1848. ment obscur, incommode et si étroit, qu'il a fallu tout le MEMORANDA. genie de l'architecte pour parvenir à y trouver le local de quatre salles, même en sacrifiant presque toutes les aisances qui auraient dû y être conservées, et qui se recontrent dans presque toutes les cours inférieures des provinces.”— "Rien plus que la construction de ces tribunaux ne marque l'apathie et l'indifférence des juges et des avocats, jusqu'à une époque très-récente, pour tout objet étranger à leurs intérêts particuliers. Presque personne n'a pris la peine de s'informer quel serait exactement leur emplacement, encore bien moins leur distribution et les commodités qu'ils présenteraient. Presque pas un seul avocat en chancellerie n'avait vu les salles destinées à cette cour, avant le jour où les séances y furent transférées; et ce fut alors que, pour la première fois, on entendit tant de plaintes à ce sujet (a).” -" Pour moi, lorsque je considère que l'on a construit les quatre cours avec leurs accessoires, sur un morceau de terrain si étroit et, de plus, resserré entre deux grands murs best consideration of the subject, (a) [There was one exception to work had been far advanced, some learned gentleman from the House of Commons-who appeared to know more, by a cursory glance, than the architect, after months' study-had ordered a large portion of the building to be taken down, whereby new arrangements and new designs were required to be made." The letter mentions, that "the immense buttresses of Westminster Hall, which are fortunately remaining on the west side, are now incorporated in the main walls of the Courts, whereby they are preserved from mutilation, and constitute substantial portions of the new erections."-May the day speedily arrive when those buttresses shall again glad antiquarian eyes.] 1848. fort élevés, ne recevant de lumière que par le haut, je suis plus tenté d'admirer le génie de l'architecte qui a su tirer MEMORANDA. parti de si peu de moyens, que je ne me sens porté à le blâmer de ce que les cours ne sont pas plus convenables. Je ne puis cependant m'empêcher d'observer qu'avec l'argent employé à la construction de ces bâtimens imparfaits, on aurait pu, en choisissant un bon emplacement, élever pour les cours un édifice digne de la capitale d'une grande nation."—"Je me suis laissé aller à cette longue digression, parce qu'il me semble impossible que l'on borne à une ou deux cours la foule d'avocats et d'avoués qui sont maintenant attachés à la chancellerie; car avec une pratique aussi limitée, ils ne retireraient pas même un revenu des plus modiques. Si donc on créait plusieurs tribunaux d'équité qui siégeraient en même temps, il faudrait qu'ils tinssent leurs audiences dans la même enceinte, et près des bureaux des maîtres en chancellerie; car messieurs les avocats et avoués ne pourraient jamais parvenir à assister aux différentes audiences tenues en même temps à Westminster, et dans Chancery Lane." Since the destruction of the Houses of Parliament by fire in the autumn of 1834, public attention has been repeatedly drawn to the expediency of the removal from Westminster not only of the Court of Chancery, but also of the Common Law Courts. The author believes that Mr. Hume has the merit of having first mentioned the subject in Parliament. On the 9th February, 1836, in a debate upon the New Houses of Parliament, Mr. Hume said he "would remove the Courts of Law from their present inconvenient situation. He would propose to build proper courts in the centre of Lincoln's Inn Fields, in the vicinity of all the lawyers. Let them be altogether. This would be much more convenient for the public, and the lawyers themselves. He had scarcely ever seen such inadequate accommodation as the present courts furnished; and although a great deal of money had 1848. been expended in fitting them up, he did not think that MEMORANDA. any loss would be sustained; but that, on the contrary, great public convenience would be obtained by getting rid of them altogether."