No. 62
               
            
            
               
               
                     Downing Street,
                     
                  
               7 May 1859
               
               Sir,
                
            
            
               I have had before me your despatch, N
o 104, of the 
19th of
                  February, with a copy of a Proclamation which you had issued for
               regulating the disposal of the Crown Lands in 
British Columbia.
               
 
            
            
               You will since have learned from my despatch
No 16
 N
o 16 of the 
7th
                  of February last, the principles which it appeared to me desirable to
               follow on this subject.  I am glad to perceive that the same views have
               very much prevailed in preparing the rules which you have announced, and
               I have no objection to their general tenor.
               
 
            
            
               I trust, however, that on the receipt of my former despatch you may
               have been led to reconsider the question of deferring payment of one
moiety
               moiety of the purchase money for two years.  If ten shillings an acre
               be a higher price than can be reasonably expected to be paid in cash, on
               which point I should be quite prepared to defer to such judgment as you
               may form, I cannot but think that a smaller price with prompt payment
               would be preferable to incurring the numerous difficulties which
               invariably surround the attempt to enforce payment by instalments.
               
 Under
            
            
            
               Under the present rules, if payment of the second moiety should be
               resisted, it would be extremely difficult to eject persons who by the
               very conditions of the case would have been in occupation of their lands
               for a period of two years.  And again, if some of the land-owners do pay
               their obligation, whilst others do not, a grievance arises out of the
               distinction.  For these reasons and for others adverted to in my
               previous despatch,
I
 I shall still be glad that you should give this
               provision your reconsideration as to future sales.  The terms of sales
               already effected cannot of course be altered.
               
 
            
            
               The proposed reservation of one fourth of the lots in the proposed
               Capital for sale in the United Kingdom and the British Colonies appears
               to me decidedly objectionable. It can be of no use except to stimulate
               the acquisition of property by non-residents.
This
 This is one of the worst
               evils to which a new community is liable.  The lots are bought by
               speculators who hold them on a chance of a rise in value, with the
               effect in the meanwhile of obstructing the progress of the Town,
               interrupting its communications, and creating a nuisance to the holders
               of adjoining lots.  This provision should be rescinded; and if there be
               any places either in the United Kingdom, or in other
Colonies,
 Colonies, in which
               you have already empowered any Agents to sell specific lots, you should
               immediately recall those powers, but recognising of course any sales
               effected before the receipt of such revocation.