Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Douglas, Sir James to Pelham-Clinton, 5th Duke of Newcastle Henry Pelham Fiennes 13 May 1862, CO 305:19, no. 6353, 153.
Abstract
Douglas, Sir James to Pelham-Clinton, 5th Duke of Newcastle Henry Pelham Fiennes 13 May 1862, CO 305:19, no. 6353, 153.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (4), Other documents (1).
No. 24
13 May 1862
I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of the Despatches Nos 88 and
89 of the 23rd and 24th February 1862 respectively, addressed to me
by Your Grace upon the subject of Mr D'Ewes the late Acting
Postmaster at Victoria, having absconded, and informing me of his
disastrous end at Homburg,and
and calling upon me for an explanation in
regard to the Circumstances under which I had conferred an
appointment upon him.
and calling upon me for an explanation in
regard to the Circumstances under which I had conferred an
appointment upon him.
2. In November 1859 Mr D'Ewes presented to me the special letter of
Introduction with which he was furnished by Sir Edward Lytton in
Septemer 1858. He also at the same time produced other letters
and testimonials bearing evidence to his abilities, literary
attainments, and to the position which he held in Society. He wasa
a
person of good address, and appeared to possess a considerable amount
of business knowledge and experience. He had with him a wife and two
children, and represented himself to be in very straitened
circumstances through certain property which he claimed being in
Chancery; and he begged for any employment that I could give him as
the whole of his available means had been exhausted in defraying the
cost of the passage of himself and family fromEngland
England to this place
by a Sailing Vessel. Shortly afterwards the Clerk in the Post Office
at Victoria resigned his position on account of the insufficiency of
the Salary. Amongst all the Candidates for Employment under the
Government, there was not one that I could fix upon as
properly fitted for the office: it was necessary to fill it
immediately and the most fitting person I could select appeared to me
to be Mr D'Ewes. He entered into the Office and carried on the
duties with a degree of assiduity and willingness thatmade
made me feel
satisfied I had done wisely in selecting him. At this time however
the Confidential Despatch addressed to me in November 1858 by Sir
Edward Lytton and received by me in
January 1859, came to my remembrance. That Despatch
unfortunately referred to a Mr
John Dewes, not D'Ewes and had I regret to say in the length of
time which had elapsed between its receipt, and the arrival of Mr D'Ewes, and in the heavy pressure of public business by which I was
surrounded,escaped
escaped my recollection. The name
Dewes is not uncommon or striking, and it is not remarkable that
amidst the [blank] hundred letters of introduction which passed
through my hands, I should after a lapse of ten months for the moment
have lost sight of its particulars as having reference to a gentleman
who presented letters of introduction bearing the somewhat uncommon
name of
D'Ewes. My first impulse immediately upon assuring myself of
the application of Sir Edward Lyttons Despatch to Mr D'Ewes,was
was to
discharge him. Various considerations presented themselves however.
Mr D'Ewes was not in a position of any very great trust or
responsibility. He was giving every satisfaction in the performance
of his duties—and I may here mention that to the last he maintained
his reputation with the public for being attentive, energetic, and
most obliging in carrying out the functions of his not very enviable
office. He had a wife and family dependant upon him for supportand
and
it was reasonable to assume that he would not imperil his own and
their means of subsistence by any impropriety on his part. Against
all this however was the fact that he had forfeited a position of
trust in another Colony. The bare fact, nevertheless, was all I had
to deal with, for the precise reasons which led to the forfeiture
were not given in such detail as to enable me to judge whether they
unfitted Mr D'Ewes for every trust. By the Minute of Sir Charles
Hotham enclosed to me by Sir Edward Lytton, itappeared
appeared simply that
Mr D'Ewes had
subjected himself to influences unbecoming his position as a police
Magistrate and a public officer by having had himself under
obligations to a class of persons whose conduct in their capacity of
licenced Victuallers brought them under the scrutiny of the Bench of
which he was Chairman.
Such being the case, and serious riots having occurred, it was not
unnatural that Mr D'Ewes was considered unfit longer to beretained
retained
in the important position of Magistrate, but the nature of the
obligations is not stated, and there is no evidence to shew that Mr D'Ewes was unfit for Employment in a subordinate Capacity. Sir Edward Lytton states that he "has been personally acquainted with Mr D'Ewes for many years": and in the Confidential Despatch
subsequently addressed to me he merely observes that he was not aware
of the circumstances he therein communicates to me, when he gave Mr D'Ewesthe
the letter of introduction; but at the same time he remarks
that he is "not prepared to pronounce any opinion upon Mr D'Ewes conduct."
