Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Berens, Henry Hulse to Lytton, Sir Edward George Earle Bulwer 4 March 1859, CO 305:13, no. 2452, 93.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (2), Enclosures (untranscribed) (3), Other documents (1).
Berens elucidates the situation of Thetis Island of which the Admiralty has an interest in purchasing. According to Berens’s the island was purchased by the “Trustees of the fur branch” in order to sell at
original cost to the public. Thetis Island was purportedly bought by Jeremiah Nagle who defaulted and the island was subsequently sold by his creditors.
The minutes find Berens' story dubious and the manner of land sales conducted by the HBC under the ostensible
“sham name” of “Fur trade” as “suspicious.”
Included in this document is a draft from Merivale to the Secretary to the Admiralty, 18 March 1859, forwarding copy of the letter; an extract from Douglas to William G. Smith, Hudson's Bay Company, 5 March 1856, advising that he and John Work had purchased 24 acres in Esquimalt "on account of the Fur Trade concern" and explaining their reasons for doing so;
Douglas to Smith, 4 June 1857, advising of a further purchase of 119 acres on account of the fur trade; and Douglas to Smith, 9 July 1858, stating that Nagle had rejected offers of a settlement for Thetis Island, but as it was not expected that he would attempt to take forcible possession of
it, the Crown could probably claim the island without interference.
Berens to Lytton
4 March 1859
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Mr Merivale's letter
of the 24th ulto in which he acquaints me that before communicating
to the Admiralty my letter of the 10th ulto on the subject of the
Sale of Thetis Island you would be glad to have some further
explanation on one point. Mr Merivale then observes that by the
return forwarded with Captain Shepherd's letter of July 15th 1858,
the only lot of 24 acres sold at Esquimalt is stated to have been
sold to the Hudson's Bay Company, and he adds
"that as the subsequent sale by Auction, was not made by the Company
or any one acting for them" he infers that, "the lot must have passed
into the hands of some intermediate possessors."
In answer I beg to state that Thetis Island is a portion of the lot
of 24 acres on Esquimalt Bay
Bay which appears in Captain Shepherd's
return as having been sold to "The Hudson's Bay Company". But the
entry in the return in question is a mistake which seems to have
originated with the Colony Surveyor who in reporting the sale used
the words "Hudson's Bay Company" in place of the words "James Douglas
and John Work as Trustees for the Fur Trade" which is a subordinate
branch of the Hudson's Bay Company.
Bay which appears in Captain Shepherd's
return as having been sold to "The Hudson's Bay Company". But the
entry in the return in question is a mistake which seems to have
originated with the Colony Surveyor who in reporting the sale used
the words "Hudson's Bay Company" in place of the words "James Douglas
and John Work as Trustees for the Fur Trade" which is a subordinate
branch of the Hudson's Bay Company.
The history of the transaction is this. In 1856 it was felt by
Governor Douglas that one of the great impediments to the
Colonization of Vancouver's Island was the rule laid down by the
Government when the Grant of the Island was made to the Hudson's Bay
Company, by which they were prohibited from disposing of inappropriated
land to Settlers in lots of less than 20 acres. To obviate this
inconvenience Mr Douglas suggested that he and Mr Work another head
Officer of the Hudson's Bay Company in the Island should as Trustees
for the Fur Trade branch of the Company purchase one or more lots of
public land for the purpose of disposing of them afterwards at the
original cost, in small allotments to working people desirous of
becoming
becoming Settlers but unable to purchase larger lots. Accordingly
two or three lots were purchased for the purpose by "The Fur Trade"
and among them Lot 53 (of which Thetis Island is a part) and which
was sold in 5 acre lots with the exception of Thetis Island itself
(which consists of only one acre) and which was sold separately to a
person of the name of Jeremiah Nagle as may be seen by the return
made by the Governor of this Company to the Government on the 23rd
January 1858 where it figures under the head of "Suburban Lots No
35" with the price paid namely "£1:0:10. Herewith I have the honour of
enclosing extracts from letters addressed by Governor Douglas to the
Secretary of this Company in which the whole course of the affair
is traced. In the first (dated March 5th 1856) is set forth an
account of the purchase of the 24 acres in question and the object of
the purchase; in the second (dated 4th June 1857) an account is
given of the subsequent purchase of a still larger lot with similar
views; and the third, dated July 9, 1858 gives the latest account we
have
have received from the Island as to the position of the affair.
