HC Deb 02 March 1876 vol 227 cc1221-35
MR. J. E. YORKE

rose to call attention to the proposed re-erection of Knightsbridge Barracks on the present site, in reference to which he had given Notice to move— That, having regard to the Report of the Barrack: Commission of 1863, which pronounces the site of the Cavalry Barracks at Knightsbridge to he 'especially objectionable,' and considering that the width of ground available for their re-erection on that site, already insufficient, will he further diminished to the extent of thirty feet by the proposed widening of the Knightsbridge Road, this House is of opinion that the said Barracks ought not to be rebuilt on their present site. He was aware that, by the Forms of the House, he could not press the Motion to a division, and he would content himself by calling attention to the subject of it before the House went into Committee. This question had given rise to much misrepresentation and prejudice, and he wished, in the first place, to make a few disclaimers. He disclaimed the charge of intending, by this Motion, to throw any imputation upon those admirable troops who now occupied the Knightsbridge Barracks. He had not come down there to place himself in the ridiculous position of a householder who had female members of his establishment who might be subjected to the insults of brutal and licentious soldiers. During the time he had lived in the neighbourhood he had never to his knowledge seen a soldier of the Life Guards either drunk or in any way misconduct himself. He disclaimed being on that occasion the organ of any interested agitation. If there were any persons specially interested in the removal of those barracks from their present site they were the landowners whose property faced them. Those landowners were, first, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners; secondly, the noble Lord the Member for Down (Lord A. E. Hill Trevor); and, thirdly, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). Neither of those three had ever directly or indirectly taken any part in the agitation on that subject. That agitation, no doubt, had been promoted by those who experienced the inconvenience resulting from the narrowness of the road in that neighbourhood, and it was a matter of comparative indifference to those persons whether the barracks remained on their present site or not, provided the road was widened. The Knightsbridge Barracks were erected in the time of the Lord George Gordon's riots, about the end of the last century. They were constructed according to the sanitary views of the period; they were not intended to accommodate women or children, and they stood at a very inconvenient angle to the road. The first official mention he found of them was in the Report of the Barrack Commissioners in 1863, who reported that they were the worst barracks in the Kingdom, owing to their defective construction and the difficulty of effecting any improvement in them, and that the site was most objectionable. The men's rooms were placed over the stables, the smell of which saturated the whole of the barracks, while there was very little free circulation of air. He did not wish to enter into any controversy with the illustrious Duke at the head of the Army, and if it had been stated that an atmosphere impregnated with ammoniacal exhalations was fit for Her Majesty's troops he would not venture to question that statement, not having sufficient knowledge on the subject; but he would commend its consideration to the medical Press and those who were best qualified to form an opinion on the matter. The first move on the subject originated with the Chelsea Vestry in 1863, who represented the condition of the barracks to the then Under Secretary for War (Earl De Grey), who stated that there were no barracks in the United Kingdom so bad as Knightsbridge Barracks for the accommodation of the Household Troops, and that it had long been the wish of the Secretary for War to remove them and make proper improvements. In 1867 again a deputation on the same subject, headed by the Duke of Westminster and the right hon. Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe), waited on Sir John Pakington (now Lord Hampton), who appeared to be much agitated by doubts, and could not arrive at any con-elusion on the matter; but he said he was struck with the suggestion of the right hon. Member for the University that the barracks should be removed to Chelsea. General Peel was the first who suggested the Millbank site, which was afterwards taken up by the late Government, There were certain unsavoury associations about Millbank, through its connection with the prison, which might make gallant men not like to occupy barracks there; but if the prison had been removed according to the plan of the late Government he believed the proposal would have been sound, at least financially. Last year an outbreak of scarlet fever, or as the Secretary of State for War called it, of scarlatina, occurred at the Knightsbridge Barracks, causing great alarm in the neighbourhood, and he received a Petition to present from 800 householders of all ranks living in the neighbourhood, praying that something might