There are few things more familiar or more interesting to the public than
this _cause celebre_. It is better known than many a real case: for
every one knows the Judge, his name and remarks--also the
Counsel--(notably Sergeant Buzfuz)--the witnessess, and what they
said--and of course all about the Plaintiff and the famous Defendant. It
was tried over seventy years ago at "the Guildhall Settens," and was
described by Boz some sixty-three years ago. Yet every detail seems
fresh--and as fresh as ever. It is astonishing that a purely technical
sketch like this, whose humours might be relished only by such
specialists as Barristers and Attorneys, who would understand the jokes
levelled 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 had
the art, in an extraordinary degree, of thus vividly commending trade
processes, professional allusions, and methods to outsiders, and making
them 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 in
every line.
This trial for Breach has been debated over and over again among lawyers
and barristers, some contending that "there was no evidence at all to go
to the Jury" as to a promise; others insisting on mis-direction, and that
there was evidence that ought not to have been admitted. The law has
since been changed, and by later Acts both Mrs. Bardell and Mr. Pickwick
would have been allowed to tell their stories and to have been
cross-examined. Mrs. Bardell was almost justified in supposing that Mr.
Pickwick was offering his hand when he was merely speaking of engaging a
man-servant. But then the whole would have been spoiled. Under the
present systems, this would all have come out. Mr. Pickwick, when it
came to his turn, would have explained what his proceedings meant. It is
a most perfect and vivid satire on the hackneyed methods of the lawyers
when dealing with the witnesses. Nothing can be more natural or more
graphic. It is maintained to something between the level of comedy and
farce: nor is there the least exaggeration. It applies now as it did
then, though not to the same topics. A hectoring, bullying Counsel,
threatening and cruel, would interfere with the pleasant tone of the
play; 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 Arthur
Sullivan. The general tone of both is the same and in the modern work
there is a general Pickwickian flavour. Sir Arthur's music, too, is
highly "Pickwickian," and the joint effort of the two humorists is
infinitely diverting. The Judge is something of a Stareleigh.
The truth is that Boz, the engenderer of these facetiae, apart from his
literary gift, was one of the most brilliant, capable young fellows of
his generation. Whatever he did, he did in the best way, and in the
brightest way. But his power of observation and of seeing what might be
termed the humorous _quiddity_ of anything, was extraordinary.
To put absurdity in a proper view for satirical purposes, it has to be
generalised from a number of instances, familiar to all. Those legal
oddities, the public had seen over and over again, but they had passed
unnoticed till this clever observer set to work and noted them. As I
say, it required a deep knowledge of the law to set these things in a
grotesque 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 law
courts. His quick and bright intelligence seized the humours here, as it
did those of the street. He later reported in the Gallery, and was
dispatched across country in post-chaises to "take" eminent political
speakers--always winning the hearty commendation of his employers for his
zeal and energy.