Twenty years since all the assize business of this populous county was transacted at Lancaster, Whither the inhabitants of Manchester and Liverpool were required to attend the administration of justice. Though the serious evils of such an anomalous arrangement were the subject of frequent complaint and remonstrance, the inhabitants of the southern division were unable to obtain the desired relief until 1835 in which year an order in council was issued, on the 26th June, dividing the country in districts, the northern and southern divisions, and directing that the court of assize, after meeting at Lancaster, should be adjourned to Liverpool for the business for the southern division, the proclamation was to the following effect :
That the assizes and sessions held under the commissioners of gaol delivery, and other commissioners for the despatch of civil and criminal business, for the county palatine of Lancaster, shall hereafter be holden on the same circuit both Lancaster and Liverpool, in the said county palatine, that a court and Judge's lodging had been already prepared at Liverpool to meet this change, and that the measure was solicited in numerous petitions presented to the council, as one likely to be highly beneficial to a great portion of the inhabitants of the palatine. The county for the new judicial purposes was divided into two divisions, northern and southern, the former comprehending the hundreds of Lonsdale, Amounderness, Leyland and Blackburn, the later those of Salford and West Derby. The house of correction at Kirkdale is henceforth to be used as the county gaol for the southern region, prisoners for trial in Lancaster Castle, for offences committed in Salford and Derby are to be transferred thither, except were issues have been already, which are still to be tried at the Castle of Lancaster and all future commitments for the same hundreds are to be made to the same place. A grand jury to be returned for each assize, but, several sworn for the whole country. Local venues to be tried in their respective jurisdictions, except issues joined and certioraris, or criminal informations, which are still triable only at Lancaster, unless otherwise specially ordered by the courts above, venues may be changed from one assize to the other. In this order in council, which is dated 24th June, special exception is made in favour of the court of common pleas at Lancaster, which was still to sit at Lancaster but, in the proclamation dated the next day, "it being found expedient to make further regulations. " it being ordered that the court of common pleas at Lancaster, shall be held both at Lancaster and Liverpool, and this court is placed upon the same footing and with all the reserves and exceptions, as the court of assize of the county.
Pursuant to the above orders the summer assizes for 1835 for the southern division were held at Liverpool. The judges, Lord ABINGER and Sir N. C. TINDAL, made their entry into the town on Aug 15th robing at Stretch's public house, Kirkdale, Thomas CLIFTON of Lytham Hall Esq, high sheriff, the mayor and numerous cavalcade, meeting their lordships on the boundary of the borough, which at that time was Boundary St, Kirkdale.
Our neighbours in Manchester and its dependencies sometimes allow their dislike to the Liverpool town dues to blind them to the benefits conferred upon them by the liberality exercised by the authorities in the management of the municipal income. Amongst other important benefits in which Manchester participates is the convenience of having the assizes held at Liverpool instead of Lancaster the expenses of which are defrayed out of the corporate estate, of which the dues form part. Liverpool has always made her neighbours welcome to participate in this and other benefits, her return being an unworthy desire to deprive her of property acquired and bequeathed by past generations.
When the assizes were removed to Liverpool it was understood that the use of the Sessions House in Rumford St, for their reception, would be but temporary. Various causes however intervened to prevent the adoption of any active measures towards the erection of more suitable premises, amongst others the alterations effected by the passing of the Municipal Reform Bill, and, therefore, it was not until the middle of 1838, just three years after the removal had been effected, that the subject was brought under the consideration of the town council. At the meeting of that body on Sept 5th the finance committee reported :-
That considering the interest of the town, the great inconvenience at present sustained through lack of accommodation for counsel, jurors and witnesses, and the expectation held out from time to time on the subject, it is desirable that new courts of assize, in lieu of the present building in Rumford St, [avowedly for temporary accommodation only] should be erected with as little delay as possible, on a scale commensurate, with the proper accommodation of the southern division of the county, and the respectability of the town. That the sub-committee be requested to take into consideration the site and place for erection and report thereon.
