Wo. will not be required by Wo, but (see par 23 of encl. I in 26943) it will only be necessary to warn people off the ground.
On the other hand, when firing is going on, it will be necessary to warn people off the ground.
If the plan enclosed in 26972/03 is compared with map X enclosed in 22528/02, it will be seen that a considerable part of the land formerly used as rifle ranges, viz., the eastern portion and the southern detached portion, is now covered by King's Park.
It was this area precisely that was surrendered to the colony for King's Park, and it was thought impossible to measure the area, but it was considered a fair compromise.
I therefore submit, as stated in our despatch 7808, that no ground exists for reopening the question.
As to par 9: say (a) that the period of 10 yrs. was inserted, and that the difference being that our proposal does not give the Military any permanent tenure of the new ranges.
As to par. 10, point out that the arrangements regarding Stonecutters Island give the War Dept. more control over the Island than was already secured to them by Ord. #1 of 89.
We might say that they will raise objections to the stone quarries being leased by the Colonial Govt. if arrangements can be made for working the quarries without interference with the defences, etc., ask Wo whether they really require the whole or a portion of the area referred to as A.
Explain that par 6 of our despatch meant that so far as arrangements with Wo were concerned, the colony was perfectly free to abandon the proposal to construct the Park, and to sell it instead for building purposes.
As to the last par., I annex a copy of despatch of 17 June 03, and a copy of the plan referred to therein, showing why the area at Ngao Ian Kok is to be resumed from private owners.
I would reply that we understand that only the small patches coloured green in that plan are to be resumed, and that if hereafter the Govt. want any further area.