My interest in these events was first piqued when I read Flashman and the Tiger which places Flashman at the dinner party itself. Returning to the real world, or at least history, the 1890 scandal is of interest for the way it exposed, and continues to expose, Victorian ruling class snobbery. The substance of the scandal is relatively simple. Gordon-Cumming was observed by one member of the party to be adding to his stake while playing baccarat in a way that would increase his winnings. Rather than confront Gordon-Cumming, the witness told other party members who then watched the game and Gordon-Cumming more closely the following night. When they thought they had seen him repeat the cheat, he was confronted by the Prince of Wales, and encouraged to sign a paper that swore he would never play cards again. It was essentially a confession, and when the paper became public, Gordon-Cumming faced ruin.
There are, of course, lots of facts that don't add up. Once it became clear that he was now publically accused of cheating Gordon-Cumming had only one option - a very public court case against his accusers. The problem was that while the facts didn't add up, it was difficult to prove anything and, the establishment moved to protect the heir to the throne. The Prince of Wales was a wasteral. He loved gambling, adultery, and parties. He was a man of limited grasp of politics, lacking interest in rule and frequently skirted scandal. It seems that Gordon-Cumming was made to sign the paper to protect the Prince of Wales by those who realised that another public scandal with the heir to the throne playing a forbidden game (it was banned outside of public homes) could well destroy the monarchy. Indeed, so low was the view of the monarchy among the public that many people thought it would die with the death of Queen Victoria.
Michael Scott's book tells the story of the events leading up to the court case, and the case itself. The ending is not a spoiler. Despite enormous popular support in the world at large Gordon-Cumming was found to have cheated and his reputation was destroyed. He was, luckily for him, able to retire to his wealthy landed estate and live his life out in pseudo-Feudal splendour. So it wasn't all bad.
It is clear from Scott's account (and indeed every other discussion) that Gordon-Cumming got no justice - the judge was biased, the legal process flawed and court-room procedure was laughable. But that shouldn't be a surprise. The establishment moved to protect itself was an external threat. Gordon-Cummings was its victim and was a fool for allowing himself to fall into the trap set for him. He probably believed a little more in British "justice" than he should have. It's hard to care much about anyone involved here - though the Prince of Wales was clearly a pig, and Gordon-Cumming's was likely not guilty. No one seems to have asked why the immensely popular and rich soldier would need to cheat, and its clear he was a pro at the game, playing in a style that was unorthodox, but not illegal. This was a situation entirely caused by the idle rich failing to solve a problem, and enjoying the subsequent gossip and shock while plunging headlong into scandal.
What of Michael Scott's book itself? It has all the information, but attempts to draw out new information and details add little to the story itself. Whether Gordon-Cummings was an agent of British Intelligence seems besides the point, and irrelevant. The back story that Scott provides to all the characters is overwhelming and adds little. It simply serves to show the author has read lots. There's a surprising reliance on US newspaper reports of the trial, rather than British acounts - which seems to place it a little third hand. There is also a typographical problem where the extended quotations are not distinguishable from the main text, leaving the reader a little confused between what are Scott's words and those of his sources. This, I suspect, is a problem with print-on demand books.
Ultimately the real meat of the story ought to be a critique of the establishment and its struggle to protect its own. I agree with Scott's conclusion that Gordon-Cummings was probably innocent, but in many ways that's actually irrelevant. I'd have preferred a deeper discussion of what the trial, and scandal, told us about wider Victorian society. That said, at least one journalist of the time quoted by Scott, understood some of what the trial exposed, though Scott just says this is "predictable" from the press on that side of the Atlantic:
No Magistrate thinkgs of arresting him [Prince of Wales] for doing what an ordinary gambler would be sent to prison for doing. When he enters court to give testimony concerning his law breaking, the entire audience rises to receive him, and he is placed on a bench beside the judge as an honoured guest. And when his gambling losses and his other squanderings bring him into trouble, he asks the bread-earners of Great Britain to pay his debts for him. How long are the 'plain people' of Great Britain going to stand the false system which makes of this gambler, debauchee, and idler, teir destined ruler, and exalts him to the headship of both the Church and the State?
How long indeed.
One footnote of interest to those of us more interested in social history of the period. One of the guests at Tranby House was the socialite Daisy Brook, known as "Babbling Brook" for her love of gossip, and mistress of the Prince of Wales. Brook was known as something of a lefty, and when she became Countess of Warwick, was the person who helped the agricultural trade unionist Joseph Arch to publish his memoirs and wrote an introduction to his autobiography.
Related Reviews
Fraser - Flashman and the Tiger
David - Victoria's Wars
Mingay - Rural Life in Victorian England
Davis - Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World
Arch - From Ploughtail to Parliament: An Autobiography
