The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-12 00:00:00

Sun Office, April 4, 1860.

qtir* ;.)1
11, ,
• c•••,v%k
4 •
- .
• fs
• •11 r• 14:0 r
• - \‘,l ,
•

TII E SUN.
LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 12, 1860.

The American PRESIDENT is in hot water. It
will be seen, in another column, that the House of
Representatives has, as he thinks exceeded their
powers, and initiated a proceeding against him
substantially unjust also. We have at present only
the PRESIDENT'S view of the question, and from his
ex parte protest, we should think he has some
strong ground on the score of the unfairness of the
proceeding.
The PRESIDENT and his executive are plainly
suspected of having, by money, patronage, and
other improper means, influenced the passage of
laws ; a:qi his officers of having, by combination
or otherwise, prevented or defeated, or made the
attempt to do so, the execution of existing
laws ; and that the PRESIDENT has failed
or refused to compel the execution of
these laws. The House of representatives ap-
pointed a committee to investigate on these matters,
and the person whom Mr. BUCHANAN considers as
his accuser is a member of this committee. Mr.
BUCHANAN fully admits the right of the two
Houses to inquire into abases alleged to exist in
the navy yards, post-office, &c., as necessary to their
duties as guardians of the public purse. What he
denies is the right of the House of Representatives
to try him on these accusatory charges in the
manner proposed by them.

The House has, he says, the right to impeach.
For this the Constitution makes due provision. It
assigns the Chief Justice as the President of the
Senate for the occasion, and the accuser and the
accused meet before the appointed tribunal on equal
terms. In the present case the accuser is one of
the judges, and has the power to examine
witnesses as a judge to prove his own
case. Besides, the law and common justice require
that in the regular proceeding to which he points,
the accuser shall furnish the accused with definite
charges, and give him thus a fair opportunity to
prepare his defence. The charges are certainly
as vague as any can be; and it is only by presuming
that Mr. BUCHANAN has a guilty conscience, in re-
gard to certain facts, that he could be expected to
know to what uarticular charges he would have to
rebut.

The PRESIDENT asserts that he makes his pro-
test from no motives personal to himself, but from
a determination to hand down to his successors the
rights of ME office unimpaired. He is a co-ordinate
part of the Legislature—the equal of each of the
other parts—he is elected by the whole people—he
alone
represents in his person directly the people
of each qnd gll the Stotes—the House of Represen-

tatives has no jurisdiction or supremacy over him
—he is responsible to the whole people, and to
them only. Such is Mr. BUCHANAN'S view of
the position of the President, and it is probably the
correct one.
We can, however, conceive of one valid answer
which the Lower House will have, even admitting
all that Mr. BUCHANAN says. They may reply,
that they regard the committee as the grand
jury, or the preliminary inquirers in the
case. It may be that there is no case at all,
against hlm ; in that case the charges, as he terms
them, will be discussed in the manner most honour;
able to him. It may be otherwise—it will then be
for the committee to prepare the definite charges
which he fairly demands, and to bring them before
the tribunal appointed by the constitution. It is,
however, a serious fact that the Supreme Authority
in one of the largest and most powerful States of the
civilised world stands so far in the position of a de-
fendant, on the ground of official misconduct, that
he has to deliver this solemn protest against the
mode in which his conduct is investigated. But for
the vast difference between the Republic and the
old States of Europe, it would remind one of the
times of our own and the French Revolutions. But
the American Cabinet is not responsible to the House
—the President appoints his officers, retains them,
whether the house approves or not, and must there-
fore bear the consequences of all things done by his
servants. We may be pretty sure that in one respect,
at least, our QUEEN will not:wish to "Americanise
our institutions." Happily for her she can never
be accused ; and, more happily for her still, no
party would tolerate the thought of doing it.

But the other day Lord DERBY proposed the re-
jection of a bill sent up, nenzine contradicente, by
the House of Commons. The bill had been discussed
there ; at least Mr. NEWDEGATE had uttered some
plaintive sentences on the sad fact that none of his
fellow members saw any harm in the bill. Lord
DERBY also, like the whole House of Commons, saw
no harm in the bill itself, but he saw mischief in its
promoters; and, not on the merits of the bill, but
avowedly on the demerits of the promoters, he
forbade the second reading of the bill. The dan-
gerous persons referred to were a committee of
gentlemen who style their society one "for the
liberation of religion from State patronage and
control"—and the bill, said to be promoted by them,
was one to abolish a declaration made by Dis-
senters when taking municipal office, that they
will do nothing by virtue of their office to injure the
Established Church.

