THE TRIALS AND TRIBULATIONS OF EDWARD EDWARDS LANGFORD
Sidney G. Pettit
B.C. Historical Quarterly, January 1953.
The foundation of a colony on Vancouver Island in 1849 was the outcome of political rather than economic considerations. After the Treaty of Washington, 1846, the British Government was gravely concerned for the safety of its territories north of the 49th parallel. These vast areas, like Oregon, were without government and population, and the boundary recently drawn would be but a flimsy barrier against future American migrations. Thoroughly alarmed at the prospect of additional territorial losses, the British authorities decided to colonize some part of the Pacific Coast as a means of averting the consequences of further incursions into Her Majesty’s possessions. After prolonged debate in both Houses, the Government ceded Vancouver Island on January 13, 1849, to the Hudson’s Bay Company for purposes of colonization. The grant met with vigorous opposition in and out of Parliament. Opponents of the scheme contended, and subsequent events were to prove them right, that the company was an unsuitable agency. The British Government, however, had been unwilling to find the money for the project, and was therefore obliged to entrust the undertaking to some other authority. As the Hudson’s Bay Company enjoyed the exclusive licence to trade in the area concerned and possessed great financial resources, it was the only possible choice. The colony was duly established. When wave after wave of Californian miners arrived in 1858, Governor Douglas was able to extend the authority of the Crown to the Mainland and to erect there a system of government and law which the Americans had to accept. On this occasion they were not able to form a provisional government as they had at Champoeg in 1843, and Washington did not intervene on their behalf. That British Columbia is a Canadian Province to-day is the consequence of British policy and the colonizing activities of the Hudson’s Bay Company on Vancouver Island. In this light the shortcomings of company rule were a small price to pay for a Dominion from sea to sea.
For the first decade of its existence, the colony was a preserve of the Hudson’s Bay Company, barren of population and constitutionally backward. The company, under the terms of the Royal Charter of 1849, had taken possession of the Island, agreeing in return to form a colony of British subjects there and to establish a system of self government. The costs of settling and improving the Island were to be defrayed from the sale of land and other natural resources. The price of land was set at £1 per acre, but for every 100 acres the colonists had to take out with them five single men or three married couples. These terms, of course, were prohibitive. The Island was remote. The Puget Sound Agricultural Company, a subsidiary of the Hudson’s Bay Company, absorbed the local market for farm products, and access to neighbouring areas in the United States was closed by tariff walls. At the same time, land in near-by Washington and Oregon was free or could be obtained for a nominal sum. From the first, independent settlers failed to appear, and until the gold-rush of 1858 the population consisted almost entirely of servants of the company. Under such conditions the members of the Council and, later, the Assembly were largely Hudson’s Bay men. Governor Douglas, who retained his position as Chief Factor in charge of the Western Department, had little difficulty in controlling these bodies and, in effect, ruled the Island very much in the manner of the colonial governors of a bygone day who held themselves responsible to no authority other than the Crown. When the gold-seekers, on their way to Fraser River, arrived at Victoria, they found a fur-traders’ colony of perhaps a thousand souls, languishing under company domination and a form of government that had passed from existence in the British possessions in Eastern North America.
The Hudson’s Bay Company, however, met with opposition
from the beginning. Richard Blanshard, the first Governor, clashed with Chief Factor Douglas, but, finding himself powerless to take effective action, tendered his resignation in November 1850, and retired in disgust to England some nine months later. The independent colonists, who could not have numbered more than a score, were already alarmed by the monopolistic tendencies of the company, and when they learned that Blanshard intended to resign and that he would be replaced by Douglas, fifteen of their number presented a memorial to the Governor. They set forth very clearly the precariousness of their position, and prayed him to establish a council, which, they believed, would serve to redress the balance somewhat in their favour. Among the signatures appended were those of Rev. Robert John Staines, the company chaplain, who had already had difficulties with the authorities at Fort Victoria, and James Cooper, a merchant and land-owner, whom Blanshard appointed to the Council in August 1850. Cooper, if he was not always consistent, was a man of mettle, and, until he returned to England in 1856, was the spokesman of the independent settlers and disgruntled company servants who formed the nucleus of a radical faction in colonial politics. A year later he appeared with Blanshard before the Select Committee of the British Parliament which was investigating the affairs of the Hudson’s Bay Company. On that occasion both he and the late Governor were hostile to the company and critical of its policies.
Perhaps the most vociferous of Douglas’s opponents was Captain Edward Edwards Langford. Born in Brighton, Sussex, in 1809, he had served for some years in the 73rd Regiment, and on selling his commission had retired to the country to pursue the life of a gentleman farmer. A distant relative of Governor Blanshard, he had come to the colony in May 1851, as a bailiff in the service of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company. On arriving at Victoria, he was taken aback when he found that the only accommodation available for him and his large family was a one-room log cabin at Esquimalt. As his wife was within a few days of her confinement, Langford refused to go out there, and was about to make the best of similar quarters near the fort when Governor Blanshard gave them rooms in his own house. There can be little doubt, as Dr. Helmcken suggests, that the Governor prejudiced his guest’s mind against the company.
Under these circumstances it is not altogether surprising that he joined the little group that had rallied about Blanshard. Langford, it appears, was gregarious by disposition, and spent a great deal of time in the local pot-house airing his grievances and criticizing the Government. Sociable, lavish in his hospitality, he soon made many friends in the district who later were to support him in his trials and tribulations.
Captain Langford has left no record of his life in England and the circumstances that led him to emigrate to Vancouver Island. An impulsive man, he may have become restless and dissatisfied. Under such conditions, life in the distant colony would seem almost ideal. Certainly, the position he obtained with the Puget Sound Agricultural Company was attractive. The company undertook to pay his passage to the Island, build his house, barns, and stables, stock the farm, and provide seed and implements. He and his family were to obtain groceries and supplies free of charge. The company also undertook to supply labourers, pay them and feed them. As bailiff, Langford was to receive £60 a year and to enjoy a third of the net profits. If there were a loss, it would be charged to capital and paid out of future profits.
Langford was placed in charge of Esquimalt Farm or, as he called it, in memory of his old home in Sussex, Colwood. Six hundred acres in area, it consisted of a long and narrow tract running inland from a water-front that was bounded by Paterson Point and the mouth of Millstream. He built his house some distance from the water, near the entrance to the Royal Colwood Golf Course of to-day. Under Langford’s supervision, Indians, Kanakas, and farm-labourers began the heavy task of clearing land and the construction of dwellings and farm buildings. After nearly four years’ work, 190 acres were cleared and twelve houses built. Thirty people, including six children under 10 years of age, lived on the farm at that time. Colwood soon became a centre
of social life, for the Langfords were never happier than when entertaining. There were dances and socials, picnics and riding parties. Wine and brandy, Dr. Helmcken observes, were generally served on these occasions. Captain Langford’s five daughters attracted the younger men of the colony, and officers from Her Majesty’s ships were frequent visitors. Social life at Colwood could not have differed greatly from that of the country gentry in England. Captain Langford supervised his labourers, kept open house, and visited his friends after the fashion of an English squire. Had the company’s scheme for colonization proved successful, the country districts would have consisted of large estates under the direction of gentlemen farmers who in time would have formed a colonial squirarchy. As it was, Langford and two other bailiffs, Kenneth McKenzie and Thomas Skinner, were appointed to the Bench on March 29, 1853. These men were selected on the basis of their education and social position, for they knew nothing about law and court procedure. Magistrate Skinner was soon up to his ears in trouble, having become the dupe of an American trickster named Webster, who actually succeeded in using the processes of law to further his dishonest ends. Governor Douglas was compelled to intervene and, shocked by the ignorance and incompetence not only of Skinner, but of Langford and McKenzie as well, took steps to limit the Magistrates’ jurisdiction by establishing a higher Court. In the meantime, until this measure could be carried into effect, he appointed his brother-in-law, David Cameron, a Justice of the Peace to safeguard the administration of law. Some two months later, on December 2, 1853, the Supreme Court of Civil Justice was ushered into existence. David Cameron was made “judge for the time being” the same day.
The appointment of David Cameron was the occasion of a great deal of protest and agitation. James Cooper, who, as a member of the Council, had assented to the action taken, changed his mind and joined Rev. Robert Staines and Captain Langford in organizing the opposition. A meeting was held early in February, 1854, and a committee was formed which drafted a petition to Queen Victoria, praying an inquiry into the circumstances of the creation of the Supreme Court of Civil Justice, and a petition to the Duke of Newcastle, the Colonial Secretary, protesting the appointment of David Cameron. Staines was chosen to carry the documents to England, and a subscription was taken up to defray the expenses of his journey. In due time Sir George Grey, Newcastle’s successor, wrote to Douglas for more information. In reply the Governor defended the appointment, and answered the committee’s charges with clarity and vigour. He enclosed in the same dispatch a copy of the petition he had received from fifty-four landed proprietors in the colony approving the appointment of Cameron. Fifteen months later the Colonial Office gave formal approval to Cameron’s appointment to the office of Chief Justice of Vancouver Island.
Captain Langford, who had taken a leading part in these activities, was by this time closely associated with the leaders of the radical faction in the colony. These men—Cooper, Staines, Skinner—shared the conviction that Governor Douglas subordinated the interests of the colony to those of the Hudson’s Bay Company, and that in his individual acts he was partial and unjust. In their eyes the appointment of Cameron was a transparent piece of nepotism. Whatever the truth of their contentions, Langford and his friends lacked the personal qualities requisite for the creation and leadership of a reform party. James Cooper’s evidence before the Select Committee in 1857 suggests the agitator and malcontent. His associate, Rev. Robert Staines, who had proved to be an incompetent schoolmaster and a most unpopular chaplain, was little less than a fanatic. Skinner and Langford had already demonstrated their ineptitude on the Bench, and, as the officials of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company were soon to discover, Langford had failed conspicuously in the management of his farm.
