Lords Sitting of 20 March 1865

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Colonial Naval Defence* (39); Metropolitan Main Drainage Extension* (40).
Third Reading—Industrial Exhibitions* (28), and passed.

NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  EARL STANHOPE,who had given notice to put a Question to Her Majesty's Government as to the Site proposed for the new Courts of Justice, and to move for a Return upon the subject, said, he had been desirous of postponing the Questions which he wished to put with respect to this subject to the Government until after the second reading of the Bills fixing as well the site of the new courts as the fund out of which the expense of their construction was to be defrayed. But as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had twice postponed the second reading of one of the Bills, he thought it right

  1911
  to defer the matter no longer, for it was in his opinion expedient that the plans and estimates for the proposed building should be laid on the table with the least possible delay, so that their Lordships might have time carefully to consider them. Assuming that the House should concur in the view that there must be new courts of law, and assuming the financial part of the scheme as being already settled, then the question arose, which was the best site to select for the purpose. The site recommended by the Government was that behind the church of St. Clement's Danes, and the space obtained by the removal of the block of houses between Carey Street and the Strand. When he heard that this site had been chosen, he must confess he felt some surprise, because he could not understand on what ground the superior advantages presented by the Thames Embankment had been disregarded. For his own part, he could not help thinking that that portion of the Embankment lying between Somerset House and the Temple would have formed, in all respects, a better site. He would beg their Lordships to consider for a moment how noble a situation it would be in an architectural point of view. If a building were constructed such as the importance of the occasion demanded, and it rested on the banks of the river, with Somerset House on the one side and the Temple on the other, it would possess a river front of a beauty with which not many other river sites in Europe could advantageously compare. But if, on the contrary, the new courts were erected where a block of houses now stood, surrounded by other blocks of houses, the building, whatever its architectural beauty might be, could not be seen to advantage. He was extremely anxious, he might add, that the error which had been committed in the case of St. Paul's should now be avoided. Our ancestors, in constructing two centuries ago that beautiful Cathedral, took no pains to provide that it should be surrounded by an open space, and the result was that it was encompassed on almost every side by blocks of houses; so that if in comparing St. Paul's in London with St. Peter's in Rome we felt obliged to admit that there was some degree of inferiority in an architectural point of view, we should be compelled to acknowledge that there existed a far greater inferiority arising from the fact that, whereas St. Peter's was surrounded by an open space,
  1912
  the spectator could only contemplate St. Paul's by looking up at it from a narrow street running beside it, at the imminent danger of getting a crick in his neck. Now he thought it most desirable that the noble opportunity for grand architectural effect afforded by the Thames Embankment should not be neglected; and, perhaps the plan of the Embankment being of recent origin, the opportunity had escaped the notice of those Gentleman who had been formed into a Commission to consider the subject some years ago, and who had presented a Report in favour of the Carey Street site. It might, however, be contended that the convenience of suitors and the public rendered it expedient that the Carey Street site should be selected. But would the Thames Embankment site be inferior in that respect? It would be as it were next door to the Temple. No doubt it would be somewhat further from both Lincoln's Inn and Gray's Inn. That disadvantage might, however, be more than compensated by other circumstances. The Carey Street site could only be approached through crowded streets and lines of traffic, whereas the site on the banks of the Thames would for many reasons be very convenient; it would have the great advantage of making the new courts accessible by means of water communication, which afforded great facilities in a city whose thoroughfares were thronged, and more especially during the business hours of the day. So far as the public convenience was concerned, therefore, he by no means thought it clear that the advantages of the Carey Street site were so much greater as some seemed to suppose, while the architectural advantages were indisputably all on the other side. A petition, emanating from the Metropolitan and Provincial Law Association, had been presented to their Lordships by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack a few nights ago in favour of the Carey Street site, and the petitioners adopted what he could not help regarding as a somewhat unusual tone, for while they expressed their approval of the application of the fee fund to the building, and of the Carey Street site, they declared that they should protest against the money drawn from the Suitors' Fund being laid out in any other locality. Such an expression was scarcely becoming in the form of a petition; it was more in the nature of a threat. Neither their Lordships nor the other House of Parliament would, however, he felt assured, be in consequence

