The Shadow of Great Britain

14: Chapter 11: Bribery Election Storm 14: Chapter 11: Bribery Election Storm In the midst of enduring applause, the sound of the gavel striking the bench echoed once again.

The Magistrates’ Court judge announced with a smile, “After hearing Officer Arthur’s impassioned speech, I believe everyone has gained a deeper understanding of the case and has strengthened their conviction in their own judgment.

I now declare the recess is over.

Please, ladies and gentlemen, take your respective seats as we will continue with the trial.”

The bustling courtroom quieted down once more as the Magistrates’ Court judge turned to Arthur with a smile and asked, “Do you have anything else to add?”

Arthur resumed his stern and impartial demeanor and responded, “The demands of the Greater London Police Department have been fully documented in the indictment, and we have already submitted the relevant evidence.

There’s nothing more I need to say.”

The Magistrates’ Court judge nodded and then addressed the jury, “We have almost concluded the court proceedings.

I ask the ladies and gentlemen of the jury to proceed to the deliberation room.

After concluding your deliberations, you must reach a verdict of guilty or not guilty.

If you find the defendant guilty, I will consider the defendant’s conduct in court and, from the standpoint of social morality and justice, determine an appropriate sentencing standard and make the final judgment.”

At this point, the Magistrates’ Court judge paused.

He picked up the Bible from before him and pressed it against his heart.

He solemnly declared to the jury members, “Ladies and gentlemen, I swear by my honor and faith to God that I will make a just judgment that does not violate my conscience.

Please trust my promise.”

The jury members understood the hidden message of the Magistrates’ Court judge.

Although Arthur’s speech had moved him, the criminal act committed by young Adam was tangible.

Hence, he hoped the jury members would not make a not guilty decision out of personal emotion that contradicts the law.

But he also promised that even if young Adam were found guilty, the Magistrates’ Court would definitely consider leniency for the nine-year-old child, who certainly would not be hanged on the gallows.

Upon hearing this, the jury members remained somewhat hesitant.

Although they had stood up, they hesitated to leave.

They knew young Adam would receive a lighter sentence, but they were unsure of what this standard would be.

In that era, the law was an expensive knowledge accessible only to lawyers and judges, and clearly, the jury members lacked such knowledge.

Seeing that the standoff was going nowhere, Mrs.

Peel spoke up tentatively to inquire.

“Your Honor, may I ask you a question about the law?”

The Magistrates’ Court judge smiled and nodded, “Of course, it is my duty to assist the jury members in resolving any uncertainties.”

Mrs.

Peel pondered for quite some time, finally devising a way to inquire without putting the Magistrates’ Court judge in a difficult position.

“So, may I ask you, Your Honor, what judgment would the court make if a thief who has stolen goods worth more than five shillings shows strong signs of remorse during the trial, feels a profound sense of guilt, and is also a minor?”

“Ah!

An excellent question!”

The Magistrates’ Court judge answered earnestly.

“I believe you must have noticed an important figure during Officer Arthur’s speech—Lord Samuel Romilly.

Although the ladies and gentlemen present here may not be familiar with this name, he is a significant figure in our legal community—a scholar of law I hold in high regard.

Although the proposal to reform the penal code he presented in 1808 did not receive full support from Parliament, some provisions were approved and implemented.

One of these provisions is an additional exemption criterion for juvenile offenders.

I can explain to everyone here.

Since juvenile offenders do not possess complete judgment capacity, for child offenders who have committed minor crimes, punishment can be replaced by spending a month with a Gypsy, whipping, or putting in the stocks, among other measures, instead of imprisonment.”

For children aged 7 to 14 who have committed non-violent serious crimes but possess a strong sense of remorse, consideration can be given to spare them from the death penalty and instead opt for transportation or a lesser form of punishment.

However, from my personal viewpoint, if the offender’s physical condition is poor, or if they are too young at the time of the crime, making them unsuitable for transportation, I would not consider employing this form of punishment.

So, if I came across such a case, for example, a child offender guilty of theft,

For amounts involved above ten shillings, the sentence would be imprisonment for eight years.

For amounts involved between five to ten shillings, the sentence would be imprisonment for five years.”

The plump lady in the jury who claimed to be the mother of three children asked, “What if the theft was seven shillings and sixpence?”

“Madam, you are making things quite difficult for me.”

The Magistrate, after hesitating for a long time, finally answered, “Four years imprisonment for seven shillings and sixpence then.”

“Four years imprisonment?”

Having heard this, the jury members hesitated again.

They still felt that such a sentence was too harsh.

At that moment, Lady Peel suddenly spoke up.

She pulled out a white lace-edged parasol from beside her and placed it on the table.

“Sir Judge, could I ask you to compare the parasol in my hand with the evidence in yours?

I suspect they might come from the same source.”

“Hm?” The Magistrate quickly put on his glasses, “Please present the items to me.”

The court officer hurriedly placed the evidence parasol and Lady Peel’s parasol before the Magistrate.

After a careful comparison, the Magistrate exclaimed, “My goodness!

These two umbrellas are exactly alike.

Officer Arthur, didn’t the charge say that this type of umbrella was only produced in one batch?

Could Nancy have provided false testimony to you all?”

Arthur was also unclear about what exactly was happening.

He was frowning, deep in thought, but before he could figure it out, Lady Peel spoke again.

“Sir Judge, Nancy likely did not provide false testimony; this type of parasol was indeed produced in only one batch.

The umbrellas were specially ordered from the factory by Mr.

George Morris, who had just been elected to the House of Commons, and given out as a token of thanks to his supporters.

I recognized the evidence as familiar immediately upon seeing it, and after thinking it over thoroughly, I remembered that on the day of the incident, March 25th, I happened to attend the same election rally as Nancy.

The host of that election rally was none other than Parliamentarian Mr.

George Morris, who distributed a hundred of these styled umbrellas to the ladies present.

He repeatedly assured us that this was merely a simple gift of appreciation, not worth much money, and that it was not intended as a bribe for the public.

It was precisely because Mr.

Morris reassured us so earnestly that I accepted the umbrella.

If he had told me the umbrella was worth seven shillings and sixpence, I would have outright refused it, as that would simply tarnish his pristine reputation.

If you don’t believe me, I am prepared to write to Mr.

Morris right now.

I am confident he would be most willing to come to the court and clarify this matter.”