OUTRAGE IN ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.

Press, Volume XLI, Issue 6142, 27 May 1885, Page 3

OUTRAGE IN ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL.

At the Mansion House, on Saturday, April 3rd, Charles Beere, a well-dressed young man, described as a saddler, and living at Greenwich, attended before Alderman Sir Thomas Owden on a charge of having been guilty of riotous, violent, and indecent behaviour during the celebration of Divine service at St. Paul's Cathedral on Good Friday, and ot wilfuUy damaging a chalice used in the administration of the Communion. Dr. Edwin Freshneld (instructed by the JDean and Chapter) appeared for the prosecution; Mr H. Howard, solicitor, for the defence. The Dean of St. Paul'B (Dr. Church), the Bey. Prebendary Baker, the Bey. William BusseU, and others of the Cathedral clergy were present during the examination. Dr. Freshfield said the defendant, Mr Beere, attended on Friday morning the eight o'clock celel ration of the Holy Communion at St. Paul's Cathedral, at which the Dean was celebrant. The Dean had got partly through the service, and was reciting the prayer for the Church Militant, when he heard a noise ibehind him. He thought at first that some one had fainted, but the noise continued and ultimately the chalice, the paten, and other vessels which were about to be used in the administration of the Sacrament were swept forcibly from the Communion table on toJthe floor. The defendant, who had committed this act of sacrilege, was at once removed and given into custody. He should charge him. under the Act 23rd and 24th Victoria, chapter 32, which made it an offence for any one to be guilty of riotoua, violent, or indecent behaviour within a cathedral, and further he should proceed against him for wilful damage to the altar vessels. Dr. Freshfield was about to call witnesses, when Mr Howard said the factwere admitted, and-the defendant then pleaded " Guilty" to both charges. Dr. Freshfield asked the Court, taking into consideration the aggravation of the circumstances and the time at which the offence was committed, to visit the defendant with the maximum punishment allowed by the Act. Mr Howard said, on behalf of the defendant aud bis friends, that he was instructed to state that they deeply regretted the circumstance of the defendant being brought there on such a charge. The. defendant for the last four weeks had exhibited signs of his mind being unhinged, and he had been under tbe treatment of Dr. George Johnson, of Savile row, for brain disease. He had been recommended to take a voyage to Australia and back with a view to his recovery, and his friends had been very anxious about him. On Friday morning he left his home at Greenwich before breakfast, and his famUy, who were much concerned at bis absence, had no idea where he had gone until they received a telegram from the poUce informing them that he was in custody on the present charge, and they at once went to Loudon aud baUed him out. Bad he not -been in iU-health at the time, and suffering from some kind of reUgious depression, no such act would have been committed, and he and his friends now deeply regretted what had happened. He had informed his famUy that during the service he became suddenly dazed and excited, and did not realise what he was doing when he committed the act. Sir Thomas Owden asked Dr. Freshfield what he had to say in reply. Dr. Frea-field said, he should like to hear what the doctor said. It was no use concealing the fact that such conduct as the defendant's was contagious, and while the Dean would be the last man in the world to press a charge harshly against a person really Buffering from mental affliction; it could snot -be permitted in these days of and nervousness that' sue—Outrages should go unpunished, bearing in view what a terrible calamity might be caused by a panic in the Cathedral. Sir Thomas Owden adjourned the case tiU the next day, when further evidence was taken. The accused was sent to gaol for a month.