But, putting aside the principle involved;—on the ground of expediency there are reasons why Government should not refuse the promised Charter on the plea advanced. They would not be acting consistently. Much stress is laid upon the presumption that the granting of this Charter—or, as the Sabbatarians say, the Royal sanction to an act of “Sabbath desecration”—will be a precedent for the opening on Sunday of every other place of amusement or recreation, in the metropolis and kingdom. A precedent forsooth! Has not the metropolis and every large town its tea-gardens, and places of popular resort? The supply of this species of Sunday enjoyment already pretty nearly equals the demand. The only difference between them and the new claimant of popular favour is, that the latter proposes to furnish a higher style of recreation; and having many independent recommendations, asks Government for the concession of a privilege granted to other parties without regard to religious considerations. Would Lord Derby be dealing out “even-handed justice” to higgle with this new Company because it had a boon to ask, for a concession to religious prejudice which was not required in other cases? But, still further, with what decency could he require the Crystal Palace Company to close their grounds on the Sabbath, when the Hampton Court grounds are open to the public by the express authority of the Government and Legislature? The precedent, at which so much alarm has been expressed, _has_ for some years past been established. If, as one of the agitating organs phrases it, the granting of the proposed Charter would transfer the “sin” of Sabbath desecration from individuals to the nation, we have been for some time under the threatened curse.