The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-11 00:00:00

AND IN THE CITY OF LONDON.

Mr. M. SMITH called attention to the insufficient ac-
commodation in the courts of law at Westminster and in
the City of London, and asked the First Commissioner of
Works whether it was the intention of the Government to
introduce any measure for providing courts suited to the
increased wants of the country. The hon. and learned gen-
tleman stated he brought the matter forward on behalf of
the suitors and the public; for the present courts were defi-
cient in ventilation, and in all convenient arrangements.
Of the eight courts at Westminster there were only two
suitable for the transaction of business—namely, the first
Queen's Bench and the first Exchequer. And in the City
there were only two courts—the first Queen's Bench and
the first Common Pleas—fit for the transaction of business.
He did not think the City authorities were fairly open to
blame for this deficient accommodation, as it was only in
recent years that the practice obtained of holding double
sittings for each of the superior courts. Formerly one
judge from each court went into the City to try causes.
Mr. MALINS wished to make an appeal on behalf of the
courts of equity, which were still more inconvenient. The
right hon. gentleman the First Commissioner of Works
had visited the court at Lincoln's-inn, and saw the insuffi-
cient accommodation. There was no place for the juries,
and no room to retire to consider their verdict. Two of the
Vice-Chancellors sat in sheds that were a disgrace to the
country. It became the duty of the Government to provide
one large building for all the courts of the country, or, at
any rate, to improve the equity courts at Lincoln's-inn.
Mr. COLLIER supported the motion, and in doing so
said, if a new trial were moved for in the Queen's Bench,
the chances were that, owing to the pressure of business, it
could not be heard for 12 months. The judicial strength of
the country was not sufficient to discharge the duties placed
on it.

Mr. COWPER rosy to reply, but having already spoken
was prevented from again addressing the house.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL regretted that the bill

of last year had been passed, but would prefer to bear the
ills that were now suffered than see any plan adopted which
permanently separate the courts of law and equity.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER defended
the scheme, and declared that the cost then stated would
have been the maximum cost of the building.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND an-
nounced, in reply to Mr. Whiteside, that the consolidation
of the Irish statute law had been actually entered upon.
After some observations from Mr. C. BENTINCK, the
subject dropped, and the house went into committee ot sup-
ply pro forma, but immediately resumed.
The Sydney Branch Mint Bill passed through committee.
The Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange Bill passed
through committee.
The Alkali Works Regulation Bill as amended was con-
sidered.

The Fisheries (Ireland) Bill was read a third tittle.

The India Stock (Remuneration) Bill was reported.
The India Stock Bill passed through committee.
The following bills were read a second time : Green-
wich Hosi,ital (Provisions for Widows) Bill; Metropolitan
Main Drainage Extension Bill ; Grow ing Crops Seizure
(Ireland) Bill ; and English Church Services in Walesßill.
The N avy Prize Agents Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Nuisances Removal Act (1855) Amendment Bill
passed through committee.
On the motion of Mr. BRUCE, leave was given to intro-
duce a bill to confirm certain provisional orders made under
an Act of the fifteenth yea: of her present Majesty, to facili-
tate arrangements for the relief of turnpike trusts; and also
a bill to amend the law relating to the repair of turnpike
roads, and to continue certain turnpike Acts in England.
Mr. WHALLEY was moving an address on the subject
of the Jesuits, when an hon. member suggested that there
were not forty members present, and
The house stood adjourned at twenty minutes to two.