Having carefully weighed all these and other considerations, I came
to the conclusion that it would be scarcely just were I to remove Mr D'Ewes from his office, and to be the means of denying him the
opportunity of re-establishing a character, which so far as I was
aware from the evidence before me had possibly only suffered throughacts
acts of indiscretion, and not of moral turpitude.
a
person of good address, and appeared to possess a considerable amount
of business knowledge and experience. He had with him a wife and two
children, and represented himself to be in very straitened
circumstances through certain property which he claimed being in
Chancery; and he begged for any employment that I could give him as
the whole of his available means had been exhausted in defraying the
cost of the passage of himself and family fromEngland
England to this place
by a Sailing Vessel. Shortly afterwards the Clerk in the Post Office
at Victoria resigned his position on account of the insufficiency of
the Salary. Amongst all the Candidates for Employment under the
Government, there was not one that I could fix upon as
properly fitted for the office: it was necessary to fill it
immediately and the most fitting person I could select appeared to me
to be Mr D'Ewes. He entered into the Office and carried on the
duties with a degree of assiduity and willingness thatmade
made me feel
satisfied I had done wisely in selecting him. At this time however
the Confidential Despatch addressed to me in November 1858 by Sir
Edward Lytton and received by me in
January 1859, came to my remembrance. That Despatch
unfortunately referred to a Mr
John Dewes, not D'Ewes and had I regret to say in the length of
time which had elapsed between its receipt, and the arrival of Mr D'Ewes, and in the heavy pressure of public business by which I was
surrounded,escaped
escaped my recollection. The name
Dewes is not uncommon or striking, and it is not remarkable that
amidst the [blank] hundred letters of introduction which passed
through my hands, I should after a lapse of ten months for the moment
have lost sight of its particulars as having reference to a gentleman
who presented letters of introduction bearing the somewhat uncommon
name of
D'Ewes. My first impulse immediately upon assuring myself of
the application of Sir Edward Lyttons Despatch to Mr D'Ewes,was
was to
discharge him. Various considerations presented themselves however.
Mr D'Ewes was not in a position of any very great trust or
responsibility. He was giving every satisfaction in the performance
of his duties—and I may here mention that to the last he maintained
his reputation with the public for being attentive, energetic, and
most obliging in carrying out the functions of his not very enviable
office. He had a wife and family dependant upon him for supportand
and
it was reasonable to assume that he would not imperil his own and
their means of subsistence by any impropriety on his part. Against
all this however was the fact that he had forfeited a position of
trust in another Colony. The bare fact, nevertheless, was all I had
to deal with, for the precise reasons which led to the forfeiture
were not given in such detail as to enable me to judge whether they
unfitted Mr D'Ewes for every trust. By the Minute of Sir Charles
Hotham enclosed to me by Sir Edward Lytton, itappeared
appeared simply that
Mr D'Ewes had
subjected himself to influences unbecoming his position as a police
Magistrate and a public officer by having had himself under
obligations to a class of persons whose conduct in their capacity of
licenced Victuallers brought them under the scrutiny of the Bench of
which he was Chairman.
Such being the case, and serious riots having occurred, it was not
unnatural that Mr D'Ewes was considered unfit longer to beretained
retained
in the important position of Magistrate, but the nature of the
obligations is not stated, and there is no evidence to shew that Mr D'Ewes was unfit for Employment in a subordinate Capacity. Sir Edward Lytton states that he "has been personally acquainted with Mr D'Ewes for many years": and in the Confidential Despatch
subsequently addressed to me he merely observes that he was not aware
of the circumstances he therein communicates to me, when he gave Mr D'Ewesthe
the letter of introduction; but at the same time he remarks
that he is "not prepared to pronounce any opinion upon Mr D'Ewes conduct."
Having carefully weighed all these and other considerations, I came
to the conclusion that it would be scarcely just were I to remove Mr D'Ewes from his office, and to be the means of denying him the
opportunity of re-establishing a character, which so far as I was
aware from the evidence before me had possibly only suffered throughacts
acts of indiscretion, and not of moral turpitude.
3. With reference to Your Graces remarks in respect to the Letters
of Introduction furnished by the Secretary of State, I would observe
that I am not aware of having expressly adopted any course whereby
the impression could be created—as has been alleged to Your
Grace—that I felt bound in selections for appointments to give a
preference to persons who brought letters of introduction from the
Secretaryof
of States Office; but it seems to me that the impression
may have existed notwithstanding: for it is but reasonable to
suppose that in cases of selection I should give the preference to a
person possessed of so satisfactory a voucher to his respectability,
character and position, over one who could produce no such reference.
I have, nevertheless, never viewed the Letters of Introduction of theSecretary
Secretary of State as being
binding upon me; but I have felt very grateful to him for giving
me the benefit of those letters, knowing as he must have done the
perplexing position in which I was placed to obtain adequate
assistance in the harassing duties which surround me.
of States Office; but it seems to me that the impression
may have existed notwithstanding: for it is but reasonable to
suppose that in cases of selection I should give the preference to a
person possessed of so satisfactory a voucher to his respectability,
character and position, over one who could produce no such reference.
I have, nevertheless, never viewed the Letters of Introduction of theSecretary
Secretary of State as being
binding upon me; but I have felt very grateful to him for giving
me the benefit of those letters, knowing as he must have done the
perplexing position in which I was placed to obtain adequate
assistance in the harassing duties which surround me.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Douglas appears to me to have furnished a satisfactory
explanation. If he had first received the recommendation and then
within two months it's correction, the step taken by him would have
been inexcusable. But it will be seen that by a curious accident Mr D'Ewes did not present his introduction until 14 months after it's
date, and nearly a year after Mr Douglas had read and thrown aside
the letter by which it was meant to be corrected.
It is a pity that the name was written incorrectly in the amending
letter, and the present incident is an illustration of the importance
of accuracy in the writing of despatches.
May Governor Douglas be told that his explanation is satisfactory?
TFE
30 June
I think so.
CF
1 July
Yes.
N
1
