Blind Justice recounts the
story of a young boy, whose father having been pelted to death in the
stocks for having printed handbills with Voltaire's heresy, fled to
London and spent an exciting few days of 1765 in the custody of Sir
John Fielding's court. In his first hours in London he is set up
and apprehended by an independent thief-taker, but so poorly is the
plan executed and so well does the blind Sir Fielding see through his
prosecutors that the boy is freed, that the prosecutors are mocked and
arrested for contempt of court. Sir Fielding remands the orphaned
Jeremy Proctor to the custody of the court and sets about trying to
locate an apprenticeship with a printer for him.
Before any arrangements can be made, the untimely death of Lord
Goodhope intrudes and Sir Fielding must investigate. Lord
Goodhope shot himself in the head with a pistol; the household
servants were questioned (without being of much help), and Lady
Goodhope is recommended to check into her husband's financial
accounts. During the examination Jeremy is of some use as an
observer, but more so afterwards, when he mentions that Lord Goodhope's
hands were clean--one cannot shoot an early pistol without some of the
powder discoloring the hand; hence Lord Goodhope cannot have shot
himself.
In the morning we learn that Sir Fielding's wife is dying of
cancer. A surgeon who recently returned from school in Italy and
a service in the Navy had attended to the wounds of one of the Court's
constables and suggests that opium would at least ease her pain.
Jeremy becomes more and more useful as Sir Fielding's eyes, and when
they return to the Goodhope residence to examine the room that the late
Lord Goodhope died in, Sir Fielding has Jeremy examine the room and
wall of the house in the garden to see if there is a secret passage
somewhere.
The surgeon, Donnelly, requests and is granted an autopsy (only it was
called an "obduktion" then). A few court scenes further impress
upon the reader the justice of Sir
Fielding and his ability to determine the truth of a situation.
The obduktion reveals the Lord Goodhope was, in fact poisoned. A
subsequent visit to the Goodhope residence ensues, where Jeremy is sent
ahead to talk to the servants and discovers that Lord Goodhope was in
the habit of raucous parties and some abuses to the servant
girls. A chance messenger reveals that Lord Goodhope's
half-brother, Charles Clairmont was in London on business from the
Colonies. He is questioned in Sir Fielding's court offices, with
Jeremy sweeping the floor as a front so that he could observe Mr.
Clairmont's character, of which he though somewhat less than ideal, as
well as him having a shiny face.
Later Sir Fielding and Jeremy visit a performance of Macbeth, the last performance of
Miss Lucy Kilbourne, a favorite of the theater and a mistress of Lord
Goodhope. Interviews are conducted with the proprietor of the
theater, and Miss Kilbourne, from whom Sir Fielding learns who makes
her dresses. Jeremy, with the help of one of the Goodhope
servants, a secret passage from the alley to the library where Lord
Goodhope died. He also delivers a letter to Miss Kilbourne's
dressmaker; it happens that Miss Kilbourne was there and appears
to direct the response, but shortly afterwards the dressmaker arrives
at the court to state the truth which she did not have the opportunity
express in the letter. That evening the pair visit Mr. Bilbo's
establishment for games of chance, where Lord Goodhope had run up some
debts (and to whom Mr. Bilbo had rid himself of the extremely
high-maintenance Miss Kilbourne who had been his lover) and to whom his
London house was owed. Mr. Bilbo is interviewed and we learn that
he is more respectable than might be expected, although unrelenting in
his debt collection. Mr. Clairmont and Miss Kilbourne, also in
attendance that evening, as well as Mr. Bilbo, are invited--nay,
required--to a gathering the next evening.
The evening arrives and the preparations have been made. The room
has a blazing fire and is quite warm. Various witnesses are
called to describe events. After the captain of Mr. Clairmont's
ship indicated a discrepancy between the ships actual location and Mr.
Clairmont's description on the night of Lord Goodhope's death, tea was
served. The maid (intentionally) spills the tea on Mr.
Clairmont's lap and he berates her loudly and by name, revealing that
he is, in fact, Lord Goodhope. Apparently Lord Goodhope wished to
rid himself of some of his gambling debts, and being a silent co-owner
of a trading corporation with Mr. Clairmont, wished to sell some of the
corporation's assets. Mr. Clairmont disagreed. When the
ship put to shore in Bristol just before its arrival in London, he was
invited to London by Miss Kilbourne, who poisoned him, while Lord
Goodhope put on makeup and donned Mr. Clairmont's manner, boarded the
ship, and quite successfully impersonated him. Goodhope's
servant, Dillon, awaiting criminal trial for another offense, took the
dying Clairmont to the library (via a rotating bookshelf installed when
the house was used to shelter Catholics in earlier years) with Lord
Goodhope, who shot him in the face in a manner that appear to be
suicide yet completely destroyed the face. Lord Goodhope ensures
his demise by knifing Dillon.
