MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the buildings and sheds used for the Superior Courts of Law and Equity, and to the inadequate accommodation afforded by them. He had hoped to be spared the necessity of directing notice to this grievance, as last year the Government intimated that some steps would be taken to remedy it; but the introduction of their promised measures was still delayed. The House took great interest in the discussions relating to picture galleries or museums for the exhibition of art, but he was sure the country would think it of much greater importance than spending money even on such desirable objects that the courts in Which justice was administered should be made worthy of the nation. The state of made worthy of the nation. The state of the Courts of Law was as bad as it possibly could be, and the word "sheds" fairly described many of the buildings used as courts. Last Session he called attention to this subject on account of the Second Court of Queen's Bench being obliged to close its sittings, because the Chief Justice stated that it was utterly unfit for a Court of Justice, and detrimental to the health of all attending it. In the present year the Judges of the Queen's Bench had again had occasion to complain of the places allotted to them for the purpose of exercising their functions. On a recent occasion, when a necessity arose for having a 364 Second Court of Queen's Bench, no other place was at the time available for the purpose but a miserable room, with access by a dark staircase, which it was almost impossible to find. Justice on that occasion was certainly in a state of vagrancy, and had to hide her head from the suitors endeavouring to follow her, in an obscure chamber, where Mr. Justice Blackburn said that it was not possible to see, hear, or breathe. The state of the Courts at Westminster was shortly this, that eight courts were sometimes required, and there were only two fit for the despatch of business—the Court of Queen's Bench and the Court of Exchequer. The Court of Common Pleas, which was built when the Serjeants only had audience there, was now much too small for its business, which amounted to one-third of the whole legal business of the country. The Bail Court, in which jury cases were now tried, was intended original^ for the sitting of a single Judge to dispose of what were known as "bail cases," and might be likened to the "black hole," for it was below the ordinary surface of the ground, and had only one entrance. The Bar were accustomed to the annoyance, and had got in some degree acclimatized to it; but the public who had to discharge the duties of jurors and witnesses, had had no such training, and felt most severely the inconveniences to which they were subjected in consequence of the heat and want of ventilation. He did not know anything more painful than to address a jury in an incipient state of apoplexy. The Courts of Equity were, he believed, in some respects no better. [Mr. MALINS: They are worse.] His hon. and learned Friend near him said that they were worse, and certainly he could say with regard to two of them that they might very properly be called sheds, or places of temporary shelter. Such sheds, with better ventilation, might make good cavalry barracks. In Guildhall matters were no better, some courts there being built on the model of cucumber frames with glass at the top. In Edinburgh and Dublin there were excellent courts, with libraries for the use of the Bar; but in London there was no court which had a library, or any room in which those attending the courts could study during the intervals of their engagements. There were also no waiting rooms for witnesses, so that they had either to sit or stand in court, or haunt the purlieus of Westminster Hall. There was not the 365 slightest accommodation for jurymen. Frequently jurymen had to wait in court for several days before the cases on which they were summoned were called on. A merchant who had been summoned as a special juror wrote to him to say that he had to wait in court from ten till half past four, and that during the greater part of that time he was unable to obtain a seat; and he suggested that with the view of providing a room to which professional men, while waiting for the cases on which they had been summoned as special jurors, might retire for the purpose of writing letters and seeing their clerks on urgent business, special jurors should be paid only £1 instead of £1 1s. per day, and the odd shilling should be devoted to the providing of such a room. Was it not a reproach to those who had the management of these affairs that such a suggestion should have been made by a juror? Several spasmodic efforts had been made to build new courts, but the evils which had been so long felt and so frequently complained of still remained. Bench, Bar, jurors, witnesses, and suitors had equally a grievance in the present state of affairs. A Commission—consisting of Sir John Coleridge, Sir W. P. Wood, Sir George Lewis, Sir R. Phillimore, and Mr. John Young, a solicitor of eminence—inquired into the subject in 1860, and, although attempts had been made since then to improve matters, they remained much the same as before. The Commission reported that the Bail Court was wholly unsuited for jury trials, that the Common Pleas was too small for the convenient discharge of business, and had sometimes to borrow a Parliamentary Committee-room or a Chancery Court for the purpose of a second court, that the Court of Exchequer was also inadequate, and that in the Queen's Bench, as in the other courts, the accommodation for Bench, Bar, and other parties was very defective. He thought he was entitled to expect from what was said when he drew attention to the question on a former occasion, that something would before now have been done. His hon. and learned Friend the present Solicitor General owned that there was a crying grievance, and the Attorney General also condemned the present state of the courts, declaring that an immediate remedy was required, and that, in his opinion, there were sufficient funds in hand for the purpose. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that the Government were waiting only for the concurrence of 366 the House, and that after the encouragement which had been given he had no doubt they would not be unwilling to discharge the duty to which attention had been called. He was sorry that the Government had not as yet fulfilled that duty, but he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not plead that his words were uttered in the heat of debate, but would give effect to them. The lawyers were a long-suffering race, but he trusted that something would be done, without delay, to meet their just expectations in this matter. At the beginning of the Session the Chief Commissioner promised to bring in a Bill for the erection of new Law Courts between Carey Street and the Strand, but that promise had not yet been fulfilled. And on three other occasions the Government assured the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) that they would bring in a Bill on the subject. Something had been said about a financial difficulty, but he believed that means could easily be found, and, at all events, it was the duty of the Government to provide for the decent administration of justice. Luxurious accommodation was not asked for. Nothing more was required than such accommodation as would be consistent with the dignity of the country, and would promote the despatch of business, without occasioning inconvenience to those who were engaged in it. Quiet as the Session had been no stop had been taken, and now, unfortunately for the question, more exciting times were in prospect, but he hoped that the reproach which now rested on our legislation in this respect would speedily be removed.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, he regretted the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he wished to hear that right hon. Gentleman explain why the present state of things was allowed to continue. This was not a subject on which there was any difference of opinion. All agreed that the present state of things was disgraceful to the country. There were only two Equity Courts that were fit for the purpose, the Lord Chancellor's Court and the Lords Justices of Appeals' Court. As for the Equity Courts, no one would say that any of the three Vice Chancellors occupied a court fit for the administration of justice. And what accommodation was there for the transaction of that enormous mass of business which was referred to the Judges' Chambers? He reminded the House that four years ago, when he name down with 367 the intention to put a question on this subject, his noble and learned Friend the present Lord Chancellor told him that the Government were going to bring in a great scheme, and that in two years they would have new courts open. Since that time not a single step had been taken on the subject. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Commissioner of Works again and again when the Bill was to be brought in, and he had been assured that it was intended to do it speedily. He had asked the Lord Chancellor on more than one occasion what was the cause of the delay. He could, however, get no satisfactory answer; and he concluded it arose from the consideration of money. The Attorney General had agreed to the necessity of the measure, the Solicitor General had agreed to it, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whose duty it would be to see that public accommodation was duly provided, had agreed to it. For three if not four Sessions notice had been given by the Government to owners of houses between Searle Street and Fleet Street, that they would require their property, and the inhabitants there were in a state of great inconvenience and uncertainty. One lady, who was the owner of property in Boswell Court, was almost reduced to a state of destitution, for she could not find tenants for her property because the Government would not make up its mind. His hon. and learned Friend had represented the condition of the Courts of Common Law. The Courts of Equity also were extremely bad. There were no Waiting-rooms for witnesses, no retiring-rooms for juries; the Judge himself was obliged to retire to a room eight or nine feet square; and, in short, the whole state of things was a disgrace to the country. And what was the excuse offered? The Society of Lincoln's Inn had made a proposal to build three Vice Chancellors' Courts within the Inn, and lay out on them £100,000 if the Government would pay them £4 per cent on that outlay, and he confessed he would rather accept that proposal than that the present state of things should continue. If the Lincoln's Inn scheme could not be successfully promoted, he, for one, would concur in a general scheme which would place all the Courts of Law between Lincoln's Inn and Fleet Street. He thought that a case had been made out so clearly that the Government owed some explicit explanation to the House. The Government ought either 368 to bring in a Bill at once, or declare their intention to abandon the question, so that the Courts of Equity connected with Lincoln's Inn might take their own course.
§ MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he was unable to understand what could be the obstacles to the introduction of the Bill on that subject. The dilatory pleas which had so often been put forward were hardly becoming, and the Government ought not to give reiterated promises if they had no bonâ fide intention of fulfilling them. The owners of property on the proposed site of the new Law Courts had been exposed to great loss, owing to the notices which had been constantly served on them during the last three years, and they had good reason to complain of the suspense in which they were kept, as well as the serious injury they sustained while the Government were making up their minds either to proceed with or abandon the scheme. He had asked before Easter whether it was intended to proceed with the measure, and he was told that the Bill would be brought in immediately after Easter, but it had not yet been introduced.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the intentions of the Government had been perfectly bonâ fide. Difficulties had, however, interposed which, very much against the will of the Lord Chancellor and everybody else concerned in the preparation of the measure, had caused it to be delayed till the present time. It would be possible, he believed, to bring the Bill in within a very short time, although at that period of the Session he was aware it must depend on the goodwill of the House whether it could pass that year. But, even if it did not then pass, there would be some advantage in having the plan, upon which the Government had at last determined, submitted to the House, so that it might be maturely considered by all who were interested in it before another Session commenced. He agreed that the evil and scandal of the present state of things could not possibly be exaggerated, and that it was an object of the most pressing importance that the Courts of Law and Equity and all the offices connected with the administration of justice in its various departments should be put on a worthier and more satisfactory footing. He was thoroughly convinced that no scheme could be satisfactory which did not aim at bringing the whole of the Courts together, thereby contributing to the greatest possible despatch, the saving of the time of 369 suitors, and facilitating communication between all persons engaged in every branch of the administration of justice. It was true the Government two years previously brought in a Bill founded on the recommendations of the Commission of 1860. That Bill was met by an opposition mainly arising from the preference which some members of the legal profession felt for the plan proposed by Lincoln's Inn as to the Equity Courts. The Society of Lincoln's Inn was anxious to retain the Equity Courts within its own precincts, and desired their peculiar inconveniences to be remedied as soon as possible, whatever became of the case of the Common Law Courts. It would not, he thought, have been an expedient or long-sighted course to agree to that proposal. It would have tended to perpetuate one portion of the evil incident to the existing state of things, by separating one branch of the administration of justice from the rest, and interposing a real obstacle to the final and worthy settlement of that question. On the other hand, fears were expressed by some hon. Members—by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University amongst others—that the Government were about to launch on a boundless sea of expenditure, as had been done in regard to the building of the Houses of Parliament, and the House hesitated, chiefly on that account, to commit itself to their scheme. Before introducing another Bill on the subject the Department of the Government concerned in the matter had been very anxious to be quite sure of their ground, especially as to the pecuniary arrangements. The necessary inquiries had occupied, undoubtedly, a longer time than was anticipated at the beginning of the Session; but they were confident of being able to recommend to the House, and eventually they hoped to secure the adoption of, a measure which would obviate all the principal objections raised to the former project. In the first place, the Government had taken pains to ascertain by competent and independent opinions, whether the views of the architect consulted in the first instance, and who no longer had anything to do with the matter, could be safely relied on, and whether the estimates for the purchase of land and erection of buildings between Carey Street and the Strand were adequate. He was happy to state that the original estimate was fully borne out; they were confident that it was an outside 370 estimate, and were confident it would not be exceeded even if the entire plans were carried into effect. A change had been made in the proposed method of dealing with the funds, which would obviate the necessity of throwing any charge upon the public purse. Instead of taking the whole of the funds considered to be available in Chancery, amounting in round numbers to £1,500,000, a portion would be reserved in order to recoup to the public any advances which might have to be made on account of annual charges. The difference it was proposed to make up partly by taking into account the value of the present buildings and sites for building, which would be gained to the public, and partly by having money advanced from time to time by the Public Loan Commission. It was proposed to spread the reimbursement of that portion of the loan over a considerable number of years, and to raise the moderate annual sum which would be required to pay interest and instalments of principal by fees of small amount to be laid upon the several steps and processes taken in. those Courts deriving benefit from the now building which were unconnected with the Court of Chancery, and did not contribute any portion of the funds taken out of that Court. In that way the funds connected with the Court of Chancery, which were owned by no one and belonged to the public, would still contribute the principal portion of the cost, and the remainder would be distributed in the way he had explained. The necessary investigations relating to the plan of which he had given the outline had unavoidably occupied a considerable period of time; but if the House, generally, should be willing to entertain the project, there might be still time to pass it into law. At all events, it should be laid upon the table with as little delay as possible, and an opportunity of considering it afforded before the Session closed.
