The Sun.
London, England, 1835-04-08 00:00:00

LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, APRIL 8, 1835.

BANK OF ENGLAND.

The Scrutineers reported soon after four, at which hour the
glasses were closed, that the result of the Ballot was, the
RE-ELECTION Of JAMES PATTISON, Esq., M. P., for Governor,
and T. A. CURTIS, Esq. for Deputy Governor.
The Scrutineers reported that they had counted up the
numbers, and found that James Pattison, Esq., had, for Go-
vernor, 153 votes; and Timothy A. Curtis, Esq., for Deputy
Governor, 173 votes. The report of the Scrutineers also stated
that there were balloted for Thomas Wood, Esq. ' as Gover-
nor, 4 votes ; and for James Pattison, Esq., as Deputy Go-
vernor, 2 votes ; and also that 26 votes had been given for
persons not qualified to act.
The oaths were then taken by Mr. Pattison as Governor,
and by Mr. T. A. Curtis as Deputy Governor.
The Court then adjourned.

ELECTION COMMITTEES.

DROGHEDA.

The Committee came to the decision this day that A. C.
O'Dwyer, Esq., was not duly elected from want of the re•
quisite property qualification, and that the election was, con-
sequently, a void one.

EXPRESS EDITION.

SUN OFFICE, Six o' Clock.

THE PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

At a quarter to five o'clock the Earl of SIIArTESBURY took
his seat on the woolsack in the absence of the Lord Chancellor.
At that time there was no member connected with the Ad-
ministration in the House.

The Duke of GORDON presented petitions from Portsoy,
Fordyce, Ruthven, and other places in the counties of Banff
and Aberdeen, for an increase of Church accommodation.

Lord BROUGHAM gave notice that he would bring for-
ward his motion on Education on Tuesday next.

RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS.

The Duke of .WELLlNGTON—Circumstances having
occurred in the other House which have induced Ministers to
tender their resignations to his Majesty, I beg to inform the
House that they now only hold their offices until their succes-
sors are appointed.
Lord BROUGHAM would still bring on his motion on
Education on Thursday next, as that question did not depend
on political events.
The House then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at half-past three o'clock.
ISLINGTON MARKET.

Mr. WILLIAMS presented a petition from a person, whom
he designated as very respectable, residing in Smithfield,
against the Bill for Establishinz Islington Market.

NORTHFLEET PIER BILL.

Sir W. GEARY presented a petition from the torn of
Greenwich against the Northfleet Pier Bill.
CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

General SHARPE presented a petition from the Royal
Burgh of Annan, praying that the House would not make any
grant of the public money towards the support of the Church of
Scotland.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
THE CLERGY AT ELECTIONS.

Mr. C. BULL E R had a petition to present from Canter-
bury, respecting the interference of the Clergy at the late elec-
tion. A similar one had been presented by the late Member
for that city before he had been unseated. The Right Hon
Baronet, the Paymaster of the Forces, had denied the state-
ments that had been made by Mr. Villiers respecting the im-
proper interference of the Clergy; but it appeared that these
petitioners considered those statements to have been perfectly
true. The petition was signed by one thousand and forty-
four inhabitants of Canterbury, who prayed that the
House would appoint a Committee to enquire into the case.
He would not ask the House to enquire into individual cases
of anything so common as the interference of clergy in
elections. If they enquired into every case of improper inter-
ference on the part of the clergy, they would have nothing to
do but to enquire into all the elections where a liberal
candidate was opposed.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The exertions of the Clergy were not merely confined to can-
vassing, in the most indecent and disgraceful manner, before
and during the election ; but they had, since the election,
exercised an intimidation disgraceful to any class of men, but
more particularly disgraceful to Ministers of Religion. One
Dignitary of the Church had paid off his butcher, because he
would not Vote as he thought proper—another had paid off
his grocer—and intimidation had been carried on to a
most frightful extent. He did not refrain from mentioning the
names of those persons from any delicacy or fear ; they were
Archdeacon Cross, the Rev. Mr. Molesworth, the Rev. Mr.
Peel, and the Rev. Mr. Crowther ; nor did he do so, because no
persons were present, and it was therefore his wish not to occupy
the time of the House. The petitioners wished for vote by bal-
lot, which they believed was the only remedy that could be de-
vised. The clergy in the City of Canterbury had applied the
wealth that had been given them, not for the purposes of religion,
but for the purposes Of faction.—( Cheers.) The city of
Canterbury was not singular upon this point, for in almost
every town and city in the country, clergymen bad been not
only the most active electors, but the most unscrupulous
agents of the parties : the indecency of such conduct on the
part of the clergy had been admitted on all sides of the House.
He ( Mr. Buller) considered it most unbecoming on the part
of a clergyman to interfere in election matters. It was their
duty, whatever right the Legislature had given them, to exer-
cise them in a manner becoming a Christian minister. He
trusted that petitions like the one he had presented would
make an impression on the clergy of this country, and induce
them to pursue a very different course from that which they had
adopted.—( Cheers.) While he was upon his legs, he would
just state that he had received a handbill, which had been cir-
culated in the city of Canterbury, calling upon the citizens to
do everything in their power to oppose the course pursued by
the Members who sat upon the Opposition side of the House.
Cheers.) He was sure that the proceedings which had
taken place in the city of Canterbury would excite the disgust
and animosity of every well-thinking man in the community.
Mr. PR AE D said that he believed the instances of unfair
interference were more numerous on the part of those who
sat on that side of the House, occupied by the Hon. Member
who presented the petition, than on the part of those who sat
opposite to him. He had actually written to the minister of
the place, who was a relation of his by marriage, requesting
him to take no part whatever on his behalf in the election, and
the consequence was that he had not even given him his vote.