o badly, and there is certainly a
little inconsistency in the character. After Mr. Pickwick's disclosures,
he becomes very rational and amiable. We may wonder, too, how the latter
could have accepted hospitality from, or have sat down at the board of,
the man who treated him in so gross a fashion, and, further, that after
accepting this entertainment, Mr. Pickwick should take an heroic and
injured tone, recalling his injuries as he withdrew, but _after_ his
dinner.

This magistrate was despotic enough, but we might have expected that he
would have had Mr. Peter Magnus brought before him also, and have issued
a warrant. The lady, however, was silent as to her admirer, and this
difficulty appears to have occurred to the author for he makes Mr.
Nupkins remark: "The other principal _you say_ has absconded," she having
said nothing whatever. Being at the "White Horse," too, he was
accessible. He may, however, have gone off to secure "a friend."

In Ipswich there is controversy as to the exact whereabouts of his
mansion. But there can be little doubt as to the matter, as the
directions given are minute. The guide books take care to point it out.
"Bending his steps towards St. Clement's Church"--that is leaving the
"White Horse" and following the street on the right, "he found himself in
a retired spot, a kind of courtyard of venerable appearance, which he
discovered had no other outlet than the turning by which he had entered."
I believe it is the house at the far end of the lane--now Mr. Bennett's.
The street has been cut through the lawn. There are here, as there were
then, "old red brick houses" and "the green gate of a garden at the
bottom of the yard." Nothing could be more precise, allowing of course
for the changes, demolitions, re-buildings, &c., of sixty years.

What became of Mr. Peter Magnus and his lady? Did they "make it up"? or
was Mr. Pickwick enabled to make such explanations as would clear away
all suspicions. Did the two angry gentlemen meet again after Mr.
Pickwick's return to the "White Horse?" These are interesting questions,
and one at least can be answered. Owing to an indiscretion of the
foolish Winkle's, during the famous action of Bardell v. Pickwick, we
learn that Mr. Pickwick "being found in a lady's apartment at midnight
had led to the _breaking off of the projected marriage_ of the lady in
question." Now this seems a serious result of Mr. Pickwick's
indiscretion, and very unfortun