Not all relationships in Our Mutual Friend are based on love, a fact which again
symbolises the increasing commercialisation of Dickens’ world. Chapter 10 of
Book I is entitled ‘The Marriage Contract” and pertains to the wedding of
Sophronia Akersham to Alfred Lammle. The term “contract” is perhaps more
appropriate than usual in the context of the nuptial arrangement between these
two mature parties. Both are described as persons of property although neither
party is, in reality, in possession of any property. The groom “invests his property
... attends meetings of Directors, and has to do with traffic in Shares” (p159). The
nouveau riche commercialisation of his society is summarised by Dickens in his
encapsulation of Lammle’s personality and background as “Shares” (p159). The
way in which Dickens first portrays Lammle’s character is exceptionally legalistic
as it is couched in almost identical terms to a plea in mitigation on sentence in that
Dickens describes him as “Have no antecedents, no established character, no
cultivation, no ideas, no manners, have Shares” (p160). It is on the first day of
their honeymoon on the Isle of Wight that Sophronia and Alfred discover that they
have married each other on false pretences and that neither is a person of
property. Dickens’ terminology becomes very legalistic as Sophronia describes the marriage as fraudulent, and the parties then begin to make “admission for admission” (p170). The outcome of the marital proceedings between Sophronia and Alfred becomes akin to a conspiracy in that the parties unite in a common purpose, agreeing to work together in furtherance of their own schemes, being any scheme in their joint interests.
Dickens pursues the development of the characters Wrayburn and Lightwood throughout the novel as part of his portrayal and humanisation of the legal profession, as seen earlier when they discuss their reasons for entering the profession. At the start of Chapter 12 of Book I, Wrayburn and Lightwood convene in Lightwood’s office, having recently agreed to set up a joint
establishment together. This joint venture shows an increasing motivation in relation to their careers. In a scene reminiscent of Dickens’ examination of the pursuits of the legal profession during the court vacation in Bleak House, it is established that Wrayburn and Lightwood have taken a bachelor cottage near Hampton on the Thames with a boat house “to stream through the summer and the Long Vacation” ( p 191). Wrayburn idly proposes, in the course of
conversation, the idea of keeping a lighthouse, stating to Lightwood that such a venture would cause him no more boredom than another, with the added
advantage that there would be no Circuit to attend or Precedents to “hammer at”
(p192). Lightwood adds that a further advantage would be the fact that no clients would be entailed. In such a humorous exchange, Dickens offers an alternative view of the legal profession to that documented in Bleak House. Lightwood and Wrayburn appear to have a sense of humour and a desire to seek out interests outside their legal environment.
It is during Wrayburn and Lightwood’s soiree that Riderhood knocks on the door, enquiring if the alliterative “Lawyer Lightwood” is present and demanding to take an “Alfred David” which Eugene interprets as meaning an affidavit. The exchange that ensues between Wrayburn and Lightwood is a pun on the legal meaning of
“affidavit” (sworn statement) and a social assumption built into the English class system that members of the professional classes do not stoop to profanity:
“I tell you, my good fellow,” said Lightwood, with his indolent laugh, “that I have nothing to do with swearing.”
“He can swear at you,” Eugene explained; “and so can I. But we can’t do more for you” (p196).
The irreverence with which the exchange occurs is also interesting in the context of Dickens’ examination of the relations between members of the legal profession and members of other social classes in that it appears to occur quite
spontaneously when Wrayburn and Lightwood encounter a stranger who, due to the uneducated nature of his request and the way in which he addresses them as
“Governors” (p196), they assume to be a member of a lower social class than themselves.
Upon further clarification of the purpose of the stranger’s visit, however, Lightwood accedes to the stranger’s request to record his statement in writing. In the
absence of the law clerk Blight, Wrayburn fulfils the function of clerk or notary during the proceedings.
Fundamental principles of the criminal law are addressed in this chapter. The need to establish a prima facie case in a criminal matter, requiring evidence to support allegations, is addressed when Riderhood declares that he wishes to make an affidavit to the effect that Jesse Hexam is John Harmon’s murderer.
Riderhood’s allegation is completely unsupported by any credible evidence, the only grounds for this accusation appearing to be that Hexam was Riderhood’s partner in the barge business and had long held suspicions about his conduct.
Furthermore, Riderhood’s motives for coming forward to authorities are
particularly suspicious in that he only appears after the offer of a large reward for the capture of the murderer. Riderhood’s claims that he has been troubled by his conscience by harbouring information as to the identity of the murderer at a time when wild suspicions were afloat and several suspects were being investigated lack credibility. His insistence upon proceeding in the form of a sworn statement with an unsubstantiated allegation is also questionable. As Lightwood points out to Riderhood, “it is not enough to swear to your suspicion” (p198) in an affidavit alleging homicide. Without the evidence to prove a matter beyond reasonable doubt, “a man cannot be convicted” (p198) on suspicion. He points out to
Riderhood that cogent and reliable evidence is required. Riderhood, “the
informer”, then attempts to fortify his allegation by claiming that “Fort’nate for me I