The Sun.
London, England, 1855-05-22 00:00:00

have repaired. the mischief occasioned by the
crotehetty Lord, and the meek Commoner, who
would submit to any insult or injustice provided
there was no interference with " trade."
It was earnestly anticipated that these anxi-
ously-looked-for opportunities would have been
afforded. In place of deprecating the discussion
—in place of announcing themselves, or procur-
ing some convenient go-between to hint that a
premature discussion might prejudice the chances
of peace—a day is given up by the Government
for the discussion, avowedly to the serious detri-
ment of the business of the country. Then at
the last moment, when the House is crowded, not
merely with attentive listeners, but with men
ready to become energetic actors, and to justify
the confidence of their respective constituencies,
"hey, presto !" everything is changed by a dex-
terous touch of the enchanter's wand, and the
illusion speedily vanishes. The scene changes,
and any possibility of a discussion until after
the Whitsuntide recess, or until another fortnight
has elapsed, is averted.
Messrs. HERBERT and GLADSTONE jointly
enacted the part of Harlequin on the occasion,
and were ably supported by those who had been
the honoured guests at the Premier's official ban-
quet on Saturday last. The quondam Secretary
at War—the preserver of Odessa—first asked a
question, or rather a series of questions, of the
Premier. The concocted replies were speedily
forthcoming ; and then Mr. GLADSTONE gravely
asks his Right Hon. Friend to adjourn the subject.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT—interposing an assurance
that he, if the motion were persevered in that
evening, would move the previous question—
makes the same request, which is supported by
Lord HARRY VANE, who had promised to second
the motion. Then followed the usual amount of
ground and lofty tumbling, in which all parties,
save Mr. DISRAELI, Mr. ROEBUCK, Sir JOHN
PAKINGTON, and Mr. MALINS cut a very dis-
creditable figure ; and eventually Mr. GIBSON
relents, and, after a decent show of resistance,
owns the soft impeachment, but still retains the
ground he has so unfairly occupied, promising
again to bring it on after Whitsuntide, or more
probably at the "Greek Kalends." Such was the
disreputable farce last night enacted in the House
of Commons, and it will again be repeated usque
ad nauseam until some really independent Mem-
ber, who cannot be cajoled, takes the opinion of
the House. Is it yet too late for Mr. DISRAELI,
Mr. LAYARD, or Mr. ROEBUCK to discharge this
important duty ? There is now a golden oppor-
tunity for any competent person desirous of gain-
ing the public thanks and gratitude who will
undertake the task, and offer himself to supply
the pressing exigency of the movement—who
will, indeed, become the man of the people, ready
to head an Administration in which the right men
shall be put in the right places.

The explanation given by Sir JAMES GRAHAM
last evening with respect to his attempt to fasten
the death of the unfortunate Captain CHRISTIE on
Mr. LAYARD leaves the Right Hon. Baronet in
even a worse position than before.
It. will be seen that it was not until after Mr.
ROEBUCK had given notice of his intention to
move for copies of certain papers, which would in-
fallibly have demonstrated the truthfulness of
Mr. LAYARD'S defence, and the utter falsity of
his accuser's allegations, that Sir JAMES deemed it
time to explain. The " humanity dodge," it was
clear, had failed entirely of success, and he felt
himself in the unenviable position of the engineer
" hoist by his own Petard." But if one dodge
had failed that was no reason why he should not
try another. If unstarohed cambric, unctuous
tears, and the sobbing accents of gentle remorse,
could not convict LAYARD of CHRISTIE'S death,
starched cambric, plaintive tones, and an affecta-
tion of virtuous candour might rescue his accuser
from his false position. So the Right Hon.
Baronet did the virtuous, the candid, and the re-
spectable. Nobody will doubt he did his best to
do it well ; but " the old fox was smoked," and
his acting grew tamer as he felt how few believed
him, and ultimately went for nothing.
We defy any unprejudiced individual to read
his explanation without coming to the same con-
clusion. The dull hypocrisy of it would have sent
us to sleep, had it not been for the moral indigna-
tion which it was well calculated to inspire. It
is an explanation that is not a defence, but a self-
incrimination. " Who killed Captain CHRISTIE ?"
was the question. " LAYARD," replied Sir JAMES.
" He killed Captain CHRISTIE ; he, by his misre-
presentations, caused me to recall him and to send
him before a court-martial, which proceedings
bloke his heart. I was all pity. I only did what I
did on compulsion. It was LAYARD that compelled
me." And now that LAYARD has forced a confes-
sion of his entire innocence from his accuser,
what is the inevitable inference? Capt. CHRISTIE'S
death (the friends of that unfortunate gentleman
must thank Sir JAMES that we were compelled to
speak as we have of him) having been occasioned
by his recal and his trial before a court-martial,
the man who ordered these is, on the ex-First
Loid of the Admiralty's own showing, the man
who killed him, and that man is Sir J. GRAHAM !
The Nineveh bull-baiters of the House have,
we are happy to believe, met in thiS affair with
a signal check. The manly attitude of Mr.
ROEBUCK should not go unnoticed. He
was the first who had the courage to con-
front the furious pack, in order to insure
Mr. LAYARD some degree of fair play (if the ex-
pression be allowable where one was assailed by
1-7
after Mr. LAYARD'S magnificent defence in the
Times, he may be said to have made them " turn
tail." Nor should Mr. BRIGHT'S part in the
affair be forgotten—it was that of a generous-
minded Englishman. Would that he did his manly
nature equal justice in not less important matters.
As for Sir JOHN PAKINGTON we incline to think
he will distribute his ponderous admonitions with
better effect from the Bench at Quarter Sessions
than on the opposition side of the House for some
time to come. And for Lord PALMERSTON, who
by this time must feel how great a blunder he
committed by joining in so disgraceful a persecu-
tion, we will only reroaik it may safely be left to
him to say with diplomatic suavity, " Sir JAMES,
it might have been done better, or perhaps it had
better have been let alone."