The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-14 00:00:00

LONDON wED_NESDAY EVENING, APRIL 14, 1858.

LAW INTELLIG-ENCO.-April 13.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner F.mblanque.)

IN BE JONATHAN AND ROBERT BILLS.-THE DARTFORD

rb • •
_
i 0 it

SUN OFFICE, Seven o'Clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COIYINTIONS.—(This Day.

The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
The following were considered and ordered to be
read a third time—Aberdare Water; Lirerpoul Ex-
change ; Merthyr Tydfil Water.

PETITIONS,
Petitions were presented from various places in Ire-
land in favour of the Tenant Right Bill, and for legalis-
ing marriage with a deceased wife's sister.
TENANTS' CO 11 PENSATION (IRELAND) BILL.
Mr. MAGUIRE moved the second reading cf this bill.
The question was one of the greatest magnitude and im-
portance, involving not only the welfare and prosperity
of the people of Ireland, but of the whole e'npire, because
the condition of the people of Ireland greatly affected
the manufacturing districts of Eegland and through them
the transactions of the Stock Exchange and the Bank of
England. Ireland was an agricultural country, and when
anything occurred to distress the egricultural population
similar to the failure of the potato crop, bankruptcy
and run followed, the effects of which were greatly
felt in England. When that calamity occurred in 1847
the social fabric of Ireland was shaken. It was insecure
at the present moment, and if a similar et 'rm to that
which desolated that country 1847 were to sweep over
it again, it would be found there was neither strength
nor stability in that country to resist its fury. (hear.)
It wan thsrefore wise for the Legislature to consider bow
to avoid, if possible, a repetition of that calamity, now
that they were in a state of quiet. Land was held in
Ireland not by lease, but by will • and it had been
asserted that the evils complained of Ireland were not
owing to the tenure of land in that country, but to over-
population and the smallness of the farms. He considered
such views imaginary--be held that at no time was the
population of Ireland unequal to the resources of that
country. Supposing the population of Ireland were not
fully employed, it would have been mush better for that
country if the persons who advocated the quack nostrum
of draining the country of its population had provided
the real want—that of employment for developing the
resources of the country ; and he contended that if the
land had been properly cultivated there would not have
been enough labourers, in Ireland. The hon. member
quoted from various works in proof of his assertion ;
and in reference to the smallness of the holdings in Ire-
land, he said that in Ulster in 1841 there were
over 234,000 farms with an acreage of 3,460,000
arable land ; and in Munster 162,000 farms, and an
acreage of 3,874,000 arable land. In Ulster farms from
one to three acres were one-third of the entire country,
and from 5 to 15 acres 100,000, and in Munster 61,000,
which ho thought showed the miseries of Ireland were
not to be attributed to the smallness of the farms, and
acres
9cnise
rlsr
ef.:00B1
threeoolhlooouawdci
acres
cdbl
been
uleear
eBts
,5i
onal
reduced
e certaindsa: ahnusi 1
tydthatiahifnetgrred oemaamp
wereraf farmer rdflthunoi sogotrnhi
agriculturalil
ya rentls:
7rf elof6l a00r4n,:1110,0 treatment.
oso
providedhuBol
fBda: rol
minev
gose
In 1841 the entire number of farms in Ireland was
a decrease of 115,000 farms. Farms from one to three
in 1851 ; from 5 to 15 acres, from '252,000 in 1841, to
from 15 to 30 acres, which were considered large
in Ireland, had increased from 79,000 in 1841,
to 141.000 in 1851 ; and from 30 acres and upwards,
from 48,0A0 in 1841, to 149,000 in 1851. He
thought these figures showed that the complaint
of the smallness of farms in Ireland had been done
away with, and he presumed ne gentleman would, in the
face of those facts, assert that the catn-e of the misery
population and
effect of the :u:ta existingu h
oi
nr
,4e lsa. n d( was
rowinga
rt. o) s
Tu rhpel u s
ex-
isting system in Ireland was to perpetuate persecution
and tyranny. Taenndant thse weretheir
v ser
imadeces n
o the
dependentday otfhealte
election
might demand
and have complete control over them. Numberless acts
of w .ong had been done under this system to tenants
from religious motives, or by those who prostituted reli-
gion,his
wasfu a
r their
state of n w
En-aeie objects. ([leer,
eei
sr; . h eTa re. e
persons on whom the prosperity of the c awry rested
)
thingse rth'rl,t
ojtsoughteeno.(
xt toought to have the fruits of their industry protected, as
o
will as from the tyranny a .d avarice of the landlords.

