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 14 February 1863, CO 305:20, no. 3700, 37.
Abstract
Douglas, Sir James to Pelham-Clinton, 5th Duke of Newcastle Henry Pelham Fiennes 14 February 1863, CO 305:20, no. 3700, 37.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (4), Enclosures (untranscribed) (7), Other documents (2).
No. 4
14 February 1863
My Lord Duke,
Adverting to my Despatch No 44, of the 23rd August last, and to
Your Grace's Despatch No 101, of the 2nd June 1862, in which were
transmitted for report certain letters from Mr E.E. Langford,
formerly residentat
at Esquimalt, Vancouver's Island, containing
statements affecting various Officers of my Government, and the
administration of Justice within the Colony, I have now the honor to
forward herewith a report from Mr Cameron, the Chief Justice, upon
Mr Langfords complaint in respect of certain proceedings in the
Supreme Court, accompanied by copy of minutes of evidence, and of the
Judges notes of the trial in which Mr Langford was concerned.
I have also the honor to enclosethe
the reports I have received from Mr
Begbie, the Judge of British Columbia, and from Mr Good, the Chief
Clerk in the Office of the Colonial Secretary of British Columbia, in
reply to the particular charges preferred by Mr Langford against
them.
at Esquimalt, Vancouver's Island, containing
statements affecting various Officers of my Government, and the
administration of Justice within the Colony, I have now the honor to
forward herewith a report from Mr Cameron, the Chief Justice, upon
Mr Langfords complaint in respect of certain proceedings in the
Supreme Court, accompanied by copy of minutes of evidence, and of the
Judges notes of the trial in which Mr Langford was concerned.
I have also the honor to enclosethe
the reports I have received from Mr
Begbie, the Judge of British Columbia, and from Mr Good, the Chief
Clerk in the Office of the Colonial Secretary of British Columbia, in
reply to the particular charges preferred by Mr Langford against
them.
2. Your Grace desires me in forwarding these Documents to accompany
them with my own observations. It seems to me, however, that the
Documents in question when read with Mr Langford's correspondence,
andconsidered
considered in connection, therewith, and with the report
furnished by Mr Cary, forwarded in my Despatch of this date, No 3,
so clearly disclose the character and evident object of Mr Langford,
that it is unnecessary for me to occupy Your Grace's time by adding
the result of my general experience of Mr Langford during the period
that he was a resident of Vancouver's Island: but I deem it right,
nevertheless, to observe that when I appointed Mr Langford a Justiceof
of the Peace I had no choice of Candidates. He was the first settler
who could consistently be appointed to that office, and the
circumstance upon which he lays so much stress of having filled the
responsible position of Chairman of Quarter Sessions, was simply the
result of his seniority: and I must also observe that had I been in
possession of all the circumstances now disclosed, I should have felt
it my duty prior to Mr Langford's departurefrom
from Vancouver's Island
to strike his name off the Commission of the Peace.
considered in connection, therewith, and with the report
furnished by Mr Cary, forwarded in my Despatch of this date, No 3,
so clearly disclose the character and evident object of Mr Langford,
that it is unnecessary for me to occupy Your Grace's time by adding
the result of my general experience of Mr Langford during the period
that he was a resident of Vancouver's Island: but I deem it right,
nevertheless, to observe that when I appointed Mr Langford a Justiceof
of the Peace I had no choice of Candidates. He was the first settler
who could consistently be appointed to that office, and the
circumstance upon which he lays so much stress of having filled the
responsible position of Chairman of Quarter Sessions, was simply the
result of his seniority: and I must also observe that had I been in
possession of all the circumstances now disclosed, I should have felt
it my duty prior to Mr Langford's departurefrom
from Vancouver's Island
to strike his name off the Commission of the Peace.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
I shd say that Messrs Cameron, Begbie & Good successfully defend themselves against the complaint of Mr Langford.
I shd say that Messrs Cameron, Begbie & Good successfully defend themselves against the complaint of Mr Langford.
ABd
15 Apl
Sir F. Rogers
See minute on 3699.
See minute on 3699.
TFE
16 Apl
Mr Langfords charges are agst 1. Ch. Justice Cameron of V.C.I.,
2. Atty Gen. Carey [Cary] of V.C.I., 3. Ch. J. Begbie of B. Columbia,
4. Mr Good, Private Secrety of B Columbia to Govr.
1. As to Ch Justice Cameron Mr L. writes 5078 B.C.
on my refusing to
answer a question which was irrelevant to the statements contained in
the declaration, inquisitional and harsh in its tendency, & which
affected the interests of society at large ... evidence which I had
given on oath was struck out by direction of the Judge, & a non suit
recorded (and I) was sentenced (for contempt) to be imprisoned in the
Common Jail & to pay a fine of £10. I was taken to prison
and locked
up with felons, Indians and maniacs.
and locked
up with felons, Indians and maniacs.
The facts are that Mr Langford brought an action for libel against
the printer of a placard wh will be found in pp 2 & 3 of Enclosure
A to 3700/63. The placard is a very severe and well written election
squib—and I hope I shall not be considered to disclose a low tone
of morality when I say
that—supposing always it is just in substance—I do not think
it goes beyond the licence wh may be allowed [least?] (propter
duritiem cordis) in a Colonial contested election.
