Some Reminiscences of old Victoria

by Edgar Fawcett

"We have long been aware that the Hudson’s Bay Company claim the ownership of the streets of Victoria. In fact, in 1858 their title was so far asserted as to sell a portion of the street where Johnson and Wharf Streets unite at Victoria bridge.

"They also shut up one street at the south end of the Fort and opened another a little beyond. Besides this they promised in 1838 to the purchasers of lots on View Street that that street should be opened from Broad to Wharf. Instead of fulfilling their promise like an honest company, that street was actually closed, instead of opened, by blocking up the west end by a large brick police building. It is true that since May last—when the Government reserve between Yates and the block house was seized by the Company, with the consent of His Excellency—a small alley has been opened where View Street ought to be, but even that by some unknown authority, assumed by the Police Commissioners, has been closed to vehicles. That authority will, however, soon be tested, if the obstacle is not speedily removed, as purchasers of lots in the reserve are entitled to its use. Had it not been for our timely exposure of the intentions of the Company, the line of Wharf Street would have been deflected like an elbow, from Reid’s corner southerly. The last act, however, of the honorable Hudson’s Bay Company, is not only contemptible, but ‘unjust and oppressive,’ although His Excellency Governor Douglas, in his despatch of October 25, 1858, said that the often asserted charge in England that the Company ‘had made an unjust and oppressive use of their power in this country,’ is altogether unfounded.

"It appears that the agent of the Company sold last week all the trees on our streets to a party for firewood. Mr. Pemberton, Police Commissioner, at the request of some property holders, cut down the two oaks at the corner of Government and Yates Street, but it was no sooner done than Dr. Tuzo presented a bill to him for twenty dollars, ten dollars each. Opposite Mr. Adams’ property on Douglas and View Streets, Mr. Adams forbid the parties, but in his absence they were felled. He then claimed the trees, as they were intersected every way by his property. But Dr. Tuzo threatened him with five hundred dollars damages, assuring him that the trees belonged to the Company. Up Fort Street a number of oaks have been felled. Aside from the vandalism which would sell and cut down a single tree for a few paltry dollars, where it was no obstruction to travel, but an ornament to the street—the act of itself is a foul wrong—unwarrantable and without a particle of right to support it, either in law or equity. We cannot well conceive how that the agents of the Company could do such a scurvy trick—such an act of vandalism—except that they have been influenced to do so by a resident San Francisco landshark. Selling the trees therefore may be to maintain color of title to the streets. But that will prove useless. Viewing the townsite as their private property, when they sold they forever conveyed away their claim to the streets. But the townsite is not private property, although it has unjustifiably been so claimed from the first settlement of the Colony. As private property the Company have no claim to it which will stand the test of law or equity. It is to all intents and purposes in the same condition as the lands of Cowichan, Nootka or Cape Scott; and the funds derived from the sale as justly belong to the Territorial revenues of the Colony. Taking then the townsite to be like other lands, subject to the conditions of the grant, (which we will hereafter prove) we find that one of the conditions says: ‘That the said Company shall (for the purposes of colonization) dispose of all lands hereby granted to them, at a reasonable price, except as much thereof as may be required for public purposes.’ The streets are used for public purposes—and for that reason the Company have no more right to them, nor the trees, than anyone else. Their act of felling trees on the public streets, and their intimation, deserves the strongest mark of public censure—and merits the attention of the proper authorities.

"Besides if our connection with the Hudson’s Bay Company is not speedily ended we may expect many more such trumped-up claims as their claim to the streets, which they will want us to pay for."

I think my pioneer friends will now agree with me that enough evidence has been furnished to prove my contention that View Street was originally intended to reach from Wharf Street to Cook Street, and farther if necessary.

CHAPTER XXXVII.

BISHOP CRIDGE’S CHRISTMAS STORY.

Some years ago the Colonist requested several "old timers" to write for the Christmas number a description of Christmas as it was observed in the early days in this city.

The following were those who wrote: The Venerable Bishop Cridge, Hon. Dr. Helmcken, Hon. D. W. Higgins, and the author of these reminiscences. I was so much interested myself in these stories (as I am in all Christmas stories), I decided, with the consent of the writers, to reproduce them in my book; not only as interesting, but as very instructive, describing, as they do, life in the pioneer days of the colony.