<persName ref="prs:seymour_f"><surname>Seymour</surname>, <forename>Frederick</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:grenville_r"><surname>Grenville</surname>, <forename>Richard</forename></persName> 12 May 1868, CO 60:32, no. 6952, 366. Seymour addressee Buckingham

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Seymour, Frederick to Grenville, Richard 12 May 1868, CO 60:32, no. 6952, 366.The Colonial Despatches of Vancouver Island and British Columbia 1846-1871, Edition 2.6, ed. James Hendrickson and the Colonial Despatches project. Victoria, B.C.: University of Victoria. https://bcgenesis.uvic.ca/B68043.html. CO 60:32 CO 60 32 6952 366 43 B.C. 1868 received 1 July co_60_32_00367r.jpg Transcribed from microfilm archives, marked up in Waterloo Script, then transformed into TEI P5 XML.

The project glossary items have xml:id attributes beginning with trm_, and we use a trm: prefix to refer to them when linking from term elements.

We link to orgs in orgs/organizations.xml using the org: prefix.

We link to places in places.xml using the plc: prefix.

We link to people in bios/*.xml using the prs: prefix.

We link to vessels in vessels/*.xml using the vsl: prefix.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

The cdt (ColDesp Document Type) prefix used on catRef/target points to a central taxonomy in the includes file.

We link to other documents in the collection using the cdc: prefix.

Despatch to London. Minutes (3), Enclosures (untranscribed) (3), Other documents (1), Marginalia (1).

Seymour discusses why the ordinance on the subject of the Laws relating to Gold Mining in British Columbia should not be amended to allow an appeal from the verdict of a Jury in cases above a certain amount, and Seymour states that the legislative council was against the right right of appeal being granted. In his discussion, Seymour refers to the disturbance in the Cariboo during 1867. Seymour recommends the approval of the gold mining ordinance without any amendments. Holland’s minute discusses why British Columbia’s attorney general protested against the ordinance and recommends sanctioning the ordinance without an amendment. Included documents comment on the ordinance regarding gold mining in British Columbia.

Seymour, Frederick
New Westminster
Grenville, Richard Added summary of draft reply. Added abstract. Inserted revisionDesc.
No. 43 6952, CO 60/32, p. 366; received 1 July
New Westminster
12th May 1868 My Lord Duke,

I have had the honor to receive your Grace's despatch No. 73 of the 6th of November 1867 on the subject of the Laws relating to Gold Mining in this Colony.

2. Your Grace requiresmy my opinion as to whether an amendment of the present Ordinance allowing an appeal from the verdict of a Jury in cases above a certain amount would in my opinion be desirable and whether such an amendment would be likely to meet with the assent of the Legislative Council.

2. [sic] It will be seen from the report of the Attorney General that the question was fullyconsidered considered during the recent Session [of] the Council and that the decision was against the right right of appeal being granted.

3. I agree in opinion with the Council and am supported by Mr Brew, the present Gold Commissioner of Cariboo, and by Mr O'Reilly the Senior Gold Commissioner of the Colony. Mr Ball whom I moved from Cariboo during the Grouse Creek disturbances, undercircumstances circumstances detailed in my despatch as noted in the margin, * differs, but he has had but little experience in the mining districts, and besides has not yet got to look with perfect calmness on the events which signalized his short administration of affairs at our principal Gold mine.

4. Being totally without material force at Cariboo, it became necessary for me tomake make the best I could of my position, but I am convinced that an appeal to Mr Begbie, in the ordinary course of things would not have settled the dispute, or his decision have been obeyed by the Company, to which it happened to be adverse. I look upon it as a fortunate circumstance that Mr Begbie declined to rehear the case. The riot was verging on Rebellion, if it had notalready already crossed the line.

5. I venture to recommend to Your Grace, for approval the Ordinance as it now stands. The less we interfere with the Legislation affecting the Cariboo, the better. I cannot, after my experience of last year, divest myself of a certain amount of nervousness in regard to the Government of a large mining population upwards of five hundredmiles miles from the Sea.

I have the honor to be My Lord Duke, Your Grace's most obedient humble Servant Frederick Seymour
Mr Holland CC 1 July
Sir F. Rogers When the Mining Ordinance was transmitted last year the Attorney General protested against a clause which took away appeals in certain cases, & he pressed for disallowance or alteration of the Act. The GovrGovernor in the then excited state of Cariboo "hardly ventured to recommend it for allowance" (see 10372).

The question has been fully reconsidered by the Council who have adopted the views of the Gold Miners & the GovrGovernor now recommends that the Act should be allowed. In that opinion I concur, & wdwould sanction the Ordinance.

HTH 4/7
I agree. FR 7/7 CBA 8/7 B&C 9/7
Minute, H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, 5 May 1868, commenting on the Gold Mining Ordinance of 1867.
Special Committee for Assimilation of the Laws to Seymour, commenting on the ordinance as noted above, 14 February 1867.
Special Committee for Assimilation of the Laws to Seymour, second report commenting on an amended version of the ordinance, 17 February 1867.
Draft reply, Buckingham to Seymour, No. 49, 14 July 1868 conveying “Her Majesty's gracious Confirmation and allowance of the British Columbia Ordinance No. 34 of 1867, entitled, "An Ordinance to amend the Laws relating to Gold Mining."”
Gov. Seymour to SecycompanySecretary of State No 99 of 4th Sept 1867