Chapter 11: The bribery fiasco

Chapter 11 The Storm Over the Election Payoff

The sound of the gavel falling on the case resounded again amidst the long-lasting applause.

The magistrate announced with a smile on his face, “After listening to this impassioned speech by Officer Arthur, I believe that all of you have gained a deeper understanding of the case and have become more convinced of your inner judgment. Now, I declare that the recess time is over, so please ladies and gentlemen will go to their respective seats, and we will proceed to hear the case.”

The bustling courtroom quieted down once again, and the magistrate looked to Arthur and asked with a smile, “Do you have anything else to add?”

Arthur resumed his ironic expression as he responded, “The claims of the Greater London Police Department are complete in the indictment, and as we have already presented the relevant evidence, there is nothing more I need to say.”

The magistrate nodded and then rushed to the jury, “The process of the trial has pretty much run its course. Then let’s ask the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to proceed to the out-of-court deliberation, at the end of which you must give a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

If you pronounce the defendant guilty, I will take into account the defendant’s performance in the courtroom, consider it from the point of view of social morality and justice, give an appropriate sentencing standard, and make a final judgment.”

At this point, the magistrate paused.

He picked up the Bible in front of the case and pressed it to his heart.

He solemnly announced to the jurors, “Gentlemen and ladies, I swear to God on my honor and faith that I will deliver a just sentence that is not against my conscience, and please believe me when I say so.”

The jurors understood the magistrate’s subtext.

Although Arthur’s party had managed to impress him with his speech, Little Adam’s crime was also real, so he hoped that the jurors would not make a decision to acquit against the law because of personal feelings.

But he also promised that even if Little Adam was found guilty, the magistrate’s court would definitely consider a lighter sentence for Little Adam, and the nine-year-old would 100% not be hanged on the gallows.

Upon hearing this, the jurors still remained somewhat hesitant, and although they stood up, they hesitated to walk out the door.

Although they knew that little Adam would receive a lighter sentence, they did not know what the criteria for this lighter sentence would be.

In this day and age, the law was an expensive science, mastered only by lawyers and judges, and the jurors obviously did not possess such a store of knowledge.

Mrs. Peel, seeing that such a stalemate was not an option, politely opened her mouth to inquire.

“Mr. Judge, may I ask you a question about the law?”

The magistrate smiled and nodded, “Of course you may, it is precisely my duty to answer questions for the jurors.”

Mrs. Peel mulled over the question for a few moments before she came up with a way to ask it that would keep the magistrate out of trouble.

“So, may I ask you, if a prisoner who has stolen more than five shillings’ worth of goods, and if he shows a strong intention to repent during the course of the trial, with a great sense of guilt, and if he is still a minor, what kind of sentence will the court impose?”

“Oh! Very good question!”

The magistrate answered in a serious voice.

“I’m sure you noticed an important figure when you were listening to Sergeant Arthur’s speech just now – Lord Samuel Romilly.

Although the name may be unfamiliar to the ladies and gentlemen present, he is a great figure in our legal profession and a learned jurist whom I hold in the highest esteem.

Although his bill for the reform of the criminal law in 1808 did not receive the full support of Parliament, some of the entries in it were approved for implementation.

Among them was a code of additional exemptions for minor offenders, which I can explain here.

Since juvenile offenders were not yet capable of complete judgment, child offenders who committed lesser crimes could be punished by having a gypsy accompany them for a month, whipping, shackling, and other measures in lieu of imprisonment.

And for children between the ages of 7 and 14 who have committed non-violent felonies but who harbor strong remorse, discretionary consideration may be given not to impose the death penalty, but instead to a lesser or more severe punishment such as banishment. However, from my personal point of view, I would not consider the use of this punishment if the offender’s physical condition or age at the time of commission of the crime makes him or her unsuitable for banishment.

So, if I were to come across such a case, for example, a child offender who has committed a burglary.

Where the amount involved is ten shillings or more, the sentence is eight years’ imprisonment.

Where the amount involved is between five and ten shillings, the sentence is five years imprisonment.”

The fat lady on the jury who claimed to be the mother of three asked, “And what if it was the theft of seven shillings and sixpence?”

“Ma’am, you’re making it a little too difficult for me.”

The magistrate heard this, hesitated, and finally answered the question, “Seven shillings and sixpence would be four years’ imprisonment.”

“Four years’ imprisonment?”

The jurors heard this, and one by one hesitated again.

They still felt that such a sentence was too heavy.

At that moment, Mrs. Peel suddenly spoke.

She drew a white lace-edged parasol from her side and placed it on the table.

“Mr. Judge, could you please compare this parasol in my hand with the exhibit in yours. I suspect they may have come from the same place.”

“Hmm?” The magistrate hastily put on his glasses, “Please present the item.”

The bailiff hurriedly laid out the parasol that was used as evidence and Mrs. Peel’s parasol in front of the judge.

After a careful comparison, the magistrate exclaimed, “My God! These two umbrellas are practically identical. Officer Arthur, didn’t the indictment say that only one batch of this umbrella was produced? Did the victim, Ms. Nancy, perjure herself to you?”

Arthur wasn’t sure what was going on here.

He frowned in thought, but before he could figure it out, Mrs. Peel spoke again.

“Mr. Judge, Ms. Nancy should not have perjured herself, the umbrella was indeed only produced in one batch.

This is because the umbrella was custom-made at the factory by Mr. George Morris, who had just been elected to the House of Commons, and brought it to thank his supporters.

I thought it was familiar when I saw the evidence just now, and then I thought back carefully and remembered that on the day of the murder, March 25, I should have attended the same campaign speech rally as Ms. Nancy.

The organizer of that rally was Congressman George Morris, who handed out a total of 100 of these umbrellas to the women in attendance.

He also repeated to us that it was just a small, plain gift to show appreciation, not worth a lot of money, and that he was not trying to bribe the public with it.

It was because of Mr. Morris’s repeated assurances to us that I took the umbrellas.

If he had told me that the umbrella was worth seven shillings and sixpence, I would not have taken it for anything, for it would have been a disgrace to his pure and spotless reputation.

If you don’t believe me, I can go and write to Mr. Morris now, and I am sure he will be very willing to come to court and explain the matter away.”

(End of chapter.)