be done. The Secretary of State for War then appeared much disinclined to do anything in the matter, saying that those barracks were the most favourite barracks in the Kingdom, and that the men were especially fond of them. He believed, however, that he might now congratulate the right hon. Gentlemen on having since changed his mind. The logic of facts had proved too much for him; the barracks had taken matters into their own hands by their subsidence, and the gallant troops had to yield to necessity. He had not yet seen the plans of the Government, but supposed the House would hear something respecting them in the course of the evening. He believed they might be fairly described as involving the widening of the road 30 feet, and the rebuilding of the barracks on ground before reported by the Barrack Commissioners to be insufficient, and which was now to be curtailed throughout the entire length by no less than 30 feet. He had spoken to many military men on the subject, and, amongst others, to Lord Sandhurst, who stated that, as a matter of common sense, it was absolutely preposterous to propose to rebuild the barracks on such a site. What he (Mr. Yorke) particularly wished to impress upon the Government was this, that this was practically a question of the health of the soldier. Of course, if the site were the only one available, then the £100,000 should be expended on the re-erection of the barracks. But was that so? He had the authority of a gentleman of considerable experience, Captain Douglas Gort, for saying that, in his opinion, another site could be found which would be very much better than the present. The area occupied by the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea was over 10 acres, and the expenditure of £20,000 would provide all the additional accommodation that would be required; while, at a cost of £40,000, military schools to replace those now existing could be erected in the country. The adoption, therefore, of the Royal Military Asylum for the purposes of the barracks would save a sum of £40,000, and the boys attending the schools could not but be benefited by the change. But he was told that the great objection to the removal of the barracks was founded on strategical considerations. It had been said by the illustrious Duke the Commander-in-Chief in "another place" that he infinitely preferred the present site to any other for strategical purposes. He (Mr. Yorke) had received many military opinions on the point, but there was no unanimity amongst them. If it were necessary that troops should be quartered in the Park, there were other sites available there which were much better than the present narrow one. Let them take, for instance, the Deputy Ranger's lodge, garden, and paddock, and they would have an excellent site, where Cavalry would be placed in the immediate vicinity of the powder magazine, with its 1,500,000 cartridges, which were now protected by one gallant sentry. They had no reason whatever—under the present excellent Government, in which he had the fullest confidence—to apprehend an outbreak of civil disorder; but they should remember that during three years, according to the present proposal, the Park would be without the presence of the military. He had suggested these sites for the consideration of the Government, and should take another opportunity of again referring to the subject. It had been said that certain persons in the neighbourhood were greatly interested, and would benefit by the removal. No doubt the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and some other persons would gain by the increased value of their territory, because instead of looking upon a high and ugly wall they would be able to look into a beautiful garden. He would only add, in reference to the question of site, that the barracks might be built on the eastern portion of the ground occupied by the Exhibition; and if the building was to have, as the illustrious Duke said it would, a handsome elevation, it would look exceedingly well if placed in that commanding position, where it would have all the strategical advantages which had been pointed out as necessary. He did not think the House would be content that £100,000 should be spent on the re-building of the barracks on their present site. When they compared the care which was taken of the health of the soldier with that which was taken of the convict and the pauper, it seemed to him that the natural order of things was reversed. For his part, he considered that soldiers should be better cared for than paupers, and paupers than criminals. Instead of that, however, sanitary conditions were more rigorously attended to in prisons than in workhouses, and in workhouses than in barracks. If the Government carried out the present ill-considered scheme, it would, he believed, be but another and a signal instance of the absurd manner in which such matters were conducted in this country. He hoped, however, that better counsels would prevail, and he humbly submitted that, in consideration of the health of the soldier, the confined space at Knightsbridge was utterly un-suited for the re-construction of the barracks on the present site.

