HL Deb 08 July 1858 vol 151 c1075

On the Motion that the Bill be now read 3a,


said, he thought this opportunity, of reserving a portion of this land for the erection of new barracks ought not to be lost. The arrangement which the Government had made seemed upon the whole to be advantageous; still, as the Kensington Barracks would require to be removed, and as it appeared the National Gallery was to remain where it was at present, and that it would be absolutely necessary to remove the barracks behind that site, in order that the gallery might be enlarged, they ought to retain ten or twenty acres of that land as a site for the new barracks. What objection could there be to such a course? Where were there to obtain such another piece of land? The price of land in the immediate neighbourhood of London was rapidly increasing every day. They had this space already in their hands, and there could be no objection to its being used for barracks. But it was said there was a contract, or quasi contract, with the original possessors that it should not be so occupied, as it might depreciate the value of the adjoining property. But if the character of the houses was good, he did not believe that the erection of barracks would be disadvantageous.


said, the terms of the charter under which the Commissioners held the land were, that it should be applied in the promotion of science and art. The purchase having been effected under those terms, they were bound by the charter, and consequently the land could not be applied in the erection of barracks.

Bill read 3a, and passed.