It appears, then, that the Sabbatarian party are greatly alarmed at the contemplated sanction by the Crown of the opening of this great theatre of secular enjoyment on Sunday. It is, they say, a public recognition by the State of the Sabbath as a secular institution—official encouragement to Sabbath-breaking. It may be objected, _in limine_, that the facts of the case do not bear out their assertion in the form presented. When the new Company went to Government, they were _already_ in possession of the right to open their grounds on Sunday. The Crystal Palace is private property; and if the law permits Cremorne and Rosherville Gardens to be open on that day, what is to prevent the Sydenham Company from using the same privilege? They, like other joint-stock companies, could exist and conduct the speculation without the advantages of a Royal Charter. It is, then, clearly a mistake to suppose that they request Government to sanction the exercise of that right. They do no such thing. In asking for the advantages of a Charter, they _volunteer_ certain concessions to the feelings of the religious world. If Lord Derby had declared himself not satisfied with the conditions, they might have turned round and said: “We will, then, do without the privilege, and pursue our own course unshackled by any restrictions beyond what the law imposes.” Whichever way, therefore, the question is settled, it cannot be fairly alleged that the State makes itself a party to “Sabbath desecration.”