The Sun.
London, England, 1855-07-19 00:00:00

(From the Daily News of this day.

It is certain that the division on Mr. Roebuck's mo-
tion will take place to-night. The country will note,
with a view to future action, how every member votes,
and who absent themselves. The public are completely
masters of the case. They are in possession of all the
evidence submitted to the Sebastopol Committee, and a
great deal more. The subject has been canvassed in
Parliament and out of doors for months. Men's minds
are made up, and every member who votes against evi-
dence and reason, and every member who shrinks from
recording his vote, will have to account at the hustings
for his conduct.

The House of Commons cannot get rid of the difficulty
by voting the previous Tiestion without irrecoverably
stultifying and degrading itself. Months ago it voted,
by a large majority, that the accounts of the condition
of our army in the Crimea were of such a nature as to
render a solemn inquiry into their truth indispensable.
A committee was appointed, composed of members
friendly to the present Ministers, of members friendly to
their late colleagues, and of members opposed to both.
The committee was instructed to inquire whether' our
army had suffered as much as was represented?—what
was the cause of its sufferings?—land who were responsi-
ble for them ! It examined persons who had been in
tne Crimea and witnessed with their own eyes the con-
dition of the army ; persons employed in the different
offices of Government connected with the management
of the war ; and the Ministers who had taker) a respon-
sible part in that management. After a protracted inr-
quiry, the committee reported that the sufferings hence
army had far exceeded what is the necessary cont saeqsuuffer.
of warlike operations in the field; that
our Government departments, and from
ings had resulted from the shameful fore-
sightmali-atosrngte:ldsauteionof
twe for those defi-
cienciesensa charged with
and energy to amend or coon?
13ilattehraetaHe
ejuudsegmofenctomof.
on the part of responsible ministers
t thehe conduct
committee
has
se
mons, along with the evidence, writ enand oral, upon
which it rests. It is now the duty of the house,
bweeannsubTmhiitsteddetl
whether th
the
after comparing the conclusions of the report with
the evidence, to declare ey are well or
ill-founded ; and if they are well-founded to visit with
its condign censure the offending Minister.. To
shrink o f
from the discharge of this duty will be, on the part
House of Commons, to trifle with the patience of the
nation, to omit the performance of one of its most vital
obligations, to abdicate its functions. Such conduct
would convict the house, as a body, of frivolity, incapa-
city, utter deadness to a sense Of o
" No" t
It must say " Aye" or its important duties.o
the declaration sub-
mittedarmy has been wantonlyy.
for his adoption by
tering, and that the Ministers
Mr. Roebuck, that a brave
consigned
who
o unnecessaryhave
done su
thisf-
' have incurred the grave censure of the nation's repre-
sentatives.

(From the Morning Herald of this day.)
Our contemporaries are ringing the changes upon the
phrase that our "representative institutions are on their

trial." If this be the case, and we are to take the pro.)
ceedingo of Tuesday a. a specimen of what those institu-
tions really are, certainly a more contemptible-looking
or more self-convicted prisoner never appeared in the
dock.

The welfare and honour of the nation—the future fate.
of Europe— the foregone destruction of one army and.
the prospective loss of another, were all at stake or
under discussion ; and yet we will venture to say the
Marylebone vestry itself never equalled the House of
Commons on that night in self-contradiction, vapid non-
sense, false reasoning, and insincere conclusions.
Upon what point are our institutions upon trial ? wet
would ask. Simply and solely as to their power to
bring to justice a guilty and imbecile Administration;
and certainly (again judging by the proceeuings of Tues-
day) we should say that a more complete case of inca-
pacity for good never was brought home to any institu-
tut ions whatever. Why, the utmost exertion of them
could not even make the criminals plead. There they
sat, with theirfaces framed as it were of brass, so insolent
and so shameless were they, merely putting up a succes-
sion of men of straw to bring forward excuses, each more
stupid and more false than that whi,.h preceded it. But
the great offenders hardened their foreheads and kept
silence, well knowing that there was nothing they could
say that would not make their case, bad as it was, infi-
nitely worse.
An amendment, however, it may be said has taken
place in the condition of the army before Sebastopol.
We utterly deny that any beneficial change has taken
place in that army, save such as is aMributable to the
changes of the season. The army is still Ia nd-bound to
the spot where official neglect has rendered it imperative
that it should remain, either to be decimat.sci by cholera
or sacrificed in a succession of useless but bloody

