Chapter IV: Part 4

"He had, of course, some training in his profession in other families?"

"Not that I know of."

"Not that you know of. Do you dare to persist in that, Sir?"

"Why not?"

"Don't ask _me_ questions, Sir, I'm asking _you_. Do you deny, Sir, that the man was neither more nor less than a common Boots in the yard of a Public House, wearing an old tattered hat and jacket--very different from the suit in which you have rigged him up here to-day?"

Mr. Pickwick was astonished and silent. He was suffering. He had never dreamed of this view.

"Why," he said, "I suppose--"

"We want none of your supposes, Sir, answer yes or no."

"Well he certainly was such as you describe."

A flutter ran round the court.

"And this creature of yours, you would impose on the Jury as a trained man servant. You may go down Sir."

PLEA FOR "DODSON AND FOGG."

This famous firm of city attornies has become a bye-word in legal history--being considered the most notorious of practitioners for sharp, underhand, scheming practices. Boz was always vehement against the abuses of the law, but his generous ardour sometimes led him to exaggerated and wholesale statements that were scarcely well founded. This is found in some degree even in the sweeping attacks in _Bleak House_. But he was so vivid, so persuasive, in his pictures, that there was no appeal.

The unreasoning fury of Mr. Pickwick is specially shown in the case of Jingle, whom he pursued with an animosity that was almost frantic. One would think it was some public enemy he was hunting down for the public good. Poor Jingle had really done nothing so monstrous, after all. He had "chaffed" Dr. Slammer, "run off" with the spinster aunt--nothing so uncommon in those days--had been consigned to the Fleet for non-payment of his debts, and there showed penitence and other signs of a good heart. His one serious offence was passing himself off as a naval officer, and under an assumed name. But he had _crossed_ Mr. Pickwick--had ridiculed him--had contemptuously sent a message to "Tuppy." When he dared to play a practical joke on his persecutor, his infamy passed beyond bounds. Here was the key to Mr. Pickwick's nature--any lack of homage or respect was an offence against morality. So with Dodson and Fogg. He had settled in his mind that a condescending visit to these gentlemen, with a little explanation and remonstrance would completely disarm them. His fury on his advances being rejected was extraordinary.

Here Boz shows, as he ever does, his profound and most logical treatment of human character. He never goes astray, being guided by a happy and true instinct. Mr. Pickwick had grown to be the most inflated of men. Flattered and followed--submitted to with the greatest deference--ordering people about--doing what he pleased--he could not stand the slightest opposition. No one was to contradict--no one to question even his stockings--speckled or others. Even when he was clearly wrong, it was an affront to hint at it. He had much in common with that great man, Mr. Gladstone, who was the political Pickwick of his time. He was overbearing and arrogant and unrestrained, and I am afraid vindictive. Dodson and Fogg were associated with the great mortification of his life. He could not forgive them--the very sight of them roused his hatred, and the having to pay them ransom stung him to fury. All which is most natural and yet unexpected.

The popular and genial Sir Frank Lockwood was almost the first to put forward a plea in abatement of prejudice for the firm. He showed that they were not much below the usual type of middle-class solicitors. What they did was in the ordinary course. With Mr. Pickwick they were most forbearing, and even indulgent. There was one rather doubtful passage, but even here he offers extenuation. This was their treatment of poor Ramsey, which, at first sight, seems very bad indeed.

'There was such a game with Fogg here, this mornin',' said the man in
the brown coat, 'while Jack was upstairs sorting the papers, and you
two were gone to the stamp-office. Fogg was down here opening the
letters, when that chap we issued the writ against at Camberwell, you
know, came in--what's his name again?'

'Ramsey,' said the clerk who had spoken to Mr. Pickwick.