The report having been adopted by the council, it appears that the sub-committee consulted with Mr FRANKLIN, corporation surveyor, who prepared plans, at it is recorded at the council meeting, May 1st 1839 ;-
That the consideration of the plans furnished by Mr FRANKLIN be postponed to afford opportunity of consulting with the judges on the circuit, public officers connected with the courts, counsel attorneys and others, as to the rooms and accommodation proposed and required.
"But before the next council meeting, however [that of June 5th] it appears that Mr FRANKLIN'S design was abandoned and the sub-committee recommended that the profession should be invited to send in designs and proposed certain instructions for the guidance of competitors. These specified the areas of the courts and some other rooms, and that the cost, including effectual arrangements for warming and ventilating." should not exceed 40,000 pounds, that the design should be sent in by December 1st, and that the premiums should be 300 pounds for the best design and 200 pounds for second-best. At this meeting the council directed that the barrack-master should have notice that the old Lunatic Asylum would be required early in the ensuing year. At the council meeting in July it was decided to increase the amount to be expended to 50,000 pounds and subsequently the period allowed for preparing designs was extended to January 1st 1840. As the judges expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with the lodgings provided for them in St Annes St [formerly the residence of the late Samuel SANDBACH Esq, afterwards of the Woodlands and Aigburth] and preferred to have the lodgings in a building distinct from the Assize Courts, the council had decided not to include them in the design. A special council meeting was summoned for the 22nd April 1840 to consider the report of the committee appointed to examine the designs submitted in competition. This committee was formed by the union of the finance and improvements committees who report as follows :-
That in the pursuance of the resolution of the council, advertisements were issued last year for plans for the intended Sessions House, designed also to be used for assize courts to be sent in on or before 1st January and at the expiration of the time assigned, 86 plans were sent in for the proposed edifice. For convenience and despatch it was considered desirable that these plans should be referred to a sub-committee, constituted as above, who should inspect and report upon the same, with a view to awarding the premiums held out be the advertisement for the first and second-best designs, the following members are accordingly appointed for the purpose, Finance Committee - William Wallace CURRIE, Thomas BOLTON, John HOLMES, Hugh HORNBY and George Hall LAWRENCE, Improvement Committee - Thomas Brockhurst BARCLAY, Eyre EVANS, William EARLE, Henry Robertson SANDBACH, and Henry HOLMES. On receiving their appointment their first step was to direct the plans to be arranged in the Exhibition Rooms, as in the case of St George's Hall
This being done the sub-committee proceeded to inspect the same, giving ample time to each member to satisfy himself and inspect from the whole [86 in number] 30 designs which should appear to him most deserving of attention. These 30 having been ascertained by careful scrutiny were placed together for revision and the sub-committee proceeded on a subsequent day to reduce the list from 30 to 10. Ample time was also given in this instance for selection which was made accordingly. At this stage of the proceedings they thought it right to call in the assistance and experience of the surveyor, whom they instructed to report his opinion as to the manner in which the artists had complied with the conditions required in the advertisement, together with his professional opinion on the plans, both with reference to their internal and external arrangement. In due time the surveyor laid before the committee his report which they were gratified to find, approved of their selection. After careful selection the committee reduced the selection even further to five, it then became their duty to select the two, which in their opinion would be deserving of the premiums offered for the first and second-best plans. Although the committee was not fortunate to meet with any plan combining in itself both the beauty of the exterior and unexceptionable arrangement within, yet, always keeping in view these two points, they have come to the decision recommending the plans now exhibited, viz., plan marked A for first prize, and plan marker B, for the second prize, the superiority on the whole being in favour of the first.
With respect to the two selected, the surveyor has given it as in his opinion with some modification, of which the internal arrangements are capable, they will combine the desired objects. The selection has his entire approval. It may be satisfactory to state that in every selection from first to last, these two plans have united the greatest number of suffrages in their favour.
The names of the two architects are still unknown to the committee, as the letters identifying the plans have been, from first to last, and still remain, carefully locked in a box, the key of which has never been out of the possession of the chairman.
The task undertaken by the committee has been one of considerable labour and responsibility, and they feel confident as they were completely free of bias [being totally ignorant of the candidates], they will receive credit for having made the selection to the best of their judgement, of those plans most likely together to secure all the useful objects contemplated by the council, and to be an ornament to the town.