The company, indeed, had been unfortunate in the choice of its bailiffs. Kenneth McKenzie, who had been given general supervision of the enterprise, muddled his accounts so badly that the officials in London could not make head or tail of them. Thomas Skinner’s reports were at first equally unsatisfactory, but after pressure had been exerted upon him, he changed his ways and made a success of his farm. Macaulay failed completely, as did Captain Langford, whose extravagance and indifference to his responsibilities caused the company to send him notice of dismissal. As Dr. Helmcken observes in his memoirs, Langford was unwilling to work and would not accept the hardships of pioneer life. Under the extraordinary conditions of his employment he could draw upon the company for what he wanted, and as he possessed neither judgment nor restraint, he imposed a burden of costs on his farm far in excess of its returns. He built a fine home and expensive buildings, which he later extended without consulting his employers. Since he had but to call at the company’s store in Victoria for provisions, he lived
luxuriously and entertained lavishly. A letter from Colvile and Berens to Kenneth McKenzie, dated July 19, 1855, indicates the incompetence of the bailiffs and the extravagance of Captain Langford:
“July 19, 1855.
We have to acknowledge your letter of the 9th April with accounts from Mr. Langford and Mr. Skinner, which are by no means satisfactory; they do not give the information that is required to enable us to state an account for each farm, such as we can lay before the Proprietors of the Puget Sound Company, neither do you send us any account whatever for your own and McAulay’s farms, or for your own “intromissions.”
We have had an analysis made of the goods furnished to Mr. Langford, Outfit 1853, and charged by the Hudson’s Bay Company; and when we see such charges as £137 for Flour—80.9.3 for Salt Pork,—1606 lbs of Sugar,—237 lbs of Tea,— 70 Gallons of Brandy, Rum & Whiskey, and Wine, and £474.12.1 Cash, when by the year 1853 the farm ought to have been self-supporting if not yielding a return by sales of produce. This exhibits such an appearance of wasteful extravagance that we can have no hope of Mr Langford doing better in future, and therefore desire that his occupation of the farm may cease agreeably to the notice which has been given to him.
The last item of Langford’s bill is significant of the man and the laxity of the officials in Victoria. He appears, whenever short of cash, to have turned to the company, which advanced him in a single year a sum almost eight times his annual salary!
Under notice of dismissal, Langford reformed his ways. Colvile and Berens, however, were not sufficiently impressed by his economy and industry to allow him to continue in their service. They made their position perfectly clear in a letter to McKenzie dated January 30, 1856:
“You allude to Mr Langford having very much improved in activity on his farm, stimulated, no doubt, by the notice which you, in accordance with our instructions, have served upon him. We are glad of this improvement, but a straightforward honesty should have induced him long ago to use his best exertions to make his farm profitable, instead of lavishly spending the capital of the Company in luxuries for himself and family. We are not disposed to alter our decision, and desire that the notice served upon Mr. Langford for terminating our connection with him may be carried out.”
Langford, nevertheless, managed to retain his position, and continued in that occupation until some time in 1860, when, according to Charles Good, he was finally dismissed. The paucity of information in his correspondence and that of McKenzie renders it impossible to account for the change of heart on the part of his employers. It may be that influential friends in London interceded on his behalf. A more plausible explanation is that since Colvile and Berens appear to have been at a loss to find somebody to take his place, he was allowed to continue under suspended sentence as bailiff of Esquimalt Farm. Judge Begbie relates that A. O. Dallas, who came to the colony in May 1857, to supervise the company farms, had to endure a great deal of insolence from Langford before he succeeded in forcing him to carry out his orders. In that case it seems that the long-suffering officials were compelled by circumstances to retain his services in order to keep the farm under cultivation.
While Langford changed his ways with respect to his duties as bailiff of Esquimalt Farm, he did not abate in his opposition to the Hudson’s Bay Company and the Government of the colony. As Staines had died in March 1854, and Cooper was to leave for England late in 1856, he became the leading spirit of the reform faction. In the meantime, Henry Labouchere, Secretary of State for the Colonies, had written to Governor Douglas on February 8, 1856, to instruct him to call an assembly. With considerable misgiving, Douglas set about the task of establishing the machinery of representative government. On June 9, following the suggestions of the Governor, the Council laid down the necessary provisions. There were to be four electoral districts—Victoria, Esquimalt, Sooke, and Nanaimo. Seven members were to be elected—three for Victoria, two for Esquimalt, and one for each of the other two districts. To qualify for membership, a candidate had to own freehold property valued at £3OO. Writs for the election were issued, returnable on August 4. Captain Langford won a nomination for Victoria, and after a hot contest was elected to the first Legislative Assembly of Vancouver Island.
The House met on August 12, 1856. Governor Douglas
delivered an eloquent address in which he reviewed the state of the colony and instructed the members in the principles of good government. In closing he informed them that he had appointed Chief Justice Cameron to administer the oath of allegiance and to receive their declarations of qualification. James Yates, J. D. Pemberton, J. S. Helmcken, and J.F. Kennedy took the oath and delivered the necessary documents. Captain Langford, however, failed to produce evidence of qualification, and instead read a protest in which he stated that the action taken by the Council on June 9 was unconstitutional so long as it was not ratified by the Assembly. His statement was as follows:
“I subscribe in the most solemn manner to the Oath as now administered to me, with the exception of declaring myself possessed of immovable property to the extent of £300.
“Having been chosen by the people of Victoria, both electors and non-electors, it is my firm belief that according to the Constitution of Great Britain I am duly qualified to take my seat in this House of Assembly, and that the Act of Council imposing a fixed property qualification was not legal without the consent of the House of Assembly; and therefore I beg now in a formal manner to protest in the name and on behalf of my constituents against it, and to request that my protest may be recorded.”
At the next session, which was held on August 19, Langford again read his protest, which was duly recorded in the minutes of the Assembly on a motion made by his friends Skinner and Yates. When Captain Langford had taken the oath of allegiance, J. D. Pemberton presented a petition he had received from Joseph McKay, a company servant, complaining of Langford’s election to the Assembly. When the document had been tabled, Pemberton and Kennedy were defeated in a motion that Langford’s return was null and void. At the third session, which was held on August 26, the Speaker, Dr. J. S. Helmcken, informed the members that Joseph McKay had entered into sufficient sureties for his petition, and ordered that it be submitted to committee. This body, which consisted of Skinner, Muir, and Kennedy, was instructed to meet on the following day. Langford, who had been invited to attend, failed to appear, realizing, no doubt, that the game was up. When the House met the following morning, his election was formally declared null and void, and instructions were given that a writ be issued for a member to be elected in his place.
For more than three years after the debacle described above, Captain Langford took no part in public affairs and abstained from any overt attacks on the Government. In view of subsequent events, however, it may be presumed that he continued to nurse grudges, and that he cherished the hope of winning a seat in the Assembly at the next election, which was to take place in 1860. There is some evidence that he took steps to purchase land, either for the necessary qualification for membership or for mere speculation. In July 1858, when land values were rising as a result of the gold excitement, Langford and a friend, Dr. P. W. Wallace, called at the office of the colonial surveyor. This official was J. D. Pemberton, who, it will be remembered, represented Victoria in the Assembly, and had taken steps to have Langford’s election declared null and void. A Mr. Pearse, the assistant surveyor, was also present. Langford informed Pemberton that he wished to purchase a parcel of land adjoining his farm at Esquimalt. On being told that the tract was sold, he left the office without complaint and did nothing more about the matter until the eve of the election of 1860, nearly a year and a half later.
Toward the end of November 1859, rumours spread through the town that Captain Langford intended to run for the Assembly, and on December 5 the Victoria Gazette published a card or petition from an unspecified number of citizens urging him to contest the Victoria division. Langford’s formal letter of acceptance appeared in the next number. In the scanty records of the election there is no mention of Langford’s property qualification for a seat in the Assembly. While it is inconceivable that he would court the humiliation that he had suffered in 1856, there is reason to believe that he did not own freehold property to the extent of £300. According to the British Colonist, Langford owned a one-third share in a farm, 20 acres of which were cleared. If this farm were worth £900, he would then have been qualified, but it is not likely that it was. His credit had been restricted by his employers for some four years, and there is evidence to show that he was penniless by the middle of 1860. In the light of what follows, it appears that he did not own land of the requisite value and, confident of success in the election, sought to manufacture an excuse for not being properly qualified. On December 17, less than a fortnight after he had accepted the nomination, and just before Pemberton’s departure for England, Langford wrote to Governor Douglas to “complain . . . of the unjust, partial and improper conduct of the colonial surveyor with regard to the disposal of the colonial lands.” He went on to relate the circumstances of his application to purchase land in 1858, stating that Pemberton had informed him that the tracts that he wanted had been sold to Mr. Dallas, either on his own account or on that of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, and that the necessary instalment had been paid. Langford continued that he was disappointed at the time, as he could have sold the land for five times the original cost but felt that he had no cause for complaint. Since then, he alleged, he had learned that the land had never been sold, as stated by Pemberton, and had been unjustly withheld from the market to his own personal loss. In closing he demanded an immediate investigation of his complaint, as he had heard that the surveyor was about to leave for England.