'Ah, Ramsey--a precious seedy-looking customer. 'Well, sir,' says
old Fogg, looking at him very fierce--you know his way--'well, Sir,
have you come to settle?' 'Yes, I have, Sir,' said Ramsey, putting
his hand in his pocket, and bringing out the money, 'the debt
two-pound ten, and the costs three pound five, and here it is, sir;'
and he sighed like bricks, as he lugged out the money, done up in a
bit of blotting paper. Old Fogg looked first at the money, and then
at him, and then he coughed in his rum way, so that I knew something
was coming. 'You don't know there's a declaration filed, which
increases the costs materially, I suppose?' said Fogg. 'You don't
say that Sir,' said Ramsey, starting back; 'the time was only out
last night, Sir.' 'I do say it, though,' said Fogg, 'my clerk's just
gone to file it. Hasn't Mr. Jackson gone to file that declaration in
Bullman and Ramsey, Mr. Wicks?' Of course I said yes, and then Fogg
coughed again, and looked at Ramsey. 'My God!' said Ramsey; 'and
here have I nearly driven myself mad, scraping this money together,
and all to no purpose.' 'None at all,' said Fogg, coolly; 'so you
had better go back and scrape some more together, and bring it here
in time.' 'I can't get it, by God,' said Ramsey, striking the desk
with his fist. 'Don't bully me, Sir,' said Fogg, getting into a
passion on purpose. 'I am not bullying you, Sir,' said Ramsey. 'You
are,' said Fogg; 'get out, Sir, get out of this office, Sir, and come
back, Sir, when you know how to behave yourself.' Well, Ramsey tried
to speak, but Fogg wouldn't let him, so he put the money in his
pocket, and sneaked out. The door was scarcely shut, when old Fogg
turned round to me, with a sweet smile on his face, and drew the
declaration out of his coat pocket. 'Here, Wicks,' says Fogg, 'take
a cab, and go down to the Temple as quick as you can, and file that.
The costs are quite safe, for he's a steady man with a large family,
at a salary of five-and-twenty shillings a week, and if he gives us a
warrant of attorney, as he must in the end, I know his employers will
see it paid; so we may as well get all we can out of him, Mr. Wicks;
it's a Christian act to do it, Mr. Wicks, for with his large family
and small income, he'll be all the better for a good lesson against
getting into debt,--won't he, Mr. Wicks, won't he?'--and he smiled so
goodnaturedly as he went away, that it was delightful to see him.
'He is a capital man of business,' said Wicks, in a tone of the
deepest admiration, 'capital, isn't he?'

The other three cordially subscribed to this opinion, and the
anecdote afforded the most unlimited satisfaction.

'Nice men these here, Sir,' whispered Mr. Weller to his master; 'wery
nice notion of fun they has, Sir.'

Sir F. Lockwood, by the way, offers one of the most amusing proofs conceivable, of the convincing power of "Pickwick," which is constantly taking us out of the world of fiction, into that of the daily living life. He speaks of the cruel trick played upon the unfortunate Ramsey, who came to pay his bill of costs, and was told that these were out of date, had been swelled by subsequent proceedings. An affidavit had been sworn--which, after he left the house, Wicks, the clerk, was sent off to swear--Then, Sir Frank, adds: "After all, this is merely given _as the statement of Wicks_--_on whose testimony not much reliance can be placed_." As though Wicks were some living witness, "erect upon two legs," whom he had been examining in Court!

It must, however, be recollected that this was an _exparte_ story. Wicks, as Sir F. Lockwood hints, may have coloured it up, to amuse his brethren. The truth is these poor helpless debtors, who fall into the hands of legal "sharks" and money-lenders, have _their_ tricks also. They will often "do" those they employ if they can. And further, let this be considered. Before Ramsey paid his visit the affidavit _had_ been prepared, and was actually in Fogg's pocket. Such affidavit would not be allowed for in the costs unless necessary to the case, so that Fogg's statement that it had been filed was very near the truth. Perker himself was playing the same game of hide and seek with another unfortunate--one Watty--who was trying to see him, and learn something about his case, but was always put off with the excuse or falsehood, that Perker was out, though he was within. But then, "Perker was an honourable man."

Boz lets us know, through Sam, how the case reached Dodson and Fogg. He speaks of "the kind generous people o' the perfession 'as sets their clerks to work to find out little disputes among their neighbours and acquaintances as wants settlin' by means of law suits." This system, however, cannot be checked, and "the speculative attorney" even in our time still flourishes.

