§ MR. LAYARDsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal portions of the Act of the twenty-eighth and twenty-ninth years of Victoria, chapter forty-nine, and to enable the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings to acquire a New Site 539 for the erection and concentration of Courts of Justice and of various Offices belonging to the same. He regretted that he was unable to accede to the appeal of the hon. Member opposite that he should not bring on this subject at that late hour of the evening; but as he should have no other opportunity of doing so before the Recess it was a matter of urgent necessity that he should proceed with his Motion. He had hoped that the discussion on the Motion of the hon. Member for East Suffolk (Mr. Corrance) would have terminated earlier; but as he was simply moving for leave to introduce the Bill, he would merely make a statement of facts respecting which both the House and the public were in a great degree ignorant, and he hoped that any discussion upon the subject would be reserved for the second reading of the Bill. It was unnecessary for him to enter into any history of the proposal for the concentration of the Law Courts, and he should merely refer to what had occurred in order to put aside at the outset the argument that the Thames Embankment site had already been discussed and had been rejected. There was no doubt that the idea of erecting an embankment on the, Thames had prevailed, he might say for some centuries. As far back as after the Great Five of London, Wren and Evelyn put forward the idea of constructing a Thames Embankment, and from that time to this it had been the constant project of persons desirous of embellishing the metropolis to form an embankment on the Thames. But it was only within the last two or three years that that idea had become a substantial reality, and that the advantages it offered for the erection of public buildings had been fully appreciated. When the question of the site of the new Law Courts was discussed in this House on a former occasion, and when it was referred to the Royal Commission, there were in fact, only three sites taken into consideration—that of Westminster, that of Carey Street, and that of Lincoln's Inn. Consequently the Embankment site for the new Law Courts has never been fairly considered. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entered so fully into the financial position of the Carey Street site that it would be unnecessary for him to go into that branch of the subject 540 at any length. He would merely remind the House that Parliament had been induced to accede to the Carey Street site on the condition that the expenses of the building and the site together should not exceed £1,500,000, and that a certificate should be given by the Commissioners, that that sum should not be exceeded before the compulsory powers for the purchase of land should be exercised. The required certificate was given by the Commissioners, that the Carey Street site would not cost more than £750,000, and that the building could be erected for an equal sum. Up to the present time, however, no less than £880,991 1s. 5d. had been expended upon the site alone, and the Commissioners now put the total expense of purchasing the land required and for erecting the building at £3.200,000, the land already purchased had, as he had just stated, cost nearly £900,000; the additional land to be purchased was put down at £700,000 more: the building was estimated to cost £1,574,000; architect's commission, £74,000; furniture, £150,000, making the total of£3,200;000. This estimate, however, made no provision whatever for the approaches. It was absolutely necessary that these approaches should be made in the event of the Carey Street site being selected, because access to three of its sides for carriage traffic was almost prevented either by lofty buildings, or by squalid and wretched houses, which must, of course, be swept away in the event of the new Courts of Justice being erected on that spot. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir Roundell Palmer)—who made so able a speech in favour of the Carey Street site—admitted that approaches to it were necessary, but he threw the expense of making those approaches on the Metropolitan Board of Works, a duty and expense which he (Mr. Layard) was quite sure no metropolitan Member would for a moment accept. When he: took the Office which he now had the honour to fill, he found this state of things existing—that he was expected to bring in a Bill to acquire additional land which would cost about £700,000—that the House had acted upon representations which had turned out to be inaccurate—that vast expense was being incurred—that the proposed approaches to the Carey Street site could not be con- 541 structed for less than £1,000,000 at least. He would venture to say that a building on the scale proposed on the Carey Street site would, in the end, involve an expenditure of above £4,000,000. Well, he communicated with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he found that he had come to exactly the same result on the financial part of the question that he (Mr. Layard) had on the architectural. They both felt that it was impossible to sanction this enormous expenditure; and they therefore determined to prevent any further step being taken in the matter until the House should have been consulted with regard to it. Having arrived at that conclusion, it had become his duty to look at the several schemes which had been proposed for the erection of the Law Courts. First of all there was the scheme proposed by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite), according to which the new Law Courts were to be erected upon the Carey Street site without any additional land being purchased, and the offices in connection with them were to be built upon the Thames Embankment. The cost of that scheme, however, had been estimated to amount to £2,710,000. He objected to that scheme because of the expense, because he was satisfied that more offices were proposed to be erected than were necessary, and because he thought that the separation of the strictly law offices from the Law Courts would be attended with great inconvenience. A converse proposition to build the Law Courts on the Thames Embankment and the law offices on the Carey Street site he had rejected for similar reasons; the cost