The Sun.
London, England, 1839-03-06 00:00:00

Captain PECHELL said that he rose on behalf of a very
numerous, respectable, and deserving class of society, and he
hoped the House would give him leave to bring in a Bill
to relieve them from some of their liabilities. The
Innkeepers had patiently waited for the interference of the
Legislature. The innkeepers of this time were a very different
class of persons to what they formerly were, and the same
excuse for imposing liabilities on them in former days, did not
apply now. Innkeepers were liable to make restitution for the
loss of any goods in their House, but it was not fair that they
should be liable for the loss of money. In the case of Kent
v. Shuckhard, it had been laid down by Lord Tenterden that
no distinct ion could be made between money and goods, and that
an innkeeper must be considered in the light of a common carrier.
He would instance the case of a " respectable Gentleman" who
made his appearance at one of the hotels in Brighton, ordered
his supper, and went to bed. The next morning he rung his
bell, and ordered the servant to brush his cloak. The cloak
was brought back to him, he went down to the coffee-room,
ordered his breakfast, called for the landlord, and told him that
he had lost 801. in his house.—(Hear, and laughter)—
that no person had had access to his room but the servant
who came up to take his cloak, and that he insisted
upon having some compensation. After a great deal of
remonstrance, the landlord agreed to give 401. A few years
afterwards conscience smote this gentleman.—(Laughter.)
He inclosed the sum of 401. to the innkeeper, with compound
interest thereon, stating that he had been driven by adverse cir-
cumstances to do the act—that he had twisted and tormented his
imagination, in order to devise the means of raising the wind.
—(Laughter.) He would give another instance— a few years
after a gentleman, a lady, and their daughter, took up their re-
sidence at the Old Ship, in Brighton—the following morning
after they arrived, the lady and daughter took a walk, as he
hoped all Hon. Members would do when they visited
that place—they went purchasing throughout the town, as he
hoped Honourable Members would also do—(Laughter)—and
on their return the lady declared that she had lost 601. out of
her ridicule.—(Loud laughter.) The landlord felt himself in
a bad mess—(laughter)—the lady said that if she had
not lost it in the town she must have lost it in the house
—the ridicule was found, but no money in it, and
the landlord being sul.d determined that upon this occasion
he would resist; the trial came on before Lord Tenterden;
and the verdict passed against him for 501. ; a nonsuit was-
entered, on the ground that money being carried about the per-
son was not under the care of the landlord. A second trial was
had, and the landlord was again defeated ; that was before the
Legislature had altered the law with respect to carriers : that
law had now been altered, and therefore he came before
the House, with a good grace, to ask that the inkeepers
should be relieved, because he could not, like a carrier, refuse
to receive either a guest or their luggage. All that he wanted
was to restrict the liability of the landlord to 10/., unless the
guest gave his money or goods into the keeping of the landlord.
It was to be recollected that money was an invisible article.
--(Loud laughter.) He hoped that the House would allow
him to bring in the Bill, so that it should be brought under the
notice of the country, and he promised that he would not press
the second reading before Easter.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL felt himself bound to op-
pose the motion of the Hon. and Gallant Captain.—( Cheers.
The time of tho House was not well occupied even by the amus-
ing anecdotes mentioned by the Gallant Captain. The danger
was so great by collusion between the landlords and their servants
that unless the public had the protection of the law as it now
stood, they could not with any justice alter it. He could see no
difference between invisible money and visible goods—(laughter)
—and as he did not feel himself capable of amusing the House
so well as the Gallant Officer, he would content himself with
opposing the Bill and dividing the House upon it.
Mr. DABBY had voted against the Bill of the Hon. and
Gallant Member the previous session, but upon that occasion
he had said that if the Bill was modified it might have his
support. The present Bill of the Hon. Member was a very
different one from that of last year, and therefore he thought
the taunts which the Hon. and Gallant Member had thrown
out against Hon. Members for dividing against him was not
justified. He thought no good could arise from the Bill. Ac-
cording to the law at present, if any person committed perjury,
and supported their case by perjury, they recovered, and so the
would under the Bill of the lion. Member. He (Mr. Darby)
doubted if an innkeeper, when he gave notice that he would
not be responsible for 1001., unless placed in his custody, would
be liable for such a sum.—( Hear, hear.) As to an innkeeper
allowing himself to be frightened by the thr:at of a prosecu-
tion, to the ps! ing money which had never been brought into
his House, that was a kind of intimidation to which any
man was now liable, if he chose to submit to it.
Mr. M. PHILLIPS said the Hon. and Gallant Member
who had brought forward this motion had often distinguished
himself by local legislation, and if he would confine the Bill to
the town of Brighton he (Mr. Phillips) would not oppose it.—
(Hear, hear, and a laugh. ) But, being anxious to protect the
commercial interests, with which he was more immediately
connected, he must say that he believed this Bill would sap
the very foundations of commercial credit ; and that it was much
better, both for commercial travellers and also for innkeepers,
that the law should remain as it was now.
Captain PECHELL rose amidst loud cries of " Question,"
and said he should divide the House.—( Oh, oh. )
The House then divided and the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it ......... 156
Majority against the Bill
FIRST FRUITS AND TENTHS.
On our re-admission to the gallery, we found
Mr. BAINES on his legs, stating that the object of the
motion of which he had given notice was to provide for the
maintenance of the Poor Clergy out of the First Fruits and
Tenths of the Church. He had since ascertained that the
Noble Lord, the Secretary o f State for the Home Department,