  1913
  deterred from giving to the question all the consideration which it deserved. He must express a hope that such plans and statements would be laid before them by the Government as would enable them to arrive at a sound conclusion. He was the more anxious to direct timely attention to this subject on account of the unsatisfactory result of several public builings throughout London. The comparison between this and the continental capitals was by no means always favourable to us. While we had some pecuniary resources which Munich and Berlin might envy, we had some public buildings of which Munich and Berlin would be ashamed. In saying thus much he was by no means unmindful of the great architectural beauty of the edifice in which their Lordships were assembled; but there were others to which public opinion did not accord the same degree of praise. Among the latter were, for instance, the building in Trafalgar Square, devoted to two national collections of pictures—the ancient and the modern—a building with a slender cupola at the top and two pepper-boxes at the sides. The construction of our public buildings, even in those cases in which public competition had been invited, had not always been satisfactory, and every means should, he thought, be taken to make the new courts worthy of the country. The deficiency which he had just mentioned as prevailing in London was the more remarkable, inasmuch as it did not seem invariably to exist in other parts of the kingdom. He happened to have examined a few months ago very minutely the Courts of Justice which had recently been erected in Manchester, and a more admirable building in every respect—whether its external appearance or the convenience of its internal arrangements were taken into account—he had never seen. If, as he had heard, an architect had been already selected for the construction of the new London Courts, he could form no better wish for that gentleman than that he might be able, equal —for to exceed would be scarcely possible—those new Courts at Manchester. Apart from architectural beauty or conversion, there was another question involved in the Carey Street site. It must be borne in mind, in the case of the site which had been chosen by the Government for the courts in London, that the displacement of a number of small tenements must be the result of its selection. That point, however, was separate and distinct; he would
  1914
  not engage in it at present; and he hoped that in raising this architectural question their Lordships would not think that he had trespassed unduly upon their time. The noble Earl concluded with his Motion.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House,
  "Copies of the Plan or Plans which have been suggested for the Site and Buildings of the proposed Courts of Justice: And also,
  "Return of the Number of Houses and of the Names of the Streets, Lanes, and Places, and Courts comprised in the Site to he purchased for the purposes of the same."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I will first advert to the impression which seems to be entertained by the noble Earl, that some architect has already been appointed to deyise plans for the building of the Courts of Justice. It is entirely new to me to hear such a statement; and I believe I am quite warranted in stating that not only has no person been thought of for such an office, but in truth there is in the Bill a provision for the appointment of a Commission to superintend all the architectural plans and details; the constitution of which Commission will, I think deserve the very serious attention of the Government. I cannot but think, with great deference to the noble Earl, that he has adopted a very inconvenient course in raising the discussion at the present moment. I have postponed the second reading of the Bill relating to the financial part of this plan, which has been for some time upon your Lordships' table, because the other Bill, which relates to the site, has not left the House of Commons, and I thought it desirable that your Lordships should have the entire scheme before you; and the other night, in answer to a question put to me by the noble Earl below me, I promised that all the evidence which has been or may be taken by the Committee of the other House upon the question of site shall, with the Report of that Committee, be laid upon your Lordships' table. If, therefore, I now advert to the subject, it will be only in a desultory and insufficient manner, and purely out of respect to the noble Earl who has brought forward the subject. The noble Earl appears to think that the site afforded by the Thames Embankment would be very superior to that which has been fixed upon by common consent and contemplated as the proper site for the Courts for the last thirty-five years:—but if the noble Earl will do me the favour between this evening and the day fixed for the future dis-