Douglas investigated the matter at once, before Pemberton went away. With characteristic thoroughness he examined the records of the Land Office and requested a full report from Pemberton. According to the latter, Dallas had, as Langford alleged, made application for the parcel in question on behalf of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company. Pemberton recorded the land as sold, although no payment had been made. Accordingly, when Captain Langford applied for a portion of the same tract in July he was informed that it had been sold. Some time later Dallas examined the ground and, finding that the surveyor had not included certain sections that he wanted, refused to complete the purchase. As Pemberton explained to Douglas, there were two courses open to him: he could compel the company to buy the parcel in question, or he could throw it on the market on the same terms at which he had offered it to Dallas. Pemberton naturally chose the second alternative. In closing, he pointed out that the land that Langford had wanted was, at the time of writing, still unsold.
After a careful examination of Pemberton’s report and the records of the Land Office, Douglas and Attorney-General Cary were satisfied that Langford’s complaint was groundless, but the Governor was not prepared to dismiss the matter at this point. He instructed Cary to write to Langford to ask what was the precise object of his letter: whether he was making a claim, and against whom, or whether he simply desired to enter a complaint against Pemberton. Langford replied immediately, stating that his charges against Pemberton were specific and that he required an official investigation. He closed with the threat that if the inquiry were not immediately instituted, he would forward his complaint to London. After a month had elapsed, during which Langford wrote to the Governor and the Attorney-General demanding immediate action, Douglas sent him a copy of Pemberton’s report and Cary’s opinion in the matter. Langford did not acknowledge this communication, and for the time being gave every appearance of having dropped the matter for good.
Some six weeks later Captain Langford made good the threat that he would appeal to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. On March 10, 1860, he sent a long letter to Governor Douglas for transmission to the Duke of Newcastle, in which he laid the same complaints against Pemberton and an additional charge that Douglas had obstructed justice by delay in instituting an inquiry and in forwarding the colonial surveyor’s report to him. To support his contention that Pemberton had informed him that an instalment had been paid on the land in question, Langford submitted an affidavit sworn by his friend, Dr. Peter W. Wallace, who had accompanied him to the Land Office and been present when he made his application. According to the latter, the transaction was as follows:
“. . the said Edward Edwards Langford applied to the said Joseph D. Pemberton for several hundred acres of land in the immediate vicinity of his farm, whereupon the said Joseph D. Pemberton informed the said Edward Edwards Langford that the said land had been taken up and the instalments paid by Mr. Dallas, in proof of which the said Joseph D. Pemberton offered to show his books, whereupon the said Edward Edwards Langford declined, stating at the time to the said Joseph D. Pemberton, “No, your word is sufficient.”
Governor Douglas at once forwarded Langford’s memorandum and all the relevant correspondence. In addition, he sent a long dispatch of his own, in which he explained his course of action and refuted Langford’s accusations.
Douglas attributed political motives to Langford, hinting broadly that his complaint was an election ruse to discredit him and his government. After pointing out that the complaint reflected on the integrity of the Land Office and his own course of action in the matter, the Governor continued:
“I was somewhat surprised at this application, made one year and a half after the transaction alluded to, but as it was known that Mr. Pemberton the Colonial Surveyor was about to leave the Colony to proceed to England, and as a General Election was pending, Mr. Langford himself being a candidate, and having in his address to the Electors distinguished himself by the display of an unusual degree of animosity to myself as Governor, and to the Government of the Colony generally I had not much difficulty in surmising the true object of the application.”
The rest of the dispatch was an amplification of Pemberton’s report. The books of the Land Office showed the record of the purchase and its subsequent cancellation. Dallas had refused to purchase the land because the survey showed the omission of an acre and a half that he particularly wanted. As for Dr. Wallace’s affidavit, Douglas stated that Pearse, the assistant colonial surveyor, distinctly recollected the whole transaction and denied that Pemberton had told Langford that the first instalment had been paid. It was scarcely credible, Douglas went on, that the colonial surveyor should offer the official records for inspection to any chance purchaser of land or that he should volunteer information regarding payments made by another party. In closing, Douglas expressed surprise that Langford had not brought the matter to his notice at an earlier date, and, if he felt that an unlawful action had been committed, that he did not have recourse to legal measures to obtain redress.
Some four months later, in a dispatch dated July 26, 1860, the Secretary of State for the Colonies informed Douglas that he could not find any just cause for Langford’s complaints. He considered Pemberton’s conduct in the transaction correct, and he could not see that the Governor had shown any want of readiness in investigating the case or that he could be blamed for the delay that occurred in forwarding the colonial surveyor’s report to Langford.
Captain Langford, as we have seen, laid his complaint against Pemberton on December 17, 1859, some twelve days after he had accepted the nomination as candidate for Victoria Town. He must, at that time, have been busy with his address to the electors, which he appears to have completed on Monday, December 26. Posters were printed and exhibited all over Victoria.
The misfortune of the reform party in the colony was that its spokesmen were agitators rather than leaders. Staines and Langford, unable to confine themselves to the moderate demands of some of their supporters, launched ill-considered attacks on the Governor and his officials which invariably resulted in their own humiliation and the discredit of their party. Captain Langford’s address to the electors was no exception. If due allowance is made for the pomposity of his style, it must be admitted that the reforms he advocated were timely and by no means excessive. He called for an inquiry into the problem of taxation and demanded a more liberal land policy. He advocated a wider franchise, reduction of fees and expenses in the Courts, and better facilities for the collection of small debts. But having made these proposals in the space of a few paragraphs, Langford devoted the rest of his address to personal attacks on the Government and the judiciary. The members of the Council, he declared, had been fur-traders whose isolated existence in the wilderness “withdrawn from the busy haunts of civilized men” rendered them incapable of “impartial and practical” legislation. Donald Fraser, whom Douglas had appointed to the Council in November, 1858, to replace John Tod, was singled out for special attack. Prior to his appointment, Fraser had served as special correspondent of the London Times during the gold-rush. His dispatches describing the American miners, Langford asserted, would discourage respectable settlers from coming to the Island. “More wholesale and foul slander,” he continued, “never went forth to the world.” After pointing out that Fraser was a new-comer to the colony, Langford warned the electors that one of his first acts as a member of the Council was to oppose an extension of the suffrage.
Having dealt with the members of the Council, Langford turned to Chief Justice David Cameron, whose appointment in 1853 he had strenuously opposed. As his attack on this occasion displayed a degree of subtlety somewhat out of keeping with his usual methods, it may be asked in passing whether Amor de Cosmos had edited his address to the electors. By selecting an extract from Douglas’s dispatch to Labouchere concerning the calling of the Assembly in 1856, Langford attempted to discredit the Governor himself, the Council, and the Chief Justice. Douglas, on this occasion, had expressed quite frankly his misgivings in the matter, apparently forgetting in his concern that the following admission might be used against him:
“It is, I confess, not without a feeling of dismay that I contemplate the nature and amount of labour and responsibility which will be imposed upon me, in the process of carrying out the instructions conveyed in your despatch. Possessing a very slender knowledge of legislation, without legal advice or intelligent assistance of any kind, I approach the subject with diffidence.
Langford pointed out that as this admission was made after long and careful consideration, it condemned both Council and judiciary without any qualification whatsoever. After enlarging on the responsibilities of the Chief Justice, he demanded that Cameron be replaced by a qualified legal practitioner of established repute in his profession.
No doubt there were many who read Captain Langford’s address with approval. His platform was reasonable, and his attack on the Government and judiciary was a rallying cry for the opponents of the “Family Company-Compact.” At the same time Langford was a popular man about town, the kind of person whom a section of the electorate will support on personal grounds. Reformers and friends had elected him in 1856 and were likely to accord him the same support in 1860. There were others, however, who had formed a different estimate of his character and capabilities. Officials of the two Governments regarded him as an incompetent Magistrate and an agitator who had attempted to gate-crash his way into the Legislative Assembly. Officers of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company were familiar with his extravagance and his gross mismanagement of Esquimalt Farm. Judge Matthew Baillie Begbie, who was constitutionally incapable of suffering fools gladly, read the placard with sardonic amusement. Charles Good, at that time Chief Clerk in the Colonial Secretary’s office for British Columbia, was later to describe it as a “pompous and silly effusion.” It was, in truth, the kind of thing that invited satire, and during Christmas and New Year somebody wrote such a parody, had it printed, and posted it all over the town. The squib had been widely distributed before daylight on New Year’s Day. Judge Begbie, on entering the lounge of the Hotel de France, found a copy pinned to the wall. He read it with great merriment and assured the bystanders that its contents were true because he had read Langford’s contract with the Puget Sound Agricultural Company. The poster which amused the Judge and his friends so much was as follows:
“To the Electors of Victoria. Gentlemen, Some injudicious person, assuming my name, has put forward in answer to your requisition, a long winded and spiteful address, containing many things which I, of course, should not like to have repeated, among other things, His Excellency’s complaint that he was without any intelligent assistance, when I was at his elbow; a statement that I required a full discussion of the whole subject of Taxation, before I could form any opinion in reference to it; and other matters showing a shallowness of comprehension and an envious disposition, which I really ought to be ashamed of.
The easiest way for you, gentlemen, to judge of my merits, is to make a short statement of what I am, and what I have done.