The hon. member quoted several cases of persecution
under the present system, which he said called for pro-
tection. Is changes he proposed were made, Ireland
would bloom like a garden, for there would not be a
single square foot of land that would not be reclaimed,
it it were possible to do so by the magic of human in-
dustry. (Hear, hear.) lie hrouelat forward this ques-
tion as a private member, because her Majesty's
Government had abdicated their functions. They had
played, toyed, and shuttlecoclud with the question till
a feeling bad arisen in Ireland that would ultimately com-
pel her Majesty's Government to take it up and
carry it successfully through every stage. The
people of Ireland were sickened with the treachery
of the Government am? the blind obstinacy of those who
could not see that their own prosperity was bound up
with that of the people.
The O'DONOGHOE seconded the motion. He said
that all classes in Ireland were agreed on legislation on
this subject, and it was but right that the feeling of the
people should be respected. He had never heard the
principle of the bill condemned in Ireland. It was ru-
moured they were to have, in a few months, a dissolu-
tion, and if it took place before the passing of this bill,
he ventured to predict, from tbe feelings of the people of
Ireland, that every gentleman who offerel himself to tbe
county constituencies, would declare himself in favour
of tenant right. I❑ firmer times the owners of the soil
prided themselves on the number of persons on their
estates ; but now the country was tenant-
less and man was considered by many an inconve-
nient and unprofitable animal. Tois bill was a
political and social necessity, and he asked the house to
listen to the voice of the people of Ireland, and accede
to thi ni,t on. O; late there hal been three predomi-
nant passions in Ireland conducing to the evils com-
plained of. One was the acquisition of land through
the Encumbered Estates Court, the result of which Was
that the new owners introduced richer tenants or
took the law in their own hands, leading to evic-
tion, and leaviegi the Irish to one of three
alternatives, etervation, the workhouse, or compulsory
emigration. The second passion was the enlargement of
farms ; and the third the diminution of the poor-rates.
To accomplish them satisfactorily, the removal of the
population was thought necessary—either by eviction
or the withholding of all inducements for the labourieg
population to remain at home, which eventually led to
emigration. He thought speculation in land should be
ohecke I, and the formation of large farms discounts•
!lanced.

