The Sun.
London, England, 1834-05-19 00:00:00

ARRIVALS.

The Marchioness of Hastings, from Brussels; Lord
Frederick Fitzclarence, from Leamington ; Lord Yar-
borough, from his seat, in Lincolnshire ; the Dowager Lady
Sitwell, and Mr. Smith Wright, and family, at Hertford-
street, from Runestone Hall, Notts ; Colonel Jones, at the
Blenheim Hotel, Bond-street, from Dover; Albert
Broughton, Esq., at ditto ; Thomas Holesworth,
Mrs. H. and two Misses H., at ditto, from their seat,
Worcestershire ; Abraham Jolliffe, Esq., and Mrs. J., at
ditto, from Bath; Mr. and Mrs. Taylor, at Ellis's Hotel,
St. James's-street, from Southgate ; Mr., Mrs., and Miss
Phillips, at Bryant's Hotel, Hanover-square, from their
seat in Lancashire ; Mr. and Mrs. Tomkinson, at ditto,
from ditto; Mrs. Beadon, at ditto, from the Paragon,
Richmond; Charles Eystan, Esq., and Mrs. Eystan, at
ditto, from Hendred House, Berks ; Edward Morris,
Esq., at ditto, from Folkingham ; Mr. and the Hon. Mrs.
Copley, in Arlington-street, from Brocklesby, near Brim,
Lincolnshire ; Colonel Markham, at the Coburg Hotel,
from his seat in Yorkshire ; P. Brune, Esq., at Greillon's
Hotel, Charles-street, Grosvenor-square, from his seat in
Devonshire ; Mr. and Mrs. Edward Hopkinson, at Craw-
ley's Hotel, Albemarle-street, from their seat Gloucester-
shire; the Rev. Mr. and Mrs. Paley and family, at Mor-
ley's Hotel, Trafalgar-square, from Bury St. Edmund's ;
M'Kenzie, Esq., at ditto, from Dublin ; Mr. and Mrs.
Hudson, at ditto, from a tour ; Mr. and Mrs. Strutt, at
Fenton's Hotel, St. James's-street, from their seat, in Der-
byshire ; Sir Charles and Lady Gray, at Gould's, late
Hitchcock's, London Hotel, Albemarle-street, from a tour;
Lady Elizabeth Duton and family, at ditto; Mr. and Mrs.
R. Wilson, at the Burlington Hotel, from Norfolk ; Mr.
and Mrs. Norton, in Harley-street, from Elton Manor,
Nottinghamshire ; Hon. Mr. Dutton, at Fladong's Hotel,
Oxford-street ; Mr. and Mrs. Sheppard, at ditto, from a
tour ; Mr. and Mrs. Philip Button, at ditto, from a tour ;
Mr. and Mrs. Pollit, at ditto, from Brighton ; Lord Ong-
ley, at ditto ; Mr. and Mrs. Bateman, at ditto, from
Derby ; Mr. T. and Mr. W. Earle and the Misses Earle,
at ditto, from Workingham ; Mr. Pierrepoint and Lord
and Lady Warren De Tabley, at Mivart's Hotel, Lower
Brook and Davies-streets, from Italy ; Lord and Lady
Orkney, at ditto, from Taplow, Berks ; the Countess de
Salis, from Brighton ; Generals Montague and O'Leary,
at ditto, from Spain ; the Earl of Lisburne, at the Pulteney
Hotel, Albemarle-street ; Lord Vaughan, at ditto ; Sir
Hedworth Williamson, Bart., M.P., at ditto ; Lady Wil-
liamson and suite, at ditto ; the Hon., Charles Stewart and
General Stewart, at the Sackville Hotel, Sackville-street,
from Glasgow, N.B. ; Col. and Mrs. Colquhoun, at ditto,
from Paris; Mr. and Mrs. Wigram and family, at ditto,
from Bath ; the Duke and Duchess of Cleveland, in St.
James's-square, from Newmarket; the Duke of Buccleuch,
at Montagu House, from Portsmouth; the Marquis and
Marchioness of Bristol and the Ladies Hervey, in St.
James's-square, from Putney; Sir William and Lady
Cooper, in Portland-place, from Sir George Pocock's villa,
at Twickenham ; Lord Charles Townshend, from Rainham
Hall, Norfolk ; the Earl of Coventry, at Coventry House,
from Croome, Worcestershire ; Lieutenant-General Sir
Edward Stopford, at the St. James's Hotel, Jermyn-street,
from the Continent ; the Earl and Countess Beauchamp,
in St. James's-square, from a tour ; the Duchess of Bed-
ford and the Ladies Russell, in Belgrave-square, from
Endsleigh, Devon; the Hon. Alexander Talbot, at the
London Hotel, Albemarle-street, from a tour; the Earl of
Jersey and Viscount Villiers, in Berkeley-square, from
Newmarket ; the Marquis and Marchioness of Headfort
and family, at their new residence on Cumberland-terrace.

