<persName ref="prs:musgrave_a"><surname>Musgrave</surname>, <forename>Anthony</forename></persName> to <persName ref="prs:wodehouse"><surname>Wodehouse</surname>, <forename>John</forename><!--<roleName>Sir</roleName> <forename>Philip</forename> <forename>Edmond</forename>--></persName> 12 August 1870, CO 60:41, no. 9892, 2. Musgrave addressee Kimberley

Published by Jim Hendrickson and the University of Victoria.

Musgrave, Anthony to Wodehouse, John 12 August 1870, CO 60:41, no. 9892, 2.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/B70111.html. CO 60:41 CO 60 41 9892 2 111 B.C. 1870 received 13 September co_60_41_00003r.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.

Musgrave, Anthony to Wodehouse, John 12 August 1870, CO 60:41, no. 9892, 2.

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

 Musgrave, Anthony Wodehouse, John Inserted revisionDesc with @status="unproofed". Changed idno @type="received" into a date element. Gave existing date an @type="sent" and reordered bibl contents.
No. 111 9892, CO 60/41, p. 2; received 13 September August 12th 1870 My Lord,

Referring to Your Lordship's Despatch No. 1 of the 9th July, I have the honor to forward a complete copy of the Attorney General's Report on the British Columbia Ordinance No. 13 of 1870, "to amend the Road Ordinance 1869" which should have accompanied my Despatch No. 78 of the4th 4th of June.

2. I regret much that an unfinished copy should accidentally have been forwarded with that Despatch, through some inadvertance of which it is not now possible to trace the cause.

I have the honor to be My Lord Your most obedient humble Servant A. Musgrave
Mr Holland See Minute on 7279. CC 14 Sept
Road Ordinance 1869 amended.

I should be disposed to sanction this Ordinance, though stringent, in consideration of the undoubted advantages that will be secured to the Colony by good roads; and it practically rests with the Colonists themselves to decide whether the measure is to be adopted, inasmuch as no Road Districts (except those specially created) can be created except upon petition from 2/3d of the residents.

The criticism upon the proviso in sect 3 is no doubt correct, but it is perhaps hardly worth pointing it out, as the meaning is quite clear.

The 9h section appears to me the Most doubtful in policy, though the AG expresses a hope that so valuable a clause may find a place in every Land (Road) Act. * I do not feel sure that "Country" should not be "Crown". A Crown lessee would then Know what he might expect to have taken from him under certain contingencies. But why should the owner of real property, who has to pay his tax under section 3 be deprived of gravel & timber without compensation? This might be a very heavy loss in some cases.

I should be disposed in sanctioning the Ordinance to enquire into the meaning of this section.

HTH 14/9
I would sanction the ordinance, but observe that altho' it is quite just that the GovtGovernment should have power to take gravel &c, it seems unfair that they should not pay for what they take. K Sept 15/70
H.P.P. Crease, Attorney General, to Musgrave, 11 May 1870, reporting on the ordinance as per despatch.
Draft reply, Kimberley to Musgrave, No. 23, 21 September 1870.
May it not be a mistake for the 8th (Absentees) Clause?