The selection being approved of by the council, the box was unlocked and the letters accompanying those designs opened, when it appeared that the author of the design to which the first prize was awarded was, Mr Harvey Lonsdale ELMES, 11 Park Street, Westminster, and the design to which the second prize was given, Mr Samuel A. GREIG, 12 Paris St, Exeter.
The practise of architectural competitions is so degrading to the profession and so injurious to the public, that a few remarks on the subject will not be altogether irrelevant. The Law Courts form an edifice of such superior architectural character that it is not surprising that the advocates of competitions should eagerly adduce that this and the houses of parliament as marked examples of the value of the system, but is not this testimony directly the reverse of favourable, when carefully examined. In the first case, let the expense to which the profession be subjected be considered. For the assize court 86 designs were prepared, and the drawings so beautifully finished, and so elaborated, that it is a low estimate to put the average cost from 40 to 50 pounds each design. This makes a total tax on the profession of no less than 3440 pounds, at the lowest estimate for this building alone, and this is for money out of pocket only, without any allowance for the Architects own talents and time! And the profession venture this large risk for the chance of obtaining a premium, and the credit thence resulting.
If an architect ventures to hint that this tax is an unreasonable imposition, it is immediately assumed that he is deficient in professional enthusiasm, or he fears to be brought into competition with his brethren, the word competition being artfully used in its double meaning. Now, whilst any respectable architect may immediately dread exposure to the humiliating influence of the competition system, as one which is inherently corrupting to all parties concerned, he will probably have no desire to avoid the honourable competition evolved during professional practise, which is beneficial alike to architects and the public.
It must be admitted that the complaint of excess over estimates is one more prevalent in building than is creditable to the profession, but it is usually chronic and often very mild indeed, its acute development being most beautifully exhibited in the unhealthy action induced by the competition system, which, by lowering the moral tone of the public and the profession engenders the evil so continually complained of. Ignorance, inexperience, deceit, and favouritism often combine to produce a mess that can only be rivalled in the cauldron of Macbeth's witches, and most powerfully aid the vile incantations of those who scruple at no means provided their cherished ends be attained.
It may safely be affirmed that there is no building erected from a design procured by the competition system which has not involved its promoters in an expenditure very much greater than that originally intended.
The building under construction is to some extent a case in point. Not that there was any favouritism exercised in the selection of Mr ELMESS designs at the time of the St George's Hall competition, it is believed that Mr ELMES was an entire stranger in Liverpool and in both cases the two designs were selected according to the honest judgement of the two committees. But in the excess of the actual cost over the estimated cost, we have the evidence of the injudiciousness of confiding so important a work to so inexperienced a man as Mr ELMES was when he was appointed architect to the corporation for this building. Until the history of its construction is written, it is impossible duly to apportion the responsibility for that extra cost, but there is no doubt that much of the excess was occasioned by alterations which the council required to have made, and it often happens that much of the excess usually attributed to the profession may be accounted for in the same way. Now, it must be manifest that any competitor who prepares a design that can be executed at the cost specified by the committee, is not fairly treated when his design is placed in contrast with the one that cannot be executed for less than 50 to 100 percent beyond the specified cost, even though the author of the second design may intend to act honestly, and does not [as is to frequently the case] wilfully pervert his estimate.
It must be distinctly understood that the good faith of the two competitors specially referred to has never been impugned, and therefore any errors which may be attached to them appear indicative to the unsoundness of the competition system.
It is almost certain that the town of Liverpool would never have acquiesced in the great expenditure incurred had full information of the actual cost been accessible to the public before the building was commenced. It is quite certain that the building now erected is an honour to the town, and will be a mine of intellectual pleasure through long ages to come. But the latter is a result, more or less accidental, of a course of proceeding which cannot be considered creditable to a community in which it is habitually practised.
On the 6th May 1840, the council appointed their first law courts committee, with powers to carry on the works and report from time to time to the council, This committee consisted of the following gentlemen, Messers, CURRIE, EARLE, H. HORNBY, SANDBACH, H. LAWRENCE, RATHBONE, SHEIL, BARCLAY, and WALMSLEY.