would have been about £3,000,000. Then there was the plan of Sir Charles Trevelyan, which was, no doubt, an attractive and comprehensive plan. So attractive was it that it had a very large amount of public support in its favour. Sir Charles Trevelyan had shown that his plan was not only a very magnificent and convenient one in itself, but one that, would necessarily bring about a great many changes even to the north of the Strand, which would be so many public improvements. He thought Sir Charles' views were correct, although some considered them as visionary; but he regretted that they had been put forward in connection with his scheme, as it indisposed many persons to it. He 542 alluded to the suggestion that Somerset House might have another story, and might become another Lincoln's Inn, and the plans for the utilization of the Carey Street site. These, however, really formed no part of Sir Charles Trevelyan's scheme; but he thought the great objection to that scheme was that in order to obtain the site between the Strand, the Embankment, King's College and the Temple, and to erect suitable buildings on it, a sum of £3,250,000 would be required; but he believed that even that site would be cheaper than the Carey Street site, because you had all the necessary approaches to it already in existence. He said this, under the assumption that there would be a considerable loss on the re-sale of the Carey Street site. On the question of building the Courts on the Thames Embankment the Lord Chief Baron had written him a letter, in which that learned Judge said that he had not had time to bring the matter formally under the consideration of the Judges, but all of them with whom he had. spoken—except one who thought the proximity of Lincoln's Inn important—agreed with him in thinking that for the Bar, the solicitors, suitors, and the public, the Thames Embankment was the best site. The Inner Temple and the Middle Temple had sent in memorials in favour of that site; and the fact that Lincoln's Inn had not memorialized against it showed that there was a difference of opinion on the subject among the members of that Inn. No doubt, a number of solicitors had placed themselves in Mr. Field's ranks as opponents of the Embankment site; but he knew of his own knowledge that a large number of solicitors were in favour of it. Solicitors of the highest position and largest practice, in the east, the west, and the south of London were in favour of it, as well as solicitors in the country. But he must say that he thought the area bounded by the Strand and the Embankment on the north and south, and by the Temple and King's College on the east and west, was too large a one on which to erect the Law Courts, and the offices in connection therewith. He must now mention another plan, which from a paper issued by the Law Institution this morning would seem to be acceptable to them. This was one for erecting on the Carey Street site Law Courts and offices on 543 a reduced scale, such as those which the Government was about to propose to erect on the Thames Embankment. That was said to be the cheapest scheme. They had the land ready, and might commence the buildings at once: but he thought he could show the House that, even this plan would be much more expensive than that which the Government was about to propose. The land at Carey Street had already cost about £900,000. The buildings would cost £1,000,000, which would make the expenditure for laud and buildings £1,900,000. But there were no approaches except the one from the Strand, and a great public building could not be left there in a hole. On the north was a pile of lofty buildings belonging to Lincoln's Inn, which would prevent a free circulation of the air to the Courts. At one side there was a road scarcely more than thirty feet wide, and on the other an alley about fifteen feet wide. To provide the necessary approaches would cost at least £500,000, but in his opinion the cost would be nearer to £1,000,000. It was now his duty to propose an alternative plan, which had already been suggested to the House by his light hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and which had met with much adverse criticism. He was quite prepared to bear the blame of having suggested this plan to his right hon. Friend. Anyone who looked to a map would see a street which ran from Arundel Street to Surrey Street, parallel to the Strand and the Thames Embankment. It was called Howard Street. Some alleys formed a continuation of it to Essex Street. The block of land which was proposed as the site had Howard Street and these lanes or alleys on the north. It was bounded on the west by King's College, and had Essex Street and the Temple to the east. To the south was the Thames Embankment. The whole site which it was proposed to use—including the land re-claimed from the river—was six acres in extent. Now, the House would observe the advantage of this site. In the first place, by taking it an expensive frontage to the Strand would be avoided. Then almost the whole of the property belonged to one proprietor, the Duke of Norfolk. The site was not, as alleged, a hole; the position was one of the most commanding on the Thames, and Howard 544 Street was very little below the level of the Strand, there being but a slight fall from the Strand to the end of Howard Street, and its level could, without much difficulty, be made equal throughout its whole length. On this site the eighteen Courts and all the necessary offices could be erected. He had gone fully into the whole plan with Mr. Street, who had met him most honourably, and though at first in favour of the Carey Street site, and anxious to carry out that plan, now approved of the new proposal. The House would remember that in Mr. Street's plan for the buildings on the Carey Street site the Courts were to stand in the centre of a quadrangle. The buildings forming the quadrangle were to contain the offices, and persons would have to pass through the quadrangle to get to the Courts. In adapting his plan to the new site Mr. Street had acted upon a much better principle than the one which he had described, though there was no necessity for altering the general arrangements of the Courts and offices. He proposed to erect near King's College, on the west, the Courts, and on the east would be placed all the offices. Now, according to the plan issued by the Incorporated Law Society