The Sun.
London, England, 1869-03-15 00:00:00

LOA DOS, MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1869.

The New Law Courts' Site is still undetermined.

The advocates of the rival sides of the Strand are
equally enthusiastic in their preference for the North
and for the South, for the Carey-street Site and fit
the Thames Embankment. Apropos to this amicable
contention them has recently come forth the Report
made by Mr. F. W. L'HIELDS, Civil Engineer, " on
the subject of the site for the New Courts of Justice
and their Approaches." It has been printed in Return
to an order of the house of Commons, und. r
date the 4th inst., an]. is addressed, itself (i.e.l
the Report, not the Return), under date the
17th ult., to the Right Hon. the ChancAlor of the
Exchequer. Mr. Lour-,; having been given to
understand that Mr. F. W. SHIELDS, C.E., had de-
vokd considerable attention in his profes-
sional capacity to the question of the New
Ltw Courts and their approaches, had invited
the latter gentleman to favour him (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) with rome deliberate
opinion, in writing, upon the matter referred to.
In compliance with that request Mr. SHIELDS draws '
up his report—a copy of which is, in due course,
fo7-, shortly after the meeting of Parliament,
by Mr. DJDDS, the newly-elected member for the
newly-created parliamentary borough of Stockton. A
copy of that report is now lying before us as we write,
and brief though it is-- occupying, as it does, only
four pages of blue-book letter-press—it is at the same
time all-sufficient. Mr. SHIELDS subdh ides his
subject at starting under four heals—those

under which he enumerates what he term
public requirewents. First the archi:ectural
effect afforded by the site, whether to the
north or to the Bluth of the Scran 1, w t.etl:er

between the Strand and Carey-street or between the
Strand and the lhlimes anbinkluent. Secondly-,
the unifor.nity of level of its surf tee. T.iirdiy
the ee..)no ny of its aciiisiziin. Fo.trAly—lts

act-;e:isibiliti or t'a 3 colv,mielce of

public ap. roaelle.i. I InnediatAy upon starting
he frankly a.Lnits " obvi ins sap,Tiori-y" of the
riv.2r frontage when e-itn,) twu sites in regard

to the arc'iit::•:tar:tl eff.:ct of the projetel new
elii e. Acknowledgi ig tLat much, Mr. SIIE.IL'is
d rt:c ly atfterwards ad,l6 that upon the second

puint, na!nely, the and relative to the uni-
formity of level, there is a nearly cilually
o')vious disaivanta,ge on this side of the Thames
E!nilvikm,•nt. Neither site Lt. .‘
level" it s!ioald be said. But whercai the level of
Carey-street is 1G feet higher than the &Irani,
the level of the Strand is 30 feet big ;or than
the Thames Embankment ! If NV3 remember
rightly Sir CHARLES TREVELYAN regards this
latter difference of level as a matter for exultation
and rejoicing when singing the praises of his pet site
—that sec)nd thought which is proverbially said to
be best—the site of the Thames Eari')a rkineat. He

c.mceiies, if our memory upon this point is not
in error, that the absence of uniformity in level
opens up many advantages in the way of providing
suitable officcs in connection with the Courts thcm-
, selves. Not so Mr. SHIELDS, who has an engineer's
objection to the consequent necessity
of so many
flights of stairs—an objectiou certainly al-
most insuperable, when the ag,3 of our
judges is taken into consideration. 'Then comes the
comparative cost of the rival sites, showing an ex-
cess on the river site of so;ne £725,000 altogether.
the fourth point—that is as to the approaches-,--is
the most difficult of all to decide upon ; and upon
that point, consequently, Mr. SHIELDS expatiates in
his Report with a sort of gusto, considering'
it to the right and to the left, in front
and in rear, all round it in fact. Upon
the Strand side, he says, both sites are of course
upon an equality. With this difference only, that
in the one case the Strand would be the front, in the
other the back of the new Palace of Justice. " The
Carey-street site, however," he adds, " has no main
thoroughfare on its northern side, which is inacces-
sible to any large amount of traffic, so that
virtually it would depend for public ac-
cess upon the Strand alone. The other site,
on the contrary, has, in addition to the
Strand, the new and capacious street on the Du-
;
banktneut running along its river front. This street
will extend from Westminster to the Mansion-
house ; it will be traversed by the Metropolitan Dis- 1
trict Railway; and it will be in direct communiea- 1
tion with the landing piers for the river steamboat
Ipassengers. It follows therefore that, in respect of the
aproaches, the Embankment site has great advantage
over that of Carey-street." Mere than that, he says
very lointedly that, " whichever site be adopted, the
question cf its apvroaches requires the most careful
consideration." When he takes occasion to remark,
however, that "if the Carey-street site be selected,
the Strand and Fleet-street must be the principal
acccrs to it; and if the Embankment site be pre-
ferred, the carne thoroughfare, before more cen-
tral than the Embankment road, will have
much traffic to the
not only to convey
Law Co: rtE, but will be cross ed and biliodckieldoibLa.ve:,
hides p: ssing between the Courts
a
When Le not only says this,
but adds, " The narrow
portion of the Strand and fleet-street for a consi-
derable d:stance adjoining the proposed sifts has lung
been inadequate for the public accommodation:"
And further goes on to say, " But with the great addi-
tional traffic which will he cans •d by the et:11-
cent ation of the Law Courts oil that narrow
and crowded street, I
can foresee -no other re-
sult than to render the Courts extrAiiely difficul.
of access, and to create such a blockade of the mos,
,tssentia.i thoruu,lif ,re of London as will prove, into-
lerable to the palic."—Mr. SHZELDS appears to forget
that the blockade thus certain in either case to in-
vade the Strand will necessarily be far more serious":