No. 64

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your despatches No. 78 of the
24th of August and No. 81 of the same date, the former containing your
comments on Captain Clarke's scheme for the disposal of land in British
Columbia, the latter transmitting a report from Mr Justice Begbie on
the same subject.

You inform me that the land regulations of British Columbia
including the provisions of the preemption Act of

1860 contain
substantially all the important suggestions in Captain Clarke's scheme.
The only material difference between the two being the acceptance in
British Columbia of deferred payments for lands sold and the
reservations to the Crown of Gold and Silver on lands sold to
individuals.

In respect to the first of these points, I believe that,
theoretically, the arguments in favor of prompt payment are conclusive,
on the other hand I can readily understand that from the peculiar
character of the population, and the great inducement for the employment
of capital, at present, in gold seeking rather than in the cultivation
of the Land, the system cannot be enforced practically in British
Columbia

without creating more inconvenience that it is designed to
prevent. Upon the whole, therefore, and looking moreover to the general
prevalence of deferred payments on the American Continent, I am willing
that for the present, the system which you consider essential to the
progress of the Colony should be continued.

With regard to the reservation of the Crown's right to the
precious metals in sales to private individuals, the reasons which you
give for deeming it desirable for public interests that the reservation
should be maintained, until the Country has been more completely
surveyed, appear to me to be satisfactory, and I accordingly approve
your decision

in this matter.

It remains therefore for me to convey to you Her Majesty's sanction,
which had been withheld pending the receipt of your report, of the
"Preemption Act of 1860," by which the foregoing regulations are
enacted. You will doubtless not have overlooked the amendments in the
Act which were suggested in my despatch No. 23 of the 7th of May,
and a further amendment (clause 7) will appear to have become necessary
in consequence of the reduction in the minimum price per acre of Crown
Land which has been effected during the course of this correspondence.

In conclusion I have to request that you will convey to Mr. Begbie
my thanks for the interesting report which he has supplied on these
subjects.