The Sun.
London, England, 1855-06-23 00:00:00

(Prom the Daily News of this day.)

The motion of which Mr. Roebuck gave notice yesterday
will test the sincerity of the House of Commons in its
profession of zeal for the vindication of the national honour
in the sanguinary struggle in which we are engaged. A bravo
and generous people never manifest true courage or magna-
nimity more conspicuously than in the hour of unavertable
defeat. It is part of the moral greatness of their character to
bear unforeseen reverses with fortitude, and to look upon
trivial errors with leniency and forbearance. But in propor-
tion as they are forgiving and forgetful of casual faults in
those who undertake the responsibilities of guidance in the
council or the field, they are disposed to visit with severe
condemnation the selfish arrogance and negligence whose con-
sequences in peace are costly, in war " horrible and heart-
rending." Without theorising on the matter, the people feel
that for their own and their children's sake they cannot afford
to affect indifference to such offences against the well-being of
the State ; and their instinct of justice, more unerring than
the fine-spun inductions of political philosophy, tells them
that it is neither safe nor just to permit any set of men to
trifle with the vital interests of the nation. Public senti-
ment has long ago been expressed in unequivocal terms re-
garding the fearful consequences of Ministerial misconduct
during the last campaign—so unequivocal that even the pre-
sent House of Commons succumbed with a shudder when
called upon last January to appoint a Committee of In-
quiry into the condition of the camp of Sebastopol. No
evasions •or expostulations on the part of the accused
availed to prevent the impanolling of the special jury ;
and, as the result has proved, no arts of packing could avail
to prevent it from doing its duty in the main, or from
the " true verdict given according to tho evidence" laid
before it. That verdict is now before the country ; whatever
its minor deficiencies may be, it is felt to be sound and true ;
and the question that inevitably suggests itself to every up-
right and uncorrupted mind in the community is—when shall
judgment thereupon be given?
The House of Commons is the tribunal to which we na-
turally look for that appropriate sequence and judicial action.
When called upon at the commencement of the session, the
house declared itself to be in sympathy with the people, but
to be wholly incompetent to go into detailed investigation of
the facts alleged. There was, indeed, some talk cf hearing
evidence at the bar; but the idea was laid aside on the
ground of inconvenience to all parties, and of unfairness to
the accused. Eventually a great majority decided that a
select committee of eleven`should sit upstairs, not merely to
inquire but to report to the house what had occurred, and
who was to blame. What did that vote imply Did it
mean nothing, or next to nothing? Was it agreed to in a
non-natural sense, or with suppressed equivocation, or mental
reservation? Was it not avowedly resisted on the plea
that even to investigate the charges laid at the door of the
Cabinet implied too grave a censure to be acquiesced in ?
What, if the charges have actually been proved,
and if the guilt of conscious incompetency, accompanied
by obstinate tenacity of office, has 'actually been
brought home to the doors of those inculpated ?
Can the house, having gone thus far, now recede ? Can it
abdicate its functions as judge after having solemnly assumed
those functions, and deliberately authorised a trial to take