I came here about eight years ago, the hired servant of the Puget Sound Company, for the wages of about Six Dollars a week, and my board and lodging; the privileges of board and lodging were also extended to my wife and family, in consideration of the Company’s having the benefit of their labor on the Farm of which I was to have the charge. I was brought out here at the expense of the Company: I was placed on the Farm I now occupy, bought by the Company, stocked by the Company, improved by labor supplied by the Company entirely. In fact, I have not been put to penny expense since my arrival in the Colony. The boots I wear, and the mutton I and my family and guests eat, have been wholly supplied at the expense of the Company; and I flatter myself that the Colonial reputation for hospitality, as displayed by me at the expense of the Company, has not been allowed to fall into disrepute. I have given large entertainments, kept riding horses, and other means of amusement for myself and my guests: in fact I may say, that I and they, have eaten, driven, and ridden the Company for several years, and a very useful animal it has proved, though its ears, gentlemen, are rather long.
All this time I was and am the Farm-Bailiff of the Puget Sound Company, at wages of £60, ($300,) per annum, and board, a position I value much too highly to vacate until I shall be kicked out of it. I have refused to render any account, any intelligible account, of my stewardship: in fact, I had kept no accounts, that I, or anybody else, could make head or tail of. When requested to give satisfactory explanations, I told my owners pretty squarely, that they should have no satisfaction except that usual among gentlemen; and as I knew nobody would call me out and pistol me, I commenced a system of abuse with which you are doubtless tolerably well acquainted; at the same time currying popularity with my farm servants, by letting them eat and drink, play or work, just as they liked, which I could do cheap, as the Company pays for all.
I am sorry to say, however, gentlemen, that although pretty jolly just now, I have not been careful enough to keep a qualification for myself for the House of Assembly, although I have run my owners many thousands of pounds in debt. However, I hope to bnlly [sic] them out of their property entirely, ”improve” them out of their land. How I propose to do this, seeing that all the land, capital, stock, and labor, has been provided by them, is a secret. In the meantime, if I should not be fortunate enough to nail a qualification before the Election, I shall do as I did before, hand in a protest against the grinding, despotic tyrany, which requires a qualification at all, notwithstanding Runnymead and Rule Britannia: The House, I doubt not, will allow me to sit, and I shall be too happy to serve you as I have served my present employers. I have the honor to be, gentlemen,
Your most obedient E. E. Longford [sic]
This satire cut Langford like a whip, driving him out of politics and finally out of the colony itself. On January 5 the British Colonist published his formal withdrawal from the election. Langford’s letter was temperate and gave no indication of the resentment and animosity that he was to display for the next three years. Stating that he was compelled to withdraw due to circumstances of a private nature over which he had no control, he went on to say that he had not been influenced in any way by doubts as to his success at the polls or by “any inducements held out in any quarter to lead me to retire,” meaning by the latter, no doubt, the mysterious squib that was by then the talk of the town. In closing, he urged his supporters to elect Amor de Cosmos in his place.
The events described above gave rise to a number of questions which have not been completely answered to this day. There is, of course, the identity of the author of the squib and the person who posted it about the town before dawn on New Year’s morning. Their names were on everybody’s lips, but their complicity, though obvious, has never been proven. It may be asked why Captain Langford retired from the election. Being the kind of man that he was, it would not have been unnatural for him to have gone on to the bitter end. Or was he, like Pistol, driven ignominiously from the stage? Judge Begbie and Charles Good, who appear to have been singularly well informed in every aspect of the matter, state that the squib disillusioned Langford’s supporters and ruined his chance of election. In that case it may well be that his friends persuaded him to withdraw in the face of certain defeat. It is probable that, as the author of the squib suggests, he lacked the necessary property qualifications as in 1856, and hoped to bluff his way into acceptance. If he cherished this illusion when he accepted the nomination, it is not unlikely that his friends saved him in the nick of time from a repetition of the humiliation he had suffered four years previously.
On January 5, 1860, the day on which his retirement from the election was announced in the British Colonist, Langford took steps to sue Captain Edward Hammond King, the printer of the placard, for libel, claiming damages to the extent of £2,000. King was the owner of the Victoria Gazette, a paper which he had founded in 1859, and the printer of the Government Gazette, a fact which, in the eyes of some, pointed to official complicity in the affair. It is, however, impossible to establish King’s part in the publication of the offending placard, and it is equally impossible to account for his contradictory behaviour through out the hurly-burly that ensued. As there is a lack of reliable evidence, King must remain an enigmatic and sometimes comic figure, full of sound and fury, yet signifying so much if only the truth were known.
The Langford libel case was heard in the Supreme Court of Civil Justice before Chief Justice David Cameron on April 16 and 17, 1860. George John Wight acted for Langford, the plaintiff, and George Hunter Cary for King, the defendant. The case opened with a flurry of technicalities. Wight and Cary wrangled over the jury, abusing each other in slanderous terms, until Cameron finally ruled that the case should be heard before a special jury. On the following day Wight, and then Cary, cross-examined Langford. When asked by Cary to produce his books, Langford refused, declaring rather righteously that he had not brought them to Court because his employers might object. He had, however, brought a certified account made up from his books by the auditor of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company. Glancing at these records, Cary asked Langford to what book the words “folio No. 2” referred. Langford remained silent, and finally Cary applied to the Judge to request plaintiff to answer. With great patience Cameron explained to Langford that his counsel had not objected to the question, that there was nothing improper in it, that it was material and relevant. He warned him that his refusal virtually dared the authority of Her Majesty’s Court, and that if he did not give an immediate answer he would be committed to the custody of the Sheriff. Langford again re fused to answer. Cameron ordered the Sheriff to take him in charge.
When the Court reassembled in the afternoon, Cameron, at Cary’s request, struck Langford’s evidence from his notes. Wight rose and asked for permission to enter nonsuit. Cameron granted this request and discharged the jury. Turning to Langford, who had been brought into Court, he asked him whether he had anything to say in extenuation of his contempt. When he made no answer, Cameron ordered that he be imprisoned for twenty-four hours and pay a fine of £10.
It is a remarkable fact that no matter how great the depth of Langford’s folly, prominent citizens rallied about him in his trials and tribulations to give him their sympathy and, on more than one occasion, monetary assistance. No doubt, he possessed a great deal of personal charm, was popular in the taverns, and few could forget his lavish hospitality. It is not at all unlikely that Mrs. Langford and her daughters were liked and esteemed throughout the Victoria district. On the other hand, it is probable that the Douglas régime was so unpopular that a section of the population would support any man who attacked it, whatever his folly. Stupid as Langford had been in Court, it was only a matter of minutes before his friends took up his cause. Chief Justice Cameron had just reached his chamber when Yates, Skinner, Meyers, and three or four others literally forced their way into his presence and asked him to alter the order that he had just made to the Sheriff. They admitted that Langford’s conduct could not be overlooked, but urged that his wife was dangerously ill, and that if she heard that her husband were confined to gaol it would have very grave consequences. For this reason, they asked the Chief Justice to rescind the imprisonment. Cameron pointed out that the dignity and authority of the Court must be maintained, but as he had no wish that Mrs. Langford should suffer, he promised to instruct the Sheriff to keep the prisoner in his own office as if he were arrested under a bailable writ.
A striking instance of the widespread sympathy that Langford enjoyed occurred on the day following his committal, when Judge Cameron found that the Sheriff had confined him for only two or three hours and had failed to collect the fine. He at once issued an order for Langford to be brought into Court that afternoon. Langford refused to appear, sending a letter in which he described the proceedings in Court on the day before as “vile and illegal” and threatened the Chief Justice with consequences of an unspecified nature if he enforced his order. Cameron, in the face of this act of defiance, gave instructions that he be brought into Court for interrogation. The Chief Justice found Langford in contempt, but deferred judgment on compassionate grounds. Some years later, when called upon by the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary of State for the Colonies, to explain his conduct of the case, Cameron wrote:
“ Judgment, however, was deferred, as I well knew he could not pay a fine, and for the sake of his family refrained from again committing him to custody. He was, therefore, from a motive of lenity, and as a precaution against future misconduct, only held on his recognizance to appear for judgment at some future time. This kept him quiet until he left the Colony, when his sureties were discharged.”
Upon his release from detention, Captain Langford was obliged to shoulder the heavy costs of his unsuccessful suit. When he had paid various Court expenses, he received a bill of costs to the extent of £87.6.2. This included Cary’s fee as counsel for King and payments due to witnesses whom Cary and his attorney, Drake, had called on behalf of their client. Langford, of course, refused to pay, filing a protest with the Registrar of the Supreme Court, and claiming an appeal to the Privy Council. As he was adamant in his refusal, the Sheriff secured an execution against his personal possessions, and on July 3 began to remove furniture from his house. Fortunately for the Langfords, Cary intervened, perhaps out of pity, perhaps because he had learned that the unhappy man would shortly be able to meet his obligations. Once again, Captain Langford’s friends came to his assistance. A committee headed by John Coles, James Yates, and Captain G. H. Richards raised $500, a large sum of money, and one that enabled Langford to pay in full.
Nearly three and a half months later, on November 3, 1860, the British Colonist startled its readers with the announcement that Attorney General Cary had been served with a summons to appear in the Police Court to answer a charge of obtaining money under false pretences from Edward Edwards Langford. The hearing took place on Monday, November 5, before Mr. Pemberton. Langford, who by this time had completely thrown off whatever vestiges of reason and restraint he possessed, charged that Cary had pocketed money which, according to the bill of costs, was due to witnesses who had appeared on behalf of Captain King in the recent libel suit. It was a noisy hearing, perhaps the most disorderly in the colonial period. Cary, choking with rage, informed the Court on several occasions that as soon as the case was over he would prefer a charge against Langford for wilful and malicious perjury. When pressed too hard in cross-examination, Langford turned to the Magistrate to beg his protection, stating that he occupied a distressing position as all the legal profession were against him! Finally, when the combatants had called each other liars and damned liars, Magistrate Pemberton dismissed the charge, stating that not a particle of evidence had been adduced to prove it, and that he would not have issued the summons had it not been to give Cary the opportunity to clear his character. He censured Captain Langford and sought to restrain Cary, who by this time was clamouring for Langford’s arrest.
