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

LONDOJ.V, MO-VDAY, 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 f
the Thames Embankment. Apropos to this amicable
contention there has recently come forth the Report
made by Mr. F. W. SHIELDS, Civil Engineer,

44 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, uud.r
date the 4th inst., ant is addressed, itself (i e.,
the Report, not the Return), under date the
17th ult., to the Right lion. the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Mr. Lowe having been given to
understand that Mr. F. W. SHIELDS, C. E., had de-
voted considerable attention in his profes-
sional capacity to the question of the New
Law Courts and their approaches, had invited
the latter gentleman to favour him (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) with some 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,
moved for, shortly after the meeting of Parliament,
by Mr. DODDS, 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 subdivides his
subject at starting under four heals—those
under which he enumerates what he terms
public requirements. First the architectural
effect afforded by the site, whether to the
north or to the south of the Stran i, whether
between the Strand and Carey-street or between the
Strand and the Thames Embankment. Secondly—.
the uniformity of level of its surface. Thirdly—
the economy of its acquisition. Fourthly—its
accessibility or the convenience of its
public approaches. Immediately upon starting
he frankly admits the " obvious superiority" of the
river frontage when comparing the two sites in regard
to the ,architectural effect of the projected new
edifice. Acknowledging that much, Mr. SHIELDS
directly afterwards adds that. upon the second
point, namely, the one• relative to the uni-
formity of level, there is a nearly equally
obvious disadvantage on ,this side of the Thames
Embankment. Neither site has " uniformity
of level" it should be said. But whereas the level of
Carey-street
.is 1G feet higher than the Strand,
the level of the Strand is 30 feet hig'ier than
the Thames Embankment ! If we remember
rightly Sir CHARLES TRZVELYAN regards uhis
latter difference of level as a matter for exultation
and rejoicing when singing the praises of his pet site
—that second thought which is proverbially said to
be best—the site of the Thames Embaektnent. He
conceives, if our memory upon this point is not
in error, that the absence of uniformity in level
opens up many advantages iu the way of providing
suitable offices in connection with the Courts them-
selves. Not so Mr. SHIELDS, who has an engineer's
objection to the consequent necessity of so many
flights of stairs—au objection certainly al-
most insuperable, when the age of our
judges is taken into consideration. Then comes the
comparative coat of the rival sites, showing an ex-
cess on the river site of some £725,000 altogether.
'I he 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 Em-
bankment running along its river front. This street
will extend from Westminster to the Mansion-
house ; it will be traversed by the Metropolitan Dis-
trict Railway ; and it will be in direct communica-
tion with the landing piers for the river steamboat
passengers.
it follows therefore that, ilrespeie t of
app-roaches, the advantage
over the Embankment site has antathgee
over that of Carey-street." More than that, he says
very pointedly that, " whichever site be adopted, the
question of its approaches 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
access to it; and if the Embankment site be pre-
ferred, the same thoroughfare, before more cen-
tral than the Enibauk went road, will have
much traffic to the
not only to convey
Law Courts, but will be crossed and blocked by ve-
hicles passing between the Courts and Holborn."
When he not only says this, but adds, " The narrow
portion of the Strand and Fleet-street for a consi-
derable distance adjoining the proposed sites has long
been inadequate for the public accommodation."
And further goes on to say, " But with the great addi-
tional traffic which will be caused by the con-
cult, ation of the Law Courts on that nal% ow
and crowded street, I can foresee no other re-
sult than to render the Courts extremely difficult
of access, and to create such a blockade of the most
essential thoroughfare of London as will prove, into-
lerable to the public"—Mr. SHIELDS appears to forget
that the blockade this certain in either case to in-
vade the Strand will necessarily be far more serious k