The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

a. . air Oliver Mowat aM the Old ', , l . U.C. C. Grounds. ! THEY ARE CROWN LANDS. r," Legislative Chamber, March l9. This afternoon saw the usual brief Mon- Bay session. A small amount ot routine; business was disposed of and the HOUSE" had adjourned by 4 o'clock. The point of in. terest ot the sitting was the Attorney- ' General's reply to Mr. Clarke's question as to the dtvnership ot the old Upper Cun- .nda College grounds. which Sir Oliver ttltUrned was undoubtedly vested in the brown, as against Mr. Clarke's View that they were tmule over by the Crown to the my. , ( '. U.C. C. GROUNDS. S Mr. H. F. Clarke moved that an address! be presented to his Honor the Lieutenant" Governor praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a return of a; copy ot the original plan showing the "t cation of Russell square in the City ut Toronto. and of all instructions, orders in Council, minutes and correspondence rib: latiug tu the survey or laying' out of the' square. Also, of a copy of the letters pay {tent thereof. and of all orders in CouruuC, "ninutes and correspondence relating to: the issue ot such letters patent and relat-i his to any subsequent disposition or up-! propriatlon of the land. and of all corrcs~ pondence, petitions and documents with." reference to the claim of the corporatioh; of the City of Toronto to said square, and} the diversion of it from the purposes for. {which it was originally designed. '; Mr. Clarke described the situation of tho piece of land in question, and briefly tram ed its history trom its original setting' apart in 1798 to the present time. Her claimed the records showed that the pro-'f r'rty was set apart for the use of the' tiaer'mgraneraliy as a park. and the cowl tructiorV on a portion thereof in Li?.0, of the I'pper Canada College did not in-', terfere with the original intention that[ he property should relong to the citi-' Lens generally; Mr. Clarke thought the.) matter was in any case one on which the House should have the fullest possible in-1 'ovtnation., It was one of great interest! to the city, and in View of the liberarttr' Mith which the city had treated the GM; ernment in regard to the magniticent site", at the new buildings it was not unreason--" able to suppose that if it couldi be shown that it was the original, Intention that this land should belong to the city, the Government would place um opposition in the way of this intention being fulfilled. ) The Attorney-General, in reply. said he had no objection to Mr. Clarke's mo..' tion. The question was one or law as to Whether or not the property was origin- ally made over to tht city in such a way is to constitute a trust. He had not him-' pelt, trom his examination of the papers. very much doubt on the matter. He he- Iieved his hon. friend from London (Mr. ' Meredith) had beep instructed to look in- to the law on the subject. and expected that he would come to the same conclu- lion as he had reached. The que.' ' tion which was seemingly raised by Mia. n. A. Howland on the foundation of a re-) Tort to the Citv Council bv the late SY', lAdam 'Wilson had found very strong was" cinl expression in the judizmenlts of Chief} Justice Robinson and Judge Burns in mi case tP.ed by the Attorney-General on the, ' relation of the trustees of the Toronto General Hospital against Grasett. to set aside a deed made for the benetit of the 'rorontn Rectory. The case was reported: as Attorney-General v. Grasett in the 6th volume of Mr. Grant's reports, page 485, and the same case on appeal in the 8th volume. page 130. The important point to which attention should be drawn is that , Chief Justice Robinson says in reference to the words in the patent to the trustees, Jubv. Straclinn. et al., "pursuant to the purpose for which the said parcels or tracts of land or any of them were ori- ginally reserved as hereinbefore express- ed;" "that the patent grants nine distinct parcels ot land. wiiih respect to tive 0 which there is no intimation in the patent that they had been theretofore in any i