Henry Fielding – Tom Jones

Blifil – Guilty or Not Guilty?

After little Tommy is taken by the hawk, the adults present convene to “judge” Blifil. ³²⁷ Thwackum focuses on Blifil’s statement that he thinks it unchristian to confine the bird. His verdict? Not guilty under the laws of God. Square, with his focus on the “law of right” and a Lockean natural law emphasis on individual freedom and liberty, praises Blifil for what he does. His verdict? Not guilty, because the law of nature takes precedence over man-made law. He challenges Allworthy’s distinction based on whether property rights vest in the bird.³²⁸ Allworthy maintains his belief that Blifil acts from a generous motive, but he concedes that moral liability could lie if his motive was “unworthy”. Of greatest interest is Western’s reaction. He is the only person present to consider that irrespective of the law, it was wrong for Blifil to cause Sophia such distress.

In this case Western’s judgment is sound. He inadvertently identifies Blifil’s true motive. Blifil’s malice fully manifests itself only when the hawk carries away little Tommy. Whether that is a matter of accident or design is unclear, but that is irrelevant in assessing his moral culpability. Western’s verdict? Guilty, morally – and if he had his way, legally too, as his concern that Thwackum and Square’s logic could lead him to be deprived of his partridges demonstrates. ³²⁹ The lawyer who happens fortuitously to be present advises Western that property laws protect his partridges, but not the songbird and there the matter rests.³³⁰

In this one short chapter Fielding introduces three levels of law: divine law, natural law, and positive, man-made law which is where the final decision rests. Those present decide no offence has been committed. The reader, knowing that Blifil is not a credible witness, is likely to arrive at a different conclusion, at least in terms of moral culpability. Exercising judgment, moral and legal, is the role Fielding assigns the reader. How Fielding keeps the reader engaged in her or his task until the final chapter forms part of the closing submissions that follow.

³²⁷ Ibid, 127–29.

³²⁸ Ibid, 128.
³²⁹ Ibid, 129.
³³⁰ Ibid. The lawyer’s advice is not strictly correct, and the errors reinforce the inference that he is not a “gentleman barrister”, but they do not go so far as confirming he is Dowling (or perhaps the petty-fogger/hack-attorney Fielding introduces at the Bell Inn and whom Fielding later reveals is “well known to Mrs Honour”, Sophia’s maid (Tom Jones, 460). The partridge is protected under the Game Act 1670, not because it is enclosed. See Part III C above. Further, a person could gain property rights by enclosing a wild animal not protected by game laws, and under common law a claim for restitution was possible. See Munsche, above n 117, 4.

4.