Indeed, the case is scarcely worth recording were it not for certain accusations that were shouted about the Court. In this play within a play Captain Edward Hammond King took the leading role. It must be admitted that his part was a strange one, and in the absence of certain information it must remain to some extent the subject of conjecture. He had refused to divulge the name of the author of the squib to Langford, even when threatened with a suit for libel. Had the mysterious prankster promised to foot the bill if Langford won the case? From what transpired in Mr. Pemberton’s Court, it is apparent that some such agreement had been made. Langford, who was conducting his own case against Cary, had called King as a witness. The reporter, who had a sense of dramatic values, gave a verbatim account of King’s first sensational revelation:
”Mr. Langford—Did you ever pay Mr. Cary any money?
Ques.—From whom did you receive that money?
Ans.—From Mr. CHAS. GOOD!
Mr. Langford—The private secretary of the Governor?
When Captain King named Charles Good, there was a sensation in the Court, and some hissing was heard. As many of the reform faction had suspected, somebody close to the Government, either Good or another member of the Family-Company-Compact, had written the squib. Magistrate Pemberton had just assured Cary that he would consider the matter of issuing a warrant for Langford’s arrest when a scrimmage broke out near the door of the Courtroom. A barrister-at-law, a certain Mr. AIston, had been listening to the proceedings with considerable amusement and had, on one occasion, guffawed at some of Langford’s histrionics. While leaving the Court he encountered King, who by this time was in complete sympathy with Langford and was convinced that Cary was a rogue. According to the newspaper report, the altercation began as follows:
“At this moment, Mr. King said to Mr. Alston, who was preparing to leave the room: “Cary fabricated a bill of costs.” Mr. Alston. You lie, sir. Mr. King replied, “You’re a d—d liar,” and instantly struck Mr. Alston in the face with his fist. Great confusion ensued. The parties were at once separated, and Mr. K. placed under arrest. Mr. Alston made affidavit as to what had passed. Mr. King—Your honor, I only done to that man what I would do to any other. He called me a liar! and I will knock any man down that calls me that—at any time or in any place. The spectators, at this remark, shook the building with their applause—and all order was at an end for a moment. Mr. King continued his remarks and said that if he had been called a liar in the street, he would have horsewhipped Alston from one end of the town to the other.”
Langford, who had been standing by all this time, was no doubt, like everybody else, in a great state of excitement. He created another furore by naming the authors of the squib:
“Mr. Langford—The authors of the libel against me were Matthew B. Begbie, Chief Justice of British Columbia, and Charles Good, the Governor’s private Secretary— Mr. King—And THE GOVERNOR, too! Mr. Langford—Yes; and Good, the Secretary, stuck them up around town before daylight on Sunday morning.
It is, of course, impossible to estimate the public reaction to these accusations. The feeling displayed in Court suggests that strong personal and political prejudices were involved. Under the arbitrary rule of Governor Douglas, a radical faction had emerged, and, the population being as small as it was, political issues were fought in terms of personalities. To many of the reformers, the squib was no Yuletide prank. In their eyes it was a slander deliberately written by Government officials to prevent their candidate from winning a seat in the Assembly. In that case there were some who were prepared to accept the charges against Begbie and Good, and while it is inconceivable that the august Douglas could have lent himself to this piece of undergraduate tomfoolery, there can be no doubt that his enemies relished the thought and came to regard him as one of the conspirators. It is worthy of note, however, that when Captain Langford carried his complaints to the Duke of Newcastle, he dropped the Governor’s name, restricting his charges to Begbie and Good.
Nearly two months later the Langfords returned to England. Captain Langford had been discharged by his employers, he was impoverished, and he had no hope left of public office. On the day of his departure, January 12, 1861, Amor de Cosmos wrote a glowing tribute to Langford, describing him as “an honest, straightforward, high-spirited Englishman” and a “supporter of time-honored usages as contrasted with the policy of a feudal corporation.” The British Colonist, regrettably, published few accounts of the social events of the day, and there is no record of any gatherings held in honour of the Langfords of Colwood.
According to Judge Begbie, whose testimony is always reliable as to matters of fact, friends and enemies alike made it possible for the embittered man to leave the colony. George Hunter Cary had taken steps to sue Langford for perjury, but at the request of “several country gentlemen,” and upon the advice of Donald Fraser, whom Langford had attacked so sharply, he had withdrawn the charge. Since Judge Begbie states that Langford was “ruined by his own wilfulness, levity & extravagance” and enabled “by the charity of those around him to leave the colony,” it may be presumed that his friends paid his passage home. As it is not at all unlikely that Langford was in debt to the Hudson’s Bay Company, Begbie’ s reference to the “undeserved mercy wch the company had extended to himself & his family” might be taken to mean that the officials had accommodated him generously in that matter. On the other hand, the Judge might be alluding to the fact that the officers of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company had permitted Langford to continue as bailiff of Esquimalt Farm as long as they did.
The records of Captain Langford’s activities on Vancouver Island are regrettably too few and too meagre to permit anything more than speculation as to the psychological mainsprings of his behaviour. None the less, there is to be discerned in his impulsiveness, his jealousy and anger when frustrated, his insubordination and insolence to employers in the face of their tolerance and generosity, a degree of emotional immaturity that might be characterized as adult infantilism. His subsequent conduct in England, where for the space of nearly three years he made bitter attacks on the officials of the colony, rounds out a pattern of irrationality and intransigence that is essentially juvenile.
Upon their arrival in England the Langfords took up residence in London, a situation which permitted the captain convenient access to the Colonial Office. He lost little time in mounting his attack. In a letter dated June 18, 1861, he submitted to the Duke of Newcastle “a statement containing complaints of a serious nature against certain Government officials in Vancouver Island.” Obviously writing under emotional stress, Langford named only two of the four officials whose conduct he considered disgraceful. These were Judge Begbie and Charles Good, both of whom were servants of the Government of British Columbia and had no official status in Vancouver Island. The latter was actually Chief Clerk in the Colonial Secretary’s office and acted as private secretary to the Governor only on the occasions of his absence in the Interior of British Columbia. The two officials whom Langford, in his confusion, did not mention by name, were Chief Justice David Cameron and Attorney-General George Hunter Cary, both of whom were public servants of the colony of Vancouver Island. Quoting a conversation with Captain King, Langford accused Judge Begbie of writing the squib, and Good of taking the manuscript to the printing office. In addition, he stated that Good informed King that Attorney-General Cary would defend him in the pending suit for libel and gave him £20 to pay for Cary’s services. With reference to Cameron, Langford charged that the proceedings in his Court during King’s trial “were of an improper, illegal, and vexatious character,” and that he, Langford, had been unjustly fined and imprisoned on a false charge of contempt of Court. Finally, he alleged that the Attorney-General had presented him with a bill of costs containing items that had never been paid.
Having lodged these complaints, Langford turned to the task of securing evidence to support his contention that David Cameron was unfitted for the high office of Chief Justice. He had apparently heard that Cameron had been in financial difficulties before coming to Vancouver Island and that he had been a bankrupt. Accordingly, he wrote to the Sheriff at Perth and the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Demerara for further information. These officials eventually sent Langford statements of Cameron’s transactions, which he at once for warded to the Colonial Office. Ten days later, on May 31, 1862, the Duke of Newcastle’s secretary, Chichester Fortescue, wrote to Langford to inform him that his charges ought either to have been brought for ward in the Legislative Assembly or transmitted through the Governor. He went on to state that the noble Duke found it impossible to take any other steps than that of sending his letters to Governor Douglas with instructions to submit them to Cameron, Begbie, and Good, and to forward to His Grace, with his own comments, whatever statements they might think it necessary to make on the subject.
On June 5, 1862, Langford wrote his third and final complaint to Newcastle. On this occasion he took issue with the noble Duke on the wisdom of sending his communications to the colonial authorities, hinting that the members of the Assembly were company men, and that Cameron and Good were related to Douglas by marriage. He attacked Cameron, expressed disappointment that His Grace had not dealt with his grievance more expeditiously, and accused Cary of fraud.
In accordance with the Duke of Newcastle’s instructions, Governor Douglas called upon the officials concerned for any explanations that they might have to offer. He wrote to His Grace on August 23, 1862, promising to forward all the official statements required, and a full account of the circumstances in connection with the appointment of David Cameron. As he evidently anticipated that a great deal of time would elapse before these documents reached London, Douglas took the opportunity of stating that the Chief Justice performed his duties with ability, and that his decisions gave general satisfaction. In closing, he reminded Newcastle of Langford’s complaints against Pemberton, and respectfully suggested to His Grace that a perusal of the correspondence dealing with those charges would throw a great deal of light on his character and his present proceedings.
