The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OP COMMONS--Last Evening.
Tht-. SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'c;fick,
LONDON x:-ND SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY
(STAINES AND WOKINOHAM),
On the motion that this bill be read a third time,
Mr. R. MILLS opposed the motion, on the ground that
the telegraph was not worked in the largest and best popu-
lated parish in the district—namely, Ewell—with a popu-
lation of 4,000. Repeated promises had been made by the
company to lay down the telegraph. He moved that the
third reading be postponed for a month.
Mr. DUTTON supported the third reading. The dis-
trict would not sufficiently remunerate the railway to main-
tain a telegraph station. No 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.
PETI (lONS.

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 Sodcitor-General whether merchant ships,
in sailing between neutral ports, would be justified in de-
-1 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 eu,tomers. Cases had of late
been tried in the law cows which cast most unjust lia-
bility upon hotel keepers, as the property had obviously
beeu 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 which claims had been made upon hotel-keepers
for property stated to have been lost, which was enibse •
quently discovered elsewhere; also several of deliberate
fraud. (Hear, hear.) The remedy he proposed was
to limit the responsibility of innkeepers to £2O, and
that they should be compelled to affix proper fastenings,
such as bolts, to their doors. If a person had with him
property of a larger amount they were to be compelled to
give the innkeeper notice. The hon. and learned member
for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had introduced a similar bill, but
he confessed he liked his own child best.
Major EDIVARDS seconded the motion, and hoped the
hon. member for Youghal would either withdraw his bill:or
amalgamate it with No. 1. A bill a this kind was much
needed, and the public had not expressed any opposition
to it.

Sir F. GOLDSAIID 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
tha care of property brought to his house, the law, very
properly, made him responsible 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 wouli
permit innkeepers to pry into the value of all the property,
whether by ladies or others, brought into his house, and
would place his own value upon it in the event of loss.
Besides, the bill would exclude the guest from giving evi-
dence, in the probable event of litigation as to the value of
the property he had lost. He desired to afford all proper
protection to innkeepers, but as this bill would not work well
he advised the hon. member to withdraw it and introduce
an amended measure.
Mr. ROEBUCK said as the law stood a landlord was
responsible not for what he saw come into 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 respectable man to tell the landlord that
he had so much property, and to enquire whether it would
be sate in his room ? On the other hand, a rogue who made
such a statement could be easily detected. Thus nobody
would be damaged except the rogue, and very properly.
He should soppor, the bill.
Col. SMYTH said he same time ago introduced a son 3.-
what similar bill, which did no', succeed in obtaining the
assent of the house. This bill appeared unobjectionable,
and he trusted the house would assent to the second read-
in
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

ieave guests open in all cases to have their property ex-
amined and surveyed by hotel keepers; but it would per
wit landlords, when a slippery looking customer came in
and declared he hai 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 matter, and offering a dis
sertation upon the evils to which innkeepers are at present
exposed,
There being loud cries for e 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 wi,hdraw 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. ItALIBURTON desired to correct an anachronism
in the statement of the proposer of the bill. He used these
words, " 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-