The Sun.
London, England, 1860-04-14 00:00:00

TEE RELIGIOUS DISSENSIONS AT

ST. GEORGE-IN-THE-EAST.

yesterday Mr. William John Thompson, the
senior churchwarden of the parish of St. George-
in-the-East, appeared before Mr. Yardley to answer
a summons which charged him with assaulting
Mr. Charles Warren Adams, a young gentleman
who is a personal friend of the rector, and has
taken a prominent part in the unhappy disputes
arising out of the innovations introduced into the
services of the church.
Mr. Prideaux (in the absence of Mr. Sergeant
Ballantine, the senior counsel for the prosecution,
who did not arrive until four o'clock) opened the
case for the prosecution, and said the complainant
was a young gentleman of good family, the son of
the late Mr. Sergeant Adams, and his (Mr. Pri-
deaux's) personal friend. The learned counsel went
over some of the tents connected with the un-
happy disputes in the pirish of St. George and the
fearful disturbance of Sunday evening last, with
which the public are so familiar, and said there
was a pre-determination to prevent the proper and
decent performance of Divine service in the Church.
He accused Mr. Thompson of exceeding his autho-
rity as churchwarden, and urged that the sole de-
sire of the Rev. Bryan King, the rector, was that
the services of the Church should be conducted in a
solemn and religious manner, and without interrup-
tion. Mr. Prideaux then stated the circumstances
of the assault as given in evidence, and accused Mr.
Thompson of being actuated by private malice and
spite against Mr. Adams, who had written two let-
ters to the churchwarden, demanding his authority
for informing the Chancellor of the Bishop that he
(Mr. Adams) had broken down the reading desk
rail. To those letters no answer had been returned,
although the first was forwarded to Mr. Thompson
on the Ist, and the second on the Blth of March. The
defendant had only acted colourably as church-
warden to gratify private malice ; and, if he even
had a right to remove Mr. Adams from the altar
where he was standing, he had no business to do it
so roughly as he had done, and was guilty of an
' excess,

The evidence of the complainant, who was corro-
borated by Mr. Baker, an army surgeon attached to
the 3d or Fusilier Guards, Mr. Morrison, a solici-
tor's clerk, and Mr. Lamert, went to show that in
the course of the disturbances in the parish church
on Sunday evening last Mr. Adams heard that the
people were at the altar which since the removal of
the choristers' seats had been set apart for the choris-
ters, and that some persons had got within the rails.
Mr. Adams made his way to the gates of the altar
to prevent any more persons entering, with his arms
crossed ; while in this position several persons at-
tempted to enter the altar, and among them was a
labouring man, a dirty man. He kept them back.
Mr. Thompson came up in a violent passion and said,
" What business have you here? Where do you
come from ? I will have you out of this," seized
him by the collar, and with the assistance of half-
a-dozen other persons pushed him forward. Mr.
Thompson also kicked him with his knee, and he
was sent " flying," and " flew" into the arms of the
beadle, who led him towards the western end of the
church, treated him very courteously, and released
him.

The witnesses all agreed that Mr:Thompson was
very much excited.
It was asserted by Mr. Lamert, one of Mr. Bryan
King's choristers, that his surplice was torn in the
struggle and confusion, and he fainted. A chorister
boy received a blow on the head and was nearly
killed, and was now labouring under concussion of
the brain.
In cross-examination by Mr. Howell, the wit-
nesses admitted they had been in the practice of
passing through the parsonage, and being admitted
into the church by a private entrance every Sunday,
to take possession of preferential seats. They also
admitted that the altar was decorated in an unusual
manner for Easter day on Sunday last.
Mr. Prideaux called upon the defendant to put
in two letters addressed to him by Mr. Adams in
March last. __ _

Mr. Howell did not see what they could have to
do with the case.
Mr. Yardley—l don't know. The object is to
show some ill-fccling on the part of the defendant,
I suppose.
The two letters were handed to the magistrate by
Mr. Thompson.
[The letters wore of the nature described by
counsel. No answer had been returned to them.]
The Rev. Bryan King, rector of St. George's, was
examined at ,great length.—He said in consequence
of the many disturbances and the indecent conduct
of the people I gave directions for the gates of the
church not to be opened until the police came. The
police were late, and I directed the sexton to open
the gates at 22 minutes before 7 o'clock on Sun-
day evening; the usual hour of opening the
gates formerly was half-past 6 o'clock. I sent
for the defendant soon afterwards to the little
vestry, and said to him, " Mr. Thompson, there
are people in front of the altar while the seats
are empty. It is your duty to seat people." Mr.
Thompson said, " I don't want to be told my duty
by you. I have been kept waiting at the gate 10
minutes." Some Sundays since I said to Mr.
Thompson, " You may pass through the parsonage
and into the little vestry to gain admission to the
church."

In cross-examination by Mr. Howell, the witness
said that it was the duty of the sexton to assist the
people to take their pews. I do not mean to say
it is the duty of the churchwarden to be pew-
opener. Since the police have attended the church
I have ordered the gates to be opened on their
arrival. My own personal friends come from a
distance to preserve order and to restrain violence
in the church.

In cross-examination the rev. gentleman said the
altar was decorated in precisely the same manner
last Sunday as it was on every Easter day, except
that there were five bouquets last Sunday, instead
of four.

The cross-examination NN, as continued for a long
time, and embraced all the leading topics connected
with the disturbances in St. George's Church
during the past year.
The rector concluded by stating that if the
churchwardens had acted with firmness and deter-
mination the first day and suppressed the disturb-
ances, they would not have been repeated. lie
was not in the church on the first day the dis-
turbances took place.
Mr. George Allison, inspector of the K division,
said he was in St. George's Church on Sunday
last. Mr. Thompson spoke to him, and was not in
the least excited at that time. A place was kept
free between the pulpit and the altar for the
choristers. He saw the complaivant trying to keep
the people out of the communion.
In cross-examination by Mr. Howell, the witness
said the people crowded towards the altar to see
the floral decorations and crosses, at which they
appeared much displeased and irritated. He believed
Mr. Thompson did all in his power to preserve
order end preveat disturbances.
By Mr. Yardley—Several persons had got into
the altar before Mi. Thompson approached it, and
heimmediately removed Mr. Adams and cleared
rth, em all out of the apse or quasi-altar. Mr.
I hompson made a general clearance of the altar.
it was all done by the churchwarden instantly. I
saw no violence of manner and no excitement on
the part of Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Yardley gave a strong opinion that on the
evidence of the last witness called by the learned
counsel the case against Mr. Thompson entirely
failed. The defendant appeared to have done what
the rector wished him to do—requested the people
to take their seats and cleared the altar. Mr.
Thompson did not remove Mr. Adams solely, but