In the prize slave libel trials, Edwards had used the courts as a political theatre, exposing government corruption, defending national honour for the greater good of British abolition and casting himself in the part of ‘undaunted patriot’. Not only had the charges of criminal libel been disproved, but it was also widely acknowledged that Edwards had humiliated his opponents. Only a month after his acquittal, Edwards faced criminal charges once more, this time for sending two libellous letters to Governor Somerset. The prospect of his enacting a similar performance, and with the governor now his target, prompted the authorities to close down South Africa's first independent newspaper. It was the opening gambit in a battle that would bring victory for freedom of the press five years later with Ordinance 60 of 1829.

As the catalyst of this foundational moment in the annals of Cape liberalism, Edwards is apparently confirmed in the heroic role he claimed for himself at the time. Yet we have already witnessed the anxiety being expressed amongst anti-Somerset activists as events unfolded. This disquiet was aired even before Edwards was discredited as escaped convict Alexander Kaye. Men like Pringle and Fairbairn were voicing private doubts about the notary's motives, for all that they saw in his case a useful public rallying point against the Tory administration. The reasons behind this gathering uncertainty are crystallized when we consider the documents that prompted his second arrest. The two letters were sent in quick succession to Somerset in April of 1824, around a month after his acquittal of libel in the prize slave affair. If Cooke's memorial to the Treasury could be relatively easily cast in the mould of legitimate protest (a contributing factor in the acquittal), Edwards's letters to Somerset are far more murky.

Of all the difficulties in telling Edwards's story, the most challenging is the near impossibility of interpreting his reasoning and motives. These were as baffling to contemporaries at the time as they have proved problematic to historians since. Edwards may not have anticipated the draconian response to his involvement as a notary in the prize slave corruption allegations. Having become the target of the administration's punitive justice, there were strategic benefits to be found in then casting his role in the language of imperial reform and in situating his own troubles within a wider political struggle.