————

Chartres Brew. 91

Fort Yale Gaol at my request. For future guidance I beg leave to ask
to be instructed how medical attendance and medicines are to be pro-
vided for parties in gaol. If an invalid prisoner suffered from neglect
the consequences would be very disagreeable.

I may add that Dr. Fifer informs me that if he be called on any
future occasion to attend prisoners in gaol he will feel himself at liberty
to charge for his attendance as well as for his medicine.

I have the honor to be,
Sir,
Your obedient Servant,
(Signed) C. Brew,
Chief Inspector of Police,
Ass. Chief Gold Commissioner.

W. A. G. Young, Esq., Colonial Secretary.

Forr Yas, B.C.,
18th March, 1859.

Str,—In reply to your letter of the 8th Inst., directing me by
order of His Excellency the Governor to submit without delay a
“Return of Town Lots granted on Lease under the conditions estab-
lished in September last,”’ I have the honor to state that on the 3rd Inst.
I forwarded through the Lieut. Governor in a very full form the infor-
mation required by His Excellency the Governor.

I now beg leave to submit again the information ordered, but I
have not had time to have as full and complete a Return prepared as
I before submitted. One payment of $50 made on yesterday by Daniel
McClean on his Lot is included in this Return.

11. The Returns called for in your communication of the 8th of
February are an Account of income and expenditure in the Fort Yale
District, a List of debts due, and a Return of the average monthly
expenditure in the district. All this information I think I supplied in
my communication to you dated the 5th Inst. The debts have been as
far as means would admit paid; but I hope the finances of the district

(60) These leases required payments of $7.50 per month, which gave a right of pre-emption
and were to be regarded as instalments of the purchase price. Mr. Hicks’s conduct had muddled
the whole situation, as Judge Begbie’s letters show. By the ‘‘ Lieutenant-Governor ’’ Brew means
Colonel Moody, but this form of reference was improper. See note (87) to Judge Begbie’s cor-
respondence, ante, p. 33.

Fy
|