These Extracts make the object of all parties so clear that it is
unnecessary for me to add a word.
becoming Settlers but unable to purchase larger lots. Accordingly
two or three lots were purchased for the purpose by "The Fur Trade"
and among them Lot 53 (of which Thetis Island is a part) and which
was sold in 5 acre lots with the exception of Thetis Island itself
(which consists of only one acre) and which was sold separately to a
person of the name of Jeremiah Nagle as may be seen by the return
made by the Governor of this Company to the Government on the 23rd
January 1858 where it figures under the head of "Suburban Lots No
35" with the price paid namely "£1:0:10. Herewith I have the honour of
enclosing extracts from letters addressed by Governor Douglas to the
Secretary of this Company in which the whole course of the affair
is traced. In the first (dated March 5th 1856) is set forth an
account of the purchase of the 24 acres in question and the object of
the purchase; in the second (dated 4th June 1857) an account is
given of the subsequent purchase of a still larger lot with similar
views; and the third, dated July 9, 1858 gives the latest account we
have
have received from the Island as to the position of the affair.
These Extracts make the object of all parties so clear that it is
unnecessary for me to add a word.
With respect to the subsequent sale by Auction all that has come to
our knowledge is the fact that Mr Jeremiah Nagle the purchaser of
Thetis Island having afterwards got into difficulties had made over
that and other property to his Creditors, and as it appears from the
letter from the Secretary of the Admiralty to Mr Merivale which you
did me the honor to transmit to me that a Sale by Auction of the
Island had taken place as late as the 16th of January of the present
year, we have inferred that the Sale must have been made at the
instance of Mr Nagle's Creditors.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Merivale
I wonder if the Company has been pursuing this practice of selling Land to its own people with the view to a resale, for any length of time. It might be worth while to enquire—though only for our satisfaction. The proceeding is a suspicious one: & the statements in the Co's letter of the 10th Feb: & in this are repugnant to each other inasmuch as in the first it is said that the sale of the Land was not made by any body acting for the Co & in the second it appears that it was made by the Co to persons constituting a subordinate branch of their service.
I wonder if the Company has been pursuing this practice of selling Land to its own people with the view to a resale, for any length of time. It might be worth while to enquire—though only for our satisfaction. The proceeding is a suspicious one: & the statements in the Co's letter of the 10th Feb: & in this are repugnant to each other inasmuch as in the first it is said that the sale of the Land was not made by any body acting for the Co & in the second it appears that it was made by the Co to persons constituting a subordinate branch of their service.
The Land regulations in V.C.Id having been drawn up by the company I
presume the Govt is powerless and that we can do no more than
forward to the Admiralty copies of the 
correspondence in which we
have been engaged on their behalf.
correspondence in which we
have been engaged on their behalf.
ABd
7 March
I must say I agree with Mr Blackwood that the Company would cut a
very indifferent figure if transactions like this were laid bare
before a Committee or other investigating body. Being bound
not to sell public land in lots under 20 acres, they evade
this—for the good of small colonists as they say! by conveying
to themselves pieces of particularly eligible land, under some
sham name such as "Fur Trade", and then
reselling in small lots, & doubtless at a profit. I am not sure
in what shape the investigation of the Company's accounts at
Vancouver I. is at present, but it seems to me exceedingly
questionable whether all profits made in this way ought not to be set
off against 
what is due to them. It is not however likely the amount
is large.
what is due to them. It is not however likely the amount
is large.
This does not touch the question between the Co. & the Admiralty.
Mr Jeremiah Nagle's auditors have no doubt got hold of
Thetis island, owing to the remissness, or false economy, of the
Admiralty in not getting possession of it.
Other documents included in the file
Draft, Merivale to Secretary to the Admiralty, 18 March 1859,
forwarding copy of the letter.
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Extract, Douglas to William G. Smith, Hudson's Bay Company, 5
March 1856, advising that he and John Work had purchased 24 acres in
Esquimalt "on account of the Fur Trade concern" and explaining their
reasons for doing so.
Extract, Douglas to Smith, 9 July 1858, stating that Nagle had rejected
offers of a settlement for Thetis Island, but as it was not expected
that he would attempt to take forcible possession of it, the
Crown could probably claim the island without interference.