It was really not a question whether Mr. Pickwick would "indict them for a conspiracy," because they acted as solicitors against him, but whether they would bring an action against _him_ on their own account. All through, Mr. Pickwick's behaviour to them had been outrageous. He chose to assume, quite gratuitously that it was they--not Mrs. Bardell--who got up the case; that they had worked on her for their own nefarious ends. Nothing could be more absurd. The landlady was eager enough to protect her own interests--her female friends worked on her, and the loss of so valuable a lodger, which the incident must have entailed, inflamed her more. We can see from Sam's interview with her that she was at last, though at first reluctant, determined to have her rights. But Mr. Pickwick acting on this assumption addressed the firm, from the first to the last in the most scurrilous language. He called them "robbers, swindlers,--a brace of pettifogging scoundrels!" Shocking and ungentlemanly terms, and what is worse, actionable. Yet the pair received this abuse with infinite good temper and restraint, merely securing a witness who should listen, and threatening the speaker with legal penalties.

And why did they not take this course? Well, they had to suspend proceedings until Mrs. Bardell's action was settled, when on receiving their costs they were desirous to part in good humour. But Mr. Pickwick was so furious at being invited to shake hands with them, that he again broke out with coarse abuse, "Robbers!" "Robbers!" calling it after them down the stairs. Why did they not take action on this? Perhaps they were afraid; as Mr. Pickwick had shewn himself such a doughty and unyielding fighter--going to prison rather than pay. Perhaps they thought he might get the better of them again.

We have very little evidence as to what was the scale of fees in use in these days. They were of course far lower than they are now, after allowances even for the lower cost of living. To-day, the fees to Counsel alone would have absorbed considerably more than Dodson and Fogg's whole bill of costs. A nice point is, could Mr. Pickwick's irregular interview with Serjeant Snubbin be considered something in the way of a consultation? Here were Counsel, Solicitor and Client: the Serjeant gave up a portion of his valuable time and, further, the junior counsel was summoned specially from his chambers to supply his "advice and opinion." Mr. Pickwick ought surely to have to pay for his whim. And the bill of costs that these "sharks" of attornies sent in! It was astonishingly moderate. For writ, service of subpoenas, hunting up evidence, consultation, fees to counsel, fees for the day, retainers, etc.,--the sum of 120 pounds was all that was asked.

Imagine Messrs. Lewis and Lewis sending in such a demand at the end of a trial which it had taken them nearly a year to get ready. In our time it could hardly be done under 1,000 pounds. Perker, by the way, told his client that on payment of the costs both of Plaintiff and Defendent, into the hands of "these sharks" he would get his release. With much indulgence--the attornies--allowed him to leave the prison on his bare undertaking to pay. And it is not clear why he should pay his own costs to them, and not to Perker. And they were _not_ paid for sometime. Mr. Pickwick's own costs must have been small. He had no witnesses. Perker would not have made a hand of him, and I fancy he would have got off for ninety pounds, or a hundred pounds. There was, however, the fees of the Special Jury, so he would have to pay, say, 220 pounds.

THE COGNOVIT.

Perker, it has been shown, was not a very brilliant solicitor, and his views on the trial were somewhat cloudy. When he was urging his client to leave the Fleet he threw out some equally shadowy and ill-informed notions as to what might be done in the way of punishing the nefarious solicitors, Dodson and Fogg, "those Freeman's Court Sharks."

His great charge was that they had got a _cognovit_, or undertaking to pay their costs out of Mrs. Bardell--their own client! Mr. Pickwick refused to pay them--why should not she? The poor woman had "blabbed" to Sam, a careless and natural assurance of theirs, that they would be content to get them from Mr. Pickwick--a thing many a firm would do. But Perker here sees a regular conspiracy. "I cannot undertake to say whether the wording of the cognovit, the nature of the ostensible consideration and the proof we can get together about the whole conduct of the suit, _will be sufficient to justify an indictment for conspiracy_."

It is impossible to understand this bit of legal jargon. "The wording of the cognovit"--one could speculate on _that_ without seeing it. (2) "The nature of the ostensible consideration" was not far to seek--it being work and labour done for the Plaintiff. And again, supposing they had promised her to get them solely from Mr. Pickwick--Sam's revelation of this, in open court, and its reception with laughter, showed what was thought of it. So which of the two courses were they to adopt? (3) And "the proof we may get together about the whole conduct of the suit." This "whole conduct" was perfectly regular. So the Judge thought--so did the jury. The case was proved by Pickwick's own friends. As we know, however, the firm took no steps to obtain satisfaction, but there cannot be the slightest doubt that they would have "recovered damages." We doubt if Mr. Pickwick would have gone to the Fleet for the second time rather than pay.

