The Sun.
London, England, 1824-02-27 00:00:00

[liityrisit PREss.]

Mr. Martin was unsuccessful in his second at-
tempt at legislation last night. Ile brought his
bear unmuizled into the 'louse, but he could not
make him dance, or tie the bull to the stake.—
His bill to prevent the classic and humane sports
of bull and bear baiting, with a touch of sym-
pathy also for his friends the badgers, was unfor-
tunately lost ; and the dog " Billy," and the
combative monkey, " Jaco Macao," will thus
again appear in " Charley Eastup's" crowded
arena, applauded by butchers, knighti of the
fancy, and the light-lingered artists commonly
called pickpockets. The Member for Galway
will, in consequence of this disaster, have all his
sympathies limited to Smithfield, where he has al-
ready been really useful ; and there his atten-
tion may still do mud' good. Sir Robert Heron
was humorously severe upon Mr. Martin's phi-
lanthropy, which, to say the truth, was not quite
•ft subject for British legislation, though Acts of
Parliament had hitherto passed unopposed,'
the spirit of which was nothing near so
humane, and the objects of them much
more Unworthy.We would direct Mr. Mar-
tin's honest zeal to the Landlord and Tenant
Act of Ireland, and to the remedy of many of
the Miseries to which his own constituents and
the peasantry of Ireland are now subject these
are evils with which he must be well acquainted,
and ah attention to Which would be honourable
to him, and too serious to he followed with ridi-
cule. Why will he pass these by=--scenes of

real, heartfelt suffering—and consume his own
time and that of the House with the farce of
46 bulls and bears i" He might leave them to the
speculators of 'Change-alley. Sed de gustibus non
est disputandum—there is no accounting for
tastes ; and Mr. Martin seems to have a peculiar
gusto for this °rare" legislation.

[MORNING HERALD.
The controversy respecting the tread-mill ap-
pears to be brought to a conclusion. It is dif-
ficult, if not impossible, to resist the evidence in
its favour which has been laid before Parliament.
f3y an order of the Home Secretary, the visiting
Magistrates and Surgeons of gaols,in some twenty
counties, have been called upon for their opi-
nions upon inquiry made, and all, without ex-
ception, have replied that experience proves the
tread-mill not merely not injurious, but conducive
to health, as well as discipline. It is true, the
prisoners appear to be of a different opinion
—and they, no doubt, must be admitted to
know something of the matter. But still they
may be fairly suspected of prejudice ; and
there is, we apprehend, more of naivete than
force in the argument founded upon their
protestations. lt may even be urged that the
outcry against the tread-mill is the best proof of
its efficacy. The horror which it excites is, after
all, not that kind of horror which calls for sym-
pathy or commiseration. The convict consigned
from the bar to the tread-mill should not be re-
garded as a fellow-creature approaching a punish-
ment so horrible as to inspire compassion in-
stead of crime, but as a depraved culprit, regret-
ting laziness and vagabondage, and contrasting
it with the approach of labour and confine-
ment. The question is, whether the tread-mill
for a long term of years, or for life, might not
be usefully substituted for transportation, and
even for the punishment of death in certain
cases ? Would not many of the convicts who re-
ceive sentence of transportation with hardened
bravado, and some even with content, afford a
better example of terror were they consigned to
labour and confinement, and public shame ? It is
absurd to urge humanity on such a subject. There
are no claims upon it—always supposing that the
punishment be duly proportioned to the crime.
But it would be even preposterous to talk of
humanity, when the law, as it stands in this
country, is so prodigal of the punishment of
death. It is true that the punishment of the
tread-mill should be inflicted with a due regard to
proper cases of exemption. But this is an ob-

jection that may be made to any punishment in-
flicted for the preservation of prison discipline.
The most serious objection to it is removed, or
will soon be removed, by a Bill—that of its ap-
plication to prisoners before trial. Undoubtedly,
no labour carrying shame or infamy with it should
be exacted from a person who may turn out to be
innocent, and who is so in the eye of the law un-
til conviction has taken place.

[NEW TIMES]

The financial ability requisite for abolishing
so vast a weight of taxation, without involving a
country in absolute confusion and bankruptcy,
is undoubtedly deserving of high admiration.—
But, it said, the Government ought not to boast
of its lenity in doing this. Assuredly it ought
not ; and the insinuation that it ever did

make such a boast is the height of unfairness.
Lenity is she wn in the forbearance to inflict
penalties or to enforce payment of debts ;
but when did any 13rithih Parliament, or
any British Minister, presume to inflict taxes
as a puuislunent, or to claim them as a d•bt ?
Under a free constitutional Government, like our
own, the Ministers are the stewards of the nation,
and they claim no other merit than what results
from the fairand honest discharge of their steward-
ship. It is their duty to consider, according to the
variable change of circumstances, what parts of
the financial burthen will best admit of allevia-

tion. Iu preceding years they have chiefly felt
themselves called upon to relieve the agricultu-
ral interest. With this view principally they re-
pealed the Property Tax, the Duties on Malt and
Salt, and great part of the Assessed Taxes. The
object of the present Budget is rather to favour
the trading interest. But nothing can be easier
than to say, %shy did you not abolish this Tax
rather than that ? The answer is, we made our
election with a view to the common good. Why
remit part of the Duties on Coals ? Because Pe-
titions against those Duties were presented from
very large masses of the population. Because

The 7'imes itself had repeatedly urged such a re-
mission. Again, why withold the bounties on
the Herring and Whale Fisheries ? Because the
measure appears to be sound in principle; and
because The Times confesses that it has
heretofore " spoken favourably of the measure."
Can there be a more barefaced proceeding than
for a Journalist to confess that he recommend-
ed a measure (such as that applied to the silk
and woollen trades) which necessarily involve
a change in " the commercial usages of the
nation with respect to importation and exporta-
tion," and then, when it is adopted by the
Minister, to turn round and abuse it solely be-
cause it changes those commercial usages ?
We have surely said enough to prove the total
want of candour shewu in this attack on the
financial Exposé. The speech of Mr. Robinson,
in which its principles and details were so clearly
developed, will long remain as an example of
clearness in statement and soundness in reason-
ing ; and the few, solitary, discontented critics
that carp at it Will find themselves, after all their
efforts, in the situation of the Viper that gnawed
the file..