<persName ref="prs:corry_htl"><surname>Corry</surname>, <forename>Henry</forename> <forename>Thomas</forename> <forename>Lowry</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:carnarvon"><surname>Carnarvon</surname>, </persName> 20 April 1859, CO 305:12, no. 4250, 26.

See Memn 21 April. ABd V.C. Island. 4250 - Admy ) 3721 - B. of Trade ) 3328 - Admiralty ) 1859 3270 - Governor ) 2737 - " ) 2588 - Board of Trade )

Lord Carnarvon Adverting to the very strong memorandum which accompanies the Letter from the Board of Trade of the 7 April, to Capn Sulivan's unofficial communication attached thereto, and to the letter of R. Admiral Baynes, which has been received from the Admiralty (4250) this morning I am reluctantly constrained to say that I think this office would be neglecting the interests of the British Men of War, and of all Commercial vessels frequenting the Ports of VanCouver Island and British Columbia if we do not recommend the Treasury, as a matter of national importance & concern, to ask Parlt for a vote to establish Lights & houses in the places indicated in the correspondence. It must be borne in mind that safety of access to a commercial port—such as we indulge the hope that Esquimalt or Langley will become—will encourage vessels to frequent it. But let one or two Ship-wrecks occur and the navigation will obtain the reputation of being dangerous—the rate of insurances will be increased, and trade will be deterred; to say nothing of the loss of money which would ensue from such a disaster. It is true that the proposed Lights are required for the trade of these Colonies—but to whom will the vessels constituting that trade belong? Surely, for the chief part, to British Merchants, on whom, or on Lloyds, the losses of ships would devolve. This Country, therefore, in the end, will suffer from the absence of Lights, and we shall have to pay a heavy expense, when a ship is lost, which might have been avoided by the comparatively small charge of £7000. You will probably observe that this argument might be applied to all other Colonies similarly situated, and that the result would be to impose on Great Britain a very serious charge for the erection of Colonial Light-houses. I ansr that I am unaware of the necessity arising in any of our Colonies for a demand like this; those Colonies being, from one source or other, already provided with the needful accommodation, and that if there be any in the position of V.C.I. & Bh Columbia in this respect it is our duty, in the interests of our commerce, to render the needful aid. But to guard against too great a disposition to impose upon us charges which the Colony should have in some measure to bear I would propose that V.C.Isd & Bh Columbia should together pay a moiety of the expense not exceeding £7000—& that they should be at the expense of maintaining the lights. I would recommend the Treasury, as the matter is very urgent, to take a vote for the amount—and explain that Sir Edward Lytton will instruct the Governor to repay to the Imperial Exchequer the colonial proportion of the cost. ABd 21 April/59

I have considered this question very carefully and I do not see that we have any alternative. The division of the cost proposed by Mr Blackwood is fair: for it will be borne in mind that if one half of the Trade going to B. Columbia is Colonial, the other half coming from the Colony is general & British.

The necessary communications sd be made at once to the Treasury in order to apprize the GovrGovernor, if possible, by the mail of the 1st.

C Apl 23