There are many who take no part in the protest of, at any rate, a large portion of the religious public, simply on the ground that an appeal to Government, on any subject involving religious principles and considerations, is undesirable in itself, and dangerous, inasmuch as it may be made the precedent for future interference, in some more serious form. Gallio is their model ruler, a man “who cared for none of these things.” They hold that the State should have no thought and no voice on such matters. That such a movement as that of the Crystal Palace Company may safely be left to stand or fall by its own merits. If it be good, they are sure it will come to something; if bad, they have a happy faith that it will come to nought. No doubt, such theories have a strong intrenchment in the order of a ruling Providence. Somehow, good things do live, bad things do die, notwithstanding man’s efforts to the contrary; but still, bad things are long a-dying, and God expects us all—rulers, too, according to the measure of their rule—to help to end them, and get them decently buried out of sight. Had there been a petition to Government to open all the beer-shops in the kingdom all day and all night on the Sabbath, and the Government said yea, should we dare to sit calmly by, and trust that the evil would cure itself? Is it not the business of Government to help to protect, by governmental effort and action, the whole community from the effects of the worst passions and most degrading views of the community? Though, no doubt, the highest condition of a State is that in which a healthy, moral, public feeling renders such interference needless. We have hardly yet arrived at this Utopia of politics, and this excessive jealousy of Government, in the present condition of England, obstructs many useful measures. The objection to Government expressing itself on this subject seems to be a radically unsound one. The question must be discussed on quite other principles, if a healthy settlement of it is to be made.