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the borough of Lisburn was withdrawn.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 Weenie 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 cf
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 'no thing was
wrong. I knew what I was doing right well when I signed
I signed the
it notwit petition. I
.thoughthstanding.it might injure me in business, but
Did you not go about Lisburn crying that night, saying
I had ruined you by getting you to sign the petition ?—No,
sir ; lam not 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 hit)]. He denied
that he knew their nature or that they were ever read by
him, or by M`Cann to him, previous to his affixing his I
sig-
nature.

saiWd Inth.aSteognr"thee c2l4etrhk teot.ll,7ttrWeharLneg,pseotliticieintoerr,
sLaissirbuz,.
Waring, and stat_turute him that M`Cann had obtained their
usiegtnkautnerz toan ad document,
hiseandt,vitcheethpeurypeollrtproefeewehdiecdhte Belfast
ydsidt
and saw M'Cann, who refused to give up the document. A
u not rarded.
"disclaimer" was then drawn,o addressed to the Speaker of
themlir.oz,uls,ecoefuCuo—mDmeonysu,
and
knowthat I will be a heavy
ett
loser by this affair ?—No ;
nor I
it. (Laughter.) don't believe a word of
p were
Mr. Moore, solicitor, examined—
Drew the petition
against the return of Mr. Barbour. The
appointed at a meeting of Conservative electorstioners
Lis-
burn. The day after the signing of the petition, of
witness
obtained through WCann 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 documents 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
M'Cann to obtain the petitioners' 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. McCann 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, Letters from witness to Mr.
McCann were offered in evidence, but not received by the
committee, on the ground that the relative position of the
witness and Mr. A.l`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. IV. 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 ho
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.
ness) or any of hie family into a trap.

Thomas Wilson, who was present at the interview, gave
confirmatory testimony.

Mr. M Cann was eximined, and stated that the docu-
ment in question.—which he had forwarded to the Speaker
of the House of Commons—withdrawing the petition, had
been read by Bullock and Knox before they signed it. He
had presented the petition, and considered he was justified
in withdrawin3 it when he foresaw that he would be put to
costs and inconvenience by its prosecution.
On cross.examinatiou the witness denied having received
an offer from Mr. Barbour of £5,000 to stay the proceed-
ings. He would not accept a bribe if it had been offered. He
admitted having stated in a letter that he had received an
O'er of £5,000.

The committee adjourned at half.past five until Wednes.
day next.

RAILWAY EYE-SORES.

The Secretary of the London, Chatham, and Dover Rail-
way—a railway whose measure of usefulness may be
gathered from the fact that its shares are at more than 60
per cent, discount—has attempted to defend the proposed
unsightly ext,nsion of this enterprise across Ludgate-hill
on the ground that it was not opposed by the local residents
in 1860. Three years ago, the public were not so well ac-
quainted with the working of metropolitan railways as they
are now, and had come to no definite opinion as to the form
these constructions ought to take. The experience
gained by the sight of such structures as now dis-
figure the Waterloo and Blackfriars' Roads, and the dismal
leaden-looking tank which is raised across the mouth of the
Borough, have determined the public to tolerate none but
strictly underground railways. The expense of a few thou-
sands, more or less, or the crotchets of a few interested
engineers and contractors, are as nothing to weigh in the
scale against the preservation of London from further dis-
figurement. Our City has too little beauty to spare, and
is already too much the laughing-stock or critical
foreigners, to be given up without a struggle to rail-
way vandalism. In tolerating a railway project of
this kind, we shall not be really going forward in
what is rather showily called the "path of progress,"
but returning to things which were practically got '
rid of by our forefathers. More than 100 years ago, the
old lud-gate or arch, which spanned Ludgate-hill, was
taken down in compliance with the wishes of the inhabi-
tants, and now it is proposed to erect a viaduct in its place
only 18 feet high, which is certainly going backwards with
a vengeance. The secretary of the London, Chatham,
and Dover Railway—the railway at 60 per cent, discount
—may promise an ornamental obstruction, but there
are several reasons why such a promise should
not be accepted. In the first place, the obstruction is not
necessary, as a dozen eminent engineers and contractors
are ready to show; in the second place, no amount of
high art plastering can make a real obstruction bearable;
in the third place, the public has too ranch cause to
distrust the taste 'of engineer-architects, when it looks
at what they have done in South ensington and
other quarters • in the fourth place, it objects to the
destruction of houses, and the consequent rise
in rents, which are inseparable from all metro-
politan railway operations above ground; and, in the fifth
place, it objects to any structure which must inevitably im-
pede the traffic circulation of so crowded a thoroughfare as
Ludgate-hill, which often has to afford a passage to more
than 7,000 vehicles within an hour. A thoroughfare like
this is too important to be given up, bound hand and foot,
to the mercies of an unscrupulous tenth-rate railway. The
proposal to facilitate the widening of the mouth of Lud-
gate-hill will be no recompense for the obstruction, as the
chief pressure of the traffic is felt higher up, where the
roadway is most narrow. _

If the House of Lords should grant this railway company
all the powers which, by surreptitious clauses and all the
pettifogging arts of Parliamentary warfare, it is striving to
obtain, a most dangerous precedent will be established.
When the principal thoroughfare in the City is handed over
to the railway Goths, no other thoroughfare will long be
safe, and London will soon become, like Birmingham or
Manchester, a mere city of viaducts. The question whether
this main thoroughfare of London, from east to west, is
to be permanently disfigured by a hideous railway-
arch is not merely a local question. It is one that interests
not only the millions who dwell in and about the City, but
every visitor to the metropolis. The view of St. Paul's from
the foot of Fleet-street is not the private property of a few
dwellers upon Ludgate-hill, but of almost every men,
woman, and child in the country. A LONDONER.