The Mercury of October 23rd, is mentioned that, �workmen are now engaged in pulling down the old Lunatic Asylum, at the east end of St John's Church, Old Infirmary yard, preparatory to laying down the foundation stone of the new assize courts, a ceremony which will probably not take place before spring.
In the summer of this year [1840], it being suggested that the assize courts and St George's Hall should be combined in one grand edifice, the subject was brought under consideration of the law courts committee of the council, and at a special council meeting on October 31st, the proceedings of the committee embracing the following points, were approved of :-
On the 8th of October the committee met and inspected certain plans submitted by Mr ELMES, and at this meeting it was resolved that Mr ELMES should be appointed the architect to the corporation for the erection of the assize courts. Mr ELMES stated the remuneration which he expected to receive was five percent, on the amount of his estimate which included travelling and other expenses, the premiums already paid forming part of the remuneration. A clerk of works to be appointed and paid by the corporation.
At a meeting on October 23rd, Mr ELMES submitted five plans for laying out the site of the Old Infirmary yard. It was resolved that the committee of St George's Hall should be invited to a conference with the committee for the purpose of further considering the plans. On October 27th the committee met, Rector BROOKS presiding. After considerable discussion, a design submitted by Mr ELMES, showing a combination of the law courts and St George's Hall in one building, was approved of.
The council adopted the recommendations of the joint committee, provided they were ratified by the subscribers to St George's Hall, and as the assize courts were enlarged, the amount proposed to be expended was increased to 65,000 pounds. In order to consider the negotiations between the two committees, a general meeting of the subscribers to the hall was held in the Cotton Salesroom, on Wednesday, November 4th, the Rev Rector BROOKS in the chair. A report from the committee was read wherein they communicated to the subscribers the minutes of their conference with the law courts committee, at which a mutual proposal was adopted to the effect that the St George's Hall Society shall give up the land voted to them by the council, on condition that the erection of the council compromise a hall as well as the proposed law courts the St George's Hall Company raising, or satisfactorily securing to the council, a fund of such amount that may be mutually agreed on between the company and the council to defray the expense of the erection, so far that shall extend to a fair proportion on account of the intended hall.
The committee concluded their report by expressing their opinion that the scheme contained in that proposal was one which merited the most favourable consideration of the shareholders.
The following resolutions were adopted by the meeting :- That the scheme embodied in the proposal which has been read to this meeting presents, in the opinion of this meeting, the most advantageous mode which, under existing circumstances, could be devised for carrying into effect the object for which the company was formed. That it is expedient forthwith to raise the funds necessary for the erection of the hall, and for that purpose the committee are hereby instructed, to call up and receive from the subscribers, in so far as are not already paid up, the entire amount of 25 pounds per share upon the subscribed shares and that the fund so to be raised should be applicable in the manner contemplated in the proposal, in case it shall be carried into execution, and if not, then shall be applicable to the erection of the hall, according to the original constitution of the company.
That the committee are also instructed to make such arrangements with the council as shall be necessary for carrying the proposal into execution, upon such terms as the committee shall consider calculated to secure to the subscribers and the public the purposes for which the hall was originally intended.
It was stated by the chairman that Mr ELMES had given his opinion, that if commenced forthwith the building might be finished in three and a half years. It was understood that the right of the shareholders in the hall that any profits derived from its use remained unchanged.
But the arrangement just completed did not long continue, for it was found that the attempt to continue two distinct authorities, namely the law courts committee of the council and the committee of the St George's Hall Company was productive of inconvenience and it was ultimately resolved that the St George's Hall should be built at the expense of the corporation, and the company should be dissolved.
The last meeting of the shareholders in the St George's Hall was held in the Cotton Salesroom on the, 15th February 1841, Rev Rector BROOKS in the chair, when the committee reported the minutes of certain proceedings of the town council and its law courts committee, which embodied resolutions to the effect that, considering the difficulties which would necessarily attend the erection of the law courts and St George's Hall conjointly with a private company, the council would undertake the whole outlay of the erection of St George's Hall, and the law courts, and their future management, with the entire property vested in the council, and that the council authorised the law courts committee to communicate with the St George's Hall committee, and make such arrangement to carrying that suggestion into effect, as might be requisite, and the committee after stating that they had taken the subject into full consideration, further reported that there was in the bank a balance of 12,000 pounds and upwards of the funds raised from the calls, and interest allowed by the bank, after deducting expenses defrayed up to Oct 1840.
