The Sun.
London, England, 1846-02-06 00:00:00

Proprietors' capital

Rest ••• • • •
Public derosita (In-
cluding Exchequer,
Commissioners. of
Rational Debt, Sav-
ings-banks, and Di-
vidend accounts) • • 4,389,810
Other deposits ••• • 17,036,830
&even day and other

987,102

X 40,4 17,893

Dated the sth day of February,

RAILWAY COMMITTEES.

(THIS DAY.)

Sub-Committee No. 1.
NORTH STAFFORDSHIRE (CHITP,NET
VALLEY) RAILWAY.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)
_

Mr. William Challenor was then called to prove the signa-
tura of the petitioner.
Mr. BunKE would submit that the petitioner was not
pecuniarily interested, and therefore his petition could not be
received.
Mr. GRRGOItY—That could matter but very little, as Mrs.
Mary Challenor, who received the rents, was also a pe-
titioner.
Mr. Bunxic would request that the petition of Mr. Edward
Challenor should be withdrawn.
This was agreed to, and the petition of Mrs. Challenor
being in the same words, it was taken by at once calling
witnesses.
Mr. Leather, a civil engineer, was then called to speak to
the incorrectness of the datum level, as taken from Bolling-
bridge.
Mr. GREGORY would ask the witness if be understood
what was meant by the soflett of an arch, and whether there
was any specific point from which a level could 1.. e taken on

the term -soffett)
Witness—The soffett meant the whole of the centre of the
arch, and not any specific point.
Mr. BURKE—CouId any engineer be mistaken in the mean-

in~of the term soffett ?
Witness—An engineer might certainly take it to mean the
centre of the arch ; but it was by no mauls a correct term
for a point of level.
Mr. Hoskins, Professor of Architecture, in King's College,
examined by Mr. GREGORY—The centre of a curve would
be called the crown and not the soffett. The soffett meant
the whole or any point of the arch not specified. The soffet
not only applied to an arch but to a ceiling of any room,
whether horizontal or curved, but it did not literally mean
any fixed point; it meant the whole or under surface of any
part of architecture to which it may be applied.
Mr. BunNE—Suppose you were to find the word soffett in
any construction to which your attention might be called,
would you mistake it for any part of the arch, or would you
not at once see that it meant the crown of the arch?

Witness—l should, no doubt, after consideration, learn that
Vie term was misapplied, but I heuld not be able to affirm
that soffet was meant to apply to the highest part of an
arch. •The word soffett, in architecture, was from the
Italian, and not applied to an arch, but to the under surface
of any horizontal part of the building.
Mr. Tight, Mr. Errington, Mr. Locke, and Mr. Gregory,
architects and engineers, were called on the part of the oppo•
nents, and they concurred with Mr. Hoskins that the term
elsofett " did not apply to any fixed point.
Mr. BURKE called Mr. Stephenson, Mr. Vignolles, and Mr.
Bull, who said that amongst engineers the word " sofett "
was invariably applied to the highest point of the archis ay.
Mr. BURKHI, in reply, said that there were three points to
which they could alter their datum level, and as this was
but one, there were yet two others which, in the event of
the Committee deciding against him, he would contend for.
He must say, that this was the first period in! his experience
where he found an objection raised to a phrase so constantly
used and understood by engineers.
The room was then cleared.
After a brief conversation the parties were called in, when
The CHAIRMAN said that the Committee, after consider-
ing the argments on both sides, were of opinion, that, al-
though the word " soffet" had been used in many ways, yet
that it was so commonly used in engineering construction
as well as in many Acts of Parliament to represent the crown
or height of arches; the standing orders had been complied
with. — _ _ _
_ _

~.....
Mr. GREGORY said, that as, the Committee had come to
such an opinion, he would tot proceed with the other
petitions.
This closed the case.
T7ilM NORTEK sTArronnrail-RM (POTIM-
RIES TANI ),

Mr. Buaxa appeared for the promoters. The formal
notices were then proved.
Mr. COATF:S said he appeared for Mr. John Joseph Key, of
Regent's-park, a petitioner against the Bill.
Alr. BURKE would object to the petition being
received. The petitioner, he submitted, must be a party in-
terested, so as to be affected by the proposed line of railway.
The CHAIRMAN wished to know upon what standing order
the objection was taken ?
Mr. BunKE—Upon the ninth standing order.
Mr. COATES—That standing order applied to merits; now
he was about to object to the subscription contract. lle
would prove that there was no subscription contract, inas-
much as the one submitted to the Legislature was invalid.
In a petition against the subscription contract it did not
require the petitioner to be a party interested within his
Learned Friend's meaning of the 9th standing order. When
a contract was attached any one of the public had a right to
petition, inasmuch as an imposition upon the Legislature was
a public injury. Now he could show that the petitioner
in the present case was personally interested, but he pre-
ferred taking his stand upon the broad grounds of a public
right.
The CHAIRMAN, after reading the 9th standing order, said
he was rather inclined to think that a petition against so
vital a part of the measure as the subscription contract did
not come within the meaning of that standing order.
The room was then ordered to be cleared.
'f he CHAIRMAN, having consulted the Speaker, returned,
and the parties were called in, when the following decision
was given by
The CHAIRMAN—The Committee had to inform the agents
that having given their best consideration to the point of ob-
ji.ctien raised against the petition, they were of opiLion that
the 9th standing order was not sufficiently' specific to be
bound by it, and they were therefore of opinion that the ob-
jection should be overruled, and the petition received.
The Speaker was then announced at Frayers, and the Com-
mittee till twelve o'clock ou Monday, when the
allegations in qu:stion will be submitted.

Sub• Committee, No. 2.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.)