-Hansard, Parl. Deb. 3rd series, vol. xxxi. page 236. Analysis of the evidence of Lord Cottenham, (May, 1841,) before the Select Com mittee of the House of Com Twice (in May, 1841, and July, 1845,) a Select Committee of the House of Commons has been appointed to consider the expediency of erecting a Building in the neighbourhood of the Inns of Court for the Sittings of the Courts of Law and Equity, in lieu of the present Courts adjoining to Westminster Hall, with a view to the more speedy, convenient, and effectual administration of Justice. The first Committee was appointed on the motion of Sir Thomas Wilde (Solicitor-General). The second Committee was appointed upon the motion of Mr. Charles Buller. Each Committee examined evidence on the subject of the matters referred to them. Before the Committee of May, 1841, Lord Cottenham was a witness. The ensuing is an analysis of the whole of his Lordship's evidence. Although subsequent events have diminished the relevancy and importance of two or three passages of the evidence, it is thought that it will still be found convenient that the analysis of it should be given entire. It is taken from the Index appended to the Report. "The Sitting of the Courts at Westminster during term is extremely inconvenient both to counsel and solicitors. Loss of time to the junior members of the bar; they are unable to draw pleadings. This inconvenience does not arise when the courts sit in Lincoln's Inn. It mons, appoint would be beneficial to practitioners and to suitors, if all the expediency the courts were under one roof, and near the chambers, of erecting a Building in the and the offices of the courts. Constant difficulty arising as neighbourhood to the attendance of counsel at the Masters' Offices during term. It would be desirable for the Masters' Offices to be ed to consider of the Inns of Court, for the The present Accommo 1848. under the same roof as the courts. Lincoln's Inn Fields would be the best site that has been mentioned; it is near MEMORANDA. the chambers and law offices. There would be no inconvenience in separating the counsel attending the Lords or Committees of the Commons, from the rest of the bar; they would no longer struggle to attend more places than they can attend with advantage. If there were a Court of Appeal sitting all the year, there would be an efficient bar, which would be a very desirable result. court for the Lord Chancellor is sufficient. Master of the Rolls is by no means suitable. dation required for the two new Vice-Chancellors; where to be provided. Deficient means of custody provided for the records of the Court of Chancery. Insufficiency of the Masters' Offices. Hurry and confusion always existing in the chief clerk's room. Important duties performed by him. If another chief clerk should be appointed, an additional room must be provided at each office. Doubts whether the Rolls estate would be sufficiently large for all the Courts of Law and Equity. They should all be under one roof, with a proper place of custody for deeds and documents. No money should be applied from the Suitors' Fund, for any purpose other than the benefit of the suitors. The Suitors' Fund has been used for building offices for the Court of Chancery, -objections to such application,-how far justifiable. The Society of Lincoln's Inn would provide courts for the Vice-Chancellors, in order to keep the Courts of Chancery within their own walls. The judge in Bankruptcy holds his court at the Westminster Sessions House. The concentration of the courts under one roof would be conducive to the efficiency of the judges. point of situation a site between the Strand and Lincoln's Inn, would be as convenient as Lincoln's Inn Fields. Bringing the courts together could hardly increase the present practice of counsel, of attending in different courts." In 1848. It may be added that in the House of Lords, on the 28th MEMORANDA. April, 1843, Lord Cottenham, after noticing that he was not present on a former evening, when a discussion arose as to the propriety of having all the Courts of Law removed to a central situation, said he should take that opportunity to state that he was in favour of the proposition. He did not think that the reasons advanced against it were at all satisfactory.-Hansard, Parl. Deb. vol. 68, 3rd Series, page 1013 (a). (a) The reader, who may desire information beyond that furnished above, will do well to refer to the last twenty-four volumes of the Legal Observer -the able and judicious organ of the Law Institution. The attorneys and solicitors throughout the kingdom have for some years past been indefatigable in their exertions to effect a removal of all the Courts from Westminster to the neighbourhood of the Inns of Court. It is one of the many anomalies in our Institutions which so much perplex foreigners, that an improvement so obvious and in no way prejudicing personal interests, should have been so long, so zealously, and so perseveringly called for by a body, as numerous and influential as are the attorneys and solicitors of the country, and nevertheless that it should still remain uneffected. ERRATUM.-Ante, Page 116, line 3, for "extract" read "abstract." END OF PART I. VOL. II. |