The Sun.
London, England, 1863-04-30 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE,

LISBURN ELECTION—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
The Committee on Elections met at 12 o'clock yesterday,
for the purpose of inquiring into the circumstances under
which the petition against the return of Mr. Barbour for
the borough of Lisburn was withdrawn. There were pre-
sent Mr. Herbert (chairman), Sir William Miles, Sir F.
Baring, Mr. Bonham Carter, and Mr. Ker Seymer.
Mr. Wyatt appeared as agent for the sitting member,
and Mr. Baxter for the petitioners.
The following evidence was given :
Moses Bullock, examined by the committee—l am an elec-
tor for the borough of Lisburn. On the 9th March I signed
a petition against the return of Mr. Barbour. On the fol-
lowing day Mr. M'Cann, who had obtained my signature
and that of the petitioner Mr. Knox, to the petition, brought
me two papers to sign, and I signed them. I did not read
them, nor did Mr. M'Cann read them to me. I did not know
they were withdrawals of the petition, nor did he tell me
that they were, nor anything to that effect. The first thing
that made me suspect the documents were a withdrawal of
the petition was an observation made by Mr. Knox, to the
effect that M'Cann told him he could get Mr. Barbour four
years in the Tower. (Laughter.)
By Mr. M'Cann—You did not explain, nor state to me
that you wanted me to sign a withdrawal of the petition.
You never told me it was a withdrawal. You only called
it a paper. You never told me what the nature of it was,
You owned to me that I never read it. On the 24th of
March we went to you to Belfast to get up the document,
and you produced a paper which you offered to read, but I
demanded to see it, and you would not let me. You got
round the table from me, for my object was to take it from
you by physical force. You had pistols. You read the
paper, and it sounded like a withdrawal. You never
either read the paper to me, or told me the meaning of it.
I signed three documents for you in all, without knowing
what they were. I deny utterly that I knew any of
them was or were a withdrawal of the petition. If the
document came to me from any of the Barbour party
I might have questioned it, or examined it, but coming
from our own canvasser we thought that nothing was
wrong I
ition. . knew what I "iv's doing right well when I signed
the pet ItLoughtit might injure me in business, but
I signed it notwithstanding.
Did you not
ugob aboutg Lisburno t crying thatp petition
slirha; dlrauminnedat a
man
of
tears. (Laughter.)
Did you not next morning come to me and tell me you
were a ruined man because you signed the petition ?—No,
sir, I utterly renounce it. (Laughter.)

Wm. Jno. Knox, the other petitioner, was examined,
and gave confirmatory testimony. He stated that he signed
the documents without knowing their nature, having con-
fidence in M'Cann, who presented them to him. He denied
that
or by he knew their nature or that they were ever read by
him,
ISl`Cann to him, previous to his affixing his Big'
nature.

Wm. Segrave, clerk to Mr. Waring., solicitor, Lisburn,
said that on the 24th of March the petitioner saw Mr.
Waring, and stated to him that M'Cann had obtained their
signatures to a document, the purport of which they did
not know, and by his advice they all proceeded to Belfast
and saw M'Cann, who refused to give up the document. A
"disclaimer" was then drawn, addressed to the Speaker of
the House of Commons, and forwarded.
Mr. M'Cann—Do you not know that I will be a heavy
loser by this affair ?—No ; nor I don't believe a word of
it. (Laughter.)
Mr. Moore, solicitor, examined—Drew the petition
against the return of Mr. Barbour. The petitioners were
appointed at a meeting of Conserva'ive electors of Lis.
burn. The day after the signing of the petition, witness
obtained through M'Cann a withdrawal of the petition in
duplicate. The object of the document was that, in case
Mr. Barbour resigned, or in case in the short space of time
allowed by the rules of the house the chain of evidence
could not be completed, the petition could be withdrawn
without expense. These documenis were not made use of,
and he stated at a meeting of Mr. 'Vernon's committee that
they could not be and would not be made use of, except a
resolution was passed to that effect. Never authorised
31‘cault to obtain the ptAltiouere' signature to the docu-

; ment of March 24, and did not know of its existence until
the 25th,
The witness was cross-examined by Mr. M'Cann with a
view to show that he had been employed solely by him to
' present the petition. This the witness denied, stating that
his clients were the committee who acted for the beaten
candidate, Mr. Vernon. Lettere from witness to Mr.
M'Cann were offered in evidence, but not received by the
committee, on the ground that the relative position of the
witness and Mr. M`Cann was not within the scope of their
inquiry.
Mr. M'Cann stated that his case was that he employed
Mr. Moore, and, considering himself liable for the expense
of the proceedings, and that he had control over them, with-
thew the petition.
Mr. W. Barbour, father of the sitting member, was ex-
amined, and stated that on the 24th March Bullock, one of
the petitioners, came to him and told him be was sorry he
had had anything to do with the petition, but that he had
that day signed a withdrawal of the petition. He several
times used the word '• withdrawal." Bullock added that
his object in seeing witness was to warn him lest any im-
proper use should be made of the document to get him (wit •
nessi or any of his family into a trap.
Thomas Wilson, who was present at the interview, gave
confirmatory testimony.
Mr. M'Cann was examined, and stated that the docu-
ment in question.—which he had forwarded to the Speaker
of the House of Commons—withdrawing (he petition, had
been real by Bullock and Knox before they signed it. He
had presented the petition, and consi lered ho was justified
in withdrawing it when he foresaw that he would be put to
costs and inconvenience by its prosecution.
On cross-examination the witness denied having received
an offer from Mr. Barbour of 15,000 to stay the proceed-
ings. He would not accept a bribe if it hal been offered. He
admitted having stated in a letter that he had received an
offer of £5,000.
The committee adjourned at half-past five until 'Wednes-
day next.

TILE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 80, 180.