NEWCAS ILE AND DARLINGTON crzgrnsit
AND WALTON 11$11117C11) JUT lON
RAILWAY.
YOILH. AND NORTH MIDLAND RAILWAY.

These Bills were unopposed, and the Committee were 01
opinion that the standing orders had been complied with.

CADVEIRIDGE and OXFORD RAXLIATZ.Ir.

There was a petition against this Bill from the landowners
through whose property the line would pass. The petition
stated that the line passed through their property to the
detriment of the same, and that the standing orders of the
House bad not been complied with.
Mr. Eilicumbe, agent for the promoters, said he objected
to that petition. The facts of the case were that those gen-
tlemen were members of a corporation interested in certain
lands, as stated in the book of reference, but such was not the
case. The corporation could only appear in a case like the
present, under their corporate seal, and not as individuals.
Mr. Pritt, agent for the petitioners, said that the present
was the first time that he had ever heard of its being
necessary for the parties petitioning to prove that they were
entitled to do so. But, even admitting that such were the
case, he considered that his clients were entitled to be heard,
for who was the first of the petitioners? why, the head of
Brazenose College, to whom the property belonged.
The CHAIRMAN said—We are of opinion that Mr. Pritt
bas a right to be heard on the petition.
The Committee then adjourned till twelve o'clock on Mon-
day next.

SnL-Committeo, No. 3.
(Continued from our Afternoon Edition.

LIVERPOOL, ORDISRERK, AND PRESTON

EZIILIXTAY.
The next case brought before the Committee was that of
the promoters of the Liverpool, Ormskirk, and Preston Rail-
way, with a branch to Southport. The object of the scheme
is to afford a direct communication between Liverpool and
the Great 'Western Lines, and to open a route to the manu-
facturing districts of Yorkshire. The line passed the stand-
ing orders last session, but was thrown out in the Com-
mittee on the Bill.

The formal proofs of th© deposits of plans having been
given, the Committee declared that the standing orders
had been complied with.

ETRILINTILLOCH and lIILIMSTTIE
The Committee, after hearing formal proof in favour of this
railway, decided that the standing orders had been complied
with.

The Committee adjourned at half-past four o'clock till
Monday.

RAILWAY DEPOSITS.
This being the last day for paying in deposits, we have
heard that the total amount is about 11,000,0001.
ELEVEN MILLIONS.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT
(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS:

1
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Wool.
sack at ten minu Five.
CRIMINAL LAW.
Lord CAMPBELL moved fur a copy of the last
report of the Criminal Law Commissioners. He had
spoken to his Noble and Learned Friend the Lord
Chancellor on the subject, and he had no objection to
the production of
NEW the report.
ZEALAND.
Lord LITTLETON presented a petition from New
Zealand, praying that a humble address be presented to
her Majesty, praying her Majesty to adopt some mea-
sures to mitigate the evils resulting from the increase of
convicts in that colony.
THE INCONVENIENCE OF A NAME.
Lord BEAUMONT wished to call the attention of

the Noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Aberdeen) to a
a subject on which he had p resented a petition last
week. The petitioner was a gentleman of the name
of Ms. Henry Graham, who bad travelled in Italy
and whose passport was regular]) revised at Marseilles
by the Sardinian Consul-Genera L After this, how-
ever, the petitioner was detained by the police at Nice
for twenty-four hours, and, whet i allowed to depart, no
explanation of the cause of deter .tion was given to him,
further than that his name wa s Graham. He threat-
ened to complain to the l3ritish Consul there,
and afterwards to the British Minister at
Turin. No apology bad yeit been made for his
detention, and no reason had. been :assigned for it, ex-
cepting that he bore the odious name of Graham—
(Laughter)—acrd therefore it was th at he (Lord Beau.
mont) wished to call the attention of the Noble Lord
opposite to the subject. He wished to know, as that
Noble Lord had thought proper to have some correspon-
derce with the Sardinian Gor ernment, whether there
was any prospect of being inde miffed for the loss he
had sustained by this detention ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN s aid that it was perfectly
true that the Sardinian Govern ment had detained a per-
son of the name of Graham, as stated by the Noble
Lcrd. He had been detained and subjected to st me in-
convenience on account of his name. He (the Earl of
Aberdeen) would say then 3 was no better name
in Great Britain ; yet, ate the same time, there
was no name sufficiently g',od, that would not
be cccasionally in disgrac- e. It appeared the
detention in the present calm arose from a person of the
name of Graham, in Brusnels , in Belgium, had been
guilty of forgery or swindling, and having fled, the
Belgium Government cowainnicated with the different
parts of Europe, and amang others, with the Sardinian
Government, desiring then to take any person
of that name that might pass through their
territory. In consequent a of this, Mr. Gra-
ham was detained Wm rs in his own hotel.
but as soon as the mistake 'vas known he was dismissed.
His carriage was raid, and. :the other expenses incidental
to his detention were sent, and beyond these, he (Lord
Aberdeen) was not aware a f any loss he had been sub-
jected to. The Sardinian Government explained to
him the mistake, apologised ..for his being detained, and
made good any loss be might, have been made to suffer.
The gentleman had declare al that the detention arose
from persecution on accow it of the name of Graham,
and claimed a pecuniary i ademnity, but under the cir-
cumstances be (Lord Abwrd een) could not make any ap-
plication to the Sardinian 'Government. That Govern-
ment had done all that -was r squired—they had explained
the mistake, intimated tbs. t the detention was uninten-
tional, and paid the incidental expenses, so that he must
decline doing any thing fur ther in the matter.
The Duke of BITCCLEUCH laid upon the table of
the House certain returns relating to gaols in Irelend.