  1915
  cussion to visit the locality, I am quite sure that he will change the opinion which he now seems to entertain. If I am not misinformed, the case with respect to the Embankment will be found to be this:— The portion of the Embankment which some persons have thought might be appropriated as a site for the Courts of Justice, lies between the eastern extremity of Somerset House and the Temple. If the noble Earl will examine that situation, he will find that, supposing these new buildings to be raised in a line with the facade of Somerset House—and if they are not you will create a great architectural deformity—they will only extend for a very few feet upon the Embankment itself, and then all the rest of the 7½ acres which will be absolutely required for the site of the new Courts can be obtained only by purchasing at a very great expense a number of houses occupying the southern parts of several streets belonging to the Duke of Norfolk, the acquisition of which would cost a considerably larger sum than that which will be required for the purchase of the Carey Street site. I must say that if there was any proposition to build the Courts upon the site suggested by the noble Earl, it would be exceedingly difficult to find a reason for appropriating to their erection that million of money which it is now proposed to take from the Suitors Fund; but into that discussion I will not enter now. If the noble Earl will examine the proposed site, he will find that both architecturally and, and with reference to the convenience of arrangements, the slope of the Carey Street site offers very great facility indeed for the erection of the Courts and for the provision of internal accommodation. I do not think that it would be possible to find another block of land the occupation of which by the proposed building would insure to the metropolis such great advantages as are presented by this site, But your Lordships must also remember that the site has been selected, and the work is proposed to be done for the general benefit of the country by the greater accommodation which will be afforded to suitors in the Courts, and the economy which will thereby be effected. That can only be accomplished by choosing a site which is in the immediate neighbourhood of the offices of solicitors, the chambers of barristers, and all those additions to Courts of Justice which have grown up and are now established in that neighbourhood, and which you could not have upon the Thames Embankment; and,
  1916
  therefore, by adopting that site you would, merely for the sake of an architectural fancy, deprive the country and the profession of all the advantages which are offered by the site which, as I originally observed, has by common consent been appropriated to the purpose for a considerable period of time. It has received the approval of a Commission which was issued when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) was at the head of the Government, and also that of a Parliamentary Committee, and I think I may say that no man who examines it will come to a different conclusion. In reply to the particular subjects of the Motion made by the noble Earl, I must first state that there are no plans for the building of the proposed Courts: Any plans which may be proposed must be the subject of consideration by the Commission which is to be appointed. As to the site, the noble Earl will find a very good plan deposited in the Private Bill Office. We have no better plan, or I would with pleasure produce it. With reference to the number of houses and the names of the streets, lanes, places, and courts to be pulled down, the noble Earl will find in the evidence which has already been taken the most full and satisfactory details. I believe they are given there with a fulness and precision greater than could be obtained in any Return. If the noble Earl will refer to that evidence, I will with great pleasure produce any Return which he may afterwards think necessary; but I think that upon examination he will find that all the information which he requires is there supplied.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that although the site selected might have been the best that could be found thirty-five years ago, the construction of the Thames Embankment had rendered proper a reconsideration of the question. Viewed with reference to the architectural ornamentation of the metropolis, there could be no comparison between the two sites. That selected by the Government was situated in one of the most crowded parts of the metropolis and was entirely wanting in good means of access. The best access was by the Strand, but that was often blocked up; and on the other side there was no direct approach to Lincoln's Inn Fields except Queen Street, which was at one part very narrow. All the other approaches were mere crooked passages. It would be necessary, therefore, to add to the cost of erecting these buildings the