After some delay, for which the Duke of Newcastle rebuked him, Douglas transmitted on February 14, 1863, statements from Cary, Good, and Begbie, and two detailed reports with enclosures from Cameron. He made no observations of his own on the reports of the first three officials, giving as his reason that the documents in question, if considered in connection with Langford’s correspondence, clearly disclosed his character and objects. In this manner James Douglas saved himself the embarrassment of commenting on the apparent complicity of his son-in-law, Charles Good, and of his ablest and most trusted official, Judge Matthew Baillie Begbie. With reference to Chief Justice Cameron, Douglas wrote a long dispatch in which he justified his appointment and expressed great satisfaction with the quality of his services. At the time of the establishment of the Supreme Court of Civil Justice in 1853, there were no lawyers in the colony, and as the Magistrates had permitted irregularities in their Courts, Douglas was compelled to look about for a provisional Judge, a man of superior character and ability. In his opinion, Cameron was the most fitting person, being, as he described him, “a man of good business habits, of liberal education, some legal knowledge, and what was equal to all, possessed of a more than ordinary amount of discretion and common sense.” With reference to Langford, whom he believed to have wanted the position for himself, Douglas continued:
“I would beg Your Grace to note that Mr. Langford was then the senior magistrate in the Colony, and it is not unnatural to assume from subsequent events that Mr. Langford, forming his own estimate of himself, must have viewed Mr. Cameron’s appointment to a superior position with much jealousy and heart-burning; and I may as well here state that I selected Mr. Cameron in preference to Mr. Langford, because an experience of nearly three years had shown me that Mr. Langford was singularly deficient in judgment, temper, and discretion, and was much inferior both in legal and general knowledge to Mr. Cameron.
Referring to the memorial that Staines, Cooper, and Langford had addressed to Newcastle in February, 1854, Douglas reminded the noble Duke that he had stated at the time that if Her Majesty’s Government thought the appointment improper, he had no desire to retain Cameron in the position, and had requested that a Judge be sent out from England. The authorities, however, had considered it desirable to retain Cameron, and without any solicitation on his part, Douglas continued, they had made his appointment a permanent one on May 5, 1856.
It remained for Chief Justice Cameron to answer those charges of Langford’s that affected himself and the administration of justice on Vancouver Island. With reference to his conduct of the Courts, he stated in a letter dated January 29, 1863, that Langford had actually made two allegations, the first of which was that “the proceedings in Court at the trial were of an improper, illegal, and vexatious character,” and the second, his assertion that “the purity of justice has been entirely overthrown in Vancouver Island, rendering the proceedings in the law courts in the Colony the theme of scorn and derision among the colonists, and also throughout the American territories in the Pacific.” Cameron’s answer to the first of these charges was an emphatic denial, which he supported with copies of the Court records. As to the second, he dismissed it as verbiage.
Four days later, in a letter dated February 2, 1863, Cameron answered Langford’s personal charges, which were as follows: “Mr. Cameron is a person of obscure origin, with no legal education what ever, and a very imperfect general one; he was an uncertificated bankrupt in Scotland, and was some time afterwards discharged as an insolvent debtor in Demerara, shortly before arriving in Vancouver Island.” Cameron brushed aside the snobbish references to his origin and education, stating that the alleged obscurity was a matter of indifference to everybody but Langford, and that the nature of his education was attested by the quality of his services. Turning to the serious allegations that he was a bankrupt and a discharged insolvent debtor, he wrote a long and lucid account of his business experiences in Scotland and Demerara. He admitted that as a young man in his early twenties he had failed in business in Perth and had been obliged to submit the state of his affairs to his creditors. Generous terms were arranged, however, his creditors agreeing to take a composition that was payable by instalments over a long period. In due time, when he had settled all the claims against him, Cameron wound up his affairs and left Scotland for Demerara in 1830. In concluding the account of his youthful misfortunes, he emphatically denied the charge of bankruptcy: “I have thus sketched my history at sufficient length to enable you to observe that my mercantile failure in early life was not of the nature charged by Mr. Langford. Unfortunate as it was, I never became a bankrupt, and therefore never was an uncertificated bankrupt.”
After spending some eight years as an overseer of a sugar plantation, Cameron purchased a small property on the Essequibo River. Here again misfortune befell him, this time in the form of acute labour troubles. Like almost every other proprietor in the colony, he suffered serious losses, and was finally obliged to surrender his estate and everything else he possessed in order to satisfy the claims against it. Despite these sacrifices, there still remained a residue of personal liabilities. His creditors, however, were satisfied with his surrender, and when, in 1851, he sought a legal discharge, his application went unopposed.
The Duke of Newcastle accepted this explanation without question and wrote to Governor Douglas on April 25, 1863: “Mr. Cameron’s letter appears to me very straightforward and satisfactory.”
Attorney-General Cary, whom Captain Langford had accused of obtaining money under false pretences in a fabricated bill of costs, answered the charge with clarity and precision. Referring to the depositions in the case, copies of which he had obtained from Magistrate Pemberton, he was able to show that certain witnesses had refused to accept their fees and that they had agreed to return the money to Langford. When he refused to accept it, they donated it to the hospital. According to the evidence, Cary continued, Langford had been aware of these facts at the time of swearing his first deposition and was therefore guilty of a deliberate perjury. At this point anger got the better of the Attorney-General, compelling him to relate, quite irrelevantly, how he had preferred charges against Langford and had with drawn them at the urgent request of a number of leading colonists. In closing, he stated his regret that his absence from England prevented him from bringing the complainant to the punishment suited to him for such a malignant libel on his professional character.
Newcastle was perfectly satisfied with this explanation. In a dispatch to Douglas dated April 23, 1863, he enclosed a copy of a letter which he had instructed Sir F. Rogers to write to Langford, informing him that His Grace saw no reason to question Mr. Cary’s statement.
Captain Langford, it will be recalled, had accused Judge Begbie and Charles Good of being the authors of the election squib, and had further alleged that Good had taken the manuscript to the printer and had subsequently posted the offensive placards about the town. When requested to comment on these charges, they did not deny their complicity, and for this reason, perhaps, are condemned more effectively than by Langford, whose allegations were unsupported by any evidence more tangible than that of the astonishing Captain King. Both letters may be regarded as masterpieces of legal evasion, and as they were written on the same day in New Westminster, it is not altogether unlikely that they were the fruit of a collusion in which Judge Begbie had an opportunity to exercise his professional talents. Good described Langford’s charge as absurd and stated that he had waited upon Captain King to ask him to explain why he had made such unwarranted statements. When confronted in this manner, King solemnly declared that he had never given such information to Langford, and that Langford’s assertion that he had done so was untrue. It then became apparent, Good continued, that Langford had two motives. As the author of the squib was well acquainted with the affairs of the Puget Sound Agricultural Company, he could be sought within a limited circle. In consequence, Langford hoped to extort denials successively from these individuals until, by a process of elimination, he arrived at the guilty person. His other motive was to besmirch the Government.
Judge Begbie’s observations on the charges laid by Captain Langford were not greatly different in substance from those of his friend Charles Good. He declared that the squib contained an accurate account of Langford’s character and conduct and stated that King’s allegations were without foundation. As in the case of Good, his failure to deny authorship of the squib is conspicuous, and for that reason leaves the reader convinced of his guilt. Be that as it may, it does not follow that the Judge’s observations are false. He has, on the contrary, left a pithy and shrewd commentary on the affair that is entirely consistent with the facts already brought forward. His comments are as follows:
“I entirely deny Mr. Langford’s right to have any answer from me, at this time, on this subject. He has never before thought fit to interrogate me either directly or indirectly. His only object evidently is to acquire, if possible, the means of continuing to annoy one or more persons for whom I feel a strong personal regard & esteem. He can now summon me and always could have summoned me, as a witness in any court of law. I decline now to answer him elsewhere, after the line of conduct he has thought proper to pursue.
For the satisfaction of His Grace however, and for His Excellency’s information, I have of course no difficulty or hesitation in making the following statement. I am not aware how far such official communications can be considered as confidential. But under the above circumstances, I hope that this may be deemed a privileged communication, so far at least as that the original may not be produced in any Court of law.
The only mention made of my name by Mr. Langford is where he states that Captn. King, the printer of the placard in question, once told him that I was the author.
I have no doubt but that Mr. Langford is in this instance speaking correctly: and Captn. King did once tell him so. But it is also true, and true to Mr. Langford’s own knowledge that Captn. King on various other occasions attributed the authorship to various other persons; all, I have no doubt, with equal confidence & sincerity, and equal ignorance of the truth. And I fully believe that were Captn. King now alive he wod. be just as ready to admit (as I believe the fact was) that he never had any knowledge at all on the subject. I am quite sure that neither he nor Mr. Langford ever had any grounds except their own imaginations for attributing it to me. I observe that Mr. Langford himself makes no statement whatever as to his present or former state of belief on this point.
It is probably quite unnecessary for me to add anything to what I have already stated. But since Mr. Langford has thought fit to cause me to be applied to for information on the subject, it may not be out of place that I shod. state my view of the placard and its contents—especially as, by reason of my peculiar position in Vancouver Island, entirely unconnected with the administration & holding no office or authority there of any description, and at the same time being on terms of personal intimacy with the officials both of the government and of the Hudson’s Bay Compy., and with many of the other settlers on the island, I had perhaps peculiar means of forming a correct estimate of Mr. Langford’s position, and conduct.
I am glad that, since Mr. Langford has thought proper to bring forward my name at all, he has connected it with a document not otherwise than creditable to its author. I do not know why that author shod. any longer wish to conceal his name (except for one reason wch I shall mention presently). The placard is a very temperately worded election squib. Notwithstanding Mr. Langford’s insinuations, there is not in it one scurrilous epithet nor one insulting allusion directed against him or any of his family: nor has he ever, so far as I am aware, attempted since its publication to deny one fact or to qualify one adjective contained in it. It is a dry statement of facts wch at that time were known to many people in the island, including of course Mr. Langford himself. And it wod. have been (with a few verbal alterations, and those not affecting him) a manly and decorous address for him to have really made to the public instead of the address on wch it is a parody. Undoubtedly, so plain a statement of undenied & undeniable facts took by surprise most of Mr. Langford’s supporters at that time, who were previously in ignorance of his real position.
