Briefly to recapitulate the foregoing facts and arguments:—The Crystal Palace Company is a private speculation, not a public institution. They propose to open _only_ their grounds and winter-garden on Sunday, and that but for half the day. This place of recreation, therefore, stands on much the same footing as Richmond or any other public park—being accessible to the masses by no other means than a conveyance—differing only in providing refreshment (exclusive of spirituous liquors) to its frequenters. It is untrue to assert that a Royal Charter will enable the Company to open their grounds—for the right exists independent of the Charter. Government, therefore, cannot be said to sanction “the desecration of the Sabbath”—being unable to prevent it. The State has no right to refuse a privilege on religious grounds, seeing that it is a purely civil institution, and bound to secure entire liberty of conscience; which is inconsistent with partiality to the views of any sect. To spend the Sabbath as a day of recreation does not clash with its definition as “a civil institution.” In exacting the shutting-up of the Sydenham grounds, Government would be acting inequitably, for other and worse pleasure-gardens are open on Sunday—inconsistently, for the grounds of Hampton Court Palace, which are national property, have been for some years accessible to the people with their express sanction. It would not, therefore, be a precedent for “the desecration of the Sabbath.” If the Crystal Palace is closed on that day by authority, all other places of recreation must be closed also—for you cannot have partial legislation on the subject. Such a general measure would be highly unjust and injurious, besides being impracticable. The much-deprecated event would not be likely to increase the irreligion or immorality of the people; for, although some few might be led to desert places of worship and neglect Sabbath privileges, by the superior attractions of the Sydenham Palace, many more would substitute its pleasures for those of a less elevating character, offered without restriction elsewhere; while the bulk of those who frequented it would not, in all probability, if it were entirely closed, “keep the Sabbath” in the sense of these alarmists. The day of rest can only be a period of spiritual profit to those who value it for that purpose. To impose its religious observances upon those who do not, is to promote hypocrisy, not piety. For the religious world, confessedly a minority, to seek to impose, by State interference, their notions of what constitutes a day of rest upon the bulk of their fellow-countrymen, is intolerant—an act of coercion at variance with the first principles of Christianity. There is good reason for believing that the cause of morality, and therefore of religion, will, with the present tendencies of the metropolitan working-classes, decidedly _gain_ by the opening of the Sydenham pleasure-grounds.