The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-12 00:00:00

CONCENTRATION OF THE COURTS OF

LAW.

The Report of the Commissioners appointed to
inquire into the expediency of concentrating the
Law Courts and their offices, and into the pecuni-
ary means which exist for defraying the cost of a
new site, with the necessary buildings, has been
laid upon the table of the House of Commons.
Before we proceed to analyse it, it may be as well
to refer to the occasion of the appointment of the
present commissioners. In March of last year, and
while Lord Derby's Government was in office, Lord
Chelmsford introduced a bill to give additional ac-
commodation to the Vice-Chancellors' courts at

Lincoln's-inn, and for this purpose proposed that
the Society of Lincoln's-inn should be empowered
to raise £lOO,OOO, the interest of which should be

secured by a perpetual charge of £4,000 on the in.

come of One Of the funds wall which the commis-
sioners now deal.

To this bill strong opposition was immediately
shown. The want of concentration had become an

ncreasing evil ; it was felt that any more addition
to existing buildings would afford but a temporary

and very inadequate relief, and Lord Chelmsford's
plan had the defect of being founded, as the com-
missioners remark, " on the principle of making
permanent the present separation of the equity
courts from those of the common law, and all other
branches of the administration of justice.
The Incorporated Law Society therefore pre-
sented a petition to the House of Lords on behalf of
the London attorneys against the proposed measure.
This petition fortunately met with a favourable re-
ception ; Lord Chelmsford postponed his bill, and
the present commissioners, Sir John Taylor Cole-
ridge, Sir Wm. Page Wood, Sir Geo. Cornewall
Lewis, Lord Wynford, Dr. Phillimore, and Mr.
Young were shortly afterwards appointed.
It will be found from the report that in effect
the three main questions submitted to the commis-
sioners for investigation were the following :-1.
The expediency of concentration. 2. The selection
of a site, and 3. The funds out of which the ne-
cessary expenses might be paid. Upon the first
question the report says—" We have had no divi-
sion of opinion or difficulty in arriving at our con-
clusion. The evidence of witnesses entitled to the
greatest consideration personally, and from their
means of acquiring knowledge on the subject, may
be stated as being all on one side ;" and the report
proceeds to state the present condition of some of
the law courts and their offices. Upon this point,
however, we need quote but little ; there are few
of us who have not gained by personal experience
the knowledge now imparted by the commissioners,
and we shall be content with giving two of the
paragraphs in the report upon this subject.
" The Judge of the Probate and Divorce Court
has no court of his own, but sits for the present,
by permission of the Lord Chancellor, in the Lord
Chancellors Court in Westminster-hall. His re-
gistrar's-office, however, and the depositions of
wills are still remaining in Doctors'-Commons.
The Judge of the High Court of Admiralty is also
without any court of his own. He has been used
to sit, by permission of the College of Advocates,
in their hall, and now sits, by permission, in the
court of the Master of the Rolls, at Westminster,
but the office of the Registrar and that of the Ad-
miralty Marshal's are still in Doctors'-Com-
mons
" The courts of the two remaining Vice-Chan-
cellors are utterly unfit for their purpose; in struc-
ture, size, proportion, ventilation, and arrange-
ment, it is difficult to speak of them in too strong
terms of disapproval. They are so unfit as to make
it necessary for us to report to
.your Majesty upon
the urgent propriety of some immediate measure
for the better accommodation of these two judges,
What we have said of their courts applies with
equal if not greater force to their chambers—it
almost requires ocular inspection to conceive fully
how insufficient, inconvenient, and unwholesome
they are."
" Upon the second question—the selection of a
site—the commissioners report that three plans
have been presented to their notice : 1. Westmin-
ster ; 2. A portion of the interior of the square of
Lincoln's-inn-fields ; and 3. The site bounded by
Carey-street on the north, Pickett-street and the
Strand on the south, Bell-yard on the east, and
Clements-inn on the west. As to Westminster, the
commissioners report that—" Any considerations in
its favour are conclusively overweighed by two on
the other side, the first, that by bringing all the
courts and their offices to Westminster they would
recreate as regards the lawyers who practice in
equity, and perpetuate as regards those who prac-
tice in common law, and also as regards the main