MR. FORSYTH

, in supporting the suggestion of his hon. Friend, desired earnestly to disclaim any intention of casting the slightest imputation upon the soldiers occupying, or who had occupied, Knightsbridge Barracks. If, however, they were angels in white robes and with waving wings, the objections to the present site would remain. Now that new barracks were to be erected, the best possible site for the purpose ought to be chosen. Two objections had been urged against the removal of the barracks—first, that vicinity to the Park was necessary for the purpose of evolutions; and, next, that it was desirable to have troops in the Park to be ready in case of civil tumult. The first objection was met by the fact that if the barracks were placed at Millbank or Chelsea, a trot of 10 minutes would bring the troops to Hyde Park. With regard to the second objection, it should be remembered that for 100 years it had not been necessary to put down tumult or sedition in London by calling in the aid of the military. The people of this metropolis were the most law-abiding people of any country in the world, and he was sorry to hear the probability of sedition or insurrection assigned as the reason for continuing these barracks on the present site. The real objection was not that the soldiers were not orderly, but that unsightly buildings, such as music-halls, public-houses, and tobacconists' shops, which now fronted the barracks, must be stereotyped as long as the barracks remained. The authority of the great Duke of Wellington had been cited in favour of these barracks; but since his time an admirable access had been opened up from Millbank to the City, so that soldiers could go at a hand gallop all the way along the Thames Embankment, except in turning round the Houses of Parliament to get upon the Embankment. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, at the banquet of the Royal Academy the year before last, had pictured the idea of Pericles walking from Trafalgar Square to the Mansion House, and had described the ugliness he would see; but he (Mr. Forsyth) would say, let us imagine Pericles setting out from Kensington to go to Apsley House. He would pass by palatial structures, squares, terraces, and gardens, and the Albert Monument, with its beautiful sculptures, until he came to a narrow isthmus, with a dingy red brick wall on one side, and a congeries of the ugliest houses in the metropolis on the other. Pericles would surely think that he had already passed through London, and was entering some insignificant village on the east. As to pecuniary interests, he (Mr. Forsyth) certainly lived not far from the Knightsbridge Barracks, but he did not believe it would make £5 a-year difference in the value of his house if they were pulled down. A lady, however, could not walk with comfort from Prince's Gardens, to Sloane Street without hearing sounds and seeing sights which must be offensive. It was said in praise of Augustus that he left Rome of marble, having found it of brick. It was not likely that any English Government would do this for London, but it ought to take every opportunity of beautifying the metropolis; and he trusted that this opportunity would not be lost to rid the neighbourhood of a building which must be unsightly and unseemly.

MR. HAYTER

said, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would accept the Motion. During the riots in Hyde Park it became necessary to have 250 troopers to assist the police; but when the Cavalry came out they had not acted until the Infantry were drawn up in line with fixed bayonets, when they formed on their flanks. Consequently, if such proximity was necessary for the security of Hyde Park, they must build Infantry barracks also. Why should not the Government utilize the present barracks at Kensington? They were built only 15 years ago, and could accommodate 200 Household Infantry, and there were stables for 60 troop horses. There was some additional space which the Government might obtain at a small expense, and the barracks might easily be made to accommodate a regiment of Household Cavalry. The troopers at the Knightsbridge Barracks never went into the Park except for exercise, and the Kensington Barracks would be equally near for that purpose, while they would be half a mile nearer to the evolution ground at Wormwood Scrubbs.

SIR. JAMES HOGG

opposed the Motion. He could bear professional testimony to the usefulness of Hyde Park for exercising the Cavalry in the Knightsbridge Barracks. It might be that 100 years had elapsed since the military had been employed in aid of the civil power; but he had been in Knightsbridge Barracks when two regiments of Cavalry and a force of Infantry, Artillery, and police were assembled in readiness, in the event of a breach of the peace; and it might again be necessary, when the popular mind was excited, to have soldiers of various arms in the best strategical positions ready to act. Barracks had been spoken of as necessarily unsightly; but he could not see why, if the present building were pulled down, the barracks to be built in their place should not be as handsome as any other building. The Metropolitan Board of Works and the War Office had met each other in a liberal spirit in regard to the widening of the road opposite to the barracks, and when the present eyesore was removed he had no doubt that the new building would be an ornament to the metropolis. As to the character of the soldiers, he believed that a better body of men than the Life Guards and the Blues never had the honour of serving the Queen. There was no connection whatever between the existence of the barracks and the existence of the houses opposite. When soldiers had leave of absence it was for a specific purpose; it was not for the purpose of hanging about the public-houses in the neighbourhood of the barracks, which they would not be likely to do, because if they were seen they would expose themselves to having leave refused in future. Therefore, the public-houses were not frequented by the soldiers on leave, and, if the public-houses were a local nuisance, it was the fault of the licensing magistrates, and not of the military authorities in keeping the barracks there. If the houses opposite were of the ugly character that had been described, why did not the freeholders pull them down and build something else? When the thoroughfare was widened he hoped the improvement would effect all the change that could be deemed necessary. That the district was a healthy one he knew from the experience of himself and of the regiment with which he served for the space of 18 years. He hoped the Government would abide by their determination to keep the barracks where they were.