Sir J. WA LSEI admitted that this was as much an
English as an Irish question. Ho chained to follow
the mover of the second reading of the bill into the par-
ticular casts of grievances he had
referred to, many, if
not all of them being eX Parts statements, drawn from'
various parts of •he couiitry, and capable f explanaii
an instance of which he gave in thv case of Mr, Polook,
a Scotch gentleman, whose con net on a former occa-
si n was condemned as a harsh landlord, but welch, en
explanation, showed him to be a benefactor
to the people of the district in which he resided. The
honourable baronet complained Viet the bonourahle
member bad not
given the house a sketoir of the
manlier in which he prop° ied by toe bill to deal with
tenant-right. Lord Derby, in 1852, and the late Govern-
ment, were open to the charge of hay ng done too niece
in dealing with the qu, s roe with a view to its settle-
ment. In 1852 the present Lord Cnaric,dlor of Ireland
introduced a measure for that object, by giving retro-
spective compensation, but which he afterwards felt
obliged to limit, and it was rejected in the House of
Lords. A second attempt was made in 1855 by Mr.
Sharman Crae fdrd and Mr. Sergt. Shee without success.
In 1856 Mr. Moore took it up, but ultimately aiihdrew
his bill. The hoe. baronet said the subject ught to be
met in a proper manner, discussed and eecided on. The
course pursued was unsatisfactory. It uusetiled the
tenants, and was inc,nveoient to landlords. The agita•
tion of the question engeeder,d a spirit of disco utent
and hostility between landlords and tenants destructive
of those mations and benefits that ought to aad would
result from a generous and cordial co-operation between
them. The
principle of the bill was not what its title im-
plied. It contained nine clauses, six of which could best
be discussed in committee. Tue principle of the bi 1 was
contained in the first clause, by which it was proposed
" that all improvements in the soil," as well as in the
buildings by the tenant should be taken to be the pro-
perty of such tenant, subject to cdrtain restrictions. He
complained that the wording • the clause wa, too wide,
fir it laid down the principle that the owner of the soil
had no property in it, and converted him into a rent-
(aear, hear.) He considered, at great
length, the principle of the bill. Emigration had
been a great blessing to Ireland. From all the informa-
tion he could obtain, be believed that Ireland was im-
proving, that agriculture was there progressing, and
that in many parts of the country people cared little
or nothing about tenant right. A landholder was not
a mere recipient of rents. He was an active partner,
and not a sleeping partner, le duce the landlord's inte-
rest was necessarily united with the tenant's, in the im-
provement of the land. The tenant was dependant on
the landlord for improvements, and his control was
an integral and nece3sary part of ‘ the agri-
cultural improvements while the bill seemed originated
solely with the cultivators of the soil. The bill, if passed;
would be an entire confiscation .of the rights of property.
He concluded by moving that the bill be read a second
time this day six months.
The amendment having been seconded,
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD supported the second
reading of the bill, believing its principle would
secure the rights of one and give protection to
the other. He declined to enter into the details
of the bill on its second reading, but confined
himself to suppoeting its principle a principle
that had been six times affirmed by the house. In corn-
mittte he should be prepared to introduce such safe-
uards as would make it safe and beneficial both to the

landlord and the tenant. He spoke of the oppression of
landlords in Ireland towards their tenants. It had come
under his notice that many of the crimes perpetrated in
Ireland were to be traced to the habit of landlords giving
their tenants year by year notice to quit. He traced
what. had been done to wards legislating on this subject,
and said that all parties were pledged to the principle
involved, which was based on justice. Ireland was now
in a peaceful and prosperous state, affording a fitting
opportunity for legislation. If the history of crime in
Ireland were traced it would be found to have proceeded
from the unsettled state of the relations betweet land-
lord and tenant. The most improving and fieuri,hieg
part of Ireland was where landlords granted leases to
their tenants. He denied that giving compensation to
tenants would confiscate t .e rights of property, awl
turn the owner of the soil into a rent-charger. The
ryot of India enjoyed a safer holding than the Irish
tenant.
Lord PALMERSTON said his right hon. friend who
last spoke ha-I mistaken the leading principle of the bill.
It was different to that of former bille, and appeared to
him t have the effect as described by the hon. baronet who
had moved the amendment, of transferring the property
of one set of persons to another and very different set of
persoas. (Hear.) Tao principle he maintained was that
the mutual relations between parties should be I.ft to be
dealt with by each other, and any interference was ob-
jectionable. In Ireland, however, there might be cases
whi
butrendiet shouldre ab departuree limitedfr( from
with conditions, and
principleion neces-
sary,
it
was on that principle they had hitherto acted. Tne com-
pensation proposed in former bills bad been prospective
compensation limited to things visible to the eye, and
capable of distinct valuation. He could not consent to
such a sweeping change in the relations of parties ae pro-
posed by the bill, and therefore he should oppose its
second reading.
Mr. HASSA.RD supported the amendment.
Mr. CAIRD supported the second reading of the bill,
on the ground that it proposed to protect the rights of
property. Land was valueless without the application
of labour and capital, and surely the latter were en-
titled to the respect and protection of the house.
Lord NAAS opposed the bill, because he thought it
would infringe in the most direct way on the sacred rights
of property withoutreally giving compensation to tenants.
The object to be kept in view in legislating on this sub-
ject was, that compensation should be prospective, and
improvements made with the consent of the landlord.
The bill contained the principle that had been on more
than one occasion stated publicly, that the owners of
land in Ireland were only entitled to the value of the
land in its wilderness state, and if adopted would re-
duce the value of land one-half. It would be a great
breach of faith to those who had purchased
estates in the Encumbered Estates Court. Under this
bill the tenants would be able to claim for buildings,
improvements, &c., alleged to have been erected and
carried out by them.
Mr. DEASY moved the adjournment of the debate.
Lord .NA AS opposed the motion, which was ulti-
mately agreed to, end the debate adjourned to the 9th
of June.
The other orders were agreed to, and the house ad•
journed at half-past 5 o'clock.

THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION
OF THE FRENCH EMPEROR.

TRIAL OF SIMON BERNARD—(TIIIRD DAY).
The trial of Simon Bernard was resumed this morning
at ten o'clock.

Louis Erghensi examined by Mr. Weleby—l am
proprietor of the Cafe Suisse at Brussels. I know
Joseph Georgi. I remember him coming to Brussels in
December last. Amongst the packages he brought with
him was one I noticed particularly, it was very heavy.
I took out one of the articles it contained to look at it
and afterwards put it on the mautelshelf in a back room
in the cafe. I don't recollect whether it was in two
pieces. It was in the shape of a pear, large at the top
and email at the bottom. I gave a drawing of the
article the first time I was examined in this country.
In the small or lower part there was a large
hole, and in the upper part there were other

small holes. I cannot speak positively as to the
number. There were holes, but my recollection does
not serve me sufficien'ly to say it resembles this article
(the grenade). All I can say is. it was exactly the shape
of a pear. There was a hole where the screw now is.
I recollect, soon efter Georgi's arrival a gentleman
came. He spoke to Georel and said, "You must put
these gas irons a-ide, as they were a new invention." I
asked him what new invention it was, and he said it was
a new invention in which there were great improvements
in gas. A conversation then ensued with reap ct to an
introduction to a person connected with the gas works
at Brussel.. The gentleman said he came from London hut
should return the same evening. He spoke very good
Italian. Same days afterwards Georgi made a communica-
tion about eendiog a horse to Paris. He asked me if I knew
any person who would take a horse to Paris. Z ?gheirs,
the waiter, took the horse. I think he left on the
Friday, and returned to Brussels on the Sueday.
Examined by Mr. James—l am a Swiss. I don't
understand mech English. The drawing now shown to
me I believe t.) be a correct representation of the instru-
ment I saw in Brussels. I do not call the grenade I
now hold in my hand the shape of a pear. Looking at
this ball, I cannot swear it is the same that I saw. I
gave always said I took no particular attention of the
belle. The drawing in ray hand was made while the
subject was fresh in my mind ; but I cannot swear that
the ball I now hold corresponded with the one of which
I made the drawing.
The Attorney-General—Do you remember, or do you
forget, that you ever had the ball in your hand with the
two parts screwed together?
Mr. James—l submit that is not a proper question.
It leads the witness to say, I forget.
form Tb.Do u
The.
remember,
I,d
oI willy upun to
ti t
rienmaeomo
bt heerr,
whether you ever saw the two parts screwed together?
Witness—l screwed the two halves together, and I
know they fitted exactly. I only saw ono ball. It
was five days before Zsgheirs went to Pads that I .:air
the ball. I made the drawing, that has been referred
to, on the 25th of December. Tee ball I hold bears
some resemblance to the ons I saw in Brussels, but it
is not so round.
Cassiwir Zeeheire, examined by the Attorney-General
—I was employed at the Café Suisse, ai waiter, in Dec.
last. I was engaged to accompany a gentleman to Paris
in that neon, h with a horse. I saw him the day before
I quitted Brussels, He did not say what countryman
he was, but I was told he was an Englishman. Georgi
made the engagement for me. I took some articles that
had been put into a carpet-bag. I bad seen them on the
