The Role Of Law Courts In Dickens`s Bleak House

The Role of Law Courts in Sensation Fiction or Novels with a Secret

Barbara Hardy`s assertion in The Moral Art of Dickens (1970) that, "The Victorian art of fiction is essentially a moral art," (Hardy: 1970: p.3) needs modification. Undoubtedly, the period gave rise to some of Britain`s most accomplished moralists; (Thackeray, Trollope, and Eliot, spring immediately to mind) but these writers do not spout moral lessons for the reader to passively imbibe: the reader must work for their pay-off. This is most apparent in sensation fiction, or novels with secrets, as the reader is constantly working to uncover the mystery entangled within the plot. Thus, it is reductive to label Victorian fiction as merely "moral," which implies that Victorian novelists adopt a more pedagogical approach to literature than is accurate. An efficacious definition of Victorian fiction would be `morally instructive.` Shot from this angle, the Victorian novelist plays an active role in not only exposing areas for redress, but also offering up potential solutions to societal problems. Consequently, some of the credit due to the novelists, which Hardy`s statement subtracts, is reclaimed. Looking at Charles Dickens`s Bleak House (1851) and Wilkie Collins` The Law and the Lady (1875), this essay explores how Victorian novelists use the social space of the law courts as literary platforms for moralistic instruction.

The English Legal System is especially well-trodden ground for the literary moralist. In The Art of Alibi (2002) Jonathan H. Grossman describes the court room as, "a containing structure for retelling stories" (Grossman: 2002: p.4). In Bleak House, Dickens uses this structure for the "retelling" of the legal system, to the "unitiated" reader (Bleak House: 1851: p.2). Bleak House`s dual structure works to illuminate the dark corners of the legal system which have been previously "murky" (p.2) to the reader, and thus the public. In penning Bleak House Dickens became, to the legal system, the nuisance child at a birthday party, who reveals the secrets behind each of the conjurors tricks, thus rendering them absurd. The justifiably infamous opening of Bleak House spares no prisoners:

Never can there come a fog too thick, never can there come mud and mire too deep, to assort with the groping and floundering condition which this High Court of Chancery, most pestilent of hoary sinners, holds, this day, in the sight of heaven and earth. (1851:p.2). Immediately, this "High" institution is brought down from its lofty position in society, to the "mud and mire" that surrounds the people whom it is purported to represent. In fact, the use of "pestilent" places the court below those whom it serves in a "parasitic" capacity (Daleski: 1970: 163).

Combined with the almost oxymoronic juxtaposition of the "High Court of Chancery" with its descri ption as the "most pestilent of hoary sinners" poses a paradox: how can the Court of Chancery, whose purpose it is to uphold and regulate the law, be actively sinning? In the opening pages of the novel, Dickens`s third person narrator demonstrates a plethora of corrupt practices at work within the legal system commencing with, "the various solicitors in the cause, some two or three of whom have inherited it from their fathers, who made a fortune by it" (p.4). The fact that the case of Jarndyce and Jarndyce is "inherited" keys into the nepotistic nature of appointments within the legal profession, based on primogeniture. In Power and Authority in the Victorian City (1979), Derek Fraser vocalises the complaints of what John Kucich terms "cultural intellectuals," stating that, "though rivaling the older elite in wealth they [the cultural intellectuals] were excluded on religious and political grounds from memberships of the corporations and so denied the offices of councilman, alderman, mayor, and magistrate," (Fraser: 1979: p.7) By denying "outsiders" entry into the legal profession, the position and power remain in the hands of the elite. Similarly, that "whole families have inherited legendary hatred with the suit" (p.5) is telling. Here Dickens demonstrates the extent to which the actions of the legal profession pervade society, with their corrupting agenda. That they inherit "hatred," assigns a strong, negative, connotation with the legal profession, and thus assists with the earlier mention of "mud and mire" in exposing the Court of Chancery particularly, and state institutions generally, for their questionable practices. Moreover, as with their solicitor counterparts, the parties to Jarndyce and Jarndyce "inherit" a case that was "squeezed dry years ago" (p.5). This is pertinent as the solicitors have inherited the costs of case, whilst the parties have inherited the debt; resulting in an insight into how the rigid class structure remains intact. More crucially, solicitors have inherited a legislative capacity. Christopher Allen in The Law of Evidence in Victorian England (1997) explains, "Judicial opinion is also a legislative enactment. It decides a particular case, and it sets precedent for all future cases. Therefore, the judges become the legislators" (p. 26). This is precisely the practice which Dickens is objecting to, and thus throwing light upon for the object of public scrutiny. The solicitors whom feature in Bleak House are closely modeled on those who are actually a part of the Victorian legal system; those who set "precedent" with cases such as the interminable Jarndyce and Jarndyce. Dickens is instigating a social commentary on the ways in which those who possess power manage its maintenance, without maintaining its duty. A further illusion relating to the contemporary state of the law courts, and thus the necessity for institutional reformation, is the confused, ad hoc, nature of the law. In General Theory of Law and State (1945), Hans Kelsen defines the law as, "an order of human behaviour" (Kelsen: 1945:p.3: my emphasis). He goes on to note, "Only on the basis of a clear comprehension of those relations constituting the legal order can the nature of the law be understood" (p.3: my emphasis).