Miss Kilbourne was found guilty, but because she was pregnant, she was
sent to the Colonies, and eventually becomes a prominent wife
there. The captain of the ship was sentenced to ten years labor
in the Colonies for being a part of the plot and was killed by some of
the African slaves he had transported there. Lord Goodhope was
found guilty of murder by a jury of his peers (namely, the House of
Lords). Sir Fielding's wife eventually dies, and Jeremy is
successfully apprenticed off.
Blind
Justice has a similar quality to the short stories of
O'Henry in that they both are detailed pictures into daily life of
yesteryear. Alexander has clearly thoroughly researched the time
period and portrays a sense of actually being there, describing the
scenes in such a fashion that the story smoothly flows but also informs
the reader. Being historical fiction, certain well-known
historical characters make brief appearances in the story and help
anchor the reader's sense of being there. The most interesting
are the descriptions of life in London: how the markets are laid
out; the difficulty of the poor; a bit of social
commentary; watching Sir Fielding's housekeeper keep the house, act as
a servant, yet care deeply for the family; and explanations of
what went on behind the wealthy lords and the prominent society that is
most of what we are ordinarily exposed to by history.
The story is smoothly told with the more complicated sentence structure
of Victorian novels, adding, as it does to the atmosphere of the book,
yet remains eminently readable. The plot is pretty much
self-contained, with characters such as Dillon, who is introduced
originally to illustrate the character of Newgate prison, yet turns out
to have played an actual role. This tidyness seems to me to be a
bit too artificial, but does not detract from the enjoyability of the
book. The characters are certainly very well-fleshed out, each
having their own personality, which is gradually revealed throughout
the book.
The only complaint that I have about the book is that Jeremy seems
unusually observant for an 11-year old boy. A very clinical,
objective, detailed description of rooms seems quite beyond children of
that age. Sir Fielding will occasionally ask his opinion of the
character (moral and otherwise) of various people he interviews, and
the responses reveal a depth of human experience that children, while
very observant, seem unlikely to have acquired. However, a little
suspension of disbelief is regularly required of fiction readers, and
the story is quite enjoyable nonetheless.
Blind Justice, while a fun
read, feels to me like an entertainment novel. Although the
author's opinion of eighteenth century social issues is expressed
through the explanations and actions of Sir Fielding, it fails to have
the social commentary of Literature. The characters are
developed, but do not, themselves, deepen emotionally over the course
of the story, which is another hallmark of Literature. However,
Sherlock Holmes and Watson never develop over the course of
their adventures, either, yet the stories stick in the imagination in a
fashion that Blind Justice
does not. Doyle, the author of Holmes, has but one persistent
theme,
which the stories are arranged to justify: when all the
alternatives
are eliminated, what is left, no matter how improbable, must be the
truth. Blind Justice
has no such theme, and as such seems to wander around for a purpose.
It is perhaps ironic that this reviewer decried the emphasis on themes
in high school, insisting that books are for entertainment. So
although this book may not make the 100-year grade, it successfully
attains that purpose which was all that I originally desired: it
is simply a good story.
Review: 8
This is a good story. Not a great
story, but an enjoyable read. Clearly the author's purpose is not
to make lasting literature, yet, in an objective analysis, while the
story is fun, it is not particularly memorable. Of course, Doyle
did not set out to make lasting stories, either, just to pay the bills,
but engineered his stories with a singleness of purpose that seems to
distinguish greatness. The descriptions are very good, which
raises this from a 7 to an 8. Despite my feelings of mediocrity,
I enjoyed the book. I am inclined to read the some more of the
series, because I like the characters (particularly the wise judge Sir
Fielding).
Literary Notes
- Literature (capital "L" literature) appears to be marked by a
consistent theme (e.g. Grapes of
Wrath) and/or an exploration of human nature as the characters
develop and understand the world better.
- Greatness in writing seems to be the consistent development on one purpose. Everything in
the writing must tend towards that end.
Copyright © 2007 by Geoffrey
Prewett