THE PRINCE OF WALES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVI, Issue 9513, 8 September 1891, Page 2

THE PRINCE OF WALES.

' THft principal feature in the Review of Reviews for July is a plea for the Prince of Wales. Mr Stead begins by calculating the number of prayers which must have ; been said for the Prince during the last 1 half century; “ eight hundred and eighty ■ million 0 of prayers, and as answer thereto the Baccarat Scandal of Tranby Croft.” Prom this contrast the conclusion is drawn that “the nation has not helped the Prince to fulfil its prayers.” First, however, Mr Stead defends the Prince from various allegations which have been made in connection with the scandal. _ This part of the article is important, as being based on “the very highest authority,” and as coming from “ headquarters,” We believe that the information given in these paragraphs comes from some of those who are in the immediate entourage, and enjoy the intimate confidence of His Eoyal Highness. We give, therefore, these refutations verbatim :— THE FRINGE AND MB ARTHUR WILSON. The Prince is most frequently condemned for having forced an unwilling host to allow baccarat to be played under his roof. There is not a word of truth in this story. It rests entirely upon a mistake made by Mrs Wilson when, in the flurry of crossexamination, she omitted an adjective. Mr Wilson never objected to baccarat being played at Tranby (Jroft. What he objected to was the playing of baccarat for high stakes. His wishes were respected. No high play was allowed. Tet, owing to that mistake, what eloquence has been wasted! DID THE PRINCE TELL ? That is not the only point in which the Prince has been the victim of most unfortunate misconceptions. The ways of examining and of cross-examining counsel are a mystery to non-legal minds, and it is not at all surprising that the public should have put a false construction on the extraordinary laxity with which the Prince’s evidence was taken. If it had not been for the two questions asked by a juror when the examination was over, the Prince would have left the witness-box without having said anything about the very points on which it was most important he should have given evidence. There was a third question, which most 'unfortunately for the Prince did not occur to the mind of the juror, but which it was most important the Prince should have been asked. That is the question whether it was he .who had divulged the Tranby Croft secret. E very one knows that he has been saddled with that act of bad faith. Various detailed statements are current in society which would lead you to imagine that the breach of faith, instead of being committed in secret, had taken place in broad daylight, on the very housetop of the world, in the presence of an army of reporters. Of all the stories most firmly accepted among us is the tale that His Royal Highness told the fatal secret to a lady, who in turn told another lady, who, finding an opportunity of paying off old scores, smote the culprit in the presence of his friends with the cruel facts full in his face, and so forth and so forth. The only colour for this tale which the judicial proceedings supplied, was the fact that the Prince was not asked whether or not he had divulged the secret. As subsequent witnesses were asked that question, charitable gossip assumed that the silence of counsel in the Prince’s case was arranged in order to spare the Heir-Apparent an additional humiliation. Considering the efforts made by the Solicitor-General to transfer the shame and disgrace attaching to his client to the shoulders of the Prince, this theory of pre-arranged silence is rather difficult cf belief. But ao a matter of fact I am in a position to state, on the very highest authority, that there is not a word of truth in the whole story from beginning to end. It was not the Prince who revealed the secret, and if it had been known that the other witnesses were to be asked that question he would also have been afforded an opportunity of denying the imputation on oath. He was the first of the Tranby Croft party examined, and when he left the witness-box no hint had been given that this question was to be put to any witness. The moment the rest of the party were put in the box and examined on this point, the Prince saw the disadvantage in which he was placed, and appealed to his legal adviser to be allowed to re-enter the witness-box in order that he might have an opportunity of rebutting on oath an imputation which he felt all the more keenly because it was utterly groundless. In law courts, however, lawyers are supreme, even over the Heir to the Throne. The Prince’s urgent application was overruled, and so the trial came to a close without any opportunity being afforded him of clearing up the suspicion which had gathered darkly over him on this particular point. Such is the statement which I am authorized to make. IN PRAISE OF THE COUNTERS. The most heinous crime committed by the Prince, it is said, was his carrying counters about with him. It never seems to have occurred to these severe moralists that, so far from this being a monstrous aggravation of the Prince’s offence, it is quite the other way. What were there counters, stamped, as we have been told by a friend, with the Prince’s crest ? “ Gambling tackle ” is the usual reply, aud their presence is regarded as in itself sufficient to convert the place where they were used into a gaming hell. Bub that simply is not true. A moment’s reflection will suffice to show that so far from these counters making things worse, they distinctly minimized the evils of the gaming table. Counters are not necessary for playing Sbaccarat. The counters really were nothing more or less than a kind of pasteboard currency, one counter standing for <£l, a different one for £o, and so forth. Now what is it that constitutes the fatal fascination of the tables at Monte Carlo ? Is it uot universally admitted that it is the glitter of the gold, or the massive,silver “cart-wheels,” to say nothing of the notes which, spread out before the eyes of the players, intoxicate them with a frenzy that lures even the most austere to try their luck? If play at Monte Carlo were conducted exclusively by counters, much of its dangerous seductiveness would disappear. Clearly, then, by bringing with him the plain, unromantio counter aa a substitute for gold and notes, the Prince did what could be done to render the game with which he amused himself as innocent as possible for the inexperienced onlooker.

IS THE PRINCE IN DEBT ?