SIR ANDREW LUSK

said, there was no doubt that all those living in the neighbourhood would rather have the barracks in some other place. He had nothing to say against the character of the soldiers, and he was very much annoyed to hear one officer after another in this House saying things most disparaging to the reputation of the men in many ways. He was quite of opinion of the illustrious Duke, who said in "another place" that he would be prepared at a very short notice to go any where with our troops; but although the men might go to fight our battles, we did not want them at all times in our immediate neighbourhood. The language which was used by the soldiers was not all that could be desired by those who might be passing accompanied by ladies, and he hoped the Government would consider the desirability of removing the barracks to some other place. The public of the metropolis would be pleased if another site were chosen, and there were really no strategic reasons in favour of the present position.

MR. DILLWYN

said, it had always hitherto been argued that it would be wasteful to pull down barracks which were sufficient for the purpose for which they were intended, and which he understood the Secretary of State last year to say were good, and answered very well for their purpose; and under those conditions he, for one, had never joined in any agitation for the removal of the barracks. But now he was told that the barracks were tumbling down, and new barracks would have to be built on the same site or elsewhere. It seemed to him now, that so for from being a waste of public money to build them elsewhere, it would be a waste of public money to rebuild them on their present site. The site was inconvenient and ill adapted for the purpose, and to build new barracks there would be to perpetuate the bad class of houses that existed in what ought to be the very best site in London. In saying this, however, he did not wish it to be supposed that he considered the presence there of the Horse Guards to be objectionable as having lived immediately beyond that particular district for 14 or 15 years, and having had very good opportunities of observing the character of the soldiers, he was bound to say that a better conducted set of men than the Household Troops he could not wish to see.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