Perker's suspicions as to the _Cognovit_ obtained by Dodson and Fogg were shrewd, and certain enough, though he could not have seen the document. The suspicions were well warranted by the state of the Law, which became an instrument in the hands of grasping attorneys. By it the client was made to sign an acknowledgment, and offering no defence to a supposed action,--say for costs--brought against him, Judgment was then marked.

This offered a great temptation to the unscrupulous. Mrs. Bardell, no doubt, signed with light heart, not knowing what she was doing, and being told that it was merely a matter of form. Various enactments attempted to protect the client--one being passed some four or five years before the trial Bardell v. Pickwick, requiring the _Cognovit_ to be regularly filed within twenty-one days; more than ten years later it was required, that the client's signing such a thing should have no force in Law, unless he was represented by another solicitor.

The matter, as we know, was compromised with Dodson and Fogg, so there was no need to scrutinize the _Cognovit_. No doubt Perker was enabled to put pressure on the firm by hinting at such proceedings.

The damages, 750 pounds, were certainly moderate, and would not have been reduced by the Court on an application to set them aside as "excessive." The good woman was quite at her ease, being no doubt certain that Mr. Pickwick, at last, must give in. She could even enjoy the society of her friends and make the celebrated junketting to the "Spaniards." The firm took another view and grew tired of waiting; or they were sagacious enough to see that the arrest of their client was about the best method of putting pressure on Mr. Pickwick. In this connection, it may be noted that Jackson's over zeal in the transaction might have led to an action against his employers; for he arrested not only Mrs. Bardell, but her friends, Mrs. Sanders and Mrs. Cluppins. The prison gates were actually shut on them. "Safe and sound," said the Bailiff. "Here we are at last," said Jackson, "all right and tight."

True, Mrs. Bardell put under her hand in her appealing letter to Mr. Pickwick, that "this business was from the very first fomented and encouraged and brought about by these men," but this is not much; for the view only occurs to her when her operations had completely failed and recoiled on her own head with such disastrous result. The firm's business was to persuade her that she had a good case, and the Jury's verdict proved that she had. Had Mr. Pickwick given in and paid, she would have had no scruples. One cannot, at the same time, but admire the ingenuity of the author, in bringing such a Nemesis on her. Dodson and Fogg, we are told, "continue in business from which they realise a large income, and in which they are universally considered among the sharpest of the sharp."

At the last interview, at Perker's, when the costs were paid, one might have expected Mr. Pickwick to behave with a certain disdainful dignity. He was beaten and had paid over the stakes, and could afford to treat his enemy with contempt. Not so. The partners held out the olive branch by alluding to the way they had passed by his unmannerly attacks on them. "I beg to assure you, sir, I bear you no ill will or vindictive feeling for sentiments you thought proper to express of us in our office," and the other partner said, "I hope you don't think quite so ill of us, etc." This was rather gentlemanly and becoming. One offered his hand. But Mr. Pickwick broke out in a perfect fury. They had assumed a tone of forgiveness which was "an excess of impudence." He had been "the victim of their plots and conspiracies." They had imprisoned and robbed him. It was "insolent familiarity." At last he said, "_You are a well-matched pair of mean_, _rascally_, _pettifogging robbers_." This sentence he repeated three times, and the words "Robbers" he shouted after them many times over the stairs.

Sharping attornies! Why, a real sharping firm would have forced from their client advances of fee, "cash out of pocket," have made her give a Bill of Sale on her lease and goods, and have fairly stripped her of everything before the case began. Of the damages--had they got them--she would have seen but little.

The _Cognovit_ that was extracted from Mrs. Bardell was an acknowledgement, as we have seen, which entitled them to enter up judgment just as if a trial had taken place. In the Oxford great Dictionary, it reads quaintly to find Mrs. Bardell's cognovit quoted as an illustration of the legal meaning.

The Turnkey, on her arrest, had told Sam that she had been brought to the Fleet, "on a Cognovit for costs," Sam imparted this news to Job Trotter, and sent him off, hot foot, to Perker in Montague Place. This outcast, was able to tell him, "it seems they got a _Cognovit_ out of her for the amount of the costs, directly after the trial!"

Boz, on this occasion, gives us a happy glimpse of Solicitor life.

