The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-27 00:00:00

Ll •
N LONDON

Llso, one.fi
"-Iwo

Nisley, in favour of the Public

STIRLING CANAL.
Sir A. AGNEW bad been requested to call the attention
of the House to a petition presented by the Honourable
Member for Stirling yesterday, relative to the Bill
for establishing the Stirling canal. The complaint be had to
make was that the Stirling canal Company gave no notice as
required by the Standing Orders, to the Proprietors of cer-
tain rivers and streams, from whence they intended to obtain
water for their canal, and therefore he proposed that the Bill
should be referred back to the Committee, to sec if those
Standing Orders had been complied with.
Mr. F. CAMPBELL opposed the motion of the Hon.
Baronet. He
.had been Chairman of that Committee, had
carefully examined the provisions of the Bill, and found the
Standing Orders had been complied with. Besides which the
new canal required no water from those streams, as it would
be supplied by waste water from the Clyde and Forth. The
motion of the Hon. Baronet was an attempt to turn out a Bill
by a side wind, in a manner that YiT.4 not altogether fair. Even
if the Standing Orders had not teen complied with, the
matter ought certainly to be referred to the Standing
Order Committee, and not to the Committee that had sat upon
the Bill. Upon these grounds he negatived the motion of the
Hon. Baronet.—( Hear, bear, and laughter.)
Sir A. AGNEW proceeded to make some observations in
reply, but was interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who said he thought the motion of the
Honourable Baronet was one of some importance. For
the accuracy of the fact he could not make himself
responsible ; but at present it was proposed to make
a new canal. The original canal was supplied by streams
and rivulets ; the new canal was to be supplied in the
same way ; and therefore those streams and rivulets would
be called upon to supply two canals instead of one.
The question was whether, under these circumstances, the par-
ties were bound to give notice to the proprietors of the Old
Canal, and he thought that it was a case to be referred back
to the Committee—a course of proceeding from which no in-
justice could arise, The petition was accordingly referred back
to the Committee.
CASE OF JANE CHAMPION.

