Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Public Offices document
Mackean, Thomas William Lockwood to Elliot, Thomas Frederick 11 February 1864, CO 60:20, no. 1205, 97.
Abstract
Public Offices document.
Minutes (5), Other documents (2), Marginalia (1).
Mackean, on behalf of the British Columbia Co. Limited, asserts that regulations in British Columbia and Vancouver Island are prohibitive towards companies interested in mining operations in the colonies.
He asks if the colonies can
concede to any Company now formed or that may be formed the privilege of holding in their corporate capacity a sufficient extent of ground as freehold, for mining and agricultural purposes payment of a royalty to the Colony on all ore sold exempting them from any further charge.Blackwood’s minute disagrees with the complaint and refers to Douglas’s version of
existing Laws of B.C. as to Land, & minesand to successes of small mining companies in the colonies. While Blackwood is open to
Amendmentsto current legislation, he considers any large corporate failings to be on the part of the company and not the law.
Mackean to Elliot (Assistant Under-Secretary)
About a year ago a Company was formed in London called "The
British Columbia Co. Limited" with a capital of £3500 as a
preliminary to operations on an extended scale. The Directors
of this Company sent out three or four practical men to report to
them on the prospects of mining &c. The great drawback to extending
their operations has arisen from the existing laws regarding the
holding of mining property, quite inadequate to induce the public
to invest their capital unless considerable concessions were given
by the Colonies of British Columbia and Vancouver Island to any
Company willing to develope their resources.
For this purpose I address you to know if you could concede
to any Company now formed or that may be formed the privilege of
holding in their corporate capacity a sufficient extent of ground
as freehold, for mining and agricultural purposes
payment of a royalty
to the Colony on all ore sold exempting them from any further charge.
payment of a royalty
to the Colony on all ore sold exempting them from any further charge.
I merely put this forward for your consideration and to know
what concession H.M. Government will be prepared to grant.
I am the more anxious in this matter as H.E. Governor Seymour
is at present in England and you might wish to consult him on
the question, and I am desirous that no delay should occur by
referring to the Colony as it would take at least six months
before anything definite could be accomplished.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
I wish to refer you to Sec. 4 of Sir J. Douglas' desph of the 13 Novr 63/12536 in which he gives a very different version of the operation of the Gold fields Act, & instances a case in which, under the existing Laws of B.C. as to Land, & mines, a small body of people, with industry & skill, and aided, I shd judge, with no great amount of capital, has "won the admiration" of the district Gold Commissioner, & it is to be hoped, profitable results to itself. And the case the Govr mentions is not a solitary one. If then success can be achieved by a small association of Individuals under the operation of the Laws, as now framed, I cannot think that the "draw back" complained of in this letter is very great. Amendments perhaps may be requisite from time to time. Moreover will it be just towards the enterprizing miners, who are the backbone of the Country, to place them at a disadvantage by granting concessions & privileges to a Company, or any association of Individuals? My opinion is that if a Co, aided by capital, cannot succeed, when small folks do, there must be mismanagement in the proceedings of the former. The course shd be open to all comers, & no favor. But Mr Mackean seems to ask for his Co that it may hold, in its corporate capacity, land, as a freehold for mining & agricultural purposes, a royalty being levied on all ore—which royalty shd exempt the Co from any further
charge. Now this Cy may purchase outright any Land it
may select for agricultural purposes at 4/2 an acre: but land
for mining purposes can only be obtained on lease. This may
be a restriction on capitalists & may justify a revision of
the Mining Laws. But such revision could only be effected by
the Legislative Council. A reference, therefore, to Mr Seymour,
telling him to take the subject into his consideration, &
confer with the local Authorities is, I apprehend, the first
& only step this Office can take at present.
I wish to refer you to Sec. 4 of Sir J. Douglas' desph of the 13 Novr 63/12536 in which he gives a very different version of the operation of the Gold fields Act, & instances a case in which, under the existing Laws of B.C. as to Land, & mines, a small body of people, with industry & skill, and aided, I shd judge, with no great amount of capital, has "won the admiration" of the district Gold Commissioner, & it is to be hoped, profitable results to itself. And the case the Govr mentions is not a solitary one. If then success can be achieved by a small association of Individuals under the operation of the Laws, as now framed, I cannot think that the "draw back" complained of in this letter is very great. Amendments perhaps may be requisite from time to time. Moreover will it be just towards the enterprizing miners, who are the backbone of the Country, to place them at a disadvantage by granting concessions & privileges to a Company, or any association of Individuals? My opinion is that if a Co, aided by capital, cannot succeed, when small folks do, there must be mismanagement in the proceedings of the former. The course shd be open to all comers, & no favor. But Mr Mackean seems to ask for his Co that it may hold, in its corporate capacity, land, as a freehold for mining & agricultural purposes, a royalty being levied on all ore—which royalty shd exempt the Co from any further
charge. Now this Cy may purchase outright any Land it
may select for agricultural purposes at 4/2 an acre: but land
for mining purposes can only be obtained on lease. This may
be a restriction on capitalists & may justify a revision of
the Mining Laws. But such revision could only be effected by
the Legislative Council. A reference, therefore, to Mr Seymour,
telling him to take the subject into his consideration, &
confer with the local Authorities is, I apprehend, the first
& only step this Office can take at present.
