Military authorities will subsequently, owing to an alteration of their scheme for the defence of Kowloon, consider that a large portion of the lands then included in the Military Reserve are unnecessary for the purposes of defence, and that such right of user was imperperial.
I submit that, looking to the above history of the case, they cannot establish any such right, and that their claim, therefore, falls to the ground. Let the effect of the child be safely released from all restrictions, without the defence of the Peninsula being any way endangered.
Military Authorities now contend however (Q.S.O. 1042 of 1895) that under the terms of the Secretary of State's despatch of the 30th December 1894, they are entitled to be credited by the Colonial Government with the value of the lands so released from restrictions.
I am of opinion that the above contention is not well founded. In order to establish their claim, the Military Authorities must prove that they have a right of user of the land in question.
Let us consider in the first instance the above-quoted arrangement made in June 1889, upon which the Military Authorities appear to place great reliance. That arrangement was, as I have already pointed out, not ratified by the Secretary of State or the local Executive Council, and, therefore, may be of doubtful validity, and, moreover, if modified by the subsequent resolution of Council of September 1887, must, I think, be taken to be superseded by the Secretary of State's despatch of 6th November 1891 (above referred to).
But even if we treat the arrangement of June 1887 as being in every respect valid, it is still necessary to examine whether it was subsequently modified or superseded.