Mr. Perker had a dinner party that day, which was certified by the
lights in the drawing-room windows, the sound of an improved grand
piano, and an improveable cabinet voice issuing therefrom; and a
rather overpowering smell of meat which prevaded the steps and entry.
In fact, a couple of very good country agencies happening to come up
to town at the same time, an agreeable little party had been got
together to meet them, comprising Mr. Snicks the Life Office
Secretary, Mr. Prosee the eminent counsel, three solicitors, one
commissioner of bankrupts, a special pleader from the Temple, a
small-eyed peremptory young gentleman, his pupil, who had written a
lively book about the law of demises, with a vast quantity of
marginal notes and references; and several other eminent and
distinguished personages. From this society little Mr. Perker
detached himself on his clerk being announced in a whisper; and
repairing to the dining-room, there found Mr. Lowten and Job Trotter
looking very dim and shadowy by the light of a kitchen candle, which
the gentleman who condescended to appear in plush shorts and cottons
for a quarterly stipend, had, with a becoming contempt for the clerk
and all things appertaining to 'the office,' placed upon the table.

'Now Lowten,' said little Mr. Perker, shutting the door, 'what's the
matter? No important letter come in a parcel, is there?'

Do we not seem to be present? We can never pass by Russell Square without calling up the scene. Note, too, the components of that legal dinner. Poor Sir F. Lockwood used to declare that he relished "Mr. Prosee, the eminent counsel," more than any one of Boz's legal circle. Yet these five words are all we know of him. But Sir Frank had imagination, and like some of us could read between the lines, or rather, between the words. Here was a prominent member of the Bar--was he K.C.? a triton among the minnows--therefore heading the table, listened to with reverence as he told of the judges, possibly of "old Stareleigh's" last exhibition of petulance--"with it's high time for him to go, etc." But if he had not silk, why did not Perker retain him instead of the incapable Phunky, whom he did _not_ ask on this occasion. "I gave the chap a good chance, but he destroyed my whole case!" "Catch me letting him put his legs under my mahogany." Among the guests was that "small-eyed, peremptory young gentleman"--the special pleader's pupil. What a capital sketch has Boz given of him. "He had written a _lively_ book about the law of demises, with a vast quantity of marginal notes and references." He had come with his teacher, who was no doubt highly deferental to Mr. Prosee, but enough, the peremptory young gentleman may have partly "tackled" the great man on some point of practice. The good country agencies must have gone home delighted with their evening.

But Mr. Prosee may be brought into somewhat closer communication with the case. At Perker's dinner the gentlemen had gone up to the drawing room, when Perker was called down to hear the news of Mrs. Bardell's arrest. Mr. Prosee was left expatiating to the circle on some beautiful "point," and when Perker returned how likely that he should tell of his extraordinary client who had preferred to go to prison rather than pay the costs of a suit, "and here," he would go on, "is the drollest sequel you ever heard, &c."

"An odd unusual thing," Mr. Prosee would say. "Plaintiff and Defendant, both in jail together! I never heard the like." There would be much laughter at the novel situation. Thus the _cognovit_ would come up and Mr. Prosee gravely say, "nothing will be done till an Act of Parliament is passed. The client should be protected by a fresh solicitor." On which the young author of the treatise on Demises would have something to say in his best fashion; for the _cognovit_ might be taken to be a sort of demise. "I doubt Mr. Prosee, if your suggestion would work. As I take it, sir, etc."

RELEASE FROM THE FLEET.

But the circumstances connected with Mr. Pickwick's release from the Fleet, show the adroitness and ability of Dodson in a high degree. It will be recollected that when Job rushed with the news to Perker, that gentleman and his clerk broke out into raptuous admiration.

'Now, Lowten,' said little Mr. Perker, shutting the door, 'what's the
matter? No important letter come in a parcel, is there?'

'No, sir,' replied Lowten. 'This is a messenger from Mr. Pickwick,
sir.'

'From Pickwick, eh?' said the little man, turning quickly to Job.
'Well; what is it?'

'Dodson and Fogg have taken Mrs. Bardell in execution for her costs,
sir,' said Job.

'No!' exclaimed Perker, putting his hands in his pockets, and
reclining against the sideboard.

'Yes,' said Job. 'It seems they got a cognovit out of her for the
amount of 'em, directly after the trial.'