If such a declaration be of any ♦alue, we beg to
suggest that it should be made not by Dissenters
only, when accepting municipal office. The report
which appeared in The Sun of yesterday of the
meeting to elect Churchwardens at St. Paul's,
Knightsbridge, reminds us that there are persons
far more dangerous to the Church of Eng-
land than the committee of the Liberation
Society, and the Dissenters whom they may
be said to represent. The Church is far less in
danger from assault than from treason. Mr. LID-
DELL, Mr. BRYAN KING, and their coadjutors are
far more dangerous enemies to her than Dr. FOSTER,
Mr. MIALL, and the committee at Sergeant's Inn.
If Lord DERBY delight in declarations, and think
it important to discourage the enemies of the Church,
although they may be backed by the whole House
of Commons, by all means let them get ready at
once a bill to require a declaration of every
clergyman similar to the one he retains for Dis-
senters. Now that corporations have sold all their
livings, Dissenters cannot through them injure the
Church; but clergymen within her walls can plainly
do her more mischief in a year than Dissenters or
a corporation could effect in a century. Indeed, at
the close of the vestry meeting Mr. WESTERTON,
the well-known re-elected churchwarden, remarked
that Parliament must interfere, and " compel them
to make some declaration, failing which they should
be compelled to leave the Church which they had
disgraced."

We hear all kinds of stories of Dissenters' fana-
ticism, and of their unseemly contentions ; they may
be true or false, but they are at least private mat-
ters : we mean that a congregation of Dissenters
is in no way responsible to the nation for its
mode of conducting its worship, or for any
thing whatever but avoiding breaches of the
peace. But nothing done amongst Dissenters
can pretend to rival in fanaticism, if not something
worse, the doings of Mr. LIDDELL and his asso-
ciated Romanisers, as they appeared in the report
yesterday; he being, moreover, an officer in a church
which belongs to the nation, and is maintained by
the nation for national purposes, just as much as
are our army and navy. The ecclesiastical general
of the London division of this church costs the
nation some £lO,OOO a-year. How many military
generals can ever hope for such national pay ?
At St. Paul's vestry we have, in brief, the
following illustration of National Churchmanship.
Mr. LIDDELL, Incumbent, takes the chair (a right
denied to him, however, by some first-class lawyers).
Apprehending doubtless a sharp catechising for his
doings, he makes an oration on peace, meekness,
gentleness, and all that, and nominates his church-
warden. Forthwith Mr. WESTERTON rises to pro-
posea question or two. Doubtless anticipating
the
nature of the questions, the Rev. Chairman
says he cannot hear them. Mr. WESTERTON is
not, however, the man to be put down by a parson.
He says his questions are relevant, and proceeds to
put n
hee Have you," he says, " helped yourself to
the collected
at the sacrament by the offer-
tory, to pay for altar lights, without the consent and
against the protests of the people's churchwarden ?"
Here the confusion of the meeting asserting be had
done it, and of a few friends of the incumbent not
denying it, but trying to put down the
"order,"e,r
questioner,
became indiscribable. " That is true,"
chair," " who are you," and " turn him out," ad-
dressed to an incumbent's friend, resounded from
all sides. At a momentary lull in the uproar, the
Chairman, who had been long standing in vain, ex-
claimed—" The question is irrelevant. 'decline to
answer it." Again the cries resounded—" Oh, oh'
—" Quite right"—" A confession of guilt."
At another lull Mr. WESTERTON interferes,—
" That answer is sufficient. My second question is,
from what fund was the old debt paid which you
contracted for altar candles, which debt, when I
was in office, I would not allow to be taken from
the altar money ?" Again the self-appointed Chair,
man refused to answer, and also refused to hear
another question. Hereupon commenced a battle
between the Chairman and the meeting, equalling
in its way all that is to be looked for
in the fight between the BENICIA BOY
and SAYERS. If our readers overlooked yesterday
this " mill extraordinary" between a clergyman and
his parishioners they had better turn to it again. It
is the fitting vestry parallel to St. George's-in-the-
East. Eventually Mr. HALL, the late churchwar-
den, having got possession of the ear of the meet-
ing, fairly frightened the reverend gentleman
out of the chair, and " saluted by hootings, groan-
hissings,
ings, anmdeewianvgsaid, t
tingof
hats, hb and his
the-East!. The victorious HALLo S
wat's
retired "—as the
thenGeorge's-in-
the-East e org evoted
-
into the chair.

It was indeed time for his Reverence to be off.