Mr. Pickwick, unfortunate in his Counsel, his Solicitor, his Jury--one of
prejudiced tradesmen--was also to be unlucky in the Judge who tried his
case. No doubt Perker had comforted him: "no matter how it goes, however
unfair Buzfuz may be, we have a judge to hold the scales fair and keep
the jury straight. The Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Right
Hon. Sir NICHOLAS CONYNGHAM TINDAL is a man of immense reputation at the
Bar. We are most fortunate in having him." Judge then of the
disappointment when on coming to court it was found that Sir Stephen
Gaselee was to take the case "owing to the absence of the Chief Justice,
occasioned by indisposition." (I protest that at times one does not know
whether we are following out a course of real events, or tracing the
incidents of a fiction, so wonderfully does Boz make his fiction blend
with reality.) This was a serious blow. Tindal was an admirable judge.
Did not his chroniclers write of him: "His sagacity, impartiality and
plain sense, his industry and clear sightedness made him an admiration of
non-professional spectators: while among lawyers he was very highly
esteemed _for his invariable kindness to all who appeared before him_.
He retained to the last their respect and affection." With such a man
presiding Sergeant Buzfuz's eccentric violence and abuse of the defendant
would have been restrained ("having the outward appearance of a man and
not of a monster.") Mr. Skimpin's gross insinuations, to wit, that
Winkle was "telegraphing" to his friend, would have been summarily put
down, and all "bullying" checked; more, he would have calmly kept
Counsel's attention to the issue. This perfect impartiality would have
made him show to the Jury how little evidence there was to support the
plaintiff's case. Instead came this unlucky indisposition: and his place
was taken by "my Brother Gaselee:" with what results Mr. Pickwick was to
learn disastrously.
It is curious, however, that the Chief Justice, in spite of his
indisposition, should still be associated with the case; for he had tried
the momentous case of Norton _v._ Melbourne, and had heard there letters
read, which were parodied in the "chops and tomato sauce" correspondence,
so Boz had him well before him. The case had to be tried at the
Guildhall Sessions; so a fair and rational judge would have spoilt all
sport. Further, as Boz had seen the fairness and dignity of the Chief
Justice he was naturally reluctant to exhibit him unfavorably. The only
thing was to make the Chief Justice become suddenly "indisposed," and
have his place taken by a grotesque judge.
The Judge who was to try the case, Mr. Justice Stareleigh, as is well
known, was drawn from Sir Stephen Gaselee, of whose name Stareleigh is a
sort of synonym. Serjeant Gaselee was once well known in the
prosecutions directed against Radicals and so-called Reformers, but
_Pickwick_ has given him a greater reputation. The baiting he received
from patriotic advocates may have inflamed his temper and made him
irritable. He is described by one author, in a most humorous, if
personal fashion. He was "a most particularly short man, and so fat that
he seemed all face and waistcoat. He rolled in upon two little turned
legs, and having bobbed gravely to the bar who bobbed gravely to him, put
his little legs under the table, when all you could see of him was two
queer little eyes, one broad, pink face, and somewhere about half of a
big and very comical-looking wig." All through he is shown as arrogant
and incapable, and also as making some absurd mistakes.
It will be a surprise to most people to learn that this picture is no
more than an amusing caricature, and that the judge was really a person
of high character. He is described as "a very painstaking, upright
judge, and, in his private capacity, a worthy and benevolent man." Thus,
Mr. Croker, who, however, supplies a sound reason for his being the
subject of such satire. "With many admirable qualities both of head and
heart, he had made himself a legitimate object of ridicule by his
explosions on the Bench." Under such conditions, the Bar, the suitors
and the public had neither the wish nor the opportunity to search for
extenuating excuses in his private life. They suffered enough from the
"explosions" and that was all that concerned them. He had been fourteen
years on the Bench, and, like Stareleigh, belonged to the Common Pleas.
He was suffering too from infirmities, particularly from deafness, and
appears to have misapprehended statements in the same grotesque fashion
that he mistook Winkle's name.
