Transcribed from the 1902 Elliot Stock edition ,
Bardell v. Pickwick
The Trial for Breach of Promise ofMarriage held at the Guildhall Sittings, on April 1, 1828, beforeMr. Justice Stareleigh and a Special Jury of the City ofLondon.
Edited with Notes andCommentaries
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
p.1INTRODUCTION.
There are few things more familiar or more interesting to thepublic than this cause célèbre. It isbetter known than many a real case: for every one knows theJudge, his name and remarks—also the Counsel—(notablySergeant Buzfuz)—the witnessess, and what theysaid—and of course all about the Plaintiff and the famousDefendant. It was tried over seventy years ago at“the Guildhall Settens,” and was described by Bozsome sixty-three years ago. Yet every detail seemsfresh—and as fresh as ever. It is astonishing that apurely technical sketch like this, whose humours might berelished only by such specialists as Barristers and Attorneys,who would understand the jokes levelled at the Profession, shouldbe so well understanded of the people. All see the point ofthe legal satire. It is a quite a prodigy. Boz hadthe art, in an extraordinary degree, of thus vividly commendingtrade processes, professional allusions, and methods tooutsiders, and making them humourous and intelligible. Witness Jackson, when he came to “serve” Mr. Pickwickand friends with the subpœnas. It is a dry,business-like process, but how racy Boz made it. A jokesparkles in every line.
This trial for Breach has been debated over and over p. 2againamong lawyers and barristers, some contending that “therewas no evidence at all to go to the Jury” as to a promise;others insisting on mis-direction, and that there was evidencethat ought not to have been admitted. The law has sincebeen changed, and by later Acts both Mrs. Bardell and Mr.Pickwick would have been allowed to tell their stories and tohave been cross-examined. Mrs. Bardell was almost justifiedin supposing that Mr. Pickwick was offering his hand when he wasmerely speaking of engaging a man-servant. But then thewhole would have been spoiled. Under the present systems,this would all have come out. Mr. Pickwick, when it came tohis turn, would have explained what his proceedings meant. It is a most perfect and vivid satire on the hackneyed methods ofthe lawyers when dealing with the witnesses. Nothing can bemore natural or more graphic. It is maintained to somethingbetween the level of comedy and farce: nor is there the leastexaggeration. It applies now as it did then, though not tothe same topics. A hectoring, bullying Counsel, threateningand cruel, would interfere with the pleasant tone of the play;but it is all the same conveyed. There is a likeness toBardell v. Pickwick in another Burlesque case, tried inour day, the well-known “Trial by Jury,” the jointwork of Mr. Gilbert and the late Sir Arthur