However it implies an accusation agst Mr Langford of not giving
intelligible accounts to his Employers. The question wh he refused
to answer
was "What book does folio No 2 refer to in that account?"
wh appears relevant to the matter.
was "What book does folio No 2 refer to in that account?"
wh appears relevant to the matter.
I think that the Judge (as far as can be seen) was quite right in
requiring an answer to that question (to wh Mr L's counsel did not
object) and on Mr L's refusal to give an answer could do not
otherwise than punish him for contempt.
It seems just also that the evidence of a man who refuses (in
substance) to undergo cross-examination, shd be struck out.
I think however that it is not for the Secretary of State to
pronounce on the right or wrong of a Judge's decision, unless it is
so manifestly corrupt or intemperate as to be a ground for
proceedings before the Govr & Ex Council.
The answer therefore to Mr Langford is that having made enquiry
respecting the case, the D of N does
not find that it contains any
circumstances which would call for the interposition of the Executive
authority.
not find that it contains any
circumstances which would call for the interposition of the Executive
authority.
2. As to Mr Carey.
The charge is that this Gentleman being attorney (as well as counsel)
in the case of Langford v. King & as such responsible for the bill of
costs inserted in that bill "items of payment which had never in fact
been paid."
The answer is that the bill of costs was framed & payment required by
an Attorney named Drake & not by the Attorney Genl.
Also that the items referred to are witnesses expenses (8£8s0).
That sum was apparently paid to one of the witnesses for the rest.
But the witnesses refused to receive the money. Mr Langford refused
to receive it back
and the man to whom it was paid accordingly paid
them on to a hospital.
and the man to whom it was paid accordingly paid
them on to a hospital.
I think this answer is complete and that Mr L may be told that
the Duke of N. finds no reason to suppose that Mr Cary has acted
with any impropriety.
3. Mr Begbie C.J. of B Columbia is accused of being author of the
alleged libel.
Mr Begbie's answer is very clever and should not be left unread. I
should say that he wishes the Secretary of State to understand that
he is and is rather proud of being the author of the placard,
but to do this witht giving Mr Langford the right to say that he
has avowed it. It seems to me that his power of dry humour & his
desire to demolish a charlatan have led him to do what a Ch Justice
(even of a neighbouring Colony) ought to have refrained from. But I
do not see that
on the alleged & doubtful authority of this Capt
King who is dead the Secretary of State is bound to institute
enquiries into the authorship of this trifle, and to bring it home
to him (even if this were possible).
on the alleged & doubtful authority of this Capt
King who is dead the Secretary of State is bound to institute
enquiries into the authorship of this trifle, and to bring it home
to him (even if this were possible).
4. Mr Good private Secretary to the Govr is said to have brought
the placard in MS to the printing office—and to have given the
printer 20£ towards the costs of the action.
As Good replies that this is an old story & that Capt King being
called to account by him (Mr Good) positively denied having informed
Mr Langford that he had recd the placard from Mr Good—an
allegation wh Mr G. qualifies as "absurd."
Of the 20£ he says nothing. If, as
I infer, he was the medium of
transmitting the £20 to Mr King, I cannot myself think it more than
an imprudence.
I infer, he was the medium of
transmitting the £20 to Mr King, I cannot myself think it more than
an imprudence.
On the whole—It will be observed that Mr Langfords charges are in
themselves so absolutely vague they deserve no answer (vide minute
on 5078 V.C.I.) nor has he any right after making a loose statement
which commits him to nothing to require information as to what is
said to the Secretary of State by those whom he is assailing, writing
not with the caution which they would use to him, but with the
freedom which they use to their superior.
I would therefore tell him nothing. If he wants to know anything,
let him get somebody to move for papers. This he will probably not
do unless he can find out what [he] will get.
This whole affair is extremely ridiculous & Mr Langford takes little
indeed by his
proceedings. If my Parliamentary friend moves for
these papers he will find the dry sarcasm of Judge Begbie's letter
quite as unpleasant as the placard.
proceedings. If my Parliamentary friend moves for
these papers he will find the dry sarcasm of Judge Begbie's letter
quite as unpleasant as the placard.
N
20
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
David Cameron, Chief Justice, to W.A.G. Young, Colonial Secretary, 29
January 1863, responding to Langford's charges against the
administration of justice in the colony, and enclosing trial evidence
to support his position.
Copy of the Record as entered for trial charging Edward Hammond
King with libel and asking for damages, 8 February 1860, signed by
Langford.
Copy of the daily minutes of the proceedings of the Court for
17 April 1860, copy made 30 August 1862, signed by
Thomas G. Williams, Registrar.
Copy of a charge against the plaintiff, Edward Langford, for contempt
and ordering that he "be committed to the custody of the Sheriff for
twenty four hours" and that he pay a fine of £10, signed by Cameron.
Copy of the judge's notes of the trial for 12 April 1860 describing
the course of events, no signature.
Matthew Begbie, Chief Justice, to Young, 23 December 1862, responding
in detail to the charges laid against him by Langford.
Charles Good, Chief Clerk, Colonial Secretary's Office, to Young, 23 December 1862, responding in detail to the charges laid against him
by Langford.
Other documents included in the file
Rogers to Langford, 23 April 1863, providing a detailed
explanation of why the Duke of Newcastle feels it unnecessary to
reopen a matter properly disposed of in the colony.
