int 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 who