Colonial Despatches
The colonial despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871
Despatch to London
Kennedy, Arthur to
Cardwell, Edward 2 January 1865, CO 305:25, no. 1981, 2.
Abstract
Kennedy, Arthur to
Cardwell, Edward 2 January 1865, CO 305:25, no. 1981, 2.
Despatch to London.
Minutes (3), Enclosures (untranscribed) (5), Other documents (1).
No. 1, Miscellaneous
Victoria
2nd January 1865
Sir,
1. I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Despatch No
59 dated 1st November 1864 enclosing the copy of a letter addressed
to you by the Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company accompanied by
numerous enclosures on the subject of steps recentlytaken
taken by me to
protect the public from encroachments upon the Park at Beacon Hill,
Victoria.
taken by me to
protect the public from encroachments upon the Park at Beacon Hill,
Victoria.
2. I regret very much that you should have been troubled with this
matter, which arises out of the Crown Lands dispute still unsettled
between the local Government and Hudson's Bay Company, and which
commenced and was carried on with great virulence long before I
assumed the Government.
3. Mr Roderick Finlayson'saction
action in this matter does not appear
calculated to solve the difficulty or allay the bitterness with which
this complicated question has been discussed.
action in this matter does not appear
calculated to solve the difficulty or allay the bitterness with which
this complicated question has been discussed.
4. Mr Finlayson is one of those Gentlemen nominated by the Crown to
a seat in the Legislative Council to aid and assist me in the
Government of this Colony, and I apprehend it would have been more in
accordance with courtesy and custom had he consulted me or asked forexplanation
explanation on this subject (which would have been readily given)
before he transmitted an incomplete correspondence on a matter which
he must have known to be very incorrectly stated.
explanation on this subject (which would have been readily given)
before he transmitted an incomplete correspondence on a matter which
he must have known to be very incorrectly stated.
5. Mr Medana, the complainant on this occasion, is an Italian,
formerly I am informed a ped[d]ler in California. He is now what is
here termed a "speculator" and derives income from property which he
rents from Mr Dallas lately Chief Factor of the Hudson'sBay
Bay Company
at Victoria, or from the Company itself. He resides on and is I
believe possessor of the property formerly owned by Mr D'Ewes lately
Postmaster here.
Bay Company
at Victoria, or from the Company itself. He resides on and is I
believe possessor of the property formerly owned by Mr D'Ewes lately
Postmaster here.
6. The receipt of your Despatch was the first intimation I had of
any individual save Mr Medana being aggrieved by my final decision
on this subject.
7. I will state this case as shortly as may be to render it
intelligible, premising that it is only a part of a much larger,and
and
more important one, and is I presume put forward to obtain a decision
regarding the larger question on a very small issue.
and
more important one, and is I presume put forward to obtain a decision
regarding the larger question on a very small issue.
8. Some time in the month of July 1864 it was brought to my notice
that unauthorized openings were being made into the public Park on
the west side at the points marked (on the map herewith)
1, 2, 3, 4—that trees had been cut down at a point admittedly Crown
property to effect an opening and junction between the Parkand
and a
public house newly erected on the verge of the Park, and within a few
yards of the "track" of the Race Course.
and a
public house newly erected on the verge of the Park, and within a few
yards of the "track" of the Race Course.
9. Having consulted the Surveyor General, the Attorney General and
my Executive Council, they were all of opinion that these projected
entrances to the Park were unauthorized and illegal, and advised that
fences should be placed on the
Park boundary to resist on the part of the Crown any claim for
right of way which mightbe
be hereafter made on the ground of custom or
usage.
be hereafter made on the ground of custom or
usage.
10. This being done, a few persons headed by Mr Medana held what
they are pleased to term a "public meeting" and passed certain
strongly expressed Resolutions which are transmitted by Mr Finlayson.
11. I received a Deputation presenting these Resolutions, explained the
facts of the case, and the object in erecting the fences, and directed
gates to beplaced
placed at any and every point required for the
convenience of those residing in the vicinity.
placed at any and every point required for the
convenience of those residing in the vicinity.
12. The Deputation (including Mr Waddell the Secretary to the
Meeting) retired satisfied with the explanation offered and my
expressed desire to meet their wishes in every way consistent with
my duty to the Crown and to the Public.
13. Not so with Mr Medana who carried on the correspondence as
submitted to you, and subsequently applied to the Board of
Commissioners (vide No 8 of his correspondence).
14. If
14. If the fencing had been illegal as asserted Mr Medana or Mr
Finlayson had a simple remedy by application to the Courts of Law
which they did not hazard to do.
15. The rights of the Crown and the public having been thus asserted
the temporary fences were removed and Mr Medana's ground of
complaint removed with them, till the Crown or private individuals
again object to this cutting up of the public Park and test Mr
Medana's right of way in a Court of Law.
16. It
16. It is quite true as Mr Medana states that he or some one I
presume under his directions pulled down and carried away a portion
of the fencing during the night and under cover of darkness, but Mr
Medana omits to convey the opinion of Mr Waddell (the Secretary to
the Public Meeting) on the proceeding—an omission which I now supply
in the copy of a letter addressed to me by Mr Waddell on that
occasion.