smoking room table before they were put into the bag.
They resembled the ball now shown to me. I was told
they were to be used as an improvement for gas,. I took
the balls from the cafe to the Hotel de'l Europe. I think
there were about eight or ten halves. Tbey resembled the
halves in my hand, but I did not observe any holes. I did
not placetbece in thecarpet-bag. Tire hag was given tome
ready filled by Georgi. I saw the balls in Brussels a few
days before I left. Taey were uncovered. It was
Friday, the 11th of Dec,mber, when I left Brussels
for Paris. When I arrived at the Hotel, de I'Europe I
was given a brush and currycimb. I opened the bag
and put them in. They were given to me by the
gentleman. I did not know his name. We, that is, the
English gentleman, and a person named Jordan shortly
after left the Hotel de I'Europe for the railway station.
I had charge of the carpet bag the whole of the way.
At the Custom House the bag was submitted to the
Custom House officers. I was asked what was the use
of them, and I said they were to be nsed in a new gas
invention. They were passed withoutthe slightest objection
We arrived in Paris between five and six in the morning.
The English gentleman and myself went separately to a
hotel, ali.hom4b we travelled in the same train to Paris.
He went to the Hotel Lille et Albion, and I followed
with the horse and carpet-bag. I left the contents of
the carpet-bag on a bench in the passage of the hotel.
All the balls were in halves. I told the people at the
hotel to give them to the English gentleman. He ar-
rived before I did at the hotel, and as I was told he had
gone to bed, I said they were not to disturb him, but
when he got up the articles were to be given to him.
A. day after I saw the gentleman he paid me, and I re-
turned to Brussels the same evening. I saw Bernard on
my return to Brussels, and told him the horse and
gentleman had arrived in Paris safely. He said " I
know it." This was at the Café Suisse.
Examined by Mr. James—l had the balls in my hand
once before carrying them from Brussels. At the fron-
tier the contents of the bag were closely inspected and
afterwards returned to theThag.
Mr. William Meteyard, examine] by Mr. Welsby—
lam manager of the Hotel de l'Europe. A gentleman
came on the 29th of Nov. He gave the name of A Ilsop.
He also gave me his passport. He remained about 12
days. Toe passport produced is the one the gentleman
gave me. I have not seen the gentleman since, but the
bearer of the passport was the person with whom the
witness Cassimir went to Paris.
Henry Joseph Jordan, examined by Mr. Welsby—l
am commissionaire at the Hotel de I'Europe. I remember
a gentleman coming there in December, named Allsop.
It was on the 11th i went with him to the railway station
in a cab. I saw Allsop and Zegheirs start for Paris. I
have since seen the person I call Allsop in a prison in

Paris.
William Henry Polland said—l served a notice on
the prisoner to produce his passport on the sth of
April last.
Examined by Mr. James, Q.C.—I was not present
at the examination of the prisoner at the police court.
I am clerk in the Treasury. I cannot say what the
nature of the charge was. I don't know whether it was
for conspiracy or murder.
The Attorney•General—(To Mr E. James)—Do you

produce the passport
Mr. James—You cannot be serious.
Juan Jacques_Lacroix examined by Mr. Bodkin—l
am proprietor of the Hotel de Monnace
2at Brusels. A
gentleman (the prisoner) arrived on the sth of Decem•
ben Ile produced a passport.
The Attorney-General—Thy passport was Only nem.