The Sun.
London, England, 1867-07-03 00:00:00

KNIGII7SBRIDGE BARRACKS.

Monday morning a deputation waited upan Sir
John Pakington at the War-office, for the purpose
of urging the desirableness of removing Knights-
bridge Barracks, the existence of which is alleged
to be a serious nuisance to the inhabitants of the
neighbourhood. The deputation consisted of the
following :—Earl Grosvenor, ALP., Lord Alfred
Spencer Churchill, the Right lion. Robert Lowe,
M.P., Sir Anthony Sterling, Sir William
Stirling Maxwell, Lord William Compton, Mr. Ed-
ward Schenley, Mr. J. Barnes, Dr. Martyn, Mr.
IV. It. Sandbach, Mr. Charles Wcstcrton, Mr.
Thomas 13anting, Mr. W. Gore Langton, Mr.
Alexander Western, Mr. John lilsworthy, and Mr.
11. Reeves.
Earl GROSVENOR, in introducing the deputation,
after explaining that he was not the owner of pro-
perty in the vicinity of the barracks, and was there-
fore entirely disinterested, said the barracks was a
nuisance to the public thoroughfare of two impor-
tant districts, namely, Belgravia and Kensington,
and asserted that so long as they remained where
they were the park would never be what it ought
to be.
Mr. LOWE then addressed the right hon. gentle-
man at length. He said there was no finer situa-
tion in London than that occupied by Knights-
bridge Barracks, than which, in his opinion, there
was not a shabbier, uglier, or more unsightly build-
ing in the metropolis, and between which and the
locality there was an unpleasantly obvious incon-
gruity. The report of the Parks Commission in. 1863
referred to the unsatisfactory condition of the bar-
racks. The whole building was permeated with the
smell of the stables, the soldiers and their families
occupied the rooms over the stables, the rooms were
unventilated and uncomfortable in every way, and
in the hospital there was no thorough ventilation ;
the ashpits were in front of the building, and, in
short, the whole barracks was as badly constructed
as could well be imagined. Besicks that, it was a
great nuisance to the residents in the neighbour-
hood. He did not live close to it, but still ho was
quite aware of the great evils arising from its exist-
ence. The locality abounded with prostitutes, and
contained publichonses of the lowest class. He really
thought a sacrifice should be made to transfer the
barracks to some other part, where, owing to the
state of the neighbourhood, the evils of which they
complained would inflict little comparative injury.
The district around the barrackswas a couit suburb
and was the finest entrance into London. There
was now the monument to the Prince Consort, and
the great hall of sciences—in fact, a new town of
gentlemen's houses was springing up. Between
them the barracks stood as an isthmus of barbarism;
but if it were cleared off—if the rookery were re-
moved, a beautiful place might be made of the site
on which it stood. He did not urge the removal of
the barracks on the ground of the value of house-
hold property—he did it on the principle of metro-
politan improvement. The place was the west side
—almost the show side—of the town ; and no one
coming to town from the Kensington side could
avoid seeing how this building marred the effect of
the neighbourhood. Then it came to the question of
what was to be done. He was informed on good
authority that if the barracks were pulled down the
price of land would pretty well recoup the expendi-
ture of building a new one. Indeed, in any case it
would be better to make a pecuniary sacrifice than
to have a pile of buildings which excluded the public
from the park. He bad for some years the manage-
ment of Chelsea Hospital, aspayma.ster-general, and
be thought that what had been done with Green-
wich ought to be done with Chelsea. The building
could then be made available for the troops, and
the pensioners, when in the country, would make
recruiting agents amongst the village inns, where
they would give accounts, both true and untrue—
(laughter)—of
A great
greater( la u ght eirm)
improvement
e m theiren t co
ulcould adventures.
be effected lle b
ienl eLvoe
than to get rid of Knightsbridge Barra •
not have anything
provement, and still they would
it would in his
ididonno
vav with them, and to
opinion, be far better to do al
likede3l oaf hmatoidnseoymweobuilding ve;
530
oLeoi
rndhaAb advantageLitt
build a new one. toaubde spe. Barn
t,heir
memo-
rial in favour of the removal of the barracks from
ALFRED
rD co:
uCE
ch
ieilsieLLa
then
npyr e
soetnh
teerd pa lianceem too-
nts in the neighbourhood of Knights-
amo
bridgengst and South Kensington. The memorialists,
other things, stated the barracks were no-
toriously unhealthy, and a great nuisance to the
neighbourhood, that their vicinity was occupied by
many objectionable houses, which at night caused
the assemblage of noisy crowds and persons of dis-
orderly character, whose behaviour made the place
as unseemly as the Ilaymarket ever wai. His lordship
also presented a petition from the Westminster Dis-
trictßoa.rd of Works, setting forth the inconvenience
arising from the existence of the barracks in so great
a thoroughfare, and the interruption it caused to
the carrying out of architectural and sanitary im-