ABd
12 Feb
Mr Fortescue
I have conferred on this subject with Mr Seymour. In conversation with him Mr Mackean had only spoken of the advantage of allowing Companies to be formed for working gold: he said that the state of the law of Columbia was adverse to the creation of such Companies. In the present letter he has mixed up the separate question of a Land Company.
I have conferred on this subject with Mr Seymour. In conversation with him Mr Mackean had only spoken of the advantage of allowing Companies to be formed for working gold: he said that the state of the law of Columbia was adverse to the creation of such Companies. In the present letter he has mixed up the separate question of a Land Company.
I have no doubt that it is desirable that capital should
be applied systematically to the getting of gold, andtherefore
therefore
that the formation of Companies for that purpose under due
conditions should not be discouraged. But you will see by a
memo: annexed from Mr Ebden, whom I requested to look into
the local laws, that the mines have never been conveyed away
with the land, but have been reserved to the Crown to be leased
on suitable terms. I think that to this we ought to adhere.
therefore
that the formation of Companies for that purpose under due
conditions should not be discouraged. But you will see by a
memo: annexed from Mr Ebden, whom I requested to look into
the local laws, that the mines have never been conveyed away
with the land, but have been reserved to the Crown to be leased
on suitable terms. I think that to this we ought to adhere.
I should write by the next Mail to Mr Seymour, forwarding
a copy of this letter and expressing some such opinion as above,
and saying that the Secretary of State would be glad to consider
any suggestions which may occur to him on the terms on which
Companies might properly be encouraged to look for a lease of Mines.
I apprehend that these terms should probably be the same whether
in respect of mines found upon lands of which the Company might
have acquired the freehold, or upon lands which still belong to the
Crown.
I should answer Mr Mackean that the purchase of lands
by a Company for agricultural purposes and the acquisitionby
by
it of mining rights must be viewed as two distinct subjects,
and that in conformity with the practice established in
Australia, as well as in British Columbia, the rights to
minerals must be reserved in alienating the Crown lands, but
that this would not prevent the leasing of them on fair and
moderate terms. I would state that the new Governor had
been requested to consider the subject, and report on the
conditions under which it might be suitable to grant such leases
to any Companies possessed of sufficient capital to work them
with advantage to the Public.
by
it of mining rights must be viewed as two distinct subjects,
and that in conformity with the practice established in
Australia, as well as in British Columbia, the rights to
minerals must be reserved in alienating the Crown lands, but
that this would not prevent the leasing of them on fair and
moderate terms. I would state that the new Governor had
been requested to consider the subject, and report on the
conditions under which it might be suitable to grant such leases
to any Companies possessed of sufficient capital to work them
with advantage to the Public.
There are Australian Gold Companies, but I have not yet
been able to find that we have a record of the terms which
they enjoy. Unless any such should be brought to light before
this minute is executed,
I would suggest that we should write
to N.S. Wales and Victoria to ask the question, and that we
should mention to Governor Seymour that we have done so and
will apprize him of the result.
Mr Cox has [liner?] found an Act, Colony of Victoria. Send it to
Govr Seymour, instead of [those we?] proposed.
TFE
18/2
TFE
16 Feby
Duke of Newcastle
So Proceed?
So Proceed?
Mr Elliot
I have not been able to find any Colonial Act or other instrument specially establishing any Gold mining company.
I have not been able to find any Colonial Act or other instrument specially establishing any Gold mining company.
The drift of Colonial enactments would appear to be
secure the full authority of the Crown over auriferous
land. Thus as in N.S. Wales leased Crown agricultural land
and as in B. Columbia preempted Crown Agricultural land
(in other words I suppose Crown land of which the occupier
has not the freehold or at most is only in the course of
acquiring it) are subject to reservation
of mining rights.
of mining rights.
The N.S. Wales, Victoria and B. Columbia Gold fields
Acts each contain a clause enabling the [Govt?] to lease
auriferous lands in return for rent whether in the shape
of royalty or otherwise, but I have not found any provision
for the Sale of such land i.e. for the surrender of the freehold.
Nor could I find any allusion to a company. The
possible lesser of auriferous land is spoken of as a person, but
perhaps the acts are elastic enough to admit companies to be lessees.
