The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-22 00:00:00

THIRD EDITION

-,11%; oPi'fcE, SEVEN O'CLocK.

NEWMARKET RACES—This DAY.
BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.
SWEEPSTAKES OF 50 SOVS.
Sea King beat Oscar.
PRINCE OF WALES STAKES.

Biondella _
Wingrave ........
TWO-YEAR-OLD PLATE.
Sister to Queen of the Vale
Garotter

2
...
Twenty-one ran.
SWEEPSTAKES OF 10 SOVS.
Chicqult the Jester
Overcast
Six ran.
PLATE OF 50 SO VS.

Giraffe colt ..............
Miranda filly .2
SWEEPSTAKES. HALF R.M.
Good for Nothing
Miss Emma ........

Six ran.
RENEWAL SWEEPSTAKES.

Dunkeld
Sea King ........
Revolver
SWEEPSTAKES OF 50 SOUS.
Harlequin Walked over.
LATEST BETTING.
THE DERBY.
4to lon the field (offered)
15 to 2 agst Macaroni (taken)
10 to 1 agst Saccharometer (taken)
1000 to 60 agst Automaton (taken)
1000 to 60 agst National Guard (taken)
1000 to 60 agst Glenochty colt (taken)
18 to 1 agst Ranger (taken)
20 to 1 agst Carnival (taken)
25 to 1 agst Tom Fool (taken)
ONE THOUSAND.
5 to 2 agst Tornado (taken)
4 to 1 agst Lady Augusta (taken)
4to 1 agst Amelia (lakEn)
7to 1 agst Gold Du-t (taken)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS—This Day.
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 (,'clock.
LONDON AND SOUTH -WESTERN RAILWAY
(STAINES AND WOKINGHAM).
On the motion that this hill he read a third time,
Mr. R. MILLS ,pposed the motion, on the ground that
the telegraph was not wet ked in the largest and best popu-
lated parish in the district—namely, Ewell—with a popu-
lation of 4;000. 111)eated promises had been made by the
Ha moved that the
thirdeomp a
Mr. DUTTON supported the third reading. The toarneydin g laybe
postponed down the
for telegraph,a
month.
dis-
trict would not sufficiently remunerate the railway to main-
tain a telegraph station. Nu promise had been made of the
nature indicated.
Lord A. CHURCHILL supported the third reading.
After a few words from Mr. HADFIELD, the bill was
read a third time and passed.
PETITIONS,

Several petitions were presented in favour of the closing
of public houses on Sunday.

FEDERAL CRUISERS,
Lord A. CHURCHILL gave no ice of his intention on
Friday to ask the So.icitor-General whether merchant ships,
in sailing between neutral ports, would be justified in de-
fending themselves by a resort to arms from the cruisers of
the Federal States.
INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY (No. 1) BILL.
Mr. W. MARTIN moved that this bill be read a second
time. He said its object was to limit the liability of inn-
keepers with respect to the personal property or goods
brought into their houses by cu,torners, Cases had of late
been tried in the law courts which cast most unjust lia-
bility upon hotel keepers, as the property had obviously
beep, lost almost entirely through the carelessness of the
parties themselves. According to the present state of the
law hotel-keepers were very much exposed to be made th?
victims of fraud. The hon. gentleman cited a number of
cases in welch claims had been made upon hotel-keepers
for property stated to have been lost, which was subse •
quently discovered elsewhere; also several of deliberate
fraud. (Hear, hear.) The remedy he proposed was
to limit the responsieility of innkeepers to £2O, and
that they should be compelled to affix proper fastenings,
such as bolts, t, their doors. If a:person had with him
property of a larger amount they were to be compelled to
give the innkeeper notice. The bon. and learned member
for Youchal (Mr. Butt) bad introduced a similar bill, but
he confess- d he liked his own child best.
Major EDWARDS seconded the motion, and hoped the
hon. member for Youghal would either withdraw his bill:or
amalgamate it with No. 1. A bill of this kind was much
needed, and the public had not expressed any opposition
to it.

Sir F. GOLDSMII) moved, as an amendment, that the
bill be read a second time that day six months. As the
law stood an innkeeper was not responsible for the custody
of goods, if the owner had been obviously guilty of great
negligence. If the innkeeper was guilty of negligence in
th- care of p►operty brought to his house, the law, very
properly, made him tesv;n,ible to the owner. But this
bill would relieve innkeepers of all liability, no matter how
negligent he might have been, beyond the £2O specified in
the bill.

