Of uitmation propered to an letter 2011 Oct 95 (in 18100/95) to be sent as to treating this question under Cric.
If get been sent, 30 Dec. 1894 a we has not were waiting to hear from W.O. what areas parts of the Military Reserve are to be surrendered; but that G reading W. Pollock's memo. Enclosed in this despr, W. Chamberlain is disposed to think that there is much force in contention that the area in question ought not to be regarded as Military Land at all within the meaning of the Circular, since it has not been formally so defined in the War Dept., but has merely been, as it were, in a condition of suspense, pending a final decision as to the areas over which it was necessary for the W.O. to have clearance rights; and as a decision has now been taken that a portion (at least) of the area under fjern is not requiring to be subject to any military restrictions, it appears to W. Chamberlain to be a fair and reasonable course that the reserve rights are required should be simply given to the W.O. in exchange for the reserve rights, temporarily exercised over the areas proposed to be surrendered, without regard to the respective values of the two areas in question.
[There is an analogy for this sort of exchange in the Case which was arranged between W.O. & Treasury without any prior communication with this office, see corr. in print (A259) Su19/11/96 CPL. 20 Lotre].
The point to emphasise is that the land in question has long been in private occupation, though subject to certain restrictions as to the right of building upon it on military grounds. These restrictions have now been withdrawn with the result that the private owners occupy the land in the ordinary way. The military authorities have conceded the user of the land, and there is no question of valuing them under the Circular. I would not go into the question of exchange in that it admits that...