Chapter 11: The Bribery Scandal
Amidst the continuous applause, the sound of the gavel striking again echoed through the courtroom.
The magistrate, with a beaming smile, announced, “After listening to Officer Arthur’s passionate speech, I believe everyone has a deeper understanding of the case and has solidified their judgments. Now, I declare the recess over. Please return to your seats, gentlemen and ladies, as we continue the trial.”
The bustling courtroom fell silent once more. The magistrate turned to Arthur and asked with a smile, “Is there anything else you wish to add?”
Arthur resumed his stern and impartial expression, responding, “The Metropolitan Police have presented their full case in the indictment, and we have submitted the relevant evidence. I have nothing further to say.”
The magistrate nodded, then addressed the jury, “The trial proceedings are nearly complete. Therefore, I ask the gentlemen and ladies of the jury to retire to the jury room for deliberation. Upon reaching a verdict, you must decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty.
If you find the defendant guilty, I will consider his behavior in court, taking into account social morality and justice, to determine a suitable sentence and deliver the final verdict.”
The magistrate paused at this point, picked up the Bible from his desk, and placed it against his heart.
He solemnly declared to the jury, “Gentlemen and ladies, I swear by my honor and faith to God that I will deliver a just verdict that does not violate my conscience. Please trust my promise.”
The jurors understood the magistrate’s underlying message. Although Arthur’s speech had moved him, Adam’s crime was undeniable. Thus, he hoped the jurors wouldn’t succumb to personal emotions and defy the law by acquitting the defendant.
However, he also promised that even if Adam was found guilty, the magistrate’s court would consider leniency. This nine-year-old boy would undoubtedly not be hanged.
Despite this, the jurors remained hesitant. They stood up but hesitated to leave the courtroom.
While they knew Adam would be given a lighter sentence, they were unsure of the severity of that sentence.
In this era, the law was an expensive knowledge, mastered only by lawyers and judges, and the jurors clearly lacked such knowledge.
Seeing this stalemate, Mrs. Peel politely intervened.
“Your Honor, may I ask a question about the law?”
The magistrate smiled and nodded, “Of course, it is my duty to answer any questions the jury may have.”
Mrs. Peel pondered for a moment before coming up with a question that wouldn’t embarrass the magistrate.
“So, if a thief steals goods worth more than five shillings, and during the trial shows strong remorse and deep guilt, and is also a minor, what sentence would the court impose?”
“Oh, that’s an excellent question!”
The magistrate answered with a serious expression.
“I believe you noticed a significant figure during Officer Arthur’s speech – Lord Samuel Romilly.
Although the gentlemen and ladies present may be unfamiliar with this name, he is a prominent figure in our legal field, a scholar of immense knowledge in jurisprudence (the theory or philosophy of law ) whom I greatly admire.
While his proposed reforms to the criminal law in 1808 did not receive full support from Parliament, some clauses were approved and implemented.
One of these clauses provides additional exemptions for juvenile offenders. I can explain it to you all.
As juvenile offenders lack full judgment, those who commit lesser offenses can be punished with alternative measures such as having a gypsy accompany them for a month, whipping, or pillory, instead of imprisonment.
For those who commit non-violent felonies but show strong remorse, children aged 7 to 14 can be considered for a sentence other than death, such as exile or a lesser punishment.
However, from my personal perspective, if the offender is in poor physical condition or is too young at the time of the crime, making them unsuitable for exile, I would not consider using this punishment.
Therefore, if I were to encounter such a situation, such as a child offender committing theft, and the amount stolen is over ten shillings, the sentence would be eight years imprisonment.
If the amount stolen is between five and ten shillings, the sentence would be five years imprisonment.”
The stout lady from the jury, who claimed to be a mother of three, asked, “What if the amount stolen is seven shillings and sixpence?”
“Madam, you’re putting me in a rather difficult position,”
The magistrate hesitated for a long time before finally answering, “Seven shillings and sixpence would be four years imprisonment.”
“Four years imprisonment?”
The jurors, upon hearing this, hesitated again.
They still felt this was too harsh a sentence.
At that moment, Mrs. Peel suddenly spoke.
She took a white lace-edged parasol from her side and placed it on the table.
“Your Honor, could you please compare this parasol in my hand with the evidence in your hand? I suspect they may have come from the same place.”
“Hmm?” The magistrate quickly put on his glasses, “Please present the items.”
The bailiff promptly placed both the parasol presented as evidence and Mrs. Peel’s parasol in front of the magistrate.
After a careful comparison, the magistrate exclaimed, “Goodness! These two umbrellas are identical! Officer Arthur, didn’t the indictment state that this umbrella was produced in a single batch? Did Ms. Nancy, the victim, perjure herself?”
Arthur was also unsure what was going on.
He furrowed his brow in thought, but before he could figure it out, Mrs. Peel spoke again.
“Your Honor, Ms. Nancy should not have perjured herself. This umbrella was indeed produced in a single batch.
Because this umbrella was specially ordered from the factory by Mr. George Morris, who had just been elected to the House of Commons, and was given to supporters as a token of appreciation.
When I saw the evidence, I found it familiar. Upon further reflection, I remembered attending the same campaign rally on March 25th as Ms. Nancy.
The organizer of that rally was Mr. George Morris, the newly elected MP. He distributed one hundred umbrellas of this style to the ladies present.
He repeatedly assured us that this was simply a small token of appreciation, nothing special, not worth much, and not intended as a bribe to the public.
It was precisely because Mr. Morris repeatedly assured us that I accepted this umbrella.
If he had told me that this umbrella was worth seven shillings and sixpence, I wouldn’t have accepted it under any circumstances, as it would have tarnished his pure and immaculate reputation.
If you don’t believe me, I can write to Mr. Morris right now, and I’m sure he would be happy to come to court and clarify this matter.”
(End of chapter)