assau I ts.
We can assure our readers that the irnpresciion in the
minds of many gallant officers in that army is, that the
season of 1855 has been lost, as was the season
cf 1854, and that the feeling of many a bold
and good soldier is that we are rapidly approt iching
a winter in which their sufferings will be as gre at as
they were in that which has past. Knowing th. is to
be the case, we cannot avoid stating our conviction that
every member of the House of Commons who Nectee
against Mr. Roebuck's motion practically sanctions t be
destruction of our second army.
As for " the previous question," the voting for it
simply amounts to a declaration on the part of the house
that the representatives of the people do not care about
the fact of an army having been lost, and that the
" popular" branch of 'the Legislature condones the mis-
management, not to say treachery, by which that army
was destroyed. Are hon. members prepared to ask the
approval by their constituents of such a declaration?

LORD JOHN RUSSELL AND M. DROUYN
DE L'HUYS.

The relations between the French and English Courts
in all matters affecting the alliance are of such delicacy,
and the conduct of the Emperor has been so Loyal and
straightforward throughout, that we would glaCtly have
avoided all mention of the subject while dealing with the
dregs of the Russell controversy. The resignat ion of
M. Drouyn de l'Huys and the motives which led to it
have, however, been so misrepresented, that a wore' or
two upon that point may, perhaps, serve to throw light
upon the position held by Lord John Russell during Cie
period which elapsed between his return from Vienna
and his enforced resignation. The course pursued by
Lord John Russell as British Plenipotentiary is well
known ; that of his French colleague was es fellows :
M. Drouyn de l'lluys, before quitting Vienna, forwarded
to his Court no less than two reports, and several tele-
grapic despatches, in which he earnestly recommended
the acceptance of Count Buol's propositions. He re•
presented in very forcible terms the dangers which might
attend a refusal, and, in short, frankly and optmly
backed the imperfect proposals of Austria. He arrived
in Paris and had, on the Ist of May, an interview with
the Emperor, in the course of which he sustained hie
views ,and produced, as he thought, a favourable im-
pression. Certain slight modifications were introduced,
and the Austrian propositions were finally transmitted
to London by the Emperor's orders. They reached Lou-
don on the 2d of May. Let us pass over the discus-
sions which occurred in the British Cabinet on the re-
ceipt of these propositions. Sir George Grey, in lan-
guage somewhat ambiguous, told us on Tuesday night
%%hat took place—his meaeing, however, is clear enough.
The Home Secretary is reported to have said—" The
propositions of Count Buol were discussed during the
seek beginning the 31st of April and ending the 7th of
May, and during that discussion Lord J. Russell slated
his views ; other members of the Cabinet entered into
the discussion, with the view of corning to the conclu-
sion most coducive to the interests of the country, i‘nd
at the close of the week I should have been prepared to
assert in unqualified terms that the unanimous opinio
of the Cabinet was that the interests of the country re-
quired that the Austrian proposals should be rejected."
Lord John, who had brought home and advocated these
propositions, nevertheless stuck to office, and his col-
leagues threw their mantles around him. He was not,
however, a man who relies entirely upon the exertions
of others to get him out of a scrape, but acted at once
upon the prudent maxim that Heaven helps the man
who helps himself. Hence that warlike speech which
astonished the British empire and roused us all to heroic
exertions.

Meanwhile, M. Drouyn do l'Huys at Paris was pur-
suing a humbler but a less tortuous career. On the 4th
of May--we suppose after the Emperor had received
the answer of the Cabinet of St. James—he notified to
M. Drouyn de l'Huys that he must inform Count
\Valewski that the Austrian propositions were rejected.
This was on the evening of the 4th. The next day, at
3 o'clock in the morning, the ex-plenipotentiary placed
his resignation in the Emperor's hands. .He urged at
the same time more strongly than before his former
views, and apprised his Sovereign, with all due respect,
that, with his convictions, he could not venture to
share the responsibility of the decision at which
the Cabinets had arrived. Nothing could be more
rational or straightforward tban the conduct of
the French Minister throughout, and with pain
we write that it offers a most honourable contrast
to that of his English colleague in negotiation. M.
Drouyn de l'Huys did not arrive at the conclusion thot
the statesman who had declared peace to be the right
policy was the proper person to carry on the war ; on
the contrary, even before his departure from Vienna, he
had resolved to stake his ministerial existence upon the
success of the resolution which he had formed, and docu-
mentary proof of this is forthcoming, if required. Our
French allies may look back with satisfaction to the
conduct and result of the Viennese negotiations. Their
plenipotentiary may have erred in judgment, but he acted
as became a straightforward statesman and an honAst