unsubdued butter or grease, not softened into an emulsion. This appears to be the great art of French cooking; fat should not be apparent to the sight, smell, or taste, but ought to be converted, secundum artem, by proper admixture, into a kind of emulsion, upon which the stomach can act without decomposing or separating the oily particles." (Pp. 250, 251.)

There is no point of greater importance than this, so far as health is concerned. It is surprising to what a wretched standard the art of cookery is reduced in this country. If English meat were not the best, and English constitutions the strongest in the world, a practice so miserable could not be endured a day. Next to the Society for Promoting the Amendment of the Law, we should feel most interest in an Institute for Promoting the Amendment of the Cuisine, which should form itself into Roasting, Boiling, and Stewing Committees, which should complete a Culinary Code, and introduce the most extensive and practical reforms; which should abolish the distinction between English and French cookery, and accomplish a " fusion" of all the materials for furnishing a complete, cheap, and speedy repast, instead of the present crude, dear, and unsatisfactory meal, which we look upon as the last relic of feudality.

ART. X.-REPEAL OF THE CONVENTICLE ACT.

Report of the Committee on Criminal Law as to Licensing Places of Religious Worship. 1851.

THE following reference was made to this Committee:

"To consider the propriety of amending the law as to licensing places for religious worship."

REPORT.

THIS Committee in considering this question forbear from troubling the Society with numerous illustrations of varied

religious persecution which history can present. The resolution of conscientious men during some centuries, to suffer imprisonment or even death for the sake of their opinions, had weight at length with the respective governments of the day. At first overlooked, then endured, then partially protected, and even licensed, the Nonconformist minister, after much suffering, obtained a full immunity for the public profession of his creed. The statute 1 W. & M. c. 18. (commonly called the Toleration Act), conferred this privilege, but upon the conditions of taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribing the declaration against Popery, or where oaths were objected to, of simply subscribing certain declarations. Then, upon certifying the place of meeting to the Bishop or Archdeacon, or to the Justices at Sessions, not only was the congregation or assembly entitled to exercise their particular form of worship, they were likewise invested with the protection which the statute ordained against disturbers of public worship either in churches or meetings.

This Committee beg to remark that this Law of Registry might owe its introduction to the apprehension of the Government, lest these licensed conventicles should be used for seditious purposes. Instances had not been wanting of assembled congregations, where the preacher discoursed of the sword as well as of the creed, and where the congregation, if occasion offered, were not unprepared with weapons to second the energies employed to arouse them. In furtherance of this view the statute 1 W. & M. c. 18. is found to contain an express prohibition against preaching in any place" with the doors locked, barred, or bolted." The conventicle had in effect been regarded in the reign of Charles II. as a place of sedition as well as of religious observance.1

In the year 1812, it was determined to award a still more substantial amount of protection to Nonconformity; and, whilst some of the obsolete acts of Charles II. reign were repealed, a heavier punishment was directed in the case of disturbers of religious congregations. The Toleration Act,

1 See 22 Car. 2. c. 1. s. 1., the preamble of which aims at sectaries and other disloyal persons; who, under pretence of tender consciences, have or may at their meetings contrive (sic) insurrection, as late experience hath shown.

which forbade persons from molesting either Churchman or Dissenter, under a penalty of 201., gave way to the 52 Geo. 3. c. 155., in the case of the Dissenter, the penalty being increased to 407.', whilst the Church of England was left to seek its remedy under the 1 W. & M. c. 18., and other prior statutes more particularly applicable to a national establishment.2

But whilst the Government exhibited their resolution to tolerate and shield the Nonconformist, they adhered to the principle of registering places for religious worship, in cases where "more than twenty3 persons besides the immediate family and servants of the person in whose house or upon whose premises" the meeting was had, should be present. And imitating the provisions of the 1 W. & M. c. 18., the new act prohibited any meeting with doors "locked, bolted, or barred, or otherwise fastened so as to prevent any persons entering therein, during the time of any such meeting."

This Committee entertain doubts whether the principle of registry is consistent with religious freedom. This Committee can well understand that disaffected persons might, in the reign of Charles II., have used the advantages of a conventicle for disseminating or maintaining political sentiments in opposition to the constituted authorities of that period. But they not only notice the absence of those feelings which might formerly have tempted statesmen to make stringent laws; they also invite attention to the fact that the cor

1 See likewise, as to Roman Catholics, similar provisions 33 Geo. 3. c. 32. ss. 5, 6.

2 See 1 Mar. c. 3.; 1 Eliz. c. 2., &c.

3 The stat. 22 Car. 2. c. 1. allowed only five supernumerary persons to be present. Roman Catholics are protected by 33 Geo. 3. c. 32. s. 10.

