LEAVE. FIRST READING. (Hansard, 10 February 1865)

MR. COWPER

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to enable Her Majesty's Commissioners of Works to acquire a site for the erection and concentration of courts of justice. He was obliged to provide for this by a separate measure, because by the forms of the House the purposes of this Bill could not be attained by the Bill for which the House had just given leave. He apprehended that there was no difficulty in deciding on the best site for the new courts and offices. The means of preventing the waste of time now so vexatious and injurious were to be sought by concentrating the courts and offices near the chambers of counsel and the offices of the attorneys. It happened that this ob- 199 ject was very easy to attain, because the legal profession were very gregarious, and loved to live within the sound of each others' voices. All the Inns of Court were in close contiguity; and taking Carey Street as a centre, it would be found that all the Inns of Court and the offices of two-thirds of the practising attorneys in London were within a radius of a quarter of a mile; so that the proposed site, which was bounded on the north by Carey Street, on the south by the Strand, on the east by Bell Yard, and on the west by Clement's Inn, was actually in the centre of what might be called the legal district. The site had other advantages. It was in a very central part of London, and was placed between two great thoroughfares, Holborn and the Strand—to the former of which ready access might be attained, particularly if the improvement of making a carriage road through Great Turnstile should be carried out. The thoroughfares on all the four sides of the building would be made large. In this way a building would be erected not only commodious, but suited to the dignity of a Palace of Justice. Some people apprehended that the noise of the Strand might interfere with the business of the courts; but that inconvenience would be easily avoided by placing the courts in the centre of the building, and the offices at the side facing the Strand. Allusion had been made to other sites, but it really appeared to be practicable to select no other site. The space in Lincoln's Inn Fields was too small to admit of the extent of building now required, and, besides, he was sure that the House would never agree to commit such an outrage against the healthiness and beauty of the metropolis as to build upon the open space in Lincoln's Inn Fields. One advantage in selecting the site suggested by the Government consisted in the fact that the houses required to be removed were of very little value, and were so arranged that their removal would be a positive advantage to the metropolis. The site was now occupied by a curious network of courts and lanes, so constructed as to be injurious to health, and there was not there a single street in which a carriage could pass. As to the houses, they were of that character that no one would wish to see them remaining there any longer. It had been suggested that it might be possible to take a site connected with the Thames Embankment; but by the Thames Embankment Act the ground actually re- 200 claimed from the river could not be built upon, and it would be of too small an extent to contain any large building. Another objection was that the ground now occupied by the houses in Arundel Street and Norfolk Street, between the Temple and Somerset House, was of a different elevation from the proposed level of the Thames Embankment, and the property in that neighbourhood, instead of being low-priced, would be expensive, and thus the calculations on which the present measure was founded would be disarranged. But the strong and fatal objection to the site of the embankment was, that though it was within reach of the legal quarter, it was at the south-west corner of it, and was not central and advantageous. With respect to the site proposed by the Government, it would be perfectly easy, if thought convenient, to have a communication by a covered way from the Temple and Lincoln's Inn to the new courts, and Temple Bar might in the case of the Temple be made use of for the purpose. Supposing the Bill to pass, it would become necessary to take steps to ascertain by a Commission of well-informed persons the amount of accommodation required for each court and its offices, and what would be the best arrangement to meet the general convenience of the public and the wants of the profession. After their report should be made, recourse must be had to the architect who was to erect the building. When the nature, character, and style of the structure were clearly denned, it was generally the best course for an employer to select a single architect in whom he could place confidence for being able to construct a building of such a character as would prove satisfactory; but in this particular case he thought the object would be more securely attained by a competition between a limited number of architects who stood high in their profession. The proposal of the Government was, that when the plans had been clearly defined a competition of architects should be invited; and the designs sent in would be carefully scrutinized, in order that the one selected should not only be most conducive to the convenience of those who used the building, but also meet the wants of the present day in respect to the beauty and general dignity of the structure. The right hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.