Bardell v. Pickwick Read online

  Transcribed from the 1902 Elliot Stock edition by David Price, [email protected]

  [Picture: Mr. Justice Gaselee (original of Mr. Justice Stareleigh), sketched by the Editor from the family portrait in the possession of H. Gaselee, Esq.]

  Bardell v. Pickwick

  The Trial for Breach of Promise of Marriage held at the Guildhall Sittings, on April 1, 1828, before Mr. Justice Stareleigh and a Special Jury of the City of London.

  Edited with Notes and Commentaries by PERCY FITZGERALD, M.A., F.S.A.

  _Barrister-at-Law_; _and sometime Crown Prosecutor on the North-East Circuit_ (_Ireland_).

  WITH ILLUSTRATIONS.

  LONDON ELLIOT STOCK 62 PATERNOSTER ROW E.C. 1902

  INTRODUCTION.

  There are few things more familiar or more interesting to the public thanthis _cause celebre_. It is better known than many a real case: forevery one knows the Judge, his name and remarks--also theCounsel--(notably Sergeant Buzfuz)--the witnessess, and what theysaid--and of course all about the Plaintiff and the famous Defendant. Itwas tried over seventy years ago at "the Guildhall Settens," and wasdescribed by Boz some sixty-three years ago. Yet every detail seemsfresh--and as fresh as ever. It is astonishing that a purely technicalsketch like this, whose humours might be relished only by suchspecialists as Barristers and Attorneys, who would understand the jokeslevelled at the Profession, should be so well understanded of the people.All see the point of the legal satire. It is a quite a prodigy. Boz hadthe art, in an extraordinary degree, of thus vividly commending tradeprocesses, professional allusions, and methods to outsiders, and makingthem humourous and intelligible. Witness Jackson, when he came to"serve" Mr. Pickwick and friends with the _subpoenas_. It is a dry,business-like process, but how racy Boz made it. A joke sparkles inevery line.

  This trial for Breach has been debated over and over again among lawyersand barristers, some contending that "there was no evidence at all to goto the Jury" as to a promise; others insisting on mis-direction, and thatthere was evidence that ought not to have been admitted. The law hassince been changed, and by later Acts both Mrs. Bardell and Mr. Pickwickwould have been allowed to tell their stories and to have beencross-examined. Mrs. Bardell was almost justified in supposing that Mr.Pickwick was offering his hand when he was merely speaking of engaging aman-servant. But then the whole would have been spoiled. Under thepresent systems, this would all have come out. Mr. Pickwick, when itcame to his turn, would have explained what his proceedings meant. It isa most perfect and vivid satire on the hackneyed methods of the lawyerswhen dealing with the witnesses. Nothing can be more natural or moregraphic. It is maintained to something between the level of comedy andfarce: nor is there the least exaggeration. It applies now as it didthen, though not to the same topics. A hectoring, bullying Counsel,threatening and cruel, would interfere with the pleasant tone of theplay; but it is all the same conveyed. There is a likeness to Bardell_v._ Pickwick in another Burlesque case, tried in our day, the well-known"Trial by Jury," the joint work of Mr. Gilbert and the late Sir ArthurSullivan. The general tone of both is the same and in the modern workthere is a general Pickwickian flavour. Sir Arthur's music, too, ishighly "Pickwickian," and the joint effort of the two humorists isinfinitely diverting. The Judge is something of a Stareleigh.

  The truth is that Boz, the engenderer of these facetiae, apart from hisliterary gift, was one of the most brilliant, capable young fellows ofhis generation. Whatever he did, he did in the best way, and in thebrightest way. But his power of observation and of seeing what might betermed the humorous _quiddity_ of anything, was extraordinary.

  To put absurdity in a proper view for satirical purposes, it has to begeneralised from a number of instances, familiar to all. Those legaloddities, the public had seen over and over again, but they had passedunnoticed till this clever observer set to work and noted them. As Isay, it required a deep knowledge of the law to set these things in agrotesque light.

  Boz had been a sort of general reporter on the _Chronicle_: he "took"everything. He had reported at police courts as well as at the lawcourts. His quick and bright intelligence seized the humours here, as itdid those of the street. He later reported in the Gallery, and wasdispatched across country in post-chaises to "take" eminent politicalspeakers--always winning the hearty commendation of his employers for hiszeal and energy.