in the hands of hon. Members, the buildings were to project eighty feet beyond Somerset House. But that was contrary to the fact, for they would be continued in a line with the terrace of Somerset House. The only part where there would be a considerable projection was at the extreme cast corner, where there was a piece of reclaimed land belonging to the Board of Work, on which it was proposed to build a railway station, and which the Board might have used for building purposes to which he would presently allude. This site afforded at once every necessary approach except one, and that, too, without any expense to the public. The only approach it would be necessary to construct was one to the north of the Strand, and joining it with Holborn and that approach they would have to provide whichever site they might select. The Embankment, would be accessible by road, river, and rail, and when the circular line was completed country solicitors would be able to get to the Courts without having to cross even a single street. The terrace in front of Somerset House already existed as a carriage road, and could be used 545 by the Judges, who would be able to drive along it and alight on a level with the Courts. By Norfolk Street they could reach the Courts with equal ease; whereas on the north side of a building on the Carey Street site they would have to ascend forty step?, and from the Strand seventy or eighty, while the public would have to ascend 100. There was another advantage in having the Courts and offices separated—that cither would admit of extension, if necessary, towards the north without interfering with the building. Now, as regarded the expenses of the scheme, he had gone most carefully into the estimates. Those estimates had been prepared by Mr. Hunt, the consulting surveyor of the Board of Works, Mr. Hunt, whose estimates were rarely if ever exceeded, and who was a gentleman of great sagacity, had set down the value of the land at £600,000. He believed that the cost of the building would, at the outside, be £1,000,000, therefore the whole sum would be £1,000,000. But estimates were so often exceeded that the House might naturally ask what guarantee they had that such would not be the case in the present instance. He believed ' he could give the House ample guarantee. £600,000 he believed to be about the value of the land, and with regard to the estimate of £1,000,000 for the buildings, the House, might, perhaps, remember that when the Carey Street site was limited to six acres the buildings were proposed to be erected for£750,000, and it was with an enlarged area that the estimate was increased. Now, the Embankment site was only six acres. He believed that the Courts of Law might be built upon it for £750,000; but he he could undertake that the estimate of £1,000,000 should not be exceeded. He believed that the office of the Board of Works was now better organized than it was formerly, and he would undertake that not a stone should be laid or a bit of earth turned until contracts for the performance of the work within the estimated amount had been entered into; he would point out to the House one or two sources of economy on the Embankment site. The building materials required might be brought by water, and might be carried over the Embankment without interfering with the traffic. Let them contrast with this the state of things which would result from the continual 546 blocking of the traffic in the Strand for so many years in ease they adopted the Carey Street site. Another and not unimportant feature was due to a consideration which hon. Gentlemen experienced in architecture would easily comprehend. When a building, owing to its position, could only be seen in part and in detail, it was necessary to resort to ornamentation to make it effective, and it was in this way that large sums of money were spent. When, however, there was an extensive frontage, it was unnecessary to spend so much upon ornamentation. The general effect of the building would then depend upon its proportions, and upon the judicious arrangement of the masses, which produced light and shade. It was not the smallest recommendation of the now site in his eyes that here the space would be contracted on two sides—so that there would be no temptation to throw away million after million in the purchase of unnecessary land, though it would be easy to extend the building at any time towards the north if further accommodation should hereafter be required. One of the objections urged against the Embankment site was that £500,000 would be lost by re-selling the Carey Street site. In answer to that objection he might say that he had received offers from parties of the highest respectability who were willing to purchase the site on the basis of the price paid for it by the Government—he did not, of course, include the law, and other contingent expenses. He was advised by Mr. Hunt not to be hasty in closing with any offer that might be made. Of course, they must take care not to put the whole of the land into the market at once; but if it were re-sold prudently the Government might not only be able to recoup themselves, but, perhaps, do something more. Another difficulty was the question of the railway station on the Embankment; and, no doubt, if this had to be placed in the very centre of the Law Courts it would be exceedingly objectionable; but he had communicated with the Metropolitan District Railway Company and with the authorities of the Temple, and he had every reason to believe that arrangements might and would be made to remove the railway station to a spot near the entrance to Essex Street. Another objection raised to the change of site was the 547 loss of time which would thereby be occasioned. Now, under no circumstances could you commence building on the Carey Street site within a year; because if you had to acquire additional land you must give the necessary notices next autumn, and even if this fresh acquisition of land were given up, no working drawings or elevations had been made. The plan at present in existence was a mere sketch plan, and he was informed on authority that a year must elapse before working drawings and specifications could be made so that contracts might be entered into and the building commenced. Now, on the Embankment site he proposed to proceed at once as if notices had been given. The course was an irregular one, and in order