I draw attention to the words "order" and "clear," as these terms are integral to how Dickens exposes trick number two. Let us look at the use of "order". In the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, there are ten definitions of the word; these include: 1. The arrangement or disposition of people or thing according to a particular sequence or method. 2. A state in which everything is in its correct place. 3. A state in which the laws and rules regulating public behaviour are observed. 4. The prescribed procedure followed by a meeting, legislative assembly, or court of law.

Also documented is the phrase "in order," meaning, "in the correct condition for operation or use; or appropriate in the circumstance." It is pivotal that the very definition of the law is one that in itself is subject to multiple uses; most of which refer to class, the legal system, and methodological efficacy. If the law cannot be readily defined, how can it become clear, and thus fully understood? Dickens rounds on this technicality with the character of Jo. Jo, as he repeatedly states to various officials, does not know "nothink" (p. 234). For this very reason he is dismissed from another branch of the legal system: the Coroners Court. "Name, Jo. Nothing else that he knows on." Following a rather repetitive line of enquiry the judge of the Coroners Court states that Jo`s testimony, "won`t do" (p.128). Due to Jo`s lack of education, his witness statement is deemed defunct. Perplexingly, the testimony of Mrs. Piper who has, "a good deal to say.but not much to tell," is accepted, and indeed takes up much of the courts time.

Rather than ascertaining the particulars relating to another human being`s death, the Coroners Court appears to concern itself with maintaining the "arrangement or disposition of people or thing according to a particular sequence or method:" class. Consequently, the function of the Coroners Court is not "appropriate in the circumstances." H.M. Daleski investigates this in Dickens and the Art of Analogy (1970) by declaring, "the dilatoriness of Chancery [and law courts generally] also points to its evasiveness, to its failure to take decisions, its failure, that is to fulfill its social responsibility" (Daleski: 1970: p.165). Dickens posits Jo as a personification of the way in which the law courts are failing to fulfill their social contract. In the Chapter titled, "Jo`s Will," Dickens takes the individual case of Jo, and applies it to the breadth of society, "Dead, your Majesty. Dead, my lords and gentleman. Dead, Right Reverends and Wrong Reverends of every order. Dead, men and women, born with Heavenly compassion in your hearts. And dying thus around us every day" (p.551). Whilst Dickens is applying to every "order" of society, he works his way downwards through the strata of society. Beginning at the top, he targets his appeal in the order of those who possess the most wealth and the most power; and thus the most blame. As stipulated in my introduction, Victorian literature actively engages in reform. So far, I have detailed the extent to which the contemporary legal system was not fit for purpose. As an active reformer, Dickens, in Bleak House, summons the character of Esther Summerson to demonstrate the value of order.