17. I also transmit my reply to the Presentment of theGrand
Grand Jury
(No 2 in Mr Medana's correspondence) which that Gentleman has also
omitted.
Grand Jury
(No 2 in Mr Medana's correspondence) which that Gentleman has also
omitted.
18. Since Mr Finlayson has thought it fitting to endorse the
commentary of a very low newspaper by which Mr Medana supports his
case, it may be satisfactory to you to see the accompanying extracts
from another local paper which much more nearly represents public
opinion and which I enclose.
19. The roads and highways in the District are vested by law in the
Road Commissioners, andthe
the letter from that body enclosed by Mr
Medana dated September 1st 1864 and signed "John Tod," I think is a
sufficient answer to all Mr Medana's complaints.
the letter from that body enclosed by Mr
Medana dated September 1st 1864 and signed "John Tod," I think is a
sufficient answer to all Mr Medana's complaints.
20. Mr Medana's imputations that I influenced the Road
Commissioners is wholly untrue. I had no communication with them of
any kind whatever and only learned their opinion by the publication
of their letter in the newspaper.
21. I enclose a map to render the subject intelligible, a glanceat
at
which will account for the strong feeling on the part of the public
that the local Agents of the Hudson's Bay Company have not dealt
fairly with them.
at
which will account for the strong feeling on the part of the public
that the local Agents of the Hudson's Bay Company have not dealt
fairly with them.
22. The triangular piece marked red it is alleged (and I believe
partially admitted) was abstracted by the local Agents of the
Hudson's Bay Company from the Public Park, subdivided and sold, and
out of this the present question arises. This proceeding is regarded
by the public (and I think not without reason) as a great grievanceand
and breach of faith—if not an illegal act.
and breach of faith—if not an illegal act.
23. I trust it is needless for me to assure you that in the course I
have adopted I have been actuated solely by what I conceived and
still consider to be my duty to the Crown and the public, and that I
have protected those rights without discourtesy or substantial
inconvenience to anybody.
24. I cannot conclude this Despatch without expressing my belief
that a course of actionhas
has been adopted here by local Agents of the
Hudson's Bay Company in reference to public lands in this Colony
which would not meet the approval of Sir E. Head or the Company he
represents if fairly put before them.
has been adopted here by local Agents of the
Hudson's Bay Company in reference to public lands in this Colony
which would not meet the approval of Sir E. Head or the Company he
represents if fairly put before them.
25. The discussion of the Crown Lands question has been carried on
with all the bitterness of a family quarrel, and I cannot be
surprised that my attempt at impartiality has met with little success
in Mr Finlayson's estimation, whom I cannot but consider as the
real,and
and Mr Medana the nominal complainant only on the present
occasion.
and Mr Medana the nominal complainant only on the present
occasion.
26. I transmit a copy of queries addressed to the Acting Surveyor
General with his replies thereto, accompanied by an explanatory map
to illustrate this subject.
27. I must in conclusion draw your attention to the fact that the
Presentment of the Grand Jury (marked No 2 in Mr Medana's
correspondence) on which much stress is laid, does not in any way
impugn the legality ofthe
the proceeding complained of, suggesting only
that the public rights should be protected by means consistent with
the private convenience of the complainants.
the proceeding complained of, suggesting only
that the public rights should be protected by means consistent with
the private convenience of the complainants.
Minutes by CO staff
Mr Elliot
To me it appears that the Governor has returned a satisfactory answer, and something more, to the Complaint of the H.B.Co. But, before any communication is addressed to the Company Mr Cardwell, may perhaps wish, as this is a land subject, to have the opinion of the Land & Emn Commrs.
To me it appears that the Governor has returned a satisfactory answer, and something more, to the Complaint of the H.B.Co. But, before any communication is addressed to the Company Mr Cardwell, may perhaps wish, as this is a land subject, to have the opinion of the Land & Emn Commrs.
ABd
1-3
TFE
1/3
Documents enclosed with the main document (not transcribed)
Memorandum, Kennedy to B.W. Pearse, Acting Surveyor General,
forwarding a number of queries relating to the disposition of land
in the park,
and his replies thereto, signed by both men, 30 December 1864.
J. Waddell to Kennedy, 29 August 1864, denouncing the actions of
the person who removed a portion of the fence and avowing a continued
acceptance of the governor's actions in the matter.
Henry Wakeford, Acting Colonial Secretary, to Chief Justice, 10
August 1864, advising that the governor would act to prevent the
establishment of the unauthorized entrances but would "immediately
order gates to be placed at any point necessary for the convenience
of individuals on their making personal application and pending the
final adjustment of this question."
Newspaper clippings,
The Daily Chronicle, 1 and 4 August 1864, detailing the
dispute over unauthorized entrances to Beacon Hill Park and discussing
other questions relating to the subject.
Two copies of a map showing Beacon Hill Park and the surrounding
lots, as per despatch.
Other documents included in the file
Elliot to Emigration Commissioners, 8 March 1865, forwarding
correspondence relating to the enclosure of Beacon Hill Park for
their observations and suggestions.