The Sun.
London, England, 1868-06-20 00:00:00

- -
bkiltlT OF THE PUBLIC JOUTINALS.

The Saturday Beam, in an article on America, says :
If Republican or Democratic candidates for the Presidency
Ire disposed to moralise, they may find a theme for reflec-
tion in the recent close of Mr. Buchanan's inglorious
career. Always a conspicuous member of the Democratic
party, he held in succession the two offices which are the
highest rewards of political success. As American Minis-
ter to England, he interpreted the supposed will of the
people, which General Grant regards as the ultimate rule
of right, by concerting with his colleagues at the principal
European Courts a conspiracy for the acquisition of Cuba,
with a view to the extension of slavery. When he became
President, in 1857, he recommended the same policy to
congress ; and in all his measures he was eager to exhibit
himself in the character of an unscrupulous partisan.
Towards the end of his term of office, when
civil war WM already imminent, he persisted in his
determination to further the objects of the party
which still controlled the fortunes of the Union.
In his numerous messages to Congress he denounced the
opponents of slavery as the enemies of the Union ; anal
charitable writers may hope that he believed that concilia-
tion of the South was the only method of preventing dis-
ruption. Secession at last took him by surprise, and left
him in a minority of the Northern population. Mr.
Lincoln had been elected by a party which included only
two-fifths of the voters ; but the withdrawal of the Con-
federate States, and the sudden enthusiasm of the North,
converted Mr. Buchanan from the organ of the omnipo-
tent popular will into the instrument of a helpless faction.
He had declared his opinion that there was no constitu-
tional power to reclaim a seceding State; and he was
negotiating with the Government of South Carolina when
his term of office expired. Soon afterwards General
Beauregard fired on Fort Sumter, and the great conflict
began. The votary of majorities had no reason to com-
plain of the obloquy which he incurred, when, by the tilting
of the political scale, the standard of morality was sud-
denly shifted. He lived obscure, andhe died unregretted,
to be followed, perhaps, in his earlier and later fortunes
by many future Presidents.
The John Bull comments on Dr. Pusey's speech at the
meeting of the English Church Union. It was a wonder-
ful example of the old adage that one man might steal a
horse while another might not look over a hedge. The
whole speech was a political one. He not Only urged the
claims of Mr. Gladstone to the sympathy of Churchmen,
but he actually stated that he would prefer Mr. Bright to
the present Government, and had the inconceivable auda-
city to ignore the second despatch of the Duke of Bucking-
ham on Natal, while attacking the Government in no
mealy-mouthed language for the first. Such conduct we
cannot but characterise as unworthy of Dr. Pusey's high
reputation, and if it be really true that he had not seen
or heard of the second despatch, it only affords still
further proof of his incapacity as a r politicaguide. But
the part of his speech to which the John Ball especially
desires. to draw attention is the passage in which he at
least calmly anticipates the day when the Church
in this country &Jail be disestablished, and it is
fair to draw the inference that Mr. Gladstone
shares, though he does not so boldly avow, the opinions of
his distinguished supporter. Judging from the reception
accorded to the advocate of Mr. Gladstone, there is little
room to doubt that had that arch-enemy of establishment,
NIL Bright, accompanied by Mr. Gladstone, entered the
room, the majority present would have received the two
„allies with enthusiasm, and, if they had been promised
freedom for the Church, would have accepted disestablish-
ment and disendowment. And if this be not au exagge-
rated statement, does it not go far to prove that Mr.
Disraeli was not so far wrong when he snid that the
Ritualists were 'allied with others anxious to overthrow
our constitution in Church and State ?