Arthur & George

letters was
a slander – an insult … a baseless insinuation, and I shall not rest until it is withdrawn and an apology tendered
. Further,
no compensation has been offered
. They admitted he had been wrongly convicted, so
it is only just that I should be compensated for the three years’ penal servitude that I suffered. I shall not let matters rest as they are. I want compensation for my wrongs
.
    Arthur wrote to the
Daily Telegraph
, calling the Committee’s position
absolutely illogical and untenable
. He asked if anything
meaner or more un-English
could be imagined than a free pardon without reparation. He offered to demonstrate
in half an hour
that George Edalji could not have written the anonymous letters. He proposed that since it was unfair to ask the taxpayer to fund George Edalji’s compensation,
it might well be levied in equal parts from the Staffordshire police, the Quarter Sessions Court and the Home Office, since it is these three groups of men who are guilty among them of this fiasco
.
    The Vicar of Great Wyrley also wrote to the
Daily Telegraph
, pointing out that the jury itself had made no pronouncement on the authorship of the letters, and that any false deductions were the fault of Sir Reginald Hardy, who had been
rash and illogical
enough to tell the jury that
he who wrote the letters also committed the crime
. A distinguished barrister who had attended the trial had called the Chairman’s summing-up
a regrettable performance
. The Vicar described his son’s treatment, by both the police and the Home Office, as
most shocking and heartless
. As for the conduct and conclusions of the Home Secretary and his Committee:
This may be diplomacy, statecraft, but it is not what they would have done if he had been the son of an English squire or an English nobleman
.
    Also dissatisfied with the Report was Captain Anson. Interviewed by the Staffordshire
Sentinel
, he replied to criticisms involving
the honour of the police
. The Committee, in identifying so-called
contradictions
of evidence, had simply not understood the police case. It was also
untrue
that the police began from a certainty of Edalji’s guilt, and then sought evidence to support that view. On the contrary, Edalji was not suspected
until some months after
the outrages began.
Various persons were indicated as being conceivably implicated in the offences
, but were gradually eliminated. Suspicion only
finally became excited against Edalji owing to his commonly-talked-of habits of wandering abroad late at night
.
    This interview was reported in the
Daily Telegraph
, to which George wrote in rebuttal. The
flimsy foundation
on which the case against him had been built was now clear.
As a fact
, he never did
once
‘wander abroad’, and unless returning late from Birmingham or from some evening entertainment in the district, was
invariably in by about 9.30
. There was
no person in the district
less likely to be out at night, and apparently
the police took seriously
something intended
as a joke
. Further, if he had been out late habitually, this fact would have been known to the
large body of police
patrolling the district.
    It had been a cold and unseasonal Whitsun. A Millionaire’s Son had been Killed in a Motor Racing Tragedy while Driving his 200 H.P. Car. Foreign Princes had arrived in Madrid for a Royal Christening. Wine Growers had Rioted in Béziers, where the Town Hall had been Sacked and Burnt by Peasants. But there was nothing – there had now been nothing for years – about Miss Hickman the Lady Doctor.
    Sir Arthur offered to fund any libel suit George cared to bring against Captain Anson, the Home Secretary, or members of the Gladstone Committee, either separately or jointly. George, while renewing his expressions of gratitude, politely declined. Such redress as he had just obtained had been achieved thanks to Sir Arthur’s commitment, hard work, logic, and love of making a noise. But noise, George thought, was not the best solution to everything. Heat did not always produce light, and noise did not always produce locomotion. The
Daily Telegraph
was calling for a public inquiry into all aspects of the case; this, in George’s view, was what they should now be pressing for. The newspaper had also launched a monetary appeal on his behalf.
    Arthur, meanwhile, continued his campaign. No one had taken up his offer to demonstrate
in half an hour
that George Edalji could not have written the letters – not even Gladstone, who