§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ MR. WHEELHOUSE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, explained that its object was to relieve innkeepers from the liability for the loss of property, in the case of customers sleeping in their houses, under which 265 they were placed by the existing law, and to put them in that respect in the same position as other tradesmen. He mentioned several instances in which great hardships were inflicted on innkeepers as matters now stood. Where articles were deposited by the owner in the custody of the innkeeper he would make the latter still answerable for their safe keeping.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Wheelhouse.)
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDopposed the Bill, contending that it was desirable the liability which had so long existed should be maintained. He submitted that the modification made by the Act of 1863 was sufficient. He moved that it be read a second time that day six months.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Sir Francis Goldsmid.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. LOPESsaid, that the common law had always held that the case of carriers and innkeepers was peculiar. In 1863, however, an Act was passed which provided that the innkeeper should not be liable for loss, except in the cases there mentioned. If this Bill should become law, it would no longer be safe for a man to take clothes or any article of value into an hotel with him, and it would operate to do away with the inducement which now existed on the part of innkeepers to see that they employed none but honest servants. He hoped the House would not sanction the passing of this measure.
§ And it being a quarter of an hour before Six of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned till To-morrow.