The Express.
London, England, 1866-04-23 00:00:00

LANCASTER.

The committee appointed to try the petition against the
return of Messrs. 11. M. Fenwick and H. W. Schneider re-
asembled this morning, Mr. E. Howes in the char.
Mr. Kerslake, Q.C., Mr. Cooke, Q.C., and Mr. O'Hara
were for the petitioners, and Mr. Serjeant Ballentine and
Mr. Giffard, Q.C., and Mr. Henry James were for the
sitting members.
John Gifford proved that Mr. Charles Blades seconded
the nomination of Mr. Schneider at the election.
Mr. Kanlake stated that this completed the case on
behalf of the petitioner, and
Mr. Giffard, having intimated that no witnesses would
be called for the sitting members,
Mr. Karalake summed up the petitioners' case. He
carefully reviewed the evidence, urging that several cases
of bribery had been unmistakeably proved against persons
of whose agency for the sitting members there could be no
doubt. A pretence would perhaps be set up that the
voters in some of the cases were not bribed, but only paid
for services rendered,but he did not think it necessaryto say
much to show that that was a pure fiction. Be that as it
might, they had one case where a voter was bribed, and
there was no reason for saying that he had been paid for
services rendered, because he had done nothing. He re-
ferred to the case of the witness, Baxter. He commented
severely upon the conduct of the witness Hadfield, and
contended that his evidence was, when taken in conjuction
with that of Dr. Carruthers,who was a hostile witness,
utterly unworthy of credit, and there could be no doubt that
Hadfield was " the stranger" who managed the bribery at
the Joiner's Arms in Morecambe, and who took a supply of
money from Lasater to Morecambe on the night previous
to the election, after Dr. Carruthers had had his interview
at the Queen's Hotel with Welch and Blades. The sitting
members there could be no doubt were deeply implicated
in these transactions, for he believed the committee would
be of opinion that the money came from Messrs. Schneider
and Fenwick, and that it was distributed by their agents
amongst the voters who were bribed. The learned
counsel then reviewed the cases of treating,relying strongly
upon those cases with which Mr. Anthony Knowles
Allison was connected, Mr. Allinson's agency being un-
doubted. In conclusion he urged that if there had been
any rebutting evidence it would have been produced, and
the entire absence of any such evidence only strengthened
the case on behalf of the petitioners.
Mr. Giffard then replied on behalf of the sitting mem-
bers, contending that the case against them had entirely
failed, as there was no evidence whatever to prove agency.
Acts of bribery themselves were no proofs of agency, and
there was no evidence whatever to connect those persons
who, as was alleged, had bribed the vetoes, with the sit-
ting members as having acted with their authority. He
quoted the recent Yarmouth case, to show that bribery
itself was not sufficient to vitiate an election unless
agency was proved. In that case, although the committee
actually reported 12 cases of bribery, and that corrupt
practices had extensively prevailed at the election, yet
they declared the sitting members duly elected because no
agency had been made out. He submitted that that was
the legitimate course for the committee to adopt in this
case.