In 1816 one Wadley was convicted under this act, fined 40l. and committed until, &c. 4 M. & S. 508. In this the principle of the Roman Law appears to have been followed: "Conventicula illicita etiam extra ecclesiam in privatis ædibus celebrari prohibemus; proscriptionis domûs periculo imminente, si dominus ejus in eâ clericos nora ac tumultuosa conventicula extra ecclesiam celebrantes susceperit." Dat. iv. kal. Sept. C. P. Honoris, A. vi. et Aristæneto Coss. (A.D. 404.) Cod. i. 3. xv. This is obviously inapplicable to the present state of society in this country. The Civil Law cannot properly be studied for precedents applicable to our system of free discussion. -[Note by EDITOR L. R.]

responding vigour consequent upon the neglect to obey these laws, is now no longer in action. If an incautious Dissenter is now subjected to proceedings the occurrence is rare, and the law enforced is one rather rescued from oblivion, than of active operation by reason of its usefulness.

Bearing in mind the origin of registry already adverted to, and admitting that, at one time, there might have been grounds for such a ceremony, this Committee are not aware of any inconvenience which the repeal of the registry clauses could occasion. The desirableness of an open congregation or assembly without fastened doors seems reasonable, being likewise in accordance with the professed views of those who hold religious meetings. It may be expedient to retain the clauses which have reference to the locking or otherwise fastening of doors.

There being then a free communion, it is not easy to find any strong objection to the existence of a meeting for worship with open doors, but unregistered. If it be observed that seditious teachings might be carried on in unlicensed places, it seems evident that they can now be instituted and kept alive under various titles, avoiding that of being devoted to religious worship, and consequently being free from the penalties contained in the statutes of Wm. & Mary and Geo. III. Places intended for seditious preaching might be registered, and there seems to be no power to withdraw the registry when the meeting is certified, and the fee paid, It is true that an indictment for sedition will lie, but the same may be said of any place, whether registered or otherwise. This view appears to weaken the objection that a register might be refused to places set apart for seditious or blasphemous utterances; inasmuch as the register would naturally be obtained in the first instance by disloyal or irreligious persons, and the proceeding by indictment or information would then remain as the most probable remedy. There seems to be no law at present in force to prevent a society from meeting together (even with closed doors), or a lecture-room from being opened, without a corresponding registry. This Committee submit that in the days of Charles II. the principle of Revolution was chiefly to be found in the harangues delivered

by Nonconformists, and that, at the present time, the seeds of disaffection (should any such exist) would not be found in places of Dissenting religious worship. They submit that if any sect were hereafter to stand forth from others, dangerously pre-eminent, like the Independents or Covenanters of the seventeenth century, it would be more easy to pass an ordinance for restraining such within bounds, than to reckon upon the present registry as the efficient means of repelling them.

But it may be asked, of what value a change in the registry would be, when the Dissenters make but little complaint, and the protection of the law is otherwise so abundantly afforded them. In answer to this supposed objection, this Committee beg to remark that, in these days of sincere desire to spread Christian knowledge there are religious societies whose efforts are not directed to the instruction of any isolated body of religious persons, but rather towards the general enlightenment of mankind, by means of the Bible and by teaching, whether the congregation be Churchmen, Dissenters, or Heathen. These societies are not confined to a very narrow circle. Their object also is praiseworthy, and they possess the confidence of the community amongst whom their labours are expended. But they do not apparently embarrass themselves with a registry. By so doing they would be under the obligation of designating themselves members of some class in particular; as, for instance, in connexion with the Church of England, or as Independents, or Baptists, Wesleyans, &c. It is obvious that by taking such a step the main view of their useful institution would risk a defeat: the Dissenter in general would not countenance a place registered as connected with the Church of England. The Churchman would, in most instances, recede from the licensed house of the Nonconformist. Even the sectary of each denomination might not take the desired interest in the labours of his fellow Dissenters; and it is evident that it would be difficult to enlist a worship and preaching meant for all under any head in particular, so as to meet the requirements of the statutes. It follows that a neglect to register exposes the occupier of the place of worship to the