'By Jove!' said Perker, taking both hands out of his pockets and
striking the knuckles of his right against the palm of his left,
emphatically, 'those are the cleverest scamps I ever had anything to
do with!'

'The sharpest practitioners _I_ ever knew, sir,' observed Lowten.

'Sharp!' echoed Perker. 'There's no knowing where to have them.'

'Very true, sir, there is not,' replied Lowten; and then both master
and man pondered for a few seconds, with animated countenances, as if
they were reflecting upon one of the most beautiful and ingenious
discoveries that the intellect of man had ever made. When they had
in some measure recovered from their trance of admiration, Job
Trotter discharged himself of the rest of his commission. Perker
nodded his head thoughtfully, and pulled out his watch.

Now to the superficial this seemed to be evaded by the art of the firm in "getting the cognovit out of her." But this was an ordinary, vulgar stroke--which anyone could have done. Their policy went far deeper, and this Perker was acute enough to recognize. There was no object in putting Mrs. Bardell into the Fleet.

They could no more get their costs out of her, than they could get them out of Mr. Pickwick. She had nothing but her few "sticks" of furniture, worth say 50 pounds. But the astute fellows saw what pressure could be put on the benevolent nature of Mr. Pickwick, who could not endure that a respectable woman should be exposed to the contamination of a debtor's prison. And their sagacity was to be justified, and on the very next day, too.

It is curious, however, that no mention is made of Mrs. Bardell's release. It, of course, took place before Mr. Pickwick's. Here again Dodson and Fogg behaved very fairly, for they allowed both her and Mr. Pickwick to be released, without receiving payment, but simply on "an understanding" by Perker. As it turned out, indeed, they were not paid for some weeks.

The processes by which Mr. Pickwick was got into the Fleet were complicated enough, _Habeas Corpus_, appearing before functionaries, etc. But it is odd that in cases of persons of lower degree these seemed not to be necessary. We do not hear of them in Sam's instance. While Mrs. Bardell, was taken straight from "the Spaniards," to the prison door, she was not even formally arrested by the Bailiff, though he was in attendance. He sat afar off at Hampstead, taking his drink--and on the box during the drive. She might be said to have been arbitrarily taken to the prison by Jackson--without a legal warrant. Had not the business been compromised, some other astute firm of attorneys might have found subject for an action against Dodson and Fogg.

Another of the humorous incidents connected with the case is old Weller's firm persuasion that Mr. Pickwick was to "stand his trial," as though he were indicted for some criminal offence. We find him always astray as to when he was to be "tried," etc. This is a most natural impression among the lower classes, who are not very clear as to the distinction between civil and criminal process, being most familiar with the latter. In the same spirit is his humorous suggestion of securing an _alibi_, as the best method of getting Mr. Pickwick off. "O Sammy, Sammy, vy worn't there a alleybi!"

* * * * *

Such is "The Trial in Pickwick."

Is there any writer, now living, I may be asked, who could furnish such a picture as this, one so full of reality and true humour, of one of our modern Courts of Justice? The answer must be that it would be idle to look for such a person. There are thousands who could supply minute drawings in which not a single detail would be omitted. But the piercing to the essence, the happy generalization, the knowledge of the true points of character, these would be sought in vain.

Footnotes:

{26} So confused is the chronology of _Pickwick_, that it is difficult to fix the exact date of the Trial. Boz, writing some ten years after the event, seems to have got a little confused and uncertain as to the exact year of the Trial. He first fixed the opening of the story in 1817: but on coming to the compromising incident in Goswell Street, which occurred only a few weeks later, he changed the year to 1827. Then Jingle's anachronism of the French Revolution of July suggested that the new date would not do. So 1830 was next adopted. But this did not end the matter, for in the "errata" we are directed to change this date back again to 1827. And so it now stands. The Trial therefore really took place on April 1, 1828.

{84} Seven years after the Trial this monopoly was taken away from the Serjeants--namely in 1834: then capriciously given back to them, and finally abolished in 1840.

{85} I have heard from the daughter of Mr. Chapman, the original publisher of _Pickwick_, that Talfourd revised and directed the "Trial." On one occasion Boz was dining with him when the proof was brought in, with some legal mistakes noted by Talfourd. Boz left the table and put it right.