Langford to Newcastle
13 Mornington Crescent
Regents Park
February 20th, 1863
My Lord Duke,
I was informed by Mr Chichester Fortescue, by a letter dated 21st June 1862, that a copy of all my communications, relating to my charges against certain officials in Vancouver Island, had been forwarded to the Governor of that Colony for his Report; I am now desirous of being made acquainted, whether any communication on the subject has been received from Governor Douglas; and if so I beg to request that a complete copy of the same may be forwarded to me.
I have the honor to remain
My Lord Duke
Your most obt humble Servant
Edward E. Langford
His Grace the Duke of Newcastle K.G.
&c &c &c
Minutes by CO staff
Manuscript image
Mr Elliot
The Report referred to by Mr Langford & promised by the Govr in his despatch of 23 Aug. 62 9897 has not been received.
VJ 21 Feby
Sir F. Rogers
As you have looked most into this case I venture to pass it on for your consideration.
There are some strong presumptions against Mr Langford. The unreasonable delay in making hisManuscript image complaints, as minuted on 5078, which gave room for an idea that he was cooking up charges: again the facts to his discredit which are mentioned in the Governor's despatch of 23 Augt 1862. The concluding sentence of his present letter is more peremptory than it ought to be, and betokens an aggressive disposition.
On the other hand it is awkward that the Governor in his despatch should have held out expectations of a further report which has never followed. I think it very probable that it may not have been his own fault, and that he may have had difficulties with Chief Justice Begbie, who has shown recently that he is not fond of incidental and irregular challenges to defend his judicial conduct.
TFE 21 Feby
I should answer that a dph has been recd from Mr Douglas to the communication addressed to him in consequence of Mr L's letter of the 21 of May 1862, but that Mr D's dph does not enable the D of N to come to any decision respecting the subjects adverted to in Mr L's letter.
But then I would also write toManuscript image Mr Douglas expressing much surprise that after receiving the Duke of N's dph of 2 June bringing into question not only the conduct of the public officers in V.C.I. but his own, he should have contented himself with furnishing such a reply as that contained in his dph of 23 Augt and had allowed the matter to rest from that time to the present.
It seems to me very desirable to make Mr Douglas understand that whatever may be the opinion which the D. of N may entertain of Mr Langford, Mr D. must not "ride off" as the phrase is upon that gentleman's iniquities or be "upheld" unless he deserves it.
FR 27/2
I agree.
CF 27
N 2-3
Other documents included in the file
Manuscript image
Elliot to Langford, 6 March 1863, advising that Newcastle had not received a full enough report from Douglas to enable him to come to any decision on the question.
Manuscript image
Draft reply, Newcastle to Douglas, No. 8, 5 March 1863.
Minutes by CO staff
Sir F. Rogers
Say, "casual and incomplete" or some other epithets to explain the objections to the reply?
TFE 4/3
Yes.
[FR]
Langford, Edward Edwards to Pelham-Clinton, Henry Pelham Fiennes 20 February 1863, CO 305:21, no. 1959, 326. The Colonial Despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871, Edition 2.2, ed. James Hendrickson and the Colonial Despatches project. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. https://bcgenesis.uvic.ca/V636L01.html.

Last modified: 2020-12-02 13:40:34 -0800 (Wed, 02 Dec 2020) (SVN revision: 5008)