HC Deb 14 July 1820 vol 2 cc473-4

The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill,

Mr. Calcraft

said, he had learned that one reason for the great expense with which the building of these barracks was to be attended was, that a wall was to be built inclosing a large tract of ground. He wished to know how many acres were to be thus inclosed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

allowed that the building of a boundary wall formed a considerable item in the estimate. He did not know the quantity of ground inclosed, but he believed it was eight acres.

Mr. Calcraft

thought it was most improvident to spend a large sum in building a wall round eight acres of land for the accommodation of 400 men. He should divide the committee on the main clause.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, the wall was to be built round a piece of ground for the exercise of the troops. The barracks in question were not like those in Hyde Park, near a place where they could exercise their horses, as the whole of the Regent's Park was laid out in inclosures or plantations.

Mr. C. Calvert

thought this pretence for building a high wall round eight acres of ground was absurd. There were near the Ophthalmic establishment inclosures of more than eight acres, where the cavalry might exercise, without the necessity of any such wall being built.

Mr. Wilson

said, that if new barracks were to be built, they certainly ought to be built with the utmost economy. In the present case the wall seemed to him to be superfluous, and he was of opinion that the whole contract betrayed great mismanagement. If the money had been raised at the present market rate of interest, the country would have been burdened with an annuity of only 3,000l. instead of 5,400l. Under these circumstances, it seemed to him that the House was bound to throw this measure back on the right hon. gentleman, and force him to make a better bargain for the public.

Sir H. Parnell

said, it was trifling with the House and with the country to propose a vote of this kind at a moment when economy was so loudly demanded in every department of the state.

The committee then divided:—For the motion, 50; Against it, 33; Majority, 17.