body of London attorneys, the very serious incon-
venience of separation from their chambers and
offices. The second, the entire want of such space
at Westminster, contiguous or even near to West-
minster-hall, as would be necessary for the purpose."
The site of Lincoln's-inn is also rejected by the
commissioners, partly from the space offered being
insufficient, and partly upon sanitary grounds.
The remaining site proposed, that of Carey-street
and the adjoining ground, is then considered, and
the commissioners speak in the following terms of
it :—" In favour of this we have the concurrent tes-
timony of witnesses from all branches of the pro-
fession. It is so near to Lincoln's-inn-fields that as
to actual convenience of position, little difference
exists between the two, but that little is in favour
of this last. It has as regards the metropolis
the great benefit of being a substitution for a
neighbourhood of close and ill-built streets,
badly ventilated and drained, and in respect
of part at least very disreputably inhabited ; it
is large enough for the purpose required, and
the quantity to be taken may be more or less
according as the details of the bdlding may re-
quire a greater or less area ; all sanitary conside-
rations are in its favour; it will at once have a good
frontage towards the south, and it labours under no
greater difficulties in this respect on the north and
other quarters near the site proposed by Mr. Gern"
(the Lincoln's inn site).
But by far the most important branch of the in-
quiries prosecuted by the commissioners, and to
which the greater portion of the report is devoted,
is that involved in the third question—The funds
out of which the necessary expenses are to be paid.
The commissioners say upon this head—" We have
humbly to report to your Majesty that there do
exist funds which, if they can with propriety be
made available for the purpose (as for the reasons
hereinafter stated we think they can), will be found
amply sufficient to carry these important objects
into complete effect without imposing any, and if
any, only a moderate and temporary 'burden on the
finances of the State."
The funds to which the commissioners allude are
three in number.
A sum of £1,291,629 ss. 6d. stock, which forms
a portion of a larger sum lying in the Court of
Chancery under the title of " The Suitors' Fund."
2. A sum of £201,028 3s. 3d. stock, forming por-
tions of a fund known as "The Suitors' Fee Fund."
3. A sum of £88,254 standing to the credit of
the Paymaster-General at the Bank of England,
arising from fees received in the common law courts.
The Suitors' Fund must not be understood as re-
presenting any portion of the securities which are
standing to the credit of the different causes and
matters under litigation in the Court of Chancery,
and which at the date of the last returns in 1859
amountedolo s
il.ely tthoe n
feua
or layolstoh ,eooaoo, Oi
tOoor.s , Thisand
withfund
ii
ts et xh
e-
F commissionund
ia
nf
ae sins
oo
sf t
mc ooudresreadteo d. Sus'
aoi tuonrt .
The report enters elaborately into the circum-
stances connected with its origin and subsequent
growth, and as it is essential for the purpose of
understanding the conclusions arrived at by the
commissioners as to the propriety of dealing with
the £1,291,000, a brief explanation of it must be
given.
When any of the parties to a cause pay the funds
which are in dispute into court, which is often done
in the earliest stage of the proceedings, any of them
are at liberty to ask for the investment in stock of
such of the funds brought into court which consist
of cash ; in the absence, however, of such request
the cash is not invested for the benefit of the liti-
gants, and when the cause is adjudicated upon the
successful party only asks for and only receives the
sums of cash which were paid in. But in these
cases, although the parties to the suit do not ask
for the investment of the cash, the Court of Chan-
cery, under the authority of acts of parliament,
makes the investment whenever the floating balances
in hand become inconveniently large, and the court
does not account with the suitor any more than a
banker does with hi customers for the profits made
by such investments. Prior to the year 1725 it had
been the practice to deposit the monies of the suitor
ordered to be brought into court with the masters
or ushers of the court "by whom the monies de-
posited were employed for their own personal bene-
fit, the, advantage arising from such employment
constituting, in fact, a portion of the profits of their
respective offices." These gentlemen appear to have
banked unfortunatel3r. The South Sea bubble
swallowed the suitors' money, and George 1., upon
the address of the House of Commons, enforced a
th4e of £30,000 upon the Lord Chancellor Maccles-
ili.eld towards making up
the deficiencies caused by