As to what Mr. Langford calls an insulting allusion to his family, I have been wholly unable to discover any such in the placard. The only allusion to his family appears to have been copied from a clause in his own sealed agreement with the Puget Sound Company and is by no means insulting. Poverty is not (of itself) disgraceful—nor is it (in these colonies) an insult (except perhaps in Mr. Langford’s opinion) to suppose that any person, man woman or child, works for his daily bread. I have seen that agreement, by wch Mr. Langford bound himself in very stringent terms to be the working farm-servant of the Puget Sound Company and to be entirely submissive to the authority of the Company’s agent here. That agreement is entirely in accordance with the statements in the placard. I have also seen Mr. Langford’s letter to Mr. A. G. Dallas the then agent of the Company here (now Governor of Assiniboia) refusing accounts and couched in terms of insolence wch, between persons of equal rank, wod. undoubtedly have tended to provoke a breach of the peace—but wch, coming from a person in the position of a servant, and addressed to his master, were unnoticeable by Mr. Dallas, and simply prevented the possibility of any intercourse between master & servant except on the terms of unconditional submission on the part of the latter. That unconditional submission, Mr. Dallas informed me, was at last yielded: and Mr. Langford, when he was enabled, by the perhaps weak indulgence of Mr. Cary, & by the charity of those around him, to leave the colony, a man ruined by his own wilfulness, levity & extravagance, expressed with many tears his contrition for his past misconduct, and his grateful sense of the undeserved mercy wch the company had extended to himself & his family.
The real author of the placard in question wod. probably have been avowed long ago, were it not that he wod., if known, be exposed during Mr. Langford’s life to every description of annoyance (except personal violence) from a man who has shewn himself to be most unscrupulous, unreasonable, & litigious: capable therefore of inflicting a great amount of annoyance without the means of making the smallest compensation. And since Mr. Langford’s departure, he, & the placard, the action for libel and all the surrounding circumstances, have ceased to be of any interest to the public.
I wod. suggest that His Grace wod. derive more information concerning Mr. Langford & his grievances (wch may be also taken, to some extent, as indicating the tone of some other colonial grievances) from a perusal of the placard itself, of Mr. Langford’s agreement for taking service with the Puget Sound Company, & the witness of His Excellency, or of Mr. Dallas, or (probably) of any of the home directors of the Hudson’s Bay Compy., as to the truth or falsehood of the statements in the placard, than from any further observations of mine.
Judge Begbie is widely known as the “Hanging Judge.” With what greater justice could he be called the “Enigmatic Judge “! The entries in his diaries are in an antique shorthand, which yields nothing of importance when transcribed. He was on intimate terms with Governor Douglas, yet he has left scarcely a note on their conversations. In the same way, his part in the Langford imbroglio is obscure and must remain so for want of tangible evidence. Prima facie his statement on Langford’s charges is a tacit admission of implication. His intimate knowledge of every aspect of the case, his merciless and contemptuous account of Langford’s folly, the savage satire in the squib itself—all fuse into a pattern of convincing associations. On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that there is not a word of reliable evidence to prove that he and Good were implicated. Professor Morton attributes authorship to Kenneth McKenzie on the grounds that a copy of the placard in his handwriting is to be found in the McKenzie Papers. The handwriting, however, is clearly not Kenneth McKenzie’s, nor is it his son’s. It is not in the hand of Begbie, Good, Cary, or King. A casual glance at the McKenzie correspondence is sufficient to convince anyone that he could not have composed the squib that blew Captain Langford out of the colony, turned the Courts upside down, and eventually, in its last reverberations, reached the ears of Palmerston himself.
The Duke of Newcastle, however, entertained no doubts as to the identity of the guilty parties. On April 23, 1863, he wrote to inform Governor Douglas that while he had decided not to pursue an inquiry into the authorship of the squib, he could not countenance interference in party politics by Government officials. He administered a sharp rebuke, and though he mentioned no names, his intention was perfectly clear:
“While, however, I have declined to pursue an enquiry into the authorship of the placard complained of by Mr. Langford, I wish you to understand, and to make it understood by the Government officers of Vancouver Island and British Columbia, that an officer connected with the administration of justice is, in my opinion, bound to abstain scrupulously from all interference in party politics, and that other permanent officers of Government, though their duties are of necessity in some respects political, cannot, without injury to the public interest, be permitted to adopt that personal and aggressive mode of political warfare which is perhaps allowable to those who are not identified with the administration of affairs.
On the same day Sir F. Rogers wrote to Captain Langford to inform him that the Duke of Newcastle thought it unnecessary to pursue his complaints any further. His Grace was of the opinion that as Langford had felt aggrieved by the placard, he had taken a proper course in bringing an action for libel. Had it proved to be false or malicious, he might have considered it his duty to inquire whether any Government servants were concerned, but as Langford himself had caused the action to break down, Newcastle thought it unnecessary and undesirable to reopen the question. At the same time, he felt that Langford had been justly punished for a serious contempt of Court. Finally, His Grace declined to inquire into the authorship of the squib.
Undaunted by these reverses, Captain Langford carried out the threat he had made when leaving the colony. He sought out Fitzwilliam, who appears to have mistrusted the officials of the Colonial Office, and induced him to carry his complaints to the House of Commons. On July 10, 1863, Fitzwilliam duly moved an address for copies of all the correspondence dealing with Langford’s grievances. A dispute arose as to whether the motion should contain the customary words “copies or extracts” or merely “copies.” Mr. Chichester Fortescue, Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, insisted on the customary procedure, and assured Fitzwilliam that his suspicion that the officials of the Colonial Office would omit something of importance was unfounded. Eventually Lord Palmerston intervened, and after some hesitation Fitzwilliam consented to the insertion of the words “or extracts.” On the advice of the Speaker the motion was withdrawn and taken as an unopposed return, which was approved on July 13, and on the twenty-fourth of the same month the Colonial Office made the return.
As no further action was taken, Langford was at last compelled to accept defeat. It must be admitted that Captain Langford fought long and hard against the Governor and officials of the Crown Colony of Vancouver Island. There were, no doubt, many of his friends and supporters who subscribed to the sentiments of Amor de Cosmos when he paid tribute to him as an honest opponent of arbitrary government and political privilege. When Langford left the colony an impoverished and beaten man, it may have occurred to de Cosmos, who had allocated to himself the mantle of Joseph Howe, that this Island reformer was another Robert Gourlay. But, truth be told, Langford was neither reformer nor martyr. His incompetence and folly had led inevitably to failure in his various enterprises, and in the face of disaster he struck out with the violence and unreason of the emotionally immature. The Government being the object of his animosity, he naturally joined the reform faction and, like Staines before him, became an agitator. As a champion of reform he was undoubtably right, but right for the wrong reasons.
Sidney G. Pettit, Victoria College, Victoria, B.C.
1] Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 3rd series, CI, p. 473 (House of Lords, August 24, 1848, speech by Earl Grey)
 “Royal Grant of Vancouver’s Island to the Hudson’s Bay Company, dated January 13, 1849,” in Papers relative to the Grant of Vancouver’s island to the Hudson’s Bay Company, London, 1849 [Parliamentary Papers, House of Com mons, 103 of 1849], pp. 13—16. This has been reprinted in E. 0. S. Scholefield and F. W. Howay, British Columbia, Vancouver , Vol. I, pp. 676—680.
 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 3rd series, CI, pp. 263—3 05 (House of Commons, August 18, 1848); ibid., p. 315 (House of Commons, August 21, 1848); ibid., pp. 465—480 (House of Lords, August 24, 1848).
 Arthur S. Morton, A History of the Canadian West to 1870—71, Toronto, 1939, p. 768.
 Alfred Waddington, The Fraser Mines Vindicated, Victoria, 1858, p. 15.
 Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson’s Bay Company, London, 1857 [Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons, 197 of 1857], p. 293. Also reprinted in Scholefield and Howay, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 524—526, and Alexander Begg, History of British Columbia, Toronto, 1894, pp. 196—197.
 Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1857, pp. 190—191, 193—196, 202, 285, 289, 290, 293.
 Governor Blanshard’s evidence before the Select Committee in the House of Commons on June 15, 1857, as reprinted in the Victoria British Colonist, June 3, 1859.
 J. S. Helmcken, Reminiscences, Vol. III, p. 73, MS., Archives of B.C.
 ibid., Vol. III, p. 96.
 An unsigned copy of Langford’s contract is in the Kenneth McKenzie Papers, MS., Archives of B.C.
 W. Kaye Lamb (ed.), “The Census of Vancouver Island, 1855,” British Columbia Historical Quarterly, IV (1940), pp. 54—58. The original MS. is in the Archives of B.C.
 J. S. Helmcken, Reminiscences, Vol. III, pp. 50—51.
 Douglas to Newcastle, July 28, 1853, and Douglas to Newcastle, January 7, 1854, MS., Archives of B.C.
 Douglas to Newcastle, January 7, 1854, MS., Archives of B.C. This dispatch is reprinted in Papers relating to Vancouver Island [Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons, 507 of 1863, hereafter cited as P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863], p. 37. See also E. 0. S. Scholefield (ed.), Minutes of the Council of Vancouver Island • . . August 30th, 1851, . . . [to] February 6th, 1861, Victoria, 1918 [Archives of British Columbia Memoir No. II], pp. 22—23. Douglas was authorized to pass Letters Patent under the Public Seal of Vancouver Island appointing Cameron Chief Justice of the colony in 1856. Labouchere to Douglas, May 5, 1856, MS., Archives of B.C., reprinted in P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, p. 46.
