Bardell v. Pickwick

  THE JUDGE.

  Mr. Pickwick, unfortunate in his Counsel, his Solicitor, his Jury--one ofprejudiced tradesmen--was also to be unlucky in the Judge who tried hiscase. No doubt Perker had comforted him: "no matter how it goes, howeverunfair Buzfuz may be, we have a judge to hold the scales fair and keepthe jury straight. The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the RightHon. Sir NICHOLAS CONYNGHAM TINDAL is a man of immense reputation at theBar. We are most fortunate in having him." Judge then of thedisappointment when on coming to court it was found that Sir StephenGaselee was to take the case "owing to the absence of the Chief Justice,occasioned by indisposition." (I protest that at times one does not knowwhether we are following out a course of real events, or tracing theincidents of a fiction, so wonderfully does Boz make his fiction blendwith reality.) This was a serious blow. Tindal was an admirable judge.Did not his chroniclers write of him: "His sagacity, impartiality andplain sense, his industry and clear sightedness made him an admiration ofnon-professional spectators: while among lawyers he was very highlyesteemed _for his invariable kindness to all who appeared before him_.He retained to the last their respect and affection." With such a manpresiding Sergeant Buzfuz's eccentric violence and abuse of the defendantwould have been restrained ("having the outward appearance of a man andnot of a monster.") Mr. Skimpin's gross insinuations, to wit, thatWinkle was "telegraphing" to his friend, would have been summarily putdown, and all "bullying" checked; more, he would have calmly keptCounsel's attention to the issue. This perfect impartiality would havemade him show to the Jury how little evidence there was to support theplaintiff's case. Instead came this unlucky indisposition: and his placewas taken by "my Brother Gaselee:" with what results Mr. Pickwick was tolearn disastrously.

  It is curious, however, that the Chief Justice, in spite of hisindisposition, should still be associated with the case; for he had triedthe momentous case of Norton _v._ Melbourne, and had heard there lettersread, which were parodied in the "chops and tomato sauce" correspondence,so Boz had him well before him. The case had to be tried at theGuildhall Sessions; so a fair and rational judge would have spoilt allsport. Further, as Boz had seen the fairness and dignity of the ChiefJustice he was naturally reluctant to exhibit him unfavorably. The onlything was to make the Chief Justice become suddenly "indisposed," andhave his place taken by a grotesque judge.

  The Judge who was to try the case, Mr. Justice Stareleigh, as is wellknown, was drawn from Sir Stephen Gaselee, of whose name Stareleigh is asort of synonym. Serjeant Gaselee was once well known in theprosecutions directed against Radicals and so-called Reformers, but_Pickwick_ has given him a greater reputation. The baiting he receivedfrom patriotic advocates may have inflamed his temper and made himirritable. He is described by one author, in a most humorous, ifpersonal fashion. He was "a most particularly short man, and so fat thathe seemed all face and waistcoat. He rolled in upon two little turnedlegs, and having bobbed gravely to the bar who bobbed gravely to him, puthis little legs under the table, when all you could see of him was twoqueer little eyes, one broad, pink face, and somewhere about half of abig and very comical-looking wig." All through he is shown as arrogantand incapable, and also as making some absurd mistakes.

  It will be a surprise to most people to learn that this picture is nomore than an amusing caricature, and that the judge was really a personof high character. He is described as "a very painstaking, uprightjudge, and, in his private capacity, a worthy and benevolent man." Thus,Mr. Croker, who, however, supplies a sound reason for his being thesubject of such satire. "With many admirable qualities both of head andheart, he had made himself a legitimate object of ridicule by hisexplosions on the Bench." Under such conditions, the Bar, the suitorsand the public had neither the wish nor the opportunity to search forextenuating excuses in his private life. They suffered enough from the"explosions" and that was all that concerned them. He had been fourteenyears on the Bench, and, like Stareleigh, belonged to the Common Pleas.He was suffering too from infirmities, particularly from deafness, andappears to have misapprehended statements in the same grotesque fashionthat he mistook Winkle's name.

  Boz's fashion of burlesque, by the way, is happily shown in his treatmentof this topic. Another would have been content with "Daniel," the simplemisapprehension. "Nathaniel, sir," says Winkle. "Daniel--any othername?" "Nathaniel, sir--my lord, I mean." "_Nathaniel Daniel_--_orDaniel Nathaniel_?" "No, my lord, only Nathaniel, not Daniel at all."