  1917
  expense which must be incurred in making suitable approaches to them. The late Sir Robert Peel was reported—he was disposed to think erroneously—to have described Trafalgar Square as the finest site in Europe; but certainly nowhere except upon the banks of the Arno was there to be found in any metropolis a site equal to that which would be supplied by the Thames Embankment. Nowhere was there to be found such a grand quay space in connection with such noble objects as the Houses of Parliament and the dome of St. Paul's. If the plan proposed by the Bill were carried out, with the exception of the Houses of Parliament, Somerset House, and the Temple, there would not be one building of importance to adorn the Embankment, which would be disfigured by the backs of the broken-down old houses and wharves abutting upon it. On the other hand, if the Thames Embankment site were chosen, the building for the Courts of Justice would form a noble ornament to that great work. One of the alleged advantages of the Government plan was that there would be easy communication from the Temple by means of a tunnel under Fleet Street; but what would enable the Temple to communicate easily with the Courts on the Carey Street site would afford the same facilities to the lawyers of Lincoln's Inn to communicate with the Courts on the Thames Embankment. It might be urged that the latter site was too far from Gray's Inn, but very little inconvenience would be felt were a passage made under Fleet Street. There were other reasons for not placing the Courts on the site proposed. Was it reasonable for instance, when they were obliged to make a new thoroughfare for the accommodation of the extensive traffic that passed east and west through the metropolis that seventy-two Courts of Justice should be planted in the most crowded part of the metropolis, while there was such an open space ready to their hands as the Thames Embankment would afford; in choosing the site for the proposed building its freedom of access must be taken into consideration, and he did not think that the Carey Street site, bounded as it was by Fleet Street and Lincoln's Inn, would be easy of approach. On the other hand, if the proposed building were erected on the Thames Embankment it would be accessible on all sides, and would be safe in case of fire or of public disturbance. Her Majesty's Government could not come before them and
  1918
  say that they had carefully considered the advantages of the respective sites, as they had simply adopted that which had been selected thirty-five years ago, and there had been no fresh consideration of the question since the Thames Embankment had presented itself. All these considerations, though not conclusive in favour of the site recommended by the noble Earl, were arguments in its favour, and he thought it very desirable that some further consideration should be given to the matter, either by a Committee of that or the other House of Parliament, and in some other way.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that with reference to the question of convenience, among the designs for the Thames Embankment submitted to competition was one by Mr. Newton, which possessed the advantage of ranging the whole of the new public Offices along its line, on which some of the finest of our public buildings, including the Houses of Parliament, Somerset House, the Temple, and the Custom House, were already situated. All these buildings would thus be connected by railway and by road, and the greatest convenience of access would have been afforded. The whole of the present public Offices were so badly designed and so ill adapted to the purposes for which they were intended, that he felt confident they would ultimately have to be removed and rebuilt according to the design of Mr. Newton, although that gentleman's design was not one that could be carried into effect in all its parts.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he could not suffer the subject before the House to pass without expressing his regret that the Law Courts were to be removed from Westminster. It was the opinion of lawyers of former days that it was of the greatest possible importance to the legal profession that the Courts of Justice should not be in close proximity to their chambers, inasmuch as coming down to Westminster Hall to attend the Courts conduced to the more careful study of the law; and the late Lord Lyndhurst often expressed his regret at the idea of transferring the Courts from Westminster to another site. It was said, that there was inconvenience in the separation of the Courts from the chambers of council. But, if so, it was strange that this inconvenience should have remained for centuries undiscovered, and that counsel had not been induced for the last two centuries to concentrate their private residences in

  1919
  Westminster. He believed that, in like manner, the public were gainers by the Members of the Legislature not residing in the neighbourhood of the House, so that they were able to run in and out as occasion required or fancy dictated. He doubted the policy of giving an architect seven acres of ground upon which to build, as he would be sure to waste the ground and make the building inconvenient. Their Lordships had often reason to complain of the unnecessary space which had been bestowed upon that House and its various offices. He also doubted the expediency of concentrating seventy-two Courts of Law under one roof. The character of the business of those various Courts was totally different, and the counsel who attended them were not engaged in the same branches of the law. No doubt the superior Courts might be advantageously concentrated, and the inferior Courts might also be brought together, but there was no necessity for placing both the superior and the inferior Courts under one roof. Another point of great importance was, that by the proposed change their Lordships' House of Appeal would be the only Court sitting at Westminster, and it would at some future time be alleged as a reason for altering their jurisdiction that it was inconvenient to attend a place so far removed from the other Courts of Law. He trusted their Lordships would never contemplate the possibility of giving up their jurisdiction as a Court of Appeal. Therefore, this was a matter which ought to be considered in sanctioning the contemplated removal of the Law Courts. He believed that there was ample space in the neighbourhood of Westminster Hall for the concentration of all the superior Courts. If the space at present occupied were found to be insufficient, there was more space in Palace Yard, and more still on the north side of Bridge Street, some of the houses in which it had already been determined were to come down for the purposes of the Thames Embankment and the bridge approaches.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he would not press for the Returns; but he asked whether there were any objections to the plan which the noble and learned Lord had mentioned as being deposited in the Private Bill Office being circulated among the Members of the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there could not be the slightest objection to the production of the plan if the noble Earl
  1920
  moved for it. It was a very good plan; and he had no doubt it would answer every purpose.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn).
  Plan and Book of Reference deposited in the Parliament Office on the 30th November 1864. To be printed. (No. 41.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.