§ MR. SELWYNsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his narrative of the reasons which induced the House to reject the former proposal, had overlooked one or two great difficulties which were felt at the time. He had also been very much surprised at the description which he gave of the Suitors' Fee Fund as a fund that belonged to nobody, and was the property of the public. Without discussing that question, he would assert that if the origin of the fund were considered, the 371 purposes to which it was devoted, and the numerous claims continually made upon it, it would be impossible to maintain that view. Moreover, if the total expenditure of the court were placed on one side and the total receipts on the other, it would be seen that instead of an enormous surplus of a million and a half there was really but a balance of £200 or £300 a year; and this was obtained by taxation upon every stage of a cause,—the bill, the answer, the evidence, and the decree of the judge being all taxed. It was idle to talk of £1,500,000 being available. Proposals had been made to the Government to provide some of the requisite courts without any expense whatever to the State. It was only with regard to two out of the six Equity Courts that complaints were really tenable, and the Society of Lincoln's Inn had offered to erect the buildings requisite upon receiving from the Suitors' Fund an annuity of 4 per cent for the money they expended. The society made an alternative proposal to give the ground and to allow the Government to build courts for themselves. Therefore the reasons why the House rejected the original proposal were, among others, because they believed upon economical grounds that it was right to do so. It had been stated that the plan had been brought before the Earl of; Derby's Government and rejected by them; thus, so far from having been rejected, it was in 1859 embodied in a Bill which was read a second time in the House of Lords, and backed with the official title of the then Lord Chancellor. He denied that the benchers of Lincoln's Inn had any personal influence whatever in the decision of the question. If the whole revenues of the Inn were confiscated, they would not be a sixpence the poorer; and they would gain nothing if those revenues were doubled or trebled. The idea of a gigantic building in which all the courts could be assembled was only an idea which could never be realized. Would the House of Lords, for instance, sitting in its judicial capacity, be removed to that building? Would the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council hold its sittings there? Was it proposed that all the Committees of both Houses of Parliament should institute their inquiries within its limits? If the Government were really in earnest in the matter, let them at once introduce the measure of 1859, which would pass without opposition, and before that time next 372 year the courts which it contemplated would be built. The arguments in the Treasury Minute, which had been moved for by the hon. Member for Lewes, were conclusive against the proposed gigantic scheme. They showed the vast expenditure which would be necessary in order to buy up the houses between Carey Street and the Strand, the small surplus existing as between the income and expenditure of all the funds under the control of the Court of Chancery, and the large increase which was sure to take place between the estimate and the actual outlay. These arguments were just as applicable now as they were when the Minute was framed, and the Government would, therefore, do well to settle the question of the Courts of Equity at once and without delay, and afterwards it would be much more easy to find a site for the rest of the Law Courts, which possibly might be formed on the new Thames Embankment. He would therefore urge upon the Government the propriety of discarding their present scheme, as it had alone prevented a practical measure from being adopted, and to carry forward the Bill to which he had alluded.
MR. COWPERsaid, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was a good illustration of the difficulties which beset the question, and which had caused a delay that most persons deplored. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke with great authority, and he entirely repudiated the general grounds upon which the whole of the legislation in the matter proceeded. Nothing, he said, was wanting in respect of accommodation for the Equity Courts, except two or three Vice Chancellors' Courts. But, from what he (Mr. Cowper) had been able to gather, the hon. and learned Gentleman's proposal was totally insufficient as regarded even the Courts of Equity; and with respect to the Law Courts, the wants of the profession and of the public quite prevented the Government from acceding to such a wretched piecemeal proposal. Why not, he said, adopt the scheme suggested in 1859 by Lord Chelmsford, by which two Vice Chancellors' Courts and certain chambers were to be erected? But, in that matter, he (Mr. Cowper) was content to walk humbly in the footsteps of the Earl of Derby's Government. In 1859, instead of adopting the scheme proposed by Lord Chelmsford, they appointed a Royal Commission upon the question of concentrating the Law Courts. The Report of that 373 Commission met with such general approval on the part of the public, that it became the duty of the Government to endeavour to give effect generally to the recommendations contained in it; and the Government would not be doing what was expected from them by the profession and by the public, were they to abandon a great scheme which would be received as a boon by the profession at large—by solicitors as well as by counsel—for the sake of meeting the inconveniences felt by learned gentlemen practising in these two Vice Chancellors' Courts. Although the delay which had taken place had not mitigated the opposition of the hon. and learned Member, he was glad to say that some other persons thought better of the proposal, and the important aid of his hon. and learned Friend opposite, encouraged him to think that there might be a probability of obtaining the assent of the House to a scheme which was not open to the objections formerly urged against the proposal of the Government.
§ LORD HOTHAMsaid, he wished to know whether the Government had decided as to the choice of an architect?
MR. COWPERsaid, that he had stated from the beginning that the Government did not intend to select any particular architect, but meant to have a general competition.