 Enclosures in Grey to Douglas, August 20, 1854, reprinted in P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, pp. 43—45.
 For Staines’s part in this controversy see 0. Hollis Slater, “Rev. Robert John Staines: Pioneer Priest, Pedagogue, and Political Agitator,” British Columbia Historical Quarterly, XIV (1950), pp. 217—227 passim.
 P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, p. 43.
 Ibid., pp. 38—41.
 Ibid., pp. 45—46.
 Report from the Select Committee on the Hudson’s Bay Company, 1857, pp. 190, 191, 193—196, 202.
 0. Hollis Slater, op. cit., pp. 187—240 passim.
 A. Colvile and H. H. Berens to Kenneth McKenzie, July 19, 1855, MS., Kenneth McKenzie Papers, Archives of B.C.
 A. Colvile and H. H. Berens to Kenneth McKenzie, January 30, 1856, MS., Kenneth McKenzie Papers, Archives of B.C.
 J. S. Helmcken, Reminiscences, Vol. III, p. 3.
 A. Colvile and H. H. Berens to Kenneth McKenzie, January 30, 1856, MS., Kenneth McKenzie Papers, Archives of B.C.
 A Colvile and H. H. Berens to Kenneth McKenzie, July 19, 1855, MS., Kenneth McKenzie Papers, Archives of B.C.
 A. Colvile and H. H. Berens to Kenneth McKenzie, January 30, 1856, MS., Kenneth McKenzie Papers, Archives of B.C.
 Charles Good to Colonial Secretary, December 23, 1862, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, reprinted in P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, p. 29.
 “We wish you to look out for some proper person to take the farm which Mr. Langford had, upon the same terms that you and Mr. Skinner receive,” A. Colvile and H. H. Berens to Kenneth McKenzie, January 30, 1856, MS., Kenneth McKenzie Papers, Archives of B.C.
 Begbie to W. A. G. Young, December 23, 1862, MS., Begbie Letters, Archives of B.C.
 Labouchere to Douglas, February 28, 1856, MS., Archives of B.C. Reprinted in Correspondence relating to the Establishment of a Representative Assembly at Vancouver’s Island [Parliamentary Paper, House of Commons, 229 of 1857, 2nd Session], p. 3.
 Douglas to Labouchere, May 22, 1856, ibid., p. 6.
 E. 0. S. Scholefield (ed.), op. cit., pp. 29—30
 E. 0. S. Scholefield (ed.), Minutes of the House of Assembly of Vancouver Island, August 12th, 1856, to September 25th, 1858, Victoria, 1918 [Archives of British Columbia Memoir No. III], pp. 17—18.
 Ibid., p. 18.
 Ibid., pp. 20—21.
 Langford to Douglas, December 17, 1859; Pemberton to Douglas, December 20, 1859; and Douglas to Newcastle, March 23, 1860, MS., Archives of B.C. Reprinted in P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, pp. 5, 6, 13.
 Victoria Gazette, December 5 and 9, 1859.
 Victoria British Colonist, December 3, 1859.
 The testimonial to Langford, requesting him to accept $500 to defray the costs of the lawsuit “into which you entered with a view to the discovery of the author of a most insulting attack on the members of your family,” was signed by John Coles, Geo. Henry Richards, and James Yates for the committee. Ibid., July 24, 1860. Chief Justice Cameron also stated “Judgment, however, was deferred, as I well knew he could not pay a fine. . . .“ Cameron to Colonial Secretary, February 2, 1863, P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, p. 33
 Langford to Douglas, December 17, 1859, enclosure in Langford to Newcastle, March 10, 1860, ibid., p. 4.
 Pemberton to Douglas, December 20, 1859, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, March 23, 1860, ibid., p. 15.
 Douglas to Newcastle, March 23, 1860, ibid., p. 13. See also G. H. Cary to Langford, January 2, 1860, enclosure in Langford to Newcastle, March 10, 1860, ibid., p. 5.
 Langford to Cary, January 3, 1860, enclosure in Langford to Newcastle, March 10, 1860, ibid., p. 5.
 W. A. G. Young to Langford, February 4, 1860, enclosure in Langford to Newcastle, March 10, 1860, ibid., p. 6.
 Langford to Douglas, March 10, 1860, enclosure in Langford to New castle, March 10, 1860, ibid., p. 7
 Wallace’s affidavit, dated March 20, 1860, was enclosed in Langford to Newcastle, March 10, 1860, ibid., p. 7.
 Douglas to Newcastle, March 23, 1860, ibid., pp. 13—14.
 G. C. Lewis to Douglas, July 26, 1860, ibid., p. 16.
 Victoria Gazette, January 2, 1860.
 B. 0. S. Scholefield (ed.), Minutes of the Council of Vancouver Island, p. 32.
 Douglas to Labouchere, May 22, 1856, P.P., H.C., 229 of 1857, 2nd Sess., p. 6.
 A phrase used by Amor de Cosmos to designate the Douglas administration. See Margaret Ross, Amor de Cosmos, A British Columbia Reformer, M.A. thesis accepted by the University of British Columbia, 1931, p. 24.
 Langford to Douglas, July 4, 1860, MS., Archives of B.C.
 Good to Colonial Secretary, December 23, 1862, P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, p. 29.
 A copy of this squib is preserved in the Archives of B.C.
 Victoria British Colonist, January 5, 1860.
 Begbie to W. A. G. Young, December 23, 1862, MS., Archives of B.C. See also Good to Colonial Secretary, December 13, 1862, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, p. 29.
 “Copy of Judge’s Notes, Tuesday the 12th day of April A.D. 1860,” entered as exhibit (C) in Chief Justice David Cameron to Colonial Secretary, January 29, 1863, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., p.25 if.
 Madge Wolfenden, “The Early Government Gazettes,” British Columbia Historical Quarterly, VII (1943), pp. 171—190 passim.
 There are two sources for the Langford v. King case. The first is in the document submitted by Douglas to Newcastle in his dispatch of February 14, 1863, as printed in P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, pp. 22—27. The second is the Victoria British Colonist, April 19, 1860. The accounts of the trial as given in the news paper are accurate in so far as they can be compared with the official documents cited above.
 Victoria British Colonist, April 19, 1860.
 “Copy of Judge’s Notes, Tuesday the 12th day of April A.D. 1860,” entered as exhibit (C) in Chief Justice David Cameron to Colonial Secretary, January 29, 1863, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, p. 25.
 Cameron to Colonial Secretary, February 2, 1863, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., p. 33.
 Copy of the trial record with judgment signed June 12, 1860, entered as exhibit (A) in Chief Justice David Cameron to Colonial Secretary, January 29, 1863, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., p. 24.
 Langford to Douglas, July 4, 1860, MS., Archives of B.C.
 0. H. Cary to Colonial Secretary, September 12, 1862, and William Culverwell’s deposition, enclosures in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, pp. 18—19.
 John Coles, James Yates, Geo. Henry Richards, Committee, to Langford, July 12, 1860, printed in Victoria British Colonist, July 24, 1860.
 Ibid., November 6, 1860.
 Ibid., Captain E. H. King was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for contempt of Court on November 6, but some days later was pardoned by Governor Douglas. Ibid., November 7 and 20, 1860.
 ibid., November 6, 1860.
 Langford to Newcastle, June 18, 1861, P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, pp. 7—8.
 Charles Good to Colonial Secretary, December 23, 1862, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., p. 29.
 Begbie to Young, December 23, 1862, MS., Archives of B.C
 Langford to Newcastle, June 18, 1861, P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, p. 7.
 James C. Hitzler, Pro Registrar, Demerara, to Langford, June 24, 1861, arid Arch. Reid to Langford, November 11, 1861, enclosure in Langford to New castle, May 21, 1863, ibid., p. 9.
 C. Fortescue to Langford, May 31, 1862, ibid., p. 9.
 Langford to Newcastle, June 5, 1862, ibid., p. 10.
 Newcastle to Douglas, June 2, 1862, and Newcastle to Douglas, June 19, 1862, ibid., pp. 16—17.
 Douglas to Newcastle, August 23, 1862, ibid., p. 17.
 Newcastle to Douglas, March 5, 1863, ibid., p. 35; Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., p. 22.
 Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., p. 30.
 Cameron to Colonial Secretary, January 29, 1863, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., p. 23.
 Langford to Newcastle, June 2, 1862, ibid., p. 10.
 Cameron to Colonial Secretary, February 2, 1863, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., pp. 32—34.
 Newcastle to Douglas, April 25, 1863, ibid., p. 36.
 Cary to Colonial Secretary, September 12, 1862, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., p. 18.
 Newcastle to Douglas, April 23, 1863, ibid., p. 36; Sir F. Rogers to Lang ford, April 23, 1863, ibid., pp. 11—12.
 Charles Good to Colonial Secretary, December 23, 1862, enclosure in Douglas to Newcastle, February 14, 1863, ibid., pp. 29—30.
 Begbie to Colonial Secretary, December 23, 1862, ibid., pp. 27—28.
 Begbie to Colonial Secretary, December 23, 1862; this version is from the manuscript copy in the Archives of B.C.
 A. S. Morton, op. cit., p. 784.
 Victoria British Colonist, September 4, 1863.
 Newcastle to Douglas, April 23, 1863, P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863, p. 36.
 Sir F. Rogers to Langford, April 23, 1863, ibid., p. 11.
 Victoria British Colonist, September 4, 1863.
 Hansard, Parliamentary Debates, 3rd series, CLXXII (House of Com mons, July 10 and 13, 1863), pp. 574—577. The papers as tabled are P.P., H.C., 507 of 1863.