It is not assuming too much to conclude that the “attractions” and “regulations” of Sydenham will be superior to those which obtain elsewhere, A visit to the tea-gardens of Chelsea or Camberwell on a Sunday afternoon or evening—accessible to all who purchase a ticket of “refreshment”—will satisfy any unprejudiced person on this head. The scenes he will there witness can scarcely fail to convince him that the cause of morality will gain from the transference of a portion of the crowds there assembled to the Norwood grounds and their stricter surveillance. Other things being equal, ought not the religions world to _prefer_ that the working classes of London should enjoy the fresh air of the tea-garden to the drunkenness of the gin-palace—the temperance associated with the sylvan landscape of Sydenham, to the license of Cremorne? No doubt there is another side to the picture. The event so much deprecated will unquestionably tend to induce many people to “break the Sabbath” who would not otherwise do so. This will especially be the case with the young, who will, to some extent, desert our Sunday-schools, as well as places of worship. But the anticipation of harm from this cause may be exaggerated. The attractions held out by the Crystal Palace _do_ exist elsewhere, with others of a more baneful character, and you cannot suppress them but by a general act of legislation. If the number of pleasure-takers is increased, the influence for evil is diminished. The argument, too, is essentially vicious; for if its “superior attractions” is a reason for closing the Crystal Palace on Sunday, fine weather is to be deprecated on the same ground, and rain and fogs courted as the allies of church and school! But the Crystal Palace Charter is menaced because it will rob the poor of their day of rest! If the poor were _obliged_ to visit Sydenham on Sunday, there would be some force in the plea. But it is notoriously otherwise. Are not the hundreds and thousands who every Sunday crowd the outward-bound railway-carriage, steamboat, and omnibus, following their own inclination as much as the aristocracy who take their afternoon airing in Hyde Park, or the thousands who frequent their places of worship? What right, then, have the latter to dictate to the former how they shall spend the day of rest—or, unbidden, to constitute themselves the champions of the “poor man’s day?” May not the journals who hold such language be fairly called upon to produce their authority? If the working-classes object to the opening of the Crystal Palace, or to railway and steamboat travelling, on Sunday, they will refrain from using them; but so long as it is otherwise, nay, the reverse, religious men only injure the Christianity they profess, and assume the garb of hypocrites and intolerants, by pretending that the poor are thereby wronged, and calling upon the Crown to interfere for their protection. * * * * *