I am in a position to give the most absolute contradiction to the whole series of I falsehoods which have been disseminated |so diligently in certain quarters. So far ' from the Prince being waterlogged with debt and embarrassed by obligations to money-lenders. lam assured on the highest authority that the Prince has no debts worth speaking of. and that he could pay to-morrow every farthing he owes. lam assured on the same authority and with equally definite emphasis, that there is not a word of truth in the oft-repeated tale of the mortgage on S mdringham, said to have b,een granted first to Mackenzie, and then passed on through the Mariettas to Baron Hirsch. The whole story is a fabrication, and is on a par with similar tales which represent the Prince as ' being financed by Israelites of mors or less dubious honesty. Further, it follows as a necessary corollary from this that, as there are no debts, there has never been any application to Her Majesty to supply funds. No funds were needed, for the debts do not exist. Not only has the Queen never been appealed to, but no idea of making such an appeal has ever been entertained at Marlborough House. As for the report, half-credited with a sort of shuddering horror, that it might be necessary to apply to Parliament for a grant to defray the Prince’s debts, that also may be dismissed. No such grant has been thought of, for the simple fact that the Prince is not in debt.

Such an assurance, given to me for publication on the very highest authority, will be read throughout the Empire with pleasant surprise. It is hardly too much to say that almost everyone believed exactly the opposite, nor would I have printed the above statement if I had not received it from one who was undoubtedly in a position to know, and who, as a gentleman and a man of honour, is incapable of misleading the public.

bored into baccarat. Prom this defence of the Prince again*! various specific allegations, the article proceeds to put iu a plea for his Royal Highness generally. If he has any vice or weakness, it is because he has been bored into it. He has often wished, we are told, to find relief in politics from the “ sentry, go ” of exhibition openings, hospital foundation-layings, &c. “ From time to time the Prince struggled against the soul-deadening routine of hi* Eoyal existence, but whenever he ventured to make a way for himself, he was politely but firmly thrust back. The visit to India was one welcome break in the dreary round, and his appointment as one of the Royal Commissioners on the Housing of the Poor was another. It is an open secret that the Prince of Wales was very anxious toserve on the Labour Commission. But for reasons of State, the Ministers of the Crown snubbed the Prince and exeluded him in the same arbitrary fashion as they excluded women from the list of their Commissioners.” WHAT THE PRINCE MIGHT DO. Finally Mr Stead brings in a Reform Bill for the Prince of Wales. What is wanted is, he says, first to emancipate the Prince; and, secondly, to “ Sandringhamize Marlborough House.” With regard to the former point “ It is with the Prince as with the sex whose political lot he shares. He must be emancipated, he must be enfranchised, he must be weaned from frivolity by being allowed to share responsibility. If Lord Salisbury meant what he said [about the Federation of the British Empire], why should not the Government appoint a small but strong Commission which, like Lord Carnarvon’s Imperial Defence Commission, would sit in private for the consideration of the above question ? Of that Commission the Prince of Wales would make an admirable President.” THE PRINCE AT SANDRINGHAM. With regard to “ Sandringhamizing Marlborough House,” Mr Stead says "The notion that the Prince of Wales might be a better and a more useful man if he had a better chance of doing more usefol work may be laughed at as an idle dream. Such a supposition, however, carries with it no antecedent improbability, and, apart from the strength of the general argument, that what a man is depends very much upon what you give him to do, there is one fact which strongly supports the theory. The Prince of Wales at Sandringham is a different man to the Prince of Wales, at Marlborough House. In his country place, in the bosom of his family, surrounded by those to whom be stands in neighbourly relation, over whom he has the responsibility of his position, his life is altogether different from that which he leads in town. At Sandringham he is freer, and at the same time more conscious of responsibility j therefore he is at once lees frivolous and more domesticated.

“As a landlord, those who have visited Sandringham are loud in his praise. The cottages on his estate excited the admiring remark of the most radical of the Royal Commissioners on the Housing of the Poor when they visited the Prince, and there i> a general concurrence of opinion that as a landlord, as an agriculturist, and as a country gentleman the Prince sets an ex* ample which might be followed with advantage throughout the country. Temperance reformers rejoice that he permits no public-house on his estate, while reasonable men reflect with satisfaction that he has provided an admirable substitute for the village tavern in the Sandringham Club. THE PRINCE AND THE PRINCESS. “What a blessing it would be if we could but Sandringhamize Marlborough House, and establish in St James' Park something of the sense of the obligations of responsibility and of the conscious intimate relationship to the poor which exist on the Norfolk estate! It is an old saying that ‘ God made the country, but man made the town/ and it would be as the breath of heaven if the air of the Sandringham home could be brought to Marlborough House. The popular idea of the Prince aa a man of pleasure has obscured the les« a—generally known side of bis character which is revealed when he Is in the family circle. His worst enemies will admit that the Prince’s greatest failings arise from too great kindness of heart. However far short of an ideal standard he may fall in some respects, he is in other matters quite a devoted family man. His brothers and sisters are most affectionately attached to him. His tenderness to hia wife daring her illness, his constant attention to her wants, the pains which he takes to keep her informed of all that is likely to amuse her, and the interest which he always take! in the welfare of the children—these are all strangely at variance with the popular conception which has gone abroad. The Prince and Princess have more tastes in common than most people imagine, and no wife could be more indignant at the injustice with which her husband has been assailed the last few weeks than the Princess of Wales. Certainly those good people greatly err if they think that in running down the Prince they are in any way avenging the wrongs of the Princess. She is somewhat like her sister, the Tzarina. There is not in her the stuff of an Elizabeth or a Victoria. But perhaps on that very account they live on much more harmonious and affectionate terms than they might have done had she been otherwise.