said, there would be some force in the objection to re-building the barracks on their present site, if in re-building them it were impossible to introduce all those improved sanitary provisions which had been recommended by the Army Sanitary Commission and had already been adopted at Shorncliffe, Colchester, and elsewhere; but, as the reverse would be the case, and no sanitary provision would be neglected, the argument based on the anticipated unhealthiness of the new barracks fell to the ground, for it was admitted that the site itself was healthy and one of the finest in London. As to the disreputable houses, it appeared that they were not frequented by the occupants of the barracks, and would probably remain, even if the barracks were taken away. It had been asserted that the late Government wanted to remove the barracks to Millbank; but he asked what proof there was that they ever came to such a decision? No doubt notices were given to persons holding-houses between Albert Gate and the barracks; it was supposed that the barracks were to be removed, and some one said they were going to Millbank. But all the notices were withdrawn, and therefore the Government did not think fit to carry their plan out; or it did not refer to the barracks at all. It had been asked why they did not remove the barracks to the middle of the Park; but there they would be more offensive than in their present position. In such a case there must be a public road through the Park to carry in supplies, and to carry away the manure from the horses. It was this that was suggested as an improvement to Hyde Park. Great pains had been taken to ascertain what could be done on the present site, and the result was there would be full cubic space, proper superficial space, and ample window space, and, indeed, all the requirements of the Army Sanitary Commission would be fully met; and the stables would be ventilated, not into occupied rooms, as in too many gentlemen's houses in London—though he had never heard that coachmen and their families were particularly unhealthy—but by special shafts into the open air, so that the soldiers and their families would not breathe the polluted air of the stables below them. The whole of the agitation against the proposal was confined to the neighbourhood; it was not the public, and scarcely the public of Knightsbridge, who supported it. The secretary seemed to put down his supporters as persons who sooner than not get rid of these barracks would become Republicans and would abolish the regiment of Guards. ["Oh."] The Secretary of the Knightsbridge Improvement Committee said something of that kind, and he was for doing away with the barracks with a very high hand, indeed. He talked about their not giving way to public opinion; but he had not public opinion, and indeed scarcely Knightsbridge opinion, to support him. There were residents in the immediate neighbourhood who had represented to him that there was no necessity for abandoning that site and to take any trouble to find a new one. As to Millbank, he should be ashamed to send the Household Troops there, for everybody knew that, from the associations of the place, they would be called "gaol birds" and all sorts of nicknames of that kind. He should also be ashamed to send them into the Park; because the opinion of the general public had condemned most emphatically the taking of a large slice of the Park for the purpose of a barrack and new roads to it. Why, when Mr. Ayrton, as First Commissioner of Works, suggested taking a small bit from the esplanade of St. James's Park for public buildings there was a great outcry throughout London against depriving the public of any of its open spaces. They had been going on for 12 years seeking, but without finding, an available site, and now they had all these different sites suggested. Well, he was content with the present site. It was given by George III. as a site for a barrack, and he believed it could be made both pleasant and healthy. He could give the assurance that, without any extreme expense, an architectural character would be imparted to the new building which he was sure would be satisfactory. It had been proposed to sell the site of the barracks for houses to be built on it, but that would be an interference with the Park which would be wholly unjustifiable. Besides that, the site was given solely for the purposes of a barrack, and if used for any other purpose it would fall into the hands of the Woods and Forest Commissioners, and the money paid for it must be handed to them and could not be applied to the purposes of a new building. When he had this subject first thrust upon him he was told that the barracks would hang together for many years, and he thought they would. He did not believe in the excessive unhealthiness of the site. That was contradicted by the medical reports. It was far better in that respect than the St. John's Wood Barracks. He was willing, therefore, to take the barracks as they stood, but the foundations had given way, and they could not therefore leave the troops there with safety to their physical condition. In 1851 there was a competition for the building of Cavalry and Infantry barracks, and prizes were awarded. The prize for Infantry barracks was gained by the gentleman who had the superintending of the building of Chelsea Barracks, though not exactly upon his plan. It was understood that whoever got the prizes would be employed to build barracks. Mr. Wyatt, a gentleman of great experience and ability, got the prize for Cavalry barracks, and he had a claim on the Secretary of State to be employed whenever a Cavalry barrack was going to be built. When a Cavalry barrack was to be built at Nottingham he received from the then Secretary at War—Sir George Lewis—the assurance that his claim was admitted. When it was proposed that these barracks should be rebuilt, he might perhaps have said that it was rather a case of re-construction than of re-building; he did object to have an encumbrance of this kind hanging over him in the nature of a claim which had been admitted for 20 years, he therefore sent for Mr. Wyatt. He found him most ready to enter into terms; and, therefore, so far as architecture was concerned, he could say, the building would be in the hands of one of the most competent architects England could produce. He had been employed in every part of England, and the houses he had built fully showed his skill in his profession. It was said they might go to Chelsea; but if the barracks were objectionable