Barbara Hardy comments upon this by stating that, "It is perfectly clear why Bleak House ends as it does, stressing the individual happy-ever-after and its local efficacy in good housekeeping and good works. What we want to see is a recognition of this smallness" (p. 13). By "smallness," Hardy means in relation to the "largeness" of societal ills, which she imagines are brushed aside, along with characters like Jo, to accommodate the novels comfortable denouement. But I fear that Hardy may be missing a trick (Dickens`s this time), in that the ending is not "perfectly clear." The novel itself ends with ellipsis, "I did not know that; I am not certain that I know it now. But I know that my dearest little pets are very pretty, and that my darling is very beautiful, and that my husband is very handsome, and that my guardian has the brightest and most benevolent face that ever was seen; and that they can very well do without much beauty in me - even supposing."( p.740). Throughout the novel, Esther`s application of good housekeeping has proved itself beneficial to the domestic "institutions" to which she has applied herself. The Jandyce`s; the Jellyby`s; Tom-All-Alones each benefit from her presence and her practices. This is precisely because Esther`s story never fully concludes; her work is never quite done: "Every part of the house was in such order, and everyone was so attentive to me, that I had no trouble with my two bunches of keys: though with trying to remember the contents of every little store-room drawer and cupboard, and what with making notes on a slate.and.being generally.methodical" (p.81). If Jo was the societal problem, Esther is certainly the solution. Her "methodical" approach is precisely what is necessary to maintain order in the domestic sphere of the house, and thus the public sphere of state institutions. Furthermore, she writes on "slate," which embodies a cyclic function; Esther is aware of, and prepared for, change and reformation. This is in direct variance with the "mountains of costly nonsense" (p.2) to be found in the High Court of Chancery. Daleski describes the existence of a "reciprocally centripetal," relationship between Esther and the anonymous third person narrator, and thus the wider social sphere. This relationship is shown in the manner in which the third person`s allegations regarding the death of Jo become more localised (towards Esther`s domestic sphere), whilst Esther`s blessings begin generalised with the multiple "little pets," then localise towards the hyperbolic "brightest and most benevolent" character of her guardian, Mr. Jarndyce, before spreading out once more to the plural "they," which suggests a ripple which eventually reaches the rest of society. This idea is compounded collated by her physical correspondence with the "unknown friend" (p.738), who shares her narrative duties. In this way, Esther`s sphere is physically inseparable from the larger social sphere, and as such the effect of constancy, (Dickens`s solution to the institutional problem), and the recognition of "smallness" which Barbara Hardy so desires, is evoked. If Dickens`s approach to the reformation of the legal system is in the revelatory capacity of a persistent child, then (in an attempt to comply with this questionable metaphor) Wilkie Collins assumes the role of the magician`s rival, who reveals the magician`s tricks by demonstrating how they should be done. In The Law and the Lady, the quixotic heroine, Valeria, embodies Collins`s idea of state justice. Once completing her reading of the trial of her husband, and reaching the verdict of "Not Proven," Valeria discusses the implications, "He knew, poor fellow, the slur that the verdict left on him. `We don`t say you are innocent of the crime charged against you; we only say, there is not evidence enough to convict you.` In that lame and impotent conclusion the proceedings ended, at the time. And there they would have remained, for all time-but for Me" (p.171). In The Power of Lies (1994), John Kucich asserts that "Collins, however, was a maverick reformer" (p.78). This would certainly appear to be consistent with the character of Valeria. Her conclusion that the findings were both "lame" and "impotent" imply a general defunctness of the legal system generally, but particularly in the flimsy verdict of "Not Proven." In true "maverick" style, Valeria hones in on the impact which such inadequacy might have on the individual. By painting Valeria in stark contrast to the established legal system which produces such ineffective verdicts, and as such waives justice, Collins accentuates areas for reformation within contemporary law courts. Similarly, Collins provokes his reader into acknowledging areas for reform. Kucich discusses the situation that, "legendary diatribes against sensation fiction by the Arch Bishop of York and others identified the genre popularly by its social provocations" (1994:p.78). This is attested to by the words of his friend and collaborator, Charles Dickens who, in a letter to the assistant editor of Household Words stressed, "I particularly wish you to look well to Wilkie`s article.and not to leave anything in it that may be sweeping, and unnecessarily offensive to the middle class. He always has a tendency to overdo that" (Dickens: 1858: See Kucich: 1997: p.79). Whereas Dickens may have felt that Collins "overdid" his radical interpretations of the running of the law courts, there can be no doubt that his gambit worked: In that moment, he saw us! The wheelchair stopped with a shock that shook the crazy old floor of the room, altered its course, and flew at us with the rush of a wild animal. We drew back, just in time to escape it, against the wall of the recess.

(p.193) The point of sensation fiction is to do just that; create a sensation. The exclamatory sentences leave the reader no choice but to pay attention. Once he has secured that, Collins is free to extol his moralistic virtues upon the reader, and thus champion change. Like the maverick reformer in Valeria, Misserimus Dexter embodies Collins`s hopes for the reader. Like Dexter, the reader is "stopped with a shock" which is designed to shake the "crazy old floor" which they are currently rooted to, in their societal capacity.

Kucich suggests that, "Collins`s lifelong fascination with legal quirks, loopholes, and labyrinths defines both the indispensability and the tragic unreliability of legal systems, which can never make social justice conform to intuitive human sympathies" (Kucich: 1994: p.84). In The Novel and the Police, D.A. Miller posits that a reason for this unreliability of systems is intentional as it creates, "A system of control that can be all-encompassing because it cannot be compassed in turn" (Miller: 1948: p.61). He furthers this by describing the inefficacy of law courts, and legal systems in general, as deliberate stating that it was, "as though this (legal inefficacy) were merely the pretext that allowed for the disposition and deployment of the elaborate channels, targets, and techniques of a state bureaucracy" (p.61). My discussion on the narrative techniques of Dickens and Collins illustrates the validity of this. Unreliable and ineffective systems pave the way for ineffective justice. As long as these workings remain unclear, they remain free from modification and reform. Collins and Dickens both actively and articulately highlight both the need and solution for redress in the continual questioning and interpretation of state institutions so that they begin to provide a useful service, and adopt the role required of them by their duty. As such, they themselves become advocates of reform.