But, on other points, the conflict of evidence is less real than nominal. The Society for Promoting the Observance of the Lord’s Day has forwarded to me a table of returns from its Secretaries and Correspondents, showing the hours of labour in seventy-three Country Post Offices, both before and since the recent Order. It is there stated, that, “putting together all these seventy-three Post Towns, the aggregate number of additional hours for which the Post Offices are now closed, does not exceed one hundred and ten hours, being on an average one hour and a half for each place.” Even in that document are contained the names of several Towns in which the relief thus afforded has amounted to four hours of additional rest on the Sunday. But I will allow, for argument’s sake, the entire correctness of their calculations. In seventy-three Country Post Offices the average of relief amounts but to one hour and a half. The Government, in the meantime, has received returns, not from seventy-three, but from upwards of four hundred and eighty Towns, in which the amount of relief has varied from one half-hour to seven hours on the Sunday, and the average has amounted to between three and four hours. Where is the real inconsistency of these statements? The Lord’s Day Society, on a much smaller induction, and with materials (it may be) carefully selected, arrives at one result; the Government, on larger and less partial information, presents another. But in this case again, I ask, can I doubt for one moment which to follow? You express some hesitation as to the justice of one statement contained in my Letter, that the new Regulation involves no change of principle. {19a} You consider that the attendance on Sunday in the London Post Office, whatever its extent, has been hitherto private and unnoticed, whereas in future it will be public and notorious. Nor can I deny that the publicity which has been given to the subject by the recent agitation has attracted to the proceedings of the Post Office a degree of public attention to which they were never before exposed. But the distinction you draw, though I understand it, seems to me somewhat arbitrary. The attendance of the twenty-six {19b} will _henceforth_, at all events, be as notorious as that of the twenty-five, {20a} or the six. {20b} Henceforth, at all events, the two objects of Sunday attendance will be separated by no such line of distinction. If the one does not involve publicity, does not constitute what can fairly be called an opening of the London Post Office, neither will the other. The Public will have no admission. The London Public will be unaffected by the change. As far as London is concerned, the Office will still be closed. If the former attendance was not enough to open it, the present Regulation, when the tumult of this agitation has once subsided, will work no less privately. If it is otherwise now, whose fault is it?