  "What did you tell me it was Daniel for, then, sir?"

  "I didn't, my lord."

  "You did, sir. _How could I have got Nathaniel in my notes_, _unless youtold me so_, _sir_?"

  How admirable is this. The sly satire goes deeper, as Judges, under lessgross conditions, have often made this illogical appeal to "my notes."

  Though not gifted with oratorical powers which were likely to gain himemployment as a leader, Gaselee's reputation for legal knowledge soonrecommended him to a judge's place. He was accordingly selected on July1st, 1824, to fill a vacancy in the Court of Common Pleas. In that Courthe sat for nearly fourteen years "with the character of a painstakingjudge, and in his private capacity as a worthy and benevolent man." ThusMr. Foss, F.S.A.

  The reader will have noted the Judge's severity to poor Groffin, thechemist, who had pleaded the danger of his boy mistaking oxalic acid forEpsom salts. Could it be that the Judge's experience as the son of aprovincial doctor, had shown what class of man was before him? Later,unexpectedly, we learn that the Judge was a steady member for fourteenyears of the Royal Humane Society, of which institution he was also aVice-President.

  But we now come to a most extraordinary thing--the result of the youngauthor's telling and most sarcastic portrait of the irascible littlejudge. It is curious that Forster, while enumerating various instancesof Boz's severe treatment of living persons, as a sort of chastisementfor their defects of manner or character, seems not to have thought ofthis treatment of the judge--and passes it by. Nor did he notice theprompt result that followed on the sketch. The report of the trialappeared in the March number, 1837--and we are told, the luckless judgeretired from the Bench, shortly after the end of Hilary Term, that is inApril or the beginning of May. We may assume that the poor gentlemancould not endure the jests of his _confreres_ or the scarcely concealedtittering of the Barristers, all of whom had of course devoured andenjoyed the number. We may say that the learned Sergeant Buzfuz was notlikely to be affected in any way by _his_ picture; it may indeed haveadded to his reputation. I confess to some sympathy for the poor oldjudge who was thus driven from the Bench. Sam Foote was much given tothis sort of personal attack, and made the lives of some of his victimswretched. Boz, however, seems to have felt himself called upon to actthus as public executioner on two occasions only. After the fall of thejudge in June, 1837, he wanted a model for a tyrannical magistrate in_Oliver Twist_--and Mr. Laing, the Hatton Garden Magistrate--a harsh,ferocious personage, at once occurred to him. He wrote accordingly toone of his friends that he wished to be _smuggled_ into his office somemorning to study him. This "smuggling" of course meant the placing himwhere he would not be observed--as a magistrate knowing his "sketches"might recognise him. "I know the man perfectly well" he added. So hedid, for he forgot that he had introduced him already in _Pickwick_ asNupkins--whose talk is exactly alike, in places almost word for word tothat of "Mr. Fang."

  These palliations, Boz, a young fellow of three and twenty or so, did notpause to weigh. He only saw a testy, red-faced old fellow with goggleeyes, and seventy-four years old, and past his work. His infirmitiesalready made him incapable of carrying through the business of the Courtas the mistake, "Is it Daniel Nathaniel or Nathaniel Daniel?" shows. Itis curious, however, that this weakness of misapprehending names isdescribed of another judge, Arabin--a strange grotesque. Theodore Hookgives an amusing specimen in his Gilbert Gurney.

  From the general description in the text, it is evident Stareleigh wasthe prey of gouty a
ffections--which swelled him into grotesque shape, andhe found himself unequal to the office. He died two years after hisretirement at No. 13, Montagu Place, Russell Square; so that the Judge inBardell _v._ Pickwick was living close to Perker the Attorney in the samecase. Here we seem to mix up the fictional and the living characters,but this is the law of _Pickwick_--the confines between the two worldsbeing quite confused or broken down. The late commander of our forces inChina, Sir A. Gaselee, is of this family. It should be remembered,however, when we think of this judge's frowardness, that judges in thosetimes were dictatorial and carried matters with a high hand. There wereoften angry conflicts between them, and members of the Bar, andStareleigh was really not so very tyrannical. He did what so many judgesdo--took a side from the first, and had decided in his own mind that Mr.Pickwick could not possibly have a case. That curious form of addressfrom the Bench is now no longer heard--"who is with you, _BrotherBuzfuz_?" Judges and sergeants were then common members of theGuild--both wore the "coif."