, to a lady well known in society, and it is surmised that she, ater ths amiable manner of her sex, took several of her bosom friends into her confidence— of course, again, under the most awful and solemn obligations to keep silence. Hence all this scandal. It is tbe old story cf Midas and his asses’ eats over again. Well, I trust the whole wretched business will be a nine days’ wonder and then be forgotten. But some people think uncomfortably of the scandal cf the diamond necklace, and tbe subsequent fall of the old French Monarchy. Absit omen.