to carry the Bill it would be necessary to ask the House to suspend its Standing Orders. The Government proposed to proceed as if notices of intention to take this site had been given in November last, to serve notices to treat immediately after the passing of the Act; to bind themselves to take within three months, if called upon by the owners to do so; and to limit themselves to the 30th of Juno, 1870, for putting the compulsory powers into execution. The Bill would be referred to the Examiners, who would, of course, report that the Standing Orders had not been complied with. It would then be for the Standing Orders Committee to decide whether this was an exceptional ease in which the House might-be advised to suspend its Standing Orders. If, as he hoped, the Committee gave and the House acted on this advice, and if the Bill were read a second time, it would be referred to a Committee, who would see that no injustice was done to occupiers or owners. He was advised that the course he proposed to take would be of great advantage both to occupiers and owners by doing away with, the uncertainty which now often hung over their heads, owing to the delay which took place before the Government came to a decision as to the exercise of compulsory powers. In this case the Government would be bound forthwith to give the notices to treat, and avail themselves by June 30 in next year of the compulsory powers given to them by the Bill. As he had said, there were' fortunately, few persons to deal with. The chief owner was the Duke of Norfolk, and he had reason to believe that on the 548 part of his Grace no obstacles would be thrown in the way of the Government.. If, therefore, the House assented to the Bill there would not be a single hour's delay. The sketch plans for the Carey Street site had, by some changes, been adapted for the new site; they were now being lithographed; and the Government would be in exactly the same position as if they were going to build on the Carey Street site. As to the argument against delay, he thought that in a great work of this kind a year more or less was of very little importance, and that to sacrifice a magnificent site and make a bad building for the sake of possibly saving a year would be a most serious misfortune. However, if the Bill passed they could begin at once to clear the site and commence the building between Howard Street and the Embankment. He did not bind himself to all the details of Mr. Street's sketch plans. The accommodation asked for by the different departments and offices might be too large; whatever anybody had asked for seemed to have been given in these plans. The thing had been done on far too vast a scale, and he thought it would be possible to cut down these plans and make the cost of the buildings less. He would undertake to say that on the six acres proposed to be required on the Embankment, every necessary Court and all the dependent offices could be easily accommodated, and for a moderate, sum. He had been asked for a model, and was strongly of opinion that no great public building ought to be erected without a model upon a large scale, having first been submitted to the public. But a model could not be made until the elevation had been decided upon. It would be his duty to see that such an elevation as he thought would satisfy the public was designed by Mr. Street, and then a model should be prepared and placed in some public place in order that it might be seen and criticized. A great deal of criticism had been bestowed upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer for suggesting the adoption of the design by Inigo Jones, for a Royal Palace at Whitehall. Now, his right hon. Friend had not pledged himself to that idea, and, as he believed, had no wish to insist upon it. Evidently, the plan of Inigo Jones had been prepared for an entirely different purpose. It was a design for a palace, and would not, 549 therefore, be suitable for Courts of Law. Nor would it be desirable to have a long Palladian building running continuously with Somerset House, for the effect of that would be monotonous. His own impression was that we ought to adopt a style that was thoroughly English in its character, and he believed that none was more suitable than the Gothic, but not ecclesiastical Gothic. A great mistake had been made in adopting ecclesiastical Gothic for secular purposes. The Italians had successfully adopted the Gothic style for public buildings, as in Venice, where the great ducal palace and the long line of Palladian buildings presented a very fine effect; and in the town halls of Piacenza and other cities in. the North of Italy. It was altogether a mistake to suppose that Gothic architecture necessarily required superfluous ornamentation. Such ornamentation was not seen in the Italian secular Gothic, and there was no reason why we should not adopt a similar mode of treatment in our Gothic building intended for secular purposes. Besides, it would be unfair to Mr. Street, who was essentially a Gothic architect, to impose upon him a style of architecture which he had not made the subject of special study. If the House adopted the scheme which he had just sketched out we should have, he felt satisfied, on the Thames Embankment a magnificent building, which, besides being calculated to serve all the purposes for which it was intended in point of utility and convenience, would be an ornament to the metropolis and the country. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMERSir, it is much too late an hour to enter into the question of ecclesiastical and Palladian Gothic, but it is impossible for me, after the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. Gentleman, to remain altogether silent on the present occasion. I do not, of course, propose to ask the House to refuse the Government leave to introduce this Bill, but I, at the same time, beg to give notice that I intend to take the sense of the House upon it when it comes on for the second reading. It appears to me that no worse scheme was ever proposed, or one more calculated to interfere with and mar a most useful project of reform. I must now complain, as I complained on a for- 550 mer occasion, that much which has been, said on this subject is calculated to raise a false issue. Nothing more unjust or un can did could possibly be said than has been said to-night and was said then as to the proceedings and