Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Correspondence (private letter)
Nias, George Elmes to Wodehouse, John 24 March 1871, CO 60:44, no. 4959, 345.
Abstract
Nias, George Elmes to Wodehouse, John 24 March 1871, CO 60:44, no. 4959, 345.
Correspondence (private letter).
Minutes (11), Other documents (2).
Nias to Kimberley
Hall of Commerce
Melbourne
24 March/71
Melbourne
(Pre-Emption Claim to Land in Vancouver Island)
My Lord,
I am in receipt of a communication from the Colonial Office
dated the 17th January/71, in which I am informed that "the
Government of British Columbia dispute my Title to the land in
question" and that "my case will be dealt with by the local
Government when Dr Trimble's case is decided upon," and you
further state that "the matter appears to be one to be settled
by a Court of Law."
I must beg to remind your Lordship that it requires a large sum
of money to go to law with Government, that Government pay no
costs if defeated, and the costs would probably exceed the value
of the Land.
The Pre-emption Law was passed to benefit
bona fide
Settlers, and yet I (with hundreds of others) have been ruined
by the policy pursued by the British Columbian Government
officials. In 1862 there were 10,000 white people in the
Town
of Victoria, and 40,000 in the two Colonies of BC and VI. Now
there are about 4000 at the utmost. We were driven away by
folly and injustice.
Town
of Victoria, and 40,000 in the two Colonies of BC and VI. Now
there are about 4000 at the utmost. We were driven away by
folly and injustice.
I beg to submit that the BC Government have never given me
notice that they dispute my Title. But at the end of the Four
years which the Law required I should live upon it, refused to
give me a Title.
That I gave them notice of my intention to occupy the Land, by
recording my claims at the Land Office (as the Law requires) Mr
Pemberton (Surveyor General) himself receiving and recording the entry.
That I had to build a house upon the Land and live in it within
one month from the time of recording my claim. This I did do.
That I improved my claim by expending £600 upon it, and myself
and family resided upon it (as the law required)
and they are now residing upon it.
That at the end of four years when I was entitled to claim a
Title—on application I was told that
I had no business to pre-empt that land and that I never
should have a title.
I submit That having allowed me to record my claim—having
allowed me to build my house—Fence in the land—Dig Wells at a
very heavy expense—reside for years on the Land—and comply inevery
every respect with the very stringent law, without giving me
notice that I was doing wrong. The Government of BC are bound
in honor—in justice—by equity—by every obligation which can
bind Governments and their Subjects, to complete the contract
they entered into with me by the Pre-emption Law and give me a Title.
every respect with the very stringent law, without giving me
notice that I was doing wrong. The Government of BC are bound
in honor—in justice—by equity—by every obligation which can
bind Governments and their Subjects, to complete the contract
they entered into with me by the Pre-emption Law and give me a Title.
The Land is Government Land, marked so on the Large Map sent
home by the Hudson Bay Company in
1863 (I believe). No one else claims it openly.
Why then am I refused my Title? My character is unstained &
untainted, but I am poor. My newspaper died, when the
population went (driven) away. The Government Officials are
trying to wear me out by delay, and a cruel trial it has been to
me & my family. It has caused our separation for four years and
what further distress the delay may bring upon them and me I
cannot tell.
I fear the length of this communication will offend you my Lord,
but if you do not interfere in my behalf, I must despair—my
family will be homeless.
You cannot comprehend what this means as your dogs have never wanted
a home. But bear with me, while I point out the result of such
tyranny & injustice.
The land all about me (on one of the principal drives round the
Town) lies a desert, most of it fenced in, but uncultivated, for
upwards of 1 1/2 miles in one direction and 1/2 mile at right
angles in another there is not a house or a garden plot,
although close to the now deserted House of Representatives.
I claim at your hands my Lord, as the representative of her
Majesty, that justice that I am powerless to enforce through a
Court of Law—this
That If I have complied in all and every respect with the
stringent Pre-emption Law, that you will require the BC
officials to carry out that Law, and give me a Title.
Dr Trimble's claim may not be precisely similar to mine. He
may not have complied with the residential or other clauses.
There is no reason for coupling my claims with his except that
ours are the only two legal Pre-emption claims in Victoria
District (equivalent to County).
I beg you again My Lord to consider the loss I have already
sustained. If the Government of 1862 made a mistake they have
no business to punish me for it. If the whole district had been
taken up by
bona fide settlers there would have been a thriving Town and
Colony, where a wilderness now exists.
This surely is a case for a Supreme authority to interfere in.
The most noble
The Earl of Kimberley
The Earl of Kimberley
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Meade
See Minutes on 142.
