HC Deb 17 July 1820 vol 2 cc497-8

The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the report of the above bill be now received.

Mr. Calcraft

felt himself compelled to renew his opposition to this measure. The right hon. gentleman had told them, that, unless this bargain was completed, the Horse-Guards would be without barracks. This he denied; because they might still occupy the barracks which they previously had. The right hon. gentleman had thrown the blame of this proceeding on the contractor, who was said to have gone on with the work hastily. That, however, could not be; because the ground on which the barracks were building was the property of the Crown, and it was impossible that it could have been placed in the contractor's possession except by the officers of the Crown. The contractor denied that he proceeded on his own risk, and declared that he acted under the contract signed by government before parliament knew any thing of the matter. He had also to object, that this proceeding had not been conducted on the principle of competition. Competition, however, there was none. The present was a most improper time for the expenditure of the public money on any object that could be foregone. If barracks were really wanted, they could be procured for infinitely less than the sum now about to be laid out. He could see no necessity for the measure; and if the House threw the matter back to government, they would find that the plan would be reduced to something like a proper scale.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer defended

the contract, as an eligible one for the public.

Mr. Wilson

contended, that 5,400l. per annum, was too great a rent for the premises in question. The contract was made at the rate of 7½ per cent, which was most exorbitant.

Mr. Leonard

was bound to oppose a measure which would, for many years, cost the country 5,400l. per annum for bare walls. He could not see any necessity for going to such an extraordinary expense for a regiment consisting only of 400 men and 300 horses.

The question being put, "That the report be now received," the House divided: Ayes, 92; Noes, 74.

List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J. Denison, Wm.
Allen, John H. Duncannon, visc.
Anson, hon. G. Dundas, C.
Aubrey, sir John Ebrington, viscount
Barrett, S. M. Evans, Wm.
Bernal, Ralph Fergusson, sir R. C.
Bright, H. Fitzgerald, lord W.
Buxton, Fowell Fleming, John
Boughton, W. R. Glenorchy, lord
Bennet, John Graham, J. R. G.
Calthorpe, hon. F. Haldimand, Wm.
Calvert, C. Hamilton, lord A.
Campbell, hon. J. Heathcote, G. J.
Clifford, Aug. Hobhouse, J. C.
Concannon, lord Hughes, W. L.
Davies, T. H. Hume, Jos.
Hutchinson, C. H. Robinson, sir G.
Langston, J. H. Rowley, sir W.
Lemon, sir W. Rumbold, C.
Lushington, Dr. Russell, lord W.
Lennard, T. B. Russell, R. G.
Lockhart, J. J. Smith, Robt.
Martin, John Scudamore, R.
Maxwell, J. Sefton, earl of
Monck, J. B. Titchfield, marq.
Moore, Peter Townshend, lord C.
Mostyn, sir T. Taylor, M. A.
Nugent, lord Western, C. C.
Ord, Wm. Wells, J.
Ossulston, visc. Whitbread, W. H.
Parnell, sir H. Whitbread, Sam.
Pares, Thos. Williams, W.
Peirse, Henry Wood, M.
Powlett, hon. W. Wynn, sir W.W.
Price, Rt. Wilson, sir R.
Prittie, hon. F. A. TELLERS.
Pryse, P. Calcraft, J.
Robarts, Abr. Wilson, T.
Robarts, G.