The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-12 00:00:00

BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.

SOUTHAMPTON, Friday Morning.
Arrived-- Gustave, from St. Malo ; Tartr, steamer, from
Lisbon, and left for London ; Liberty, from Plymouth
Isabella, from Sunderland.
Sailed—Amalie, for Elsinore; Euroclydon, for Sunder
land.

(BY 3IAGNETIC TELEGRAPH
GRAVESEND, Friday Morning.
Arrived, June 11—Haidee, frem St, Übe's ; Jessie, from
Lisbon.
Sailed, Juno 12.—Seine and Tamise, screw steamer, for
Paris ; Crown, for Cape of Good Hope ; Albert the Good,
for Boston; quiver, for Nass tu Isqbella Myth, for Mau,
-

Passed.—Paribenon, souls! stran er, from the West :.c
Morning.
DEAL, Friday
balalles, of Caen, from Nassau—both for London ; Malta.
t,,:q4; Cuba, barque, and Stratton, of Jersoy—fi)Qth from
the 1' Pest, for the North.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS.---This Day.

The SPEAKER took the chair at twenty minutes after
twelve.
NEW MEMBER.—KINSALE.

Sir George Coulthurst took the oaths and his seat. The
hon. member was introduced by Mr. Herbert and Mr.
Beamish.

THIRD READINGS.

The following bills were read a third lime •—Elginshirs
and Nairnshire Roads, Bridges, &c. ; Hadlow Railway ;
Waterford and Passage Railway and Ferry.
FISHERI bS (IRELAND) BILL.

Col. VANDELEUR said he understood that the right
hon. baronet intended on the second reading to make a
statement with respect to the purpose of the bill. It would
be doubtless exceedingly satistactory to the Irish member s
if he would do so on the present occasion.

Sir R. PEEL sail. he was quite prepared to do so ; but
he considered that the discussion that would to-day be
entered upon would fully answer the purpose of an expla-
natory statement. (Hear, hear.)
Col. ,VANDELEUIt expressed his satisfaction at the
statement of the right hon. gentleman.
Sir R. PEEL moved that the house should go into
committee on this bill.

Mr. SCULLY said if they were legislating for a new
country like New Zealand they would probably not permit
wiers and bag nets in the rivers, but it was impossible that
they could take away the rights of proprietors without
compensation. He did not altogether approve of the bill of
the hon. ana learned member for Wexford (Mr. M'Mahoi,),
but at the same time he did not like to see its chid features
plagiarised by the bill of the Government. He proposed in
regard to compensation that the value of the fishing rights
of the various parties interested should be estimated and
capitalised, and paid by annuity or in some other way.
The bill did not appear to hint to make proper pro-
vision for compensation, No time ought to be lost in
placing the law on a better footing. Anglers ought to
be taxed about 4d. per lb. for each " individual" salmon
they caught because they materially contributed to lessen
the breeding of the fish. (Hear, hear.)

Sir H. BRUCE said there was no doubt that the bill of
the hon. and learned member for Wexford was one for the
confiscation of ancient rights, confirmed and secured under
the Act of 1842, and that the bill of the right hon. baronet
was simply a compromise. He denied that the sea fisheries
were so injurious to the fisheries as had been stated ; it was
the sweep nets in the rivers that created the great damage.
Mr. BRUCE said any sea fisheries within miles of the
mouth of rivers would be interfered with,
After few words from Mr. Cox and Sir R PEEL in ex-
planation, the house went into committee, and the various
amendments, occupying no less than 10 closely printed
pages, and chiefly of a technical nature, were proceeded
with.

The discussion occupied the remainder of the sitting.

LAW INTELLIGENCE—This Day,

(Before Mr. Potter and a Common Jury.)
FRED. LILLYWH iTE AND HIS LITTLE BILL WITH MR.
VAN HARE-LILLY WHITE V. VAN HARE.

This was a writ of inquiry sent down from one of the
superior courts to assess the damages sustained by plaintiff
in consequence of defendant not meeting a certain bill.
Mr. Frederick Kent, of Cannon-street West, for the
plaintiff, said—My client is the celebrated cricketer, and
defendant is manager of the horses at Cremorne Gardens.
My client, for the accommodation of Mr. Van Hare, accepted
a bill of exchange for £25. Plaintiff had none of the money,
and he very naturally expected that defendant would pro-
vide for the bill at maturity. Mr. Van Hare, however, did
not think proper to take up his little bill, and of course the
holder applied to plaintiff. He found the money, and paid
the dishonoured acceptance, but was compelled to put our, a
second bill of £27 Is, as he borrowed money to pay the first.
The plaintiff felt that he had not been fairly treated by his
friend, and sued upon the £25 bill. Defendant had suffered
judgment to go by default, and plaintiff now sought com-
pensation for the trouble and expenses to which he had
been put.
Mr. Lillywhite was called and said I accepted the £25
bill to oblige Van Hare. It was in the nature of a loan
from me When he did not pay the bankers served me
with notice of dishonour, and they gave me from Saturday
till Monday to take it up. With Mr. Watling's assistance
I succeeded in doing so, and then I borrowed £25 to put all
straight. I paid £2O 2s. for the loan, and I claim the last
item. The jury will assess the damages as the actual loss
sustained, not taking into consideration the incidental ex-
penses.
The jury awarded plaintiff £27 ls. damages.