The Sun.
London, England, 1869-07-05 00:00:00

THE OTEREND, GURNEY, AND CO. CASE.

The Press is changing sides somewhat in its rela-
tions to the Government in the matter of the Over-
end, Gurney, and Co. prosecution. While the
Liberal papers are rebuking the Government—and
some of them severely—for not granting money, the
Standard warmly defends Ministers for the course
they have taken. The Times, the Daily News, the
Telegraph, and the Spectator urge that though there is
no public prosecutor, the Government should do what
it can to supply the want where it is most obvious.
They contend that the whole case is exceptional, and
that as prinui facie the defendants are guilty, the
Executive should help to discover the truth, as much
for the sake of the accused as the accuser. The
Standard argues in a totally different way. The
defendants, according to it, are innocent, not having
been absolutely proved guilty; and for the Govern-
ment to undertone the prosecution would be to
acknowledge a belief in the guilt of the directors.
The Standard, moreover, points out that an
application in proper form to the Court of
Chancery would bring money to Dr. Thom's aid ;
and draws from that application not having been
made, that there is something behind which would
prevent it being acceded to. Dr. Thom himself
appeals from the Government to the public. Ile says
positively that he has not applied for aid to the
shareholders. He thinks himself perfectly competent
to conduct the case, urges that he has a right to do
so, but will submit to waive his right on behalf of the
" community at large" which doubts his competency,
if he can be supplied with sufficient funds to obtain
counsel.

BISHOP THIRLWALL ON SACRILEGE.

The remarkable speech delivered by the Bishop of
St. David's during the debate on the second reading
of the Irish Church Bill led the Spectator to write
an article upon the Sin of Sacrilege, which article,
though there was much in it that was metaphysic-
ally correct, was not altogether free from error.
The Bishop now replies to that article. lie
defines sacrilege .as " the diverting of things
set apart for pious uses to purposes of an
essentially different kind." The word "things" he
would interpret in the largest sense, and he would
include in it " all that belongs to persons not only
outwardly, as their property, but inwardly, as the
faculties of their nature." Thus " the satisfaction of
a brutal appetite is sacrilege," because our bodies
were intended for God's service. The diverting to
other and entirely different uses objects set apart
for pious or sacred use is sacrilege. The elevation of
the human spirit to a conformity of mind and will
with the Father of Spirits is the highest purpose
to which any human instrument or agency can
be devoted. Public worship is a peculiarly
efficacious means of promoting that elevation, and
all its minutest accessories may thus by association
acquire a reflected and relative sanctity which may
be the subject of a sacrilegious desecration. But the
guilt of sacrilege is incurred in a far higher degree
by those to whom the offence is never imputed.
"The offence of the robber who plunders a church is
light and venial in comparison with that of the
clergyman or the schoolmaster who makes a sinecure
of his office that he may enjoy its emoluments
without fulfilling any of its duties." There are
other cases more complicated, such as arise
when it is found that uses once pious
have become injurious, and that the object of the
testator may be much better secured by diverting
his bequests to other uses. Such Bishop Thirwall
considers was the case
.with monastic endowments.
To have retained them m their original form would
have been the real sacrilege, because it robbed God of
all the benefit that a better employment of the funds
would have given to man. Unfortunately those funds in
too many instances were not better employed. We have
now another instance still more complicated. It is
that in which a disposition of Church property is
productive of much good, but is, nevertheless, found
to be at variance with the welfare of the community,
and to endanger its safety. In such a case "all
private and particular interests, though in their
several spheres each of the highest order, must
give way to that which is the common ground
in which they all take root and find their
sustenance." That such a case has arisen in Ireland
the Bishop considers may fairly be judged differently
by different men ; but the problem " cannot be
brought nearer to a solution by denunciations of
sacrilege, or by a repetition of texts, which—to say
nothing of a leap in the dark out of the Old Dispen-
sation into the New—are utterly irrelevant, unless
they are supposed to contradict some of the clearest
Dasssees in the Bible."