on their present site, might they not be equally objectionable in Chelsea? Besides, although Chelsea might be very healthy for boys, it did not necessarily follow that Chelsea would be equally healthy for the Household Troops. Why remove them from their present site if they could find sufficient accommodation? Hon. Members who came from that neighbourhood spoke of the site as a most unpopular one for the Guards; but he rather thought otherwise. He believed it was very grateful to the public to see the troops pass, and those who frequented the Park at early hours must often have seen the people standing in front of the barracks to hear the band play. That, perhaps, was a small matter; but he did not see why, without cause, they should make any change in that respect. He might go further. He objected very much to the terms in which his hon. Friend had couched his Motion. They were not justified by the Report he quoted; and, so far from there being special objections to these barracks the word "especially" applied to Portman Street Barracks, and for reasons given in that Report, such as their being surrounded by high houses which obstructed the free air. An enclosed yard to which objection had been made, would be entirely obviated, because the barracks would practically form an open street with one entrance in the Park and the other in the road, instead of the present narrow, dull, heavy square. They would get rid of one of the most objectionable features in the present arrangement—he referred to the fact that the officers' apartments were over the infirmary. The barn which disfigured the Park would be moved away, and in its place good and ample accommodation would be provided for the forage for the troops. A hospital of a larger kind would be provided, to be shared with the Foot Guards, where the troops would probably receive greater attention, All those great improvements would be effected. Having, therefore, a site unobjectionable in itself—for the barracks had not been proved to be any nuisance to the neighbourhood, though no doubt the new barracks would be a great improvement in that respect—and it should be remembered that the barracks were not brought to the neighbourhood, but the houses in the neighbourhood had come to the barracks, he thought it a little strong to say that the barracks should be removed for the benefit of the neighbourhood. The street would be widened. Twenty feet would be taken off the very widest part; but it tapered away to absolutely nothing, and the road throughout would be 60 feet wide. Of course, he did not wish to incur the expense of putting plans on the Table before he knew that the House would sanction the proposal; but if his hon. Friend would call on him he would be happy to show him the plans. He had carefully considered the whole of this subject. He was responsible for the health of the men, and he believed every measure had been taken to secure their health. With regard to any apprehensions that the services of the troops might be required to be used against our own people, everybody knew that in a metropolis like this a certain number of bad characters might congregate that would require military force to disperse them, and there was nothing more calculated to save human life when the military was called on to aid the civil power than the use of Cavalry instead of Infantry, who were too often obliged to fire to effect that purpose. With regard to recruiting, he would reserve much of what he had to say until he made his statement on the Army Estimates. A proposal had been made for training boys for the Army; but although it was perhaps not an impracticable one, it would involve a serious outlay—as much as £60, probably, for every recruit of 18 years of age. Then it was suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) that men entering the Army should be required to show certificates of good character. If the hon. and gallant Member had known as much about "characters" as he (Mr. Hardy) did, he would probably not have expressed so high an opinion of their utility. A case which had occurred in a village of his acquaintance illustrated rather forcibly how such a proposal would work. A man of notoriously bad character, who was mixed up in most of the mischief of the neighbourhood, took it into his head that he would emigrate. Well, to be assisted by the Emigration Commissioners he required to have a character, and accordingly he went round to the farmers and other people of respectability in the parish, begging them to testify to his good behaviour, which they all did. They gave him a character such as nobody had ever seen or known of before for excellence, in order to get rid of him. No one was more astonished at this result than the man himself, and after looking at his certificate, with its long list of signatures—" Well," said he, "I had no idea I was so much esteemed in the neighbourhood; I think I shall stay." He did so, and no one could breathe a word afterwards against him, because he had this written character stating what an excellent man he was; and it would be something of the same kind if they insisted upon characters with the recruits. A man who made himself obnoxious in a particular neighbourhood and who proposed to enlist would seldom find any difficulty in procuring one. He had given an unusual amount of information in the Estimates this year, which had been used in the speeches that had been delivered before he had had an opportunity of saying a word; but he would reserve his reply until the House was in Committee. He how came to the statement of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford), and on this point he could only say that both the military and civil authorities were determined as far as possible to put down such offences as had been described. The punishment inflicted had been spoken of as small, but dismissal from the Army was a very serious thing. It remained as a stigma on a man's character for the rest of his life, and operated as a serious warning to others. No man set his face more sternly against such offences in the Army than the Commander-in-Chief, and whenever they were brought under his notice they would assuredly not be lightly passed over. For his own part, although he deprecated any discussion in that House on the discipline of the Army, he was not at all sorry to have his attention called to particular cases that occurred, and he could assure hon. Members that officers who misbehaved themselves in any way would find in him a stern judge.