Murdoch to Rogers (Permanent Under-Secretary)

I have to acknowledge your letter of 27th ulto with a despatch
from the Governor of B. Columbia enclosing a letter from the
Attorney General of the Colony on the subject of the issue of
grants to certain persons who purchased land in the District of
Victoria, Vancouvers Island, prior to the retransfer of the
Island to the Crown.

2. The purchasers in question had not completed their payments
and therefore had not received title prior to the
retransfer—but have since paid the remaining instalments of the
purchase money to the local Government. The Attorney General
points out that in the Deed of reconveyance of the Island there
are excepted "all lands situate in the Victoria District
which may have been sold previous to the 1st day of January
1862," and expresses a belief that it was intended by these
words to except only the Hudsons Bay Company's private property.
But he says the words go beyond this and apply to all lands
sold by the Company in the Victoria District—from which it
follows that the legal estate in these cases still remains in
the hands of the Hudsons Bay Company.

3. We agree with the Attorney General that the legal estate of
the lands in question is in the Hudsons Bay Co—but he is
mistaken in supposing that this arises from any error or
oversight in drawing the Deed of reconveyance of Vancouver's
Island to the Crown. The Deed of 3rd January 1862 which
validated the sales made by the Hudsons Bay Co of lands in the
Victoria District held by them before Janry 1849, and
recognized their right to the proceeds of such sales, was
necessarily restricted to the Company's private property. But
in the deed of 3rd April 1867, by which the Island was
reconveyed to the Crown, this restriction was purposely
omitted—the object being to relieve the Crown of the necessity of
intervening between the Company and any of those who had
purchased from them. The whole of the lands therefore in the
Victoria District which had been sold by the Company before 1st
Janry 1862 were excepted from the reconveyance.

4. The Attorney General suggests that to provide for the issue
of valid titles to the purchasers of these lands or those who
hold through them the Hudsons Bay Co should be requested to
transfer to the Crown the legal Estate in order that the Crown
may issue titles. He considers that this would be much easier
and more satisfactory than that title should be issued direct by
the Hudsons Bay Co. We are we confess disposed to prefer the
latter course, as protecting the Crown from the possible
responsibilities involved in the completion and confirmation of
contracts made not with it but with the Company. If in
completing these contracts the Company is likely to experience
any difficulties (of the nature & extent of which we have no
means of judging) a short special Ordinance might be passed to
remove them, and to bring the transactions within the scope of
Ordinance No 4 of 1870 to which the Attorney General alludes.

5. Should Lord Kimberley concur in these views it might perhaps
be advisable in the first instance to refer the matter back to
the Colonial Authorities with an explanation of the true object
of the exception in the deed of reconveyance, and they might be
requested to submit for Lord Kimberley's approval the draft of
an Ordinance to facilitate the granting of titles to the lands
in question by the Company.

6. But if on the other hand Lord Kimberley should not deem this
course advisable then the matter might at once be referred to
the Hudsons Bay Co in order to ascertain their views thereon.