The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-08 00:00:00

COALWHIPPERS' BILL.

Lord RAVENS WORTH presented a petition from
certain persons connected with the coal trade, against
the passing of this bill. _ _ _

Lord KINNAIRD rose to move that this bill be re-
ferred to a select committee, under Standing Order No
175, respecting bills for regulating the coal trade. The
noble lord said that the coal-whippers mere
usually employed by persons who had interest
in certain pullichouses where coal-whippers were
compelled to resort in order to obtain engagements.
The effect of such a proceeding was, that the men were
compelled to spend a large portion of their earnings in
drink. The evil increased to such an extent that public
attention was drawn to the fact, and the Government in
1845 took the matter up, and a bill was iii troduced into
Parliament to remedy the evil. The bill was passed,
but it was limited to a duration of three years, but from
time to time the act was renewed. In the year 1856
the President of the Board of Trade introduced another
bill, but inconsequence of the opposition of certain parties
interested in the coal trade, who promised by their con-
duct to render such a bill unnecessary. Tue Vice-Pre-
sident withdrew the bill. The noble lord stated at
length the hardships and cruelties inflicted upon the coal-
whippers, and concluded by moving for a select commit-
tee to inquire into the subject.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY said that the
motion of the noble lord was cut of order, and there-
fore could not be assented to. With respect to the bid
alluded to, he could show that it was a violation of the
principles of political economy, of which the noble lord
was a great admirer. The case of the coal whippers had
been looked upon as exceptional. Certain evils being
proved to exist.the Legislature sanctioned the bill in•
troduced by Mr. Gladstone. The noble lord was much
opposed to the re-introduction of a measure similar to
that of 1845, and believing that no such enactments were
now necessary, he (Lord Stanley) was unwilling a ques-
tion which had last year been settled by common consent
existed had considerably abated, and the business con-
nected with the engagement of the coal whippers was
now carried on in a very satisfactory manner.

Lord RAVENS WORTH concurred with the noble
lord who had just sat down, that the re introduction of
the Coal Whippers' Act was unnecessary.
After a few words frbm the Bishop of Oxford, Earl
Granville, Lord Colchester, Lord Stanley of Alderley,
and the Earl of Malinesbury, the house divided--

Contents
Non-contents
Majority in favour of committee... —4
COUNTY COURTS.

.. 31
.. 27

Lord BROUGIIA.M rose to call attention to the sub-
ject of administration of justice in the county courts. It
appeared by the returns that a great many county court
judges acted more by deputy than others. Nineteen of
the judges employed deputies very rarely, indeed there
had been only fodr instances. Six-and twenty employed
none at all. Be moved for a return of the number of
days each judge sat in his court, the number of days he
had sat by deputy, and the names of the deputies and
their description. He moved for that return for the last
12 months.

The LORD CHANCELLOR could see no objec-
tion to the return. As to the deputies, according to the
law the county court judge was entitled to two months'
holiday each year, and he had authority -0 appoint a de-
puty, who was tv be either another county court judge
or a barrister of a certain number of years standing ; and
the deputies so appointed must be with the sanction of
the Lord Chancellor. The labours of the county court
judges were now become so heavy, that it would be the
duty of the Government at an early date to olnsider a
better distribution of the districts, so as to equalise them
throughout the country.
The motion was agreed to.