recommendations of the Royal Commission. It is said that the House had only to choose between those recommendations and the present plan of the Government. This is the plain history of the Commission—It was forced on the Government which, in 1865, introduced a measure which is at this moment the law of the land, and which it is now sought to undo. The Commission consisted of persons representing all the different branches of the law. The most eminent Judges were among its members. It embraced a numerous selection from the Bar, from among solicitors, and from all the officers of the Courts. It represented the real views of all those parties, and was not—whoever has been so informed—simply a body giving formal expression to the views of some other persons. The Commissioners met from time to time, generally in large numbers. They appointed sub-Committees, and went thoroughly to work in the production of their scheme. To the Commission also from time to time belonged representatives of the Board of Treasury under the Governments of Lord Palmerston, Lord Russell, Lord Derby, and Mr. Disraeli. My right hon. Friend now the First Lord of the Admiralty was not merely a nominal, but a working member of it. The things which have been said by the right hon. Gentleman below me, that right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Admiralty) therefore knows best of all men how to answer. He can give the best account of the wicked and prodigal expenditure, and the idle extension of site which the Commission have recommended. Over the proceedings of the Commission the members of the Board of Treasury exercised a jealous supervision. Is it true, then, that the Commissioners went beyond their province and spent a single farthing of public money which they were not authorized to spend? It is not the fact. They never committed the Government nor this House to the expenditure of a single farthing, or to the purchase of a single acre of land without the concurrence of the Treasury, or beyond that which by law they were empowered to do. The 551 subject was discussed in this House on the 22nd of February. 1867. I then said that the Commissioners were of opinion that it would be of advantage to have additional land, because the work would by that means be likely to be made more perfect. The Commissioners did not change their minds as to the practicability of erecting the Courts for the sum named, but they believed that, if the opportunity of purchasing additional land before the erection of the building were lost, the land would acquire increased value, and if it were found afterwards to be desirable to secure it, the public would have to pay higher for it. The execution of the work, however, did not at all necessarily depend upon that land being taken, and no part of it could be taken, or was proposed to be taken, without a new Act of Parliament. It was for the Treasury and for Parliament to decide upon that point. If the Treasury came to the decision that they would not take more land, at an increased cost, it was always possible for them to have the Courts well erected on the site which had been purchased for the purpose; in fact, to do more than can be done on what is called the Howard Street site. Nothing-, therefore, can be more unreasonable than to assign the reasons which have been assigned for throwing over the original scheme of the Commissioners, as if the increased expenditure complained of were necessary in order to carry out that scheme. You have seven and a-half acres, which would give six acres for the building, and with the extra acre and a-half, a sufficiently broad street, east and west, leaving no inconsiderable portion of surplus land available for extra purposes. All this could be done on your present site. And recollect that it took lour years to clear that site, that a large labouring population has been unhoused by that clearing, and that it involved an expense of £880,000, the annual interest of which, at 5 per cent, is nearly £45.000. The work would be proceeding, but all this, it seems, is to be turned overboard to please my right hon. Friend below me. It is, I may add totally incorrect to say that the Carey Street site need cost £3,000,000. That was an estimate made entirely on the supposition that the Government would choose to buy the six additional acres of land, and it is quite clear that what they need not spend 552 in erecting a building on one site they need not spend on another. It has been thrown in our teeth that the site cost more than the original estimate; the estimate being £750,000, and the actual cost, according to the Government, being £880,000. But who was it, let me ask, who made the estimate? Why the very same person who has made the estimate of the value of the land on the Howard Street site—a gentleman on whose integrity and ability I agree the utmost reliance is to be placed; but it is, of course, quite obvious that there may be a margin in the one case as well as in the other. I am now about to refer to what I am sure my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will feel much indebted to me for mentioning. It is a matter with which he could not possibly have been acquainted when he on a former occasion addressed the House on this subject. He then stated, in a manner which produced an evident effect on the House, that an account had been sent in from the firm of Field and Roscoe—Mr. Field being a gentleman who I believe, entirely on public grounds, takes a great interest in this subject, and whose firm have been employed as solicitors in connection with it—for £27,832 in the shape of a bill of costs. Those who put these figures into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman forgot to in-form him that the amount comprised an actual payment out of pocket of £23,881, and that the costs of these gentlemen as distinguished from the payments made by them out of pocket were, for conducting the whole of this very large business for over a period of three years and-a-half, only £3,951. The right hon. Gentleman, moreover, did not state that of the sum which the firm were out of pocket, £8,925 was for expenses of Government surveyors other than those employed by Mr. Pownall, and that large sums were paid for abitrators, juries, counsels' fees, and disbursements of other descriptions. I do not think my right hon. Friend will find that he can avoid having a similar bill to pay over again. And now let me say a few words on the new scheme. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that it was most absurd first to clear the north side of the Strand and then the south side; but that is exactly what they are going to do. With regard to space, you are going to take six acres only, without 553 malting the smallest allowance for any approaches east or west; because in order to get six acres for the building, as we do on the Carey Street site, with good approaches on each side, it will be necessary on the Embankment site to carry it on to the Temple on one side and to King's College on the other. [Mr. LAYARD: No! no! no!] I say, yes! yes! yes! [Mr. LAYARD: I say that Essex Street will be transformed into a street GO feet wide.] You will have to take more land than you mention, or else to take some from the site. Then you advance your building in an irregular line to the very edge of the railway cutting, bringing it forward in front of the Temple Gardens considerably, although not, according to my right hon. Friend (the Chief Commissioner of Works), in front of Somerset House. The levels will be much worse than those on the Carey Street site. I have said something about the approaches on the east and west of the Embankment. It is suggested that the public at large may come to the Embankment by the railway; but certainly the lawyers will not come that way, because they, most of them, will have to come from the north. My right hon. Friend accordingly admits that he must make approaches from the north: but in the Carey Street site the northern approaches are alone necessary. It is very well to talk about approaches east and west which will be great metropolitan improvements, but if they are to be made simply as great metropolitan improvements they are not necessary for this scheme. If you take the Carey Street site it would be desirable to make a good approach from the Turnstile in Holborn; but that, and much more than that, will be equally necessary under the now scheme, because you must also have a. good approach to the new Courts, if they are placed on the river side, through the Carey Street site. Then the portion of the Strand in front of the new site is the very narrowest portion of that thoroughfare—namely, the narrow place where Holy well Street comes in be the churches of St. Clement Danes and St. Mary's in the Strand. We now understand that it is on the western part of this site, forsooth, the part furthest from Lincoln's Inn, that the Courts of Justice are to be placed, and it is this very part which must be approached from the narrowest part of the Strand. Now, can 554 any one believe that you will not have to widen that street? And even after that has been done everybody who looks at the plan will see how much, more convenient the central would be for those engaged in the business of the law than this site, so much further to the south. We were told on a former night that somebody had run down there in three minutes. On Saturday last, in company with three other Gentlemen, one of whom is now present, I took an opportunity of malting the experiment myself. Two of us had our watches out, and in order to make the observation in the fairest way we went straight across the cleared Carey Street site in a way much shorter than it would be possible to go hereafter, and it took us six minutes, walking fairly, to get from Lincoln's Inn gate to the nearest point on the Embankment site. Well, then, six minutes there and six minutes back is the least time which would be occupied in fetching to the Courts from his chambers any gentleman carrying on business in Lincoln's Inn, and this is just time enough to make him run such serious risk that he would often rather dance attendance all day in the new Courts. This would be a real inconvenience to the profession, or, in other words, to the persons whose business the lawyers transact. Then how in the world are the barristers on the north of the Strand, and Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn, to conic backwards and forwards? Are they, with or without their wigs and gowns, in all sorts of weather, to be constantly going to the Courts which are to be at the "west side of this site, close to King's College? Can anyone conceive anything more utterly inconvenient than that? We were told something about the blocking of the Strand which would be necessary while the Carey Street buildings were going on; but there will be double blocking if you sell the Carey Street site to jobbers. And now let us consider what will be the architectural effect of the new site. You are going to erect this beautiful building, in this fine Palladium or ecclesiastical style of architecture, in what I may be allowed to term a "hole." People sailing up the river and crossing the bridges will have much delight in seeing it, and I suppose my right hon. Friend who represents Southwark (the Chief Commissioner of Public Works) will be fre- 555 quently there to admire it; but the general public will not have the pleasure of seeing the building they have paid for. It will be no decoration to the metropolis at all, and it will not be seen from the Strand, whereas the Carey Street site is a truly magnificent one. I have never myself argued this question on architectural grounds, but simply on the ground of public convenience. Still, if architectural reasons are to be taken into consideration, I say that, in Carey Street you may have, on an elevated site visible from the Strand, a splendid building which will be a real decoration for the metropolis. But this thing you are going to put down into a hole. It may be a fine specimen of architecture, but it will not be visible from any other place. In 1865 I was put forward by the Government to speak of the estimate which had been then carefully framed, and most of the Government of that day. I may remark, now sit on the Treasury Bench. Some passages from the speech I then made were quoted against me the other night by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was also, I think, a Member of that Government. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No.] I beg his pardon: accidentally and unfortunately, he was not. Well, when I was put forward, T said in the innocence of my mind that I was quite satisfied that the estimates were carefully prepared, and that T was sure the House might rely on them. I did not say, however that they might rely on mo as being a perfectly competent person, who was quite capable of checking the estimates. At the same time, I sincerely believed that these who gave me the instructions were perfectly competent 10 do that, and that they had the same mind and will to do it as my right hon. Friend himself. My experience, therefore, does not convince me that the present estimate of the cost of the Howard Street site, and the buildings on it, and the approaches to it, will not be exceeded, although my right hon. Friend seems to think we ought all to be satisfied with his assurance that he would take care of that. I should like to see an account of the money that has been laid out upon the Foreign Office, the India Office, and Burlington Gardens. The taste for expenditure grows as the work goes on; and we have had some indication of it to-night. My right hon. Friend seemed to be like 556 Trinculo, and to have two voices, for in one part of his speech there was a word for the Mends of Sir Charles Trevelyan, and in another there was a word for the friends of economy; and the friends of Sir Charles Trevelyan were comforted with the idea that sooner or later the whole of their plan might be adopted, not in their day, not in my Friend's day, and not under his jealous supervision, not till the public taste came to see it would not do to keep this fine building at the bottom of a hole, but that it would be highly desirable to have it where it could be seen. The House may depend upon it—though it is a sin for the Commission to have enlarged its ideas, and to have recommended greater expenditure—although not one farthing of public money has been spent nor one acre of ground purchased which was not authorized—it will be just as possible, without any breach of faith on the part of those who can influence Government if they do not constitute it, when you have once abandoned the old plan and started a new one, to find out how preposterous it will be to do this and that how great an opportunity of decorating London will be lost, how inadequate will be the Courts and the offices, how much more desirable it will be to bring some things together which have not been brought together, and so there will be at least as great a probability of increased expenditure under the new scheme as there ever was under the old one. Nothing is more simple than for the Government to say under the new scheme there shall be none; and so it may be with the old scheme. I never liked these very enlarged views, and, as far as my influence as a Commissioner went, I was always rather for telling them I had a little fear that their enemies might take advantage of them, and make that use of thorn which has now been made. You may depend upon it, what occurred in good faith and with a view to the public interests in that case is just as likely to occur in any other, and is most certain in this in which you are launching a scheme that has not one advantageous feature, that has less convenience, less architectural beauty, that blocks tip the Strand more than it was blocked up before, that wastes time, that wastes money, that gives you no guarantee whatever for getting what 557 you want in the way you want it and at the time you want it. I think we may judge of the other arguments of my right hon. Friend by what he said of the opinions of the solicitors and barristers. With regard to the Judges, I know for certain they are not unanimous in favour of the Embankment site. I have not presumed to canvass them; and all that we can infer from what my right hon. Friend has said is that some of the Judges of the Court of Exchequer, over which Chief Baron Kelly presides, are in favour of the Embankment site. It is said the two Societies of the Temple are in favour of it; that is to say, some bodies in the Temple are: but I know a great many in the Temple who are against it, because I presented a Petition, numerously signed by Templars and others, against it; and if the societies are in favour of it, it is not very difficult to understand why, seeing that the adoption of that, site might increase the value of their property. I believe there is in substance no difference of opinion in Lincoln's Inn on the subject, although of course you may find an eccentric man here and there; the universal opinion is that the Embankment site will greatly prejudice all who have business to transact. The members do not petition, because they do not make a corporate business of that which is not for the pecuniary interests of the Inn, which would have been better promoted by keeping things as they are. With regard to the solicitors I should like to know on what ground my right hon. Friend speaks of them as he does. The two organized bodies representing the metropolitan and provincial solicitors are against it, and they tell me that the whole profession is as nearly unanimous against it as it is possible for any such body to be. Most assuredly nothing which I can possibly do shall be wanting to prevent this measure from being carried.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERSir, as my hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer) is kind enough to allow us to bring in the Bill, I will not enter upon the various topics which, in the whirlwind of his eloquence he has commented upon, but will reserve myself until the second reading. For myself, I am cool and calm; and I hope whatever the House does it will do that which is best for the public interest, and, at any rate, will not go to the 558 enormous expenditure which I found contemplated when I came into Office. My hon. and learned Friend has dealt rather hardly with us. He has accused me of raising false issues, and of being uncandid, unjust, and unfair. I must, therefore, re-state to the House what I stated before—that the fault has not been so much in the original estimate that was made, as it has been that after it had been made, and after the certificate was granted in accordance with it, and an Act was passed on the faith of it, matters were not allowed to remain so, but, in accordance with a wish of the Commission, of which my hon. and learned Friend was a Member, another Act was introduced in the succeeding year, 1866, which, as far as I can trace in Hansard, never was discussed at all. That Act undid all that was done before, and gave the Commissioners unlimited powers for spending money for a purpose for which the