See Minutes on 142.
I do not see that anything can be done but to regret that Lord
Kimberley can only refer him to the previous letter of 17 Jany.
CC
23/5
Mr Herbert
The Colonial Secretary in his report—see 142, p. 5—says that these questions have caused great excitement in the Colony. I should be inclined to answer Mr Nias as Mr Cox proposes, adding however that a copy of his representation will be forwarded to the B.C. Govt.
The Colonial Secretary in his report—see 142, p. 5—says that these questions have caused great excitement in the Colony. I should be inclined to answer Mr Nias as Mr Cox proposes, adding however that a copy of his representation will be forwarded to the B.C. Govt.
RM
23/5
As Mr Trutch the Surveyor General & Commissioner of Crown Lands
is at home I think it might be as well if the Department were to
ask him whether he can give any further explanations.
RGWH
May 23/71
So proceed. On the face of it the case is a hard one. If Mr N.
was allowed to
record his claim on entering
the land I should doubt whether he has not the law on his side.
EHKH
25/5/71
Mr Herbert
I saw Mr Trutch yesterday & I spoke to him about Mr Nias' land claim. He says that Mr Nias' claim is invalid & it is for him to prove his right. The claim has been hanging over until a decision has been arrived at on Dr Trimble's claim which is similar. When the Chief Justice refused to compel the Surveyor General to issue his Certificate for Dr T's land, the local Govt ought to have treated him as a Squatter & have then ejected him, but this they were afraid of attempting as public feeling was in Dr T's
favor. Hence it was that the Govt
instead consented that a case should be stated to enable the
Supreme Court to decide whether or no Dr Te had a claim. The
matter is said to be still pending many difficulties having
interposed to delay a decision—the difficulties being as far as
I could make out a desire to put
off the question until the claimants should have to fight their
case agst a Responsible Govt.
I saw Mr Trutch yesterday & I spoke to him about Mr Nias' land claim. He says that Mr Nias' claim is invalid & it is for him to prove his right. The claim has been hanging over until a decision has been arrived at on Dr Trimble's claim which is similar. When the Chief Justice refused to compel the Surveyor General to issue his Certificate for Dr T's land, the local Govt ought to have treated him as a Squatter & have then ejected him, but this they were afraid of attempting as public feeling was in Dr T's
favor. Hence it was that the Govt
instead consented that a case should be stated to enable the
Supreme Court to decide whether or no Dr Te had a claim. The
matter is said to be still pending many difficulties having
interposed to delay a decision—the difficulties being as far as
I could make out a desire to put
off the question until the claimants should have to fight their
case agst a Responsible Govt.
As Mr Phillippo will be here very soon we may wait to see
whether any further progress has been made. If not
the only
interference, if any is advisable, from here would be to tell
the Govr that if Dr Trimble & the other similar claimants are
unable to establish their claim the proper course would appear
to be to take steps for ejecting them from Land to the
occupation of which they had no right.
the only
interference, if any is advisable, from here would be to tell
the Govr that if Dr Trimble & the other similar claimants are
unable to establish their claim the proper course would appear
to be to take steps for ejecting them from Land to the
occupation of which they had no right.
CC
2 June
We may as well wait to hear Mr Philippo's opinion, if he can
give us one, on these papers. My impression is the same as Mr
Hugessen's that in recording the title the Surveyor General
committed the Govt to the recognition of settlement on this land
as the basis of a title: but wait.
RGWH
June 3/71
Yes: wait for Mr Philippo.
K
June 4/71
I saw Mr Philippo on this subject yesterday. He says that the
statements in Mr Nias's letter are much exaggerated: for
instance that his family the separation from whom has caused him
so much pain for four years consists of a wife not a
particularly steady character, & a daughter now married. The
law under which Nias claimed to have the right to preempt this
land was applicable to country lands worth a dollar an acre, &
not to land in the city worth £50 an acre. Mr Philippo thinks
that full justice, & more, would be done to Mr Nias if he were
granted a lease say for 21 years at a peppercorn rent in order
to enable him to exhaust the value of the improvements (a small
cottage fencing &c) which he has made on the land. He has
suggested this to the Govt.
I think with him that this would be the best course & I would
press it on the Government and tell Mr Nias that Lord Kimberley
having made repeated inquiry into the merits of his case is
unable to satisfy himself that he has established a claim to the
preemption of this land, but is still in correspondence with the
Colonial Goverment on the subject.
RGWH
June 10/71
The man has, or has not a right, however, there can be no
objection to this course if he consents.
EHKH
10/7/71
Other documents included in the file
