Twist and Stick it

There were far more important issues afoot in the United Kingdom in the summer of 1891 but the attention of the nation was firmly focused on a legal case which was being heard in London. 

It had everything to enthral the wider public as well as divide the loyalties and allegiances of the Ruling and Upper Class around whom the litigation revolved. 

It was known as The Baccarat Scandal. 

The main influential character was not actually the accused person but in the personage of HRH The Prince of Wales, the future King Edward VII. 

The event behind the case was a house-party at Tranby Croft, the mansion of the Wilsons, shipping magnates just outside the City of Hull. Those assembled represented the elite of nobility and the nouveau riche who used Tranby Croft as a convenient base to attend the horse racing at Doncaster with, amongst the runners, a mount belonging to the Prince of Wales in action. 

After sumptious dining until 11pm on 8th September 1890 the keen gambler HRH suggested that the guests play the card game of Baccarat. It was a spontaneous decision causing, no doubt, the Wilson's domestic staff to panic and a few small tables were hastily put together and draped with cloths. 

Baccarat, a points based game similar to 21 or Pontoon had been regarded dubiously by the authorities for its gambling connotations but with HRH as Banker and a General taking on the role of the croupier no questions would dare be asked on the grey area of legality. 

One of the players was, by contemporary accounts, the handsome, womanising, witty and yet arrogant and rude Sir William Gordon-Cumming. Aged 42 he was a lieutenant colonel in the Scots Guards and a long time acquaintance and close friend of the Prince of Wales. They had travelled up to Yorkshire together. 

The Baccarat game was taken up by the hosts, another couple and yet more aristocrats and pillars of society. There was a modest bank of £100 and although the women took a few shillings worth of counters the menfolk were more ambitious in terms of stakes and potential winnings. 

Sir William won, over a couple of after dinner sessions on 8th and 9th of September the sum of £225 (£20000 today) but those present around the table were far from happy about his playing practice. 

As the house party was coming to an end Sir William was made aware that five of the players had made statements to others that he had cheated at cards and had defrauded the Bank. 

The basis of the claims were that Sir William had regularly placed a larger stake on the table after his cards had been declared using subversive and underhand means in order to accumulate a higher amount of winnings. Furthermore, if the hand of cards was against him he was withdrawing, in the same clandestine way, a portion of his stake. 

The magnitude of the scandal might be difficult to appreciate in a modern context but at the time it was huge and with massive ramifications by association for the future king and the honour of the ruling classes. 

In order to prevent the allegations from being known beyond the walls of Tranby Croft Sir William was approached and confronted with an ultimatum. His accusers, for their guaranteed silence wanted a virtual admission of guilt and also an undertaking that he would give up playing cards for the rest of his life. 

Under pressure from his own allies he reluctantly signed the document but later retracted and took out an Action for Slander which involved hosts Mr and Mrs Wilson, the Lycett Greens and Mr B Levett. 

Sir William referred to his slanderers as no more than a parcel of boys and claimed in his action the sum of £5000 from each named party. 

On the day of the court hearing there was a clamour for ticketed seats in a room otherwise crammed to capacity with Counsel and around 60 to 70 junior barristers. In cross examination Sir William vehemently denied the accusation of cheating although he did comment that he had been a bit distracted in his normal Baccarat gaming by the impromptu tables and covering cloth which had made putting forward his counters awkward. The surface was uneven and he had used a sheet of paper over the cloth to help his playing. 

There was quite a robust exchange in the legal questioning. 

Sir William accepted that he could see the cards held by those closest to him but this did not in any way influence the level of his stake. In answer to Counsel he also said that he did not keep counters in his pocket. 

His notoriety but also popularity was seen as a positive factor in the proceedings and the case was very much in the balance. 

That was until HRH Prince of Wales was called to the witness stand. 

His presence was the first of a member of a royal family since 1411 and all in the court listened intently to his evidence. Although he had not seen any signs of cheating he did state that he thought Sr William was guilty. Further doubt on the character of Sir William came from HRH's comment that he had asked for a white line to be drawn on the card table to separate the players from his role as Banker. 

In his summing up of the main issues in what was seen as shamelessly supporting the opinion expressed by HRH the presiding Judge swayed the Jury to find for the five defendants in the action. 

Punishment for Sir William was swift with his dismissal, the very next day, from the army and he was a social outcast for the rest of his life. 

The role of the future king should not go unnoticed. 

He himself was exposed to many scandals with his mother Queen Victoria frequently chastising him for being part of a "fast racing set" of gambling and philandering. The legal case should really have been heard in a military court and an unblemished record in service may have resulted in a lower level of sanction but Sir William may have been swayed by advice from his friend HRH to bring a Civil Action.

They were known to be thick as thieves and Sir William's house in Belgravia was regularly used by the future King for his assignations. It was a rumour that HRH had on one occasion returned unexpectedly early to London to find one of his mistresses entangled with his friend. They may even have had at one time or another the intimate attentions of Lillie Langtry, Sarah Bernhardt and Lady Randolph Churchill. 

You can come to your own conclusions about whether there was an element of royal revenge and vindictiveness contributing to the downfall of Sir William.