House, after much, deliberation the year before, had granted only limited powers. By the original Resolution the expenditure was not to exceed £1,500,000. That is the real state of the case. It is true, that when I called attention to Messrs. Field and Roscoe's bill, I did it without stating the details; and I said—and I repeat it—that it was a grave error in the Commissioners, having appointed Mr. Field their secretary, to appoint a firm, of which he was a member, their solicitors. I am not aware of any recommendation of the Commissioners to complete anything except the building planned by Mr. Street, involving an outlay of £3,250,000; and when I came into Office I found that extraordinary powers had been obtained, and the Commissioners proceeded, as they lawfully might, to act upon them. If there was any other recommendation, my hon. and learned Friend will, on the second reading, have an opportunity of pointing it out. If there was not, then he must retract a little of the indignation he has expressed. The matter does not end there; my hon. and learned Friend says he never approved the extravagant expenditure. But, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) he moved an Amendment that the House should proceed at once with the Carey Street site, and spend all that might be necessary for the purpose. He may shelter him self behind the expression—"as much as was necessary"; but we 559 must take this with reference to the then state of things. It is too much to turn round upon mo and say I was unfair, and that I raised false issues, because I took the things as they were given me. Dealing with it as I found it. I say it is a large and extravagant expenditure, and I should not be doing my duty if I assented to it. I do not pretend to any judgment or taste in these matters, and, therefore. I can argue them with good temper. All I want is to save the public from an unjustifiable expenditure, and if the House will only accomplish that I shall be satisfied. If the House thinks the Carey Street she better than the Embankment, by all means let the Courts be erected on the Carey Street site, though I prefer the other site. If the House will allow me to save the £2,500,000 I shall be satisfied; and T hope the House will do me the justice to say that I am actuated simply by a desire to do my duty.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was unjust to the Commissioners in saying that they passed the Bill in 1866. It was the Government, and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite were the Government.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he begged the noble Lord's pardon; the noble Lord himself formed part of the Government in August, 1866.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that was when the Bill passed the House of Lords. They all knew that Earl Russell was First Minister of the Crown, with the present First Minister for his Chancellor of the Exchequer, when the- Bill was framed and introduced, and when the solicitors to the Commissioners were appointed with the consent of the Government. With regard to the main issue, he had two remarks to make. If the new scheme was carried out, the Government would become land jobbers on the most gigantic scale; the Carey Street site was to be sold in dribblets, and, until it was got rid of, it would remain a disgrace, to Parliament and every one connected with it. In the second place, the right hon. Gentleman had pledged himself—as no Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever pledged himself before, or ever would again—that the building on the Embankment should not cost more than £1,000,000. If so, the right hon. Gentleman could with much more certainty pledge himself that the 560 building on the Carey Street site should not cost more than £750,000, for the simple reason that the foundations on the Embankment would cost more than those on the Carey Street site. It was, therefore, clear, that the Carey Street site, since it was now in the possession of the country, would be the cheapest. On the second reading he would cordially support his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Roundell Palmer).
§ MR. GOLDNEYsaid, that in introducing this Bill, the Government were departing, not only from principle, but from fact. The original object in view in erecting new Courts of Justice was the bringing together of all the Courts in the neighbourhood of those who practised in them. He hoped before the second reading that the proceedings of the Commissioners would be printed, because it would then be seen that every one of their acts was submitted to the Treasury before it was carried out. On what ground was the Carey Street site taken, except that it was deemed absolutely necessary for the public advantage to obtain it? If the Government sanctioned a departure from a plan so sanctioned, what confidence could be placed in any arrangement made by them? He hoped the plan before the House would be rejected by a large majority.
§ MR. TITEsaid, he intended to reserve his opinion on the new proposal until he had seen the plans, but he would remark that the Commissioners had brought all these counter proposals upon themselves. But now that it had been resolved to reduce the buildings to moderate dimensions, and the expenditure, consequently, to a moderate sum, it did not appear to him to be necessary to spend more on the Carey Street site than on the Embankment. To this extent, at least, the public had gained by the discussion which had been raised.
§ SIR GEORGE JENKINSONsaid, he wished to know when correct plans would be furnished to Members?
§ MR. LAYARDsaid, that they were being pressed forward, and would be in the hands of Members before the second reading. The plan the hon. Baronet held in his hand had been issued by the Council of the Incorporated Law Society, with a view to discredit his scheme, and was in no single instance to be relied on.
§ Motion agreed to.
561§ Bill to enable the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works and Public Buildings to acquire a New Site for the erection and concentration of the Courts of Justice, and of various Offices belonging to the same, and to amend the Acts; relating to the concentration of the Courts of Justice, ordered to be brought in by Mr. LAYARD, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. AYRTON.
§ Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 113.]