§ Mr. Manning, from the Committee appointed to try the merits of the Camelford Election, stated, that they had authorized him to report to the House, that the sitting members, Mark Milbank, esq. and John B. Maitland, esq. had not been duly elected. Mr. Manning farther informed the House, that the Committee had resolved, "That the Committee feel it their duty farther to report to the House, that it appears to them, that practices the most corrupt have existed in the Borough of Camelford; but that the distinct acts of bribery are not sufficiently established by evidence to justify them in asking the interference of the House." Mr. Manning then moved, "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Camelford, in the room of Mark Milbank, esq. and John Bushby Maitland, esq. whose election has been determined to be void."
§ Mr. Sumnerdeclared, that this report 1449 was extremely unsatisfactory. The committee had reported, that corrupt practices existed in the borough; and yet they had made out no case of bribery. He should therefore move, that the speaker do not issue his writ until the 26th of April, and that the minutes of evidence taken before the committee be printed.
§ Mr. Manningthought, that very strong grounds ought to be assigned, to induce the House to delay the issuing of the new writ.
§ Mr. Grenfellsaid, that as the report of the committee expressly declared, that no distinct acts of bribery could be fully established, it was not likely that any good purpose could be answered by the printing of the minutes.
§ Mr. Moorethought that every subject coming before them, which affected the important question of purity of election, ought to receive the utmost attention of the House. It was not merely the borough of Camelford that was here concerned, but the character of that House.
Mr. Macdonaldwas of opinion, that the committee ought to have presented a specific report to the House, as a guide for future proceedings in such cases. It really appeared to him to be the most inane thing that ever came into that House, The committee said, "we are satisfied in our own minds that certain corrupt proceedings existed in this borough, but there are no facts to justify such a step as asking the interference of parliament." He believed there was no precedent for such a proceeding as this. Some of the members of this committee, who were present at the drawing up of the report, had said, "there are no precedents for this, but why should not we establish one?" But, for himself, he had a great respect for precedents. With regard to delaying the writ, what good would that effect, unless there was a hope of being able, in the mean time, to establish a case of corruption?
§ Mr. W. Douglashaving been on the committee, said, that when the resolution was proposed to the committee for this Special Report, it was shown that there was a system of corruption existing in the borough, which deserved the attention of the House. The number of electors was only 23, and from this circumstance it would be seen, how easily so small a body might be corrupted. Such corruption as was proved to have existed there, was very nearly connected with bribery, and a strong combination also was proved.
Mr. Mildmaysaid, that every thing was kept so nicely within bounds, that it was impossible to lay hold of a single circumstance upon which to ask the House to interfere. There was one single vote only which could be at all laid bold of; and that was upon so unimportant an occasion, comparatively speaking, that it was not thought worth bringing before the House. He should be happy if the minutes were ordered to be laid before them; and thought some strong resolution was required to mark the sense of the House upon the occasion.
Mr. S. Bournebegged the House to remember, that if there had been a majority for the sitting member, he would have been declared duly elected. Was it fair to adopt now such a proceeding as delaying the writ?
Mr. B. Wilbrahamsaid, that the committee had sat nearly a fortnight in investigating the merits of a case where there were only 23 electors. They had not been able to produce one act of bribery, and he contended, that in such a case there was no necessity for any delay in issuing the writ.
Mr. Macdonaldbegged to state, that in the only case in which two of the witnesses before the committee were brought in support of the fact of an act of bribery, they gave their evidence in such a way, that both were committed to Newgate.
§ Mr. F. Douglascontended, that it was a report founded on vague surmises only, and could only have been justified, had some specific and distinct case been made out.
§ The House divided: For the original motion, 103; against it, 15. A motion was then made, "That the Minutes of the Committee be laid before the House;" which, after a short conversation, was negatived.