PROTEST.

COPY OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR's PROT ES .i'
AGAINST LORD WYNFORD's BILL. FOR THE
BETTER OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Dissentient.

1. Because I consider that this bill has a direct tendency
to bring odium upon the observance of the Sabbath, and
contempt upon sentiments so virtuously felt and so strongly
expressed by the people of this country in behalf of the
Sabbatical institution. _ .

2. Because it seeks to interfere with the occupations and
relaxations of men and their ordinary habits, and attempts
to effect by legislative provision what can only be advanta-
geously or even safely brought about by the manners of the
people being amended and their religions and moral feelings
strengthened. •
3. Because it forbids many acts which men may be
,jus-
tified, and even compelled, to perform on the Sabbath Day.
4. Because, like all legislative interference with the
habits of the people, it tends to beget the far worse habit
of violating the law, and thereby both impairs the charac-
ter of the subject and lowers the authority of the lawgiver.
5. Because the pressure of its provisions is most une-
qually distributed among the different classes of the com-
munity, and bears almost exclusively upon the poorer
members of it. . .

6. Because the bill itself is so framed as not to attain its
avowed object merely, but to disturb the whole transactions
of mankind at all times ; and because most of its provi-
sions must be remodelled in order to confine its operation
to what alone it intends to accomplish.
7. Because it appears to me exceedingly discreditable to
any legislative assembly to entertain a measure which is
admitted to be framed in so careless a manner that it pro-
hibits in its present shape innumerable things which it
cannot be intended to affect in any way, and which if those
errors were corrected would still be found to abound in
enactments wholly impossible to be enforced.
8. Because this bill, even if corrected as to its admitted
mistakes, would still prohibit a poor man from travelling,
whatever necessity might require it, at certain times, by the
only conveyances he can afford—viz. public carriages.
9. Because it would prevent all classes from making their
wills, though in extremities, on the Sabbath, if the aid of
professional men were required for that purpose.
10. Because it appears also to intend to prevent any one
from travelling post on the Sabbath, and so to compel
travellers to remain at public-houses unnecessarily on that
day.
11. Because it subjects all keepers of public-houses and
beer-houses to the visitation of constables during seven
hours every Sabbath, though no beer or spirits be sold
during those hours ; and to the like visitation at all hours
of any day when liquor is sold, for the purpose of removing
from those houses any friend or relation who may be calling
or visiting there, not being a customer traveller, or lodger .
12. Because it avowedly seeks to check drunkenness, as
if that were the only vice now calling for prevention, and
attempts doing so by making the publican liable to penal-
ties, and to the loss of his license, and consequently to
ruin, for the intemperance of his guests, which he cannot
by any possibility prevent, if he furnishes any quantity of
liquor at all to them, and does not previously ascertain how
much is required to intoxicate them ; and even if he shall
succeed in ascertaining that point, it makes him liable to
the penalties if he furnishes liquor to more than one guest
in the same room, unless he also remains present while
they drink it, or cause his waiters to remain present, in
order to see that each guest only consumes the quantity
which he is capable of drinking without intoxication, and
because I verily believe that no measure of so extravagant
a nature ever yet received the sanction of an assembly of
rational beings.
13. Because the publication in churches of divers no-
tices, by virtue of various statutes, is abolished, without
the least precaution being taken to provide a substitute, in-
asmuch as the affixing to the church door, without any pro-
vision to prevent, or even any prohibition of removing or
defacing, the same immediately after, whereby much im-
portant business will be at a stand, and because this part of
the bill has been framed without any regard being had to
the great difficulties presented by the subject of publishing
parish and other notices, a difficulty which is known to
have been the origin of those salutary enactments requiring
publication in church.
14. Because it encourages workmen to be guilty of dis-
honesty towards their masters, by first obtaining payment
of wages on a forbidden day, and then again suing, as the
bill authorizes them, for a second payment of the same
wages.
15. Because it appears altogether absurd to hold, that
by rejecting a bill professing'to have a good object in view,
on the ground of its total inefficiency to accomplish its pur-
pose, and of its tendency to create far worse mischiefs than
any it pretends to prevent, any discountenance whatever is
given to the proposed object, or indeed any opinion at all is
expressed upon the matter.
16. Because, upon the whole, it appears to me that the
countenancing a measure so framed, and liable to such ob-
jections, is calculated to lower the authority of this house,
exposing it to be charged with motives creditable neither
to its wisdom nor impartiality, while the tendency of
giving such a measure such high countenance is to injure
the cause which it professes to serve, and to bring every-
thing connected with the subject into unmerited contempt.