INNKEEPERS.

HC Deb 05 March 1839 vol 45 cc1288-91

Captain Pechell

on behalf of a very numerous, respectable, and deserving class of society, asked the House to 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 as 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 distinction 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 80l. in his house—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 40l. A few years afterwards conscience smote this gentleman.—He inclosed the sum of 40l. to the innkeeper, with compound interest thereon, stating that he had been driven by adverse circumstances to do the act—that he had twisted and tormented his imagination, in order to devise the means of raising the wind. He would give another instance—a few years after, a gentleman, a lady, and their daughter, took up their residence 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 hon. Members would also do—and on their return, the lady declared that she had lost 60l. out of her reticule. The landlord felt himself in a had mess—the lady said, that if she had not lost it in the town she must have lost it in the house—the reticule was found, but no money in it, and the landlord being sued, determined that upon this occasion be would resist; the trial came on before Lord Tenterden; and the verdict passed against him for 50l.; a nonsuit was entered, on the ground that money being carried about the person 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 innkeeper should be relieved, because he could not like a carrier, refuse to receive either a guest or his luggage. All that he wanted was, to restrict the liability of the landlord to 10l., 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. 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

did not think the time of the House had been very well occupied, notwithstanding the very amusing anecdotes the hon. Member had given. The hon. Member himself utterly abandoned the principle he set out on, because he allowed, that innkeepers were to be liable for all goods in their care. Why? Because there was a liability cast on them by law and necessity; the danger was so great for fraudulent collusion between an innkeeper and his servants, that the traveller would have no security without this responsibility. But the hon. and gallant Captain said, the character of innkeepers were so marvellously improved that they might now trust them with anything. Was that since the last Session of Parliament? It was a very rapid improvement. There had been last Session an almost unanimous determination not to alter the law; but now there had been such a complete and sudden improvement in the characters of innkeepers, that they might trust entirely to their honour. The hon. Member advocated responsibility of innkeepers as to goods, but not as to money. If it were confined to invisible money, he could have no objection, provided it were shown to the innkeeper. He (the Attorney-General) would extend the responsibility to the purses of travellers. He thought it very hard that a traveller going on his journey, with the greater part of his property in his purse, should be liable to have that property stolen from him while under the roof of the landlord, very probably by the servant, while he was asleep. He thought that there ought to be no distinction whatever between invisible money and visible goods. He should, therefore, oppose the bringing in of this bill.

Mr. Darby

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. According to the law at present, if any person committed perjury, and supported their case by perjury, they recovered, and so they would under the bill of the hon. Member. He (Mr. Darby) doubted if an innkeeper, when he gave notice that he would not be responsible for 100l., unless placed in his custody, would be liable for such a sum—As to an innkeeper allowing himself to be frightened by the threat of a prosecution, to the paying money which had never been brought into his House, that was a kind of intimidation to which any man was 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 would not oppose it.—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 security for travellers: and that it was much better, both for commercial travellers and for innkeepers, that the law should remain as it was now.

The House divided—Ayes 20; Noes 156: Majority 136.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A.	Pryme, G.
Blandford, Marquess	Redington, T. N.
Brocklehurst, J.	Salwey, Colonel
Collins, W.	Turner, E.
Divett, E.	Wakley, T.
Dundas, C. W. D.	Walker, R.
Goring, H. D.	Worsley, Lord
Humphrey, J.	Yates, J. A.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.
O'Connell, M.	TELLERS.
Paget, F.	Pechell, Captain
Protheroe, E.	Darby, G.

List of the NOES.
Abercrombie, hn. G. R.	Hume, J.
Aglionby, Major	James, Sir W. C.
Ainsworth, P.	Jervis, S.
Alsager, Captain	Jones, J.
Alston, R.	Kemble, H.
Archbold, R.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Archdall, M.	Knight, H. G.
Bagge, W.	Labouchere, rt. hn. H.
Bailey, J. jun.	Langdale, hon. C.
Baines, E.	Leader, J. T.
Barrington, Viscount	Lefroy, rt. hn. T.
Bateson, Sir R.	Lemon, Sir C.
Beamish, F. B.	Liddell, hon. H. T.
Bellew, R. M.	Lushington, C.
Berkeley, hon. H.	Lushington, rt. hn. S.
Bewes, T.	Lygon, hon. General
Blackstone, W. S.	Lynch, A. H.
Blair, J.	Mackenzie, T.
Blake, W. J.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Bodkin, J. J.	Maher, J.
Broadley, H.	Marshall, W.
Brotherton, J.	Marshall, T. W.
Bruce, Lord E.	Maule, hon. F.
Bruges, W. H. L.	Maxwell, hon. S. R.
Bryan, G.	Miles, P. W. S.
Busfield, W.	Moneypenny, T. G.
Campbell, Sir J.	Mordaunt, Sir J.
Chute, W. L. W.	Morris, D.
Clive, E. B.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Clive, hon. R. H.	O'Brien, W. S.
Courtenay, P.	O'Ferral, M.
Crawley, S.	O'Neil, hon. J. B. R.
Crompton, Sir S.	Paget, Lord A.
Curry, W.	Pakington, J. S.
Dick, Q.	Palmer, C. F.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Palmer, R.
Du Pre, G.	Palmerston, Viscount
Egerton, W. T.	Parker, J.
Estcourt, T.	Parker, R. T.
Etwall, R.	Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.
Evans, W.	Perceval, Colonel
Fector, J. M.	Perceval, hn. G. J.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Philips, G. R.
Fitzroy, Lord C.	Phillpots, J.
Fort, J.	Pigot, D. R.
Gaskell, J. M.	Plumptre, J. P.
Glynn, Sir S. R.	Praed, W. T.
Gordon, R.	Rice, E. R.
Grant, F. W.	Rice, rt. hn. T. S.
Grattan, H.	Richards, R.
Halford, H.	Roche, W.
Hall, Sir B.	Roche, Sir D.
Hawes, B.	Rolfe, Sir R. M.
Heathcoat, J.	Rolleston, L.
Hector, C. J.	Round, C. G.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Rushout, G.
Hill, Lord A. M. C.	Russell, Lord J.
Hindley, C.	Sanford, E. A.
Hobhouse, r. h. Sir J.	Scarlett, hon. J. Y.
Hobhouse, T. B.	Seale, Sir J. H.
Hodgson, R.	Sheil, R. L.
Hope, hon. C.	Shirley, E. J.
Howard, P. H.	Smith, B.
Howard, Sir R.	Smith, R. V.
Hughes, W. B.	Smyth, Sir G. H.

Stanley, W. O.	Vivian, J. E.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Waddington, H. S.
Staunton, Sir J. T.	Warburton, H.
Steuart, R.	Ward, H. G.
Stewart, J.	White, A.
Stock, Dr.	Wilbraham, G.
Stuart, Lord J.	Williams, R.
Stuart, V.	Winnington, T. E.
Strickland, Sir G.	Winnington, H. J.
Stuart, E.	Young, Sir W.
Style, Sir C.
Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.	TELLERS.
Thorneley, T.	Seymour, Lord
Thornhill, G.	Philips, M.