DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLII, Issue 215, 10 September 1908, Page 3

DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.

*^~- ■ ■• • A VICAR ADMONISHED.

LONDON, July 24. A man and a woman who have taken advantage of the Deceased Wife s Sister Act of 1907 may not lawfully be repelled from Holy Communion. Thus, in brief terms, may be summed up the effect of the very interesting and important judgment delivered yesterday by Sir Lewis Dibdm, the Dean of Arches. It will be recollected that a month ago the Dean or Arches re- ; served judgment in the case m which ; Mr" Allan Neville Banister, manager ; of the Norwich Electric Tramways, j and his wife, brought a, suit for al-j le°<ed breach of the ecclesiastical law j against the Rev. Henry Thompson, vicar of Eaton and Hon. Canon of Norwich Cathedral, for refusing to administer the Holy Communion to them, on the ground that Mr Banister had married his deceased wife's sister. The marriage took place at St. Giles Church, Montreal, on the 12th August last, being subsequently rendered valid in England by the Deceased Wife's Sister Marriage Act, which came into force on the 28th August. In. the course of a correspondence between the vicar and Mr Banister, the former wrote: "My simple reason for declining to-admit you to the Lord's .Table is that you knowingly «and wilfully contracted a union which was declared unlawful both by the Church and by the law of the land." By reason of the affinity of the parties the vicar, submitted that they were '/open and notorious evil livers" within the meaning of the Rubric. ! In delivering judgment, the Dean said the defendant's letter of October 24th, informing Mr Banister that if he and Mrs Banister presented themselves for Holy, Communion he would refuse to communicate them, was repulsion within the meaning of tlfe Rubric. The promoters were admitted to be persons of established position and reputation, and, except so far as their marriage.might be deemed to affect the matter, of unblemished character. Having quoted the law on the. subject, the Dean said the words "open and notorious evil liver" were not precise, and ho did not think they wore obscure. By an evil liver, was intended a person whose course was iii conflict with the moral code of ■Christendom. The defendant, m the present case, had conceived himself bound to repel the promoters from Holy Communion on -the ground that they were within the special class of persons directed by the Rubric to be so repelled. The arguments of counsel for the defendant indicated their appreciation of the difficulty by maintaining their contention. They declined to go the full length of saying that all persons occupying the relation to one another of the promoters became, if married, open and notorious evil livers. It seemed difficult to contend, continued Sir Lewis Dibdin, that British colonists and foreigners, lawfully married in their own country, were to be regarded as evil livers, on account of their marriage, if they came to England. It was urged'that, whatever might be said for residents in other countries, or for persons resident in this Country who were not members of the Church of England, the promoters being members of the Church of England were ecclesiastically open and notorious evil doers, because .the, rule of the Church of England expressed in the 99th Canon of 1603 branded these marriages as contrary to laws of God. It would seem to follow if one of the parties to such a marriage' were a Church man and the other a Nonconformist, that the one might be an open ' and notorious evil liver and the other not. He felt the gravest doubt whether it would be possible to put a construction on these words which would lead to results so anomalous and extraordinary. He found it impossible to say that these persons, lawfully married according to the law of the land, could by any reasonable uso of language, be described as open and notorious evil livers merely because "they were living together as man and wife.

It would be enough for the decision of this case to hold, as he did, that the promoters did not come as clearly within the prohibition of the Rubric as to enable or entitle the defendant to repel them. On the second point jof the defence, he said the defendant had failed to justify his repulsion of the promoters from Holy Communion, and he must be admonished for having so repelled them; and, further, he must be admonished to refrain from similar acts in the future. Immense satisfaction is felt on all hands /at this decision, for obviously it is commonsense.

The Times comments: "Nexi; week the bishops assembled at the Lambeth Conference, having had time to digest the decision of the Court of the Arches, whether they happen to be affected by it or not, will be approving or disapproving the report or the Committee on ' Marriage Problems,' which is now sitting under the direction of the Bishop of Bristol. Is it too much to hope that we may be spared any ex-communicatory fulminations against Christian people who have used the liberty whicTi > this statute offers, and any explicit or implied censure of clergy who may be willing to treat these Christian people as such and to grant them their privileges as members of the body?"