The Sun.
London, England, 1844-02-12 00:00:00

OFrENCES ON THE HIGH SEAS.

• Sir J. GRAHAM said, as the House had been
kind enough to allow him to introduce the Bill, he
would still further trespass on their kindness, by
asking them for leave to introduce another, which
stood. next on the paper. It was a Bill for securing
the more speedy trial of criminals charged with of-
fences on the high: seas. All these offences were now
tried at the Central Criminal Court ; the consequence
of this was, that on the arrival of vessels at the
out-ports, . the depositions were taken there
and then • sent up to London ; witnesses were also
obliged to be brought up to the Central Criminal
Court at a great expense and inconvenience. By this
Bill he proposed, in the commissions of oyer and ter.
miner, to give to her Majesty's Judges of assize the
power of trying these offences.
Captain PECHELL thought the only objection to
the Bill was likely to be made by the country gentle-
men on the ground of expense.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he intended that the pro-
secutions should be conducted as heretofore, at the
public expense.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
PRISON DISCIPLINE.

Mr.T. DUNCOMBE asked the Right Hon. Baronet,
the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he
intended to bring in any Bill this session for the
better regulation of the discipline of prisons?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he could not give a
positive answer to the Hon. Gentleman; at the
same time he should be sorry to say that no measure
on that subject would be introduced during the pre-
sent session.
POOR-LAWS.

Sir J. GRAHAM thenbrought in the
Bill for the amendment of the Poor-law Act, which
was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second
time on Monday se'nnight.
The RIGHT HON. BARONET also brought in the
Offences at Sea Trial Bill, which was read a first
time, and ordered to be read a second time on Mon-
day next.
TITHES. _

Captain PECHELL asked if any Bill would be
brought in this session for preventing suits for tithes
being carried into the Ecclesiastical Courts ?
Sir J. GRAHAM had to state, in answer to the
question, that the Lord Chancellor on Monday, would
introduce a Bill on the subject of the Ecclesiastical
Courts in the other House.
STATE OF IRELAND. _ _

Mr. ESCOTT begged to ask the Noble Lord,
the Member for London, whether he intended to
bring on, on Tuesday, the motion of which he had
given notice, relating to Ireland P—the trials not hay:
ill yet concluded, or at least no intelligence of their
being concluded having yet been received.
Lord J. RUSSELL, quite concurring in the pro-
priety of not having any debates in that House
which might influence the verdict of the jury, still
did not think it necessary that they should know the
result of the trials before they discussed the affairs
of Ireland.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said it was very
important that the Attorney-General of Ireland
should be present during the debate, and it
was impossible that the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man could be in his place on Tuesday. He did
not wish this to influence what the Noble Lord
might think his public duty, but he trusted
he would not think it unreasaonble if he asked
the Noble Lord to state what would be the pre-
cise terms and words of his motion.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he should
certainly lament the absence of the At-
torney-General, but he did not think that cir-
cumstance ought to induce him to defer for forty:
eight hours the motion for which he now had pre-
cedence. With regard to the actual form of the
motion, it would contain nothing more than what he
had already stated, that the House should resolve
itself into a Committee of the whole House on the
affairs of Ireland. If the Government thought proper
to agree to this motion—(A laugh)—or, if it should be
agreed to by the House, he should move a series of
resolutions, some of' which would strongly inculpate
the conduct of the present Government.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said if the House should
determine to go into a Committee of the whole
House, it would certainly not be his duty, as a Mi-
nister of the Crown—(A laugh)—to oppose the reso-
lutions of the Noble Lord.
The House then Adjourned.

SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS.
FROM THE EVENING PAPERS OF SATURDAY.
GLOBE.—We know not whether Lord Devon's
imperturbable negative on _all. remarks hazarded in
the Lords on the Irish Land Inquiry is to be taken
as equally pregnant with wise meaning as Lord
Burleigh's shake of the head; but that the Noble
and Learned Lord is wise in saying nothing of
his Usk at present is evident enough. For our own
part, though the language of doubt is injurious to
the prestige of newspaper infallibility, we had
rather say frankly that we do not quite know yet
what to think •about this Commission, than come out
so strong as our formidable Contemporary the Times
did the other day—only to draw our horns in again.
The first and second articles of the . Times have been
in curious and amusing contrast. The following was
the " thunder" of the Times in the first of these
articles :—" Here is the case Lord Devon has to
deal with :—The peasant population of Ireland
are in pressing want of land to raise
food for their families. The immediate
possession of every given five acres out of
lease is essential to, perhaps, each one of some twenty
individuals, having wives and children. They bid
against each other, without exactly calculating the
produce of the land; they have a right to do so—
a legal right. The landlord accepts the highest
offer, which also, without professedly calculating
the acreable value he has an undoubted right to
do. We .say nothing of the moral right of either
party—of the tenant to offer more than the land
will pay, or of the landlord to accept it. But: if
we must give an opinion on the subject, beyond
all question it is as dishonest in the tenant to offer,
as it is in the landlord to let the farm for, a higher
rent than can be fairly made of it. But the differ-
ence is this :—The tenant is compelled by the iron
hand of, htmger—tin excuse assuredly for deeper
crimes than an untenable promise under pinching
want ; whereas the landlord is not forced by famine,
and is not to be excused by purblind cupidity,
for demanding a rent which the most indus-
trious occupier could not pay—for which no
solvent tenant, and none but a perishing despe-
rado, would have the face to pledge himself. What
then happens ? The rents are not paid—eject-
ments are executed—the defaulting tenants are
ousted, the incomers murdered in their beds. Is not
this a true picture? Is anything exaggerated ? And
must the reality last for ever ? . This is what Lord
Devon has to deal with. Property is already out-
raged ; living men are sacrificed to the name of pro-
perty ; yet there comes in a vociferating lawyer—
'Oh ! take care you don't touch the right of pro-
perty;' hold sacred every blood-stained clod; let
peasants by hundreds gasp in their own gore;
let them, Lord Devon, manure the wasted soil
with their bodies, but, above all things, protect
the full purse—prey upon the empty stomach."