Arthur & George

had publicly asserted the contrary. So Arthur would demonstrate the matter to Gladstone, the Committee, Anson, Gurrin and all readers of the
Daily Telegraph
. He devoted three lengthy articles to the matter, with copious holographic illustration. He demonstrated how the letters were obviously written by someone of
an entirely different class
to Edalji,
a foul-mouthed boor
,
a blackguard
, someone with
neither grammar nor decency
. He further declared himself personally slighted by the Gladstone Committee, given that in their Report
there is not a word which leads me to think that my evidence was considered
. In the matter of Edalji’s eyesight, the Committee quoted the opinion of
some unnamed prison doctor
while ignoring the views of fifteen experts,
some of them the first oculists in the country
, which he had submitted. The members of the Committee had merely added themselves to
that long line of policemen, officials and politicians
who owed a
very abject apology
to
this illused man
. But until such an apology was offered, and reparation made,
no mutual daubings of complimentary whitewash will ever get them clean
.
    Throughout May and June there were constant questions in Parliament. Sir Gilbert Parker asked if there were any precedent for compensation not being paid to someone wrongly convicted and subsequently granted a free pardon. Mr Gladstone: ‘I know of no analagous case.’ Mr Ashley asked if the Home Secretary considered George Edalji to be innocent. Mr Gladstone: ‘I can hardly think that is a proper Question to ask me. It is a matter of opinion.’ Mr Pike Pease asked what character Mr Edalji had borne in prison. Mr Gladstone: ‘His prison character was good.’ Mr Mitchell-Thompson asked the Home Secretary to set up a new inquiry to consider the matter of the handwriting. Mr Gladstone declined. Captain Craig asked for any notes taken during the trial for the use of the Court to be laid before Parliament. Mr Gladstone declined. Mr F.E. Smith asked if it was the case that Mr Edalji would have received compensation had it not been for the doubt as to his authorship of the letters. Mr Gladstone: ‘I am afraid I am unable to answer that question.’ Mr Ashley asked why this man had been released if his innocence was not completely established. Mr Gladstone: ‘That is a Question which really does not concern me. The release was consequent on a decision by my predecessor, with which, however, I agree.’ Mr Harmood-Banner asked for details of similar outrages against farmstock committed while George Edalji was in prison. Mr Gladstone replied that there had been three in the Great Wyrley neighbourhood, in September 1903, November 1903 and March 1904. Mr F.E. Smith asked in how many cases over the last twenty years compensation had been paid after convictions had been shown to be unsatisfactory, and what amounts were involved. Mr Gladstone replied that there had been twelve such cases in the previous twenty years, two involving substantial sums: ‘In one case the sum of
£
5,000 was paid, and in the other the sum of
£
1,600 was divided between two persons. In the remaining ten cases the compensation paid varied from
£
1 to
£
40.’ Mr Pike Pease asked if free pardons were granted in all these cases. Mr Gladstone: ‘I am not sure.’ Captain Faber asked for all police reports and communications addressed to the Home Office on the subject of the Edalji Case to be printed. Mr Gladstone declined. And finally, on 27th June, Mr Vincent Kennedy asked: ‘Is Edalji being thus treated because he is not an Englishman?’ In the words of
Hansard
: ‘[No answer was returned.]’
    Arthur continued to receive anonymous letters and abusive cards, the letters in coarse yellow envelopes gummed up with stamp paper. They were postmarked London NW, but the creases in the documents indicated to him that they may have been carried under cover, or possibly in somebody’s pocket – that of a railway guard, for instance – from the Midlands to London for posting. He offered a reward of
£
20 to anyone who helped trace them back to their writer.
    Arthur requested further interviews with the Home Secretary and his Under Secretary Mr Blackwell. In the
Daily Telegraph
he described being treated with
courtesy
but also with a
chilly want of sympathy
. Further, they took
an obvious side with impeached officialdom
and made him feel a
hostile atmosphere
around him. There was to be no rise in temperature, no change in atmosphere;