The committee recommended that adoption of the proposal from the town council, and approved of it, as one which entitled the town council to the approbation of the company and the town at large. They further recommended that the funds in hand should be refunded to the subscribers, that the last subscription of 20 pounds per share be forthwith refunded to those by whom paid, the outstanding charges to be defrayed out of the balance of the 5 pound call, and the net surplus to be divided among the shareholders. The meeting adopted the report and passed the following resolution ;-
That the thanks of the company should be given to the council for the liberal manner in which they have taken upon themselves the erection of the hall. It should be mentioned that the purpose to erect the hall at the corporate expense had given rise to a considerable discussion at the council meeting, February 3rd, but it was ultimately adopted by a large majority. The estimated cost of the entire building at this time appears to have been 90,000 pounds. A special council meeting was held on May 12th, when it was ordered the building be immediately proceeded with. In the course of the summer Mr REID submitted his plans for the ventilation of the building, which was referred to the then surveyor for his opinion, who reported favourably to the council, in August, of the plan proposed, adducing its success in the houses of parliament as "most satisfactory", and given the estimated additional cost of 5492 pounds. There was a good deal of discussion before Dr REID'S plan was finally adopted, the estimated cost being the chief objection, one of the speakers who supported its adoption said he had permission from Mr CRESSWELL to say that he [Mr CRESSWELL] never was in a room so admirably ventilated as the house of commons, and it was as comfortable as it was possible for any room to be.
The council decided to leave the arrangements in the hands of Dr REID, who was to consult with the architect on the best mode of introducing them into the building without interfering with the design.
In the spring of 1852 a beginning was made with the actual erection of the building, now formally inaugurated after a lapse of twelve years. Since its commencement its progress has been interrupted, except by contingencies, such as difficulties with contractors, strikes of the workmen, and deficiency of funds, for after 90,000 pounds had been expended, the council could only apply a portion of their surplus income for each year for this purpose, but these are incidents usual in all great works, and belong to the history of the erection, as an architectural work, which has yet to be written, but would be of considerable interest to the profession.
In January 1845, the council appointed Dr S. S. WESLEY to superintend the erection of the organ, which was estimated to cost rather less than 7,000 pounds without the case, but, the construction of the instrument was not actually commenced until 1851 when the contract was let to Mr Henry WILLIS the eminent organ builder of London.
In July 1846. Mr COCKERELL submitted a model of the sculpture he proposed to have placed in the pediment of the south portico. After considerable discussion the council ordered that the design should be executed, the objection urged by the dissentients was that until the building was ready for use it was undesirable to appropriate any portion of their limited means in merely ornamental accessories. At the winter assizes 1851, the courts were first used by the judges on circuit, Mr Baron PLATT, Mr Justice ERLE. Since then they have continued to be used without intermission till the summer assizes this year, which were held by special consent of the judges Mr Baron PLATT, Mr Justice CROWDER in the Sessions House, in order that the temporary fittings of the courts might be replaced with the permanent fittings, and that the courts might be painted and completed in other respects. Advantage was taken of this opportunity to complete St George's Hall also and the approaches to the whole building. A few members of the northern bar endeavoured to prevent the temporary re-occupation of the Sessions House and the consequent completion of the permanent courts, but, happily without success as their complaints of the former building were so ludicrously surcharged with exaggeration. The building was therefore, so far completed as to admit of its formal inauguration yesterday by the Mayor and the town council.
Although the proposition for erecting St George's Hall by public subscription was, as we have seen, abandoned, the Philharmonic Society determined to supply themselves with a hall of a similar character for their own accommodation, which was erected from the design of Mr John CUNNINGHAM, and opened in August 1849. In addition to this commodious building, no fewer than six other halls for musical performances and public meetings have been provided since the dissolution of the St George's Hall Company, so that with the St George's Hall and the small concert room under the same roof, the requirements of the public appear to be as well supplied now as they were neglected in 1836, when the company was first projected.
Copyright 2002 - To date