Boz's fashion of burlesque, by the way, is happily shown in his treatment
of this topic. Another would have been content with "Daniel," the simple
misapprehension. "Nathaniel, sir," says Winkle. "Daniel--any other
name?" "Nathaniel, sir--my lord, I mean." "_Nathaniel Daniel_--_or
Daniel 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 you
told me so_, _sir_?"
How admirable is this. The sly satire goes deeper, as Judges, under less
gross conditions, have often made this illogical appeal to "my notes."
Though not gifted with oratorical powers which were likely to gain him
employment as a leader, Gaselee's reputation for legal knowledge soon
recommended him to a judge's place. He was accordingly selected on July
1st, 1824, to fill a vacancy in the Court of Common Pleas. In that Court
he sat for nearly fourteen years "with the character of a painstaking
judge, and in his private capacity as a worthy and benevolent man." Thus
Mr. Foss, F.S.A.
The reader will have noted the Judge's severity to poor Groffin, the
chemist, who had pleaded the danger of his boy mistaking oxalic acid for
Epsom salts. Could it be that the Judge's experience as the son of a
provincial doctor, had shown what class of man was before him? Later,
unexpectedly, we learn that the Judge was a steady member for fourteen
years of the Royal Humane Society, of which institution he was also a
Vice-President.
But we now come to a most extraordinary thing--the result of the young
author's telling and most sarcastic portrait of the irascible little
judge. It is curious that Forster, while enumerating various instances
of Boz's severe treatment of living persons, as a sort of chastisement
for their defects of manner or character, seems not to have thought of
this treatment of the judge--and passes it by. Nor did he notice the
prompt result that followed on the sketch. The report of the trial
appeared in the March number, 1837--and we are told, the luckless judge
retired from the Bench, shortly after the end of Hilary Term, that is in
April or the beginning of May. We may assume that the poor gentleman
could not endure the jests of his _confreres_ or the scarcely concealed
tittering of the Barristers, all of whom had of course devoured and
enjoyed the number. We may say that the learned Sergeant Buzfuz was not
likely to be affected in any way by _his_ picture; it may indeed have
added to his reputation. I confess to some sympathy for the poor old
judge who was thus driven from the Bench. Sam Foote was much given to
this sort of personal attack, and made the lives of some of his victims
wretched. Boz, however, seems to have felt himself called upon to act
thus as public executioner on two occasions only. After the fall of the
judge 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 to
one of his friends that he wished to be _smuggled_ into his office some
morning to study him. This "smuggling" of course meant the placing him
where he would not be observed--as a magistrate knowing his "sketches"
might recognise him. "I know the man perfectly well" he added. So he
did, for he forgot that he had introduced him already in _Pickwick_ as
Nupkins--whose talk is exactly alike, in places almost word for word to
that of "Mr. Fang."
These palliations, Boz, a young fellow of three and twenty or so, did not
pause to weigh. He only saw a testy, red-faced old fellow with goggle
eyes, and seventy-four years old, and past his work. His infirmities
already made him incapable of carrying through the business of the Court
as the mistake, "Is it Daniel Nathaniel or Nathaniel Daniel?" shows. It
is curious, however, that this weakness of misapprehending names is
described of another judge, Arabin--a strange grotesque. Theodore Hook
gives an amusing specimen in his Gilbert Gurney.
From the general description in the text, it is evident Stareleigh was
the prey of gouty affections--which swelled him into grotesque shape, and
he found himself unequal to the office. He died two years after his
retirement at No. 13, Montagu Place, Russell Square; so that the Judge in
Bardell _v._ Pickwick was living close to Perker the Attorney in the same
case. Here we seem to mix up the fictional and the living characters,
but this is the law of _Pickwick_--the confines between the two worlds
being quite confused or broken down. The late commander of our forces in
China, Sir A. Gaselee, is of this family. It should be remembered,
however, when we think of this judge's frowardness, that judges in those
times were dictatorial and carried matters with a high hand. There were
often angry conflicts between them, and members of the Bar, and
Stareleigh was really not so very tyrannical. He did what so many judges
do--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 address
from the Bench is now no longer heard--"who is with you, _Brother
Buzfuz_?" Judges and sergeants were then common members of the
Guild--both wore the "coif."