that the ground
was never
assigned
to the Board of Ordnance or otherwise alienated, and that it has consequently
been included in the official Maps of War Department Reservations
nor have the Military Authorities ever revived their claims to it after receipt in this colony of Earl Grey's despatch (Military no. 94 of 3rd June 1851) copy of which is hereto attached effectually settling the question of ownership.
2.
In this despatch the Colonial Government was confirmed in its possession of the ground, but the right was accorded to the Military Authorities to use the same as a place of exercise for the Troops whenever it might be judged fitting.
3.
The use of Queen's Road, the great central thoroughfare of the city, bounding the square on the South side was not included in this concession. The latter is worded too clearly to be misinterpreted and is limited solely and exclusively to the ground then under dispute. Is it possible, as has been suggested, that the roadway though impliedly not named was actually included in the concession, for it is incredible that a measure entailing such serious public inconvenience as the blocking of the entire traffic of
that the ground
was never
assigned
to the Board of Orduance or otherwise alienated, and that it has consequently
been included in the official Maps of War Department Reservations
never
nor have the
revived their
registered in this office, Military Authorities ever claims to it after receipt in this leolony of Earl Grey's despatch (Military no94 of 3rd June 1851) copy of which is hereto attached effectually settling the question of ownership.
2.
In this despatch the Colonial Government was confirmed in its possession of the ground, but the right was accorded to the Military
Authorities to use the same as
-
125
place of exercise for the Troops whenever it might be judged fitting.
3.
The use
of Queen's Road, the.
great central thoroughfare of the city,
the square
bounding the
of
side was
on the South
course not included in
this concession. The latter is worded
Mor
too clearly to be misinterpreted and is limited solely and exclusively to the ground then under dispute, is it possible, as has been suggested,
• that the roadway
though impliedly
to assume that the
not a
named was
actually n
included in the concession, for it is
incredible that a measure
entailing
such serious publie inconvenience as
the blocking of the entere traffic of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.