Mr. PACKE seconded the amendment. The bill woull
1,, root izJikt. pei a to pry into the value of all the property,
,h 4-41., by Mks or ~thvis, brought into his house and
itHce his own valne up ri it in ihe event of loss,
Besidt,s, the bill would rxclude the guest from giving evi.
dt-uce, in the pr,htble event of litigation as to the value of
!he popery he had lost. 11, desired 'o afford all proper
pro ec, jou to innlieepers, but as this bill would not work well
he ad, iced the hon. member to withdraw it and introduce
an Nmpnrled tt.easuri?.
Mr. ROEBUCK said as the law Stood a 'audio! d was
responsible not tor what he saw come it to his house, but
for what a guest said he had brought into it. The bill
would correct this anomalous state of things. Would it
not be well for a respc,ctable man to tell the landlord that
he had so much property, and to enquire whether it would
be sate in his room ? Oa the other hind, a rogue who made
such a statem,nt c old be easily detected. Thus nobody
would be damaged except the rogue, and very properly.
He should srpoor• the bill.
Co!. SMYTH said he s tree time ago introduced a some-
what similar bill, which did no'. succeed in obtaining the
assent of the house. This bill appeared unobjectionable,
hnd he trusted the house would assent to the second read.
tug.

Mr. LOCKE supported the bill. The same principle
should be applied to guests in a hotel as that in force with
respect to railway travellers, who could not recover the
amount of their loss unless specified. This bill would not
leave guests open in all cases to have their property ex-
amined and surveyed by hotel keepers; but it would per-
mit landlords, when a slippery looking customer came in
and declared he hall valuable property about him, to ask to
inspect it. (Hear hear.)
Sir G. BOWYER supported the bill, entering upon an
explanation of the law upon the wader, and offering a dis-
sertation upon the evils to which innkeepers are at present
exposed.
There being loud cries for a division, the question was
put, but the 2d reading was agreed to without a division.
(Laughter.)
INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY (No. 2) BILL.
Mr. BUTT said as this bill was to a great extent like the
one just disposed of he should withdraw it, but most pro-
bably would propose, in committee, the amendments of
which he had given notice.

ELECTIONS DURING RECESS BILL.
Mr. COLLINS, in moving the second reading, observed
that 100 years ago the Speaker was authorised to issue his
writ for the election of a member of parliament after 14
days' notice. This was before steamboats, railways, and
other rapid means of conveyance. This bill would reduce
the notice to four days, which would enable elections in the
recess to take place within 20 days of the vacancy.
Mr. BRUCE assented on the part of the Government to
the second reading.
Mr. ALIBURTON desired to correct an anachronism
in the statement of the proposer of the bill. He used these
wards, "You, sir, were authorised 100 years ago." (Laugh-
ter.) He merely wished to correct this slight mistake.
The bill was then read a second time.
BOROUGH RESIDENCE—UNIFORM MEASURE-
MENT BILL.
Mr. COLLINS moved the second reading. It appeared
that the mode of measurement adopted in England, Scot-
land, 'Wales, and Ireland differed. The object of this bill
was to correct that anomaly.
Mr. PIGOTT moved that the bill be read a second time
that day six months, on the ground that the bill would not
destroy the anomalous state of things complained of.
Mr. KEIGHLEY opposed the bill.
Mr. BRUCE also opposes the bill, and pointed out that
the rule proposed to be laid down would clash with the
municipal plan of measurement, and act prejudicially to
freemen in boroughs.
Mr. BOUVERLE opposed the bill, because it would
admit of non-resident voters. He was, and always had
been, a great advocate for the extension of the franchise.
but this bill would admit outside freemen to vote, and it
was well known that they were the most corrupt voters in
the kingdom.
Mr. BENTINCK denied that there was more corruption
among freemen
_than sin'ng the poorer inhabitants of
boroughs.
Mr. LOCKE defended the working classes in large con-
stituencies from the charge of being open to corruption ; it
was only in small constituencies that freemen and others
were found constantly open to bribery. He objected to
this bill because it would let in an enormous number of
out vo. ere, who had no interest in the locality; ho should,
therefore, op ,ose the bill.
Mr. WHI VESIDE replied to some of the arguments of
the hon. member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), saying
that the freemen who be stated were so corrupt were the
.tilt of that matchless political performance, the Reform
Bill.
Mr. C. BUTT opposed the bill because it would-mate-
rially interfere with the Reform Bill, and admit a number
of outsiders.
After a few words from Lord LOVAINE, who opposed

SPORTING INTELLIGENCE.—This Day.

Cita4el
Teterrima
2
Five ran,
HANDICAP PLATE.

Berkeley
Prophet
2
Thirteen ran.
SWEEPSTAKES OF 25 SOVS.