Captain PEC HELL rose to present a petition of very
great importance ; in doing which, he would endeavour to be
as brief as possible. It was the case of an unfortunate woman,
who had been committed to the House of Correction by the
Magistrittes of Seaford in Sussex. They had decided that
this woman was a widow,' on account of the ab-
sence of her husband, who was now at Port Jackson.
He did not mean to say anything to implicate these Magis-
trates, who were Seaford Magistrates, and not Justices of the
Peace. He wished to state that he had received every assist-
ance from them, and from the Poor Law Commissioner, who
was also cempleined against. lie thought that the shortest
course he could take vimild be to make a statement of the
case. —( Hear.) It appeared that the petitioner resided with
her husband and family at Seaford, and that her husband
had been sentenced to seven years' transportation for receiving
some fowls, knowing them to be stolen, leaving her with six
children. The parish had made a certain advance, which,
however, ceased upon the New Poor Law coming into opera-
tion. Her children were sent to the workhouse and there
maintained. A very short time after, a warrant was issued by
the magistrates of Seaford to compel this woman to
She declared she
could maintain herself ; but though she was the wife of a
perßon who was sentenced to transportation, and therefore
claimed to be considered a married woman, the magistrates
held her to be liable for the maintenance of the children of
her husband. She was brought before the magistrates as an
jdle and disorderly person, and committed for twenty days to
the House of Correction. A short time after the expiration
of this period another warrant was issued, and she was
brought up. again and remanded. She stated that a
petition was getting up in her favour, and would be presented
to that House, and on that account the Magistrates delayed
hearing the ease, They,. however, applied, to the Poor Law
Commissioner, as to whether a second committal would be
advisable, and he advised them that a man beyond sea, whether
for 7, 14, or 21 years, was to be considered as civilly dead,
and that therefore this woman was liable for the maintenance
of the children of such a man, and was liable to be committed
as an idle and disorderly person. No deposition had been
taken to show that this woman was able to maintain these
children, but the Act required that steps should be taken to
prove this. In this ease the husband was absent without the
consent of the petitioner, and, in point of law and justice, he
thought the wife should not be called upon to support the
children of the husband. It was a hardship that she should
be bound to support the children, when, but for the state of
the law, she could obtain a good and willing man of her own:
fie had carefully examined the Act of Parliament, and he
was at a 1.7,4 to know whether this woman was to be called
a fenitne sole or afentote coueert, This woman had no remedy at
law fel the wrong she had suffered, and lie trusted the House
wc,414 give directions to the magistrates to prevent a repetition
of a similar aet,
Mr. FOX MA ULE thought that the petition should not
bp entertained, inasmuch as there was a tribunal in existence
to which it ought more properly be referred. lie could only
say if the petition was placed in his hands, he could promise
that every attention would be paid to it.—( Hear, hear.)
Major BEA UC LE RK thought if this was the law, it was
a most atroeious one, and called for the immediate inter-
ference of the Legislature. (Hear.) In the case now before
the House a poor unfortunate woman was punished for the crime
of bor husband. If that was the case, it was not justice.
The Poor Law Commissioners were bound to do all in their
power to remedy those evils, and he thought it their duty to
OPIPO forward and propose a measure on the subject. The
new Poe? Law might be made a great benefit to the country if
it was carried on fairly.
Mr. CURTEIS supported the prayer of the petition. Ile
hoped the Government would take the matter under its serious
consieferation. It was the bounden duty of the Government
to have a legal opinion whether the Poor Law Commissioners
were right or wrong in committing the poor woman.
Captain PECHE L L was satisfied the Government would
stay proceedings in this case until the opinion of the law offi-
cers of the Crews: was obtained.
ORANGE LODGES.
Colonel MAXWELL said that he was desired by the
Duke of Cumberland to state to the House, that in conse
quence of his Majesty's wish, expressed in answer to the
address of the House of Commons, his Royal Highness
had already taken steps, in concurrence with all the leading
Members of the Orange Societies, to recommend to them the
dissolution of the Sosiety. He was therefore directed by his
Royal Highness that it is intended immediately to take steps
for the dissolution of the Orange Societies in Great Britain
and the Colonies.—( Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL said that he had the honour this
morning of transmitting to his Royal Highness a
copy of
the votes of that House, containing the address of that
House, and also the answer of his Majesty thereto, in answer
to which he had received the following reply :—" St. James's
Palace, Feb. 26, 1836.—My Lord, I have received your
Lordship's letter, with the copy of the resolutions of the House
of Commons on the subject of Orange Lodges, together with
his Majesty's gracious answer thereto. Before I received your
Lordship's communication, I had already taken steps with se-
veral influential Members to'reeornmend their immediate dis-
solution. In conformity with the wish expressed by his Ma.
jesty, I shall take all legal steps to dissolve Orange Lodges,
—(Cheers.)

TIMBER DUTIES.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON wished to correct several
statements that had been made by the Right Honourable
Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade, with respect
to what he (Mr. Alderman Thompson) had stated at a meet-
ing on the subject. The Right Honourable Gentlemen had
said that he (Mr. Alderman Thompson) at the meeting alluded
to had stated that the Right Honourable Gentleman had the
intention of surreptitiously passing a Bill in that House,
for the purpose of altering the duties on timber.
What he intended to say was, that if measures were introduced
at a latc,period of the Session, many Hon. Members would have
left London, and consequently they could not receive that con-
sideration the case required. He wished it clearly understood that
he had said nothing calculated to give pain to his Right Hon.
Friend, for whom, when he filled a less distinguished place
than at present, he entertained the greatest friendship, which
he wished to continue, notwithstanding any difference of poli-,
tical opinion. lie wished to ask what time would be allowed
fur consideration between the printing of the schedules and the
consideration of them in the House ?
Mr. PO ULETT THOMSON was glad that the gentle-
man had not used language calculated to sever the friendship
which he was proud sbould exist between them. In reply to
the question, he should state that there was no discrepancy be-
tween what had been said by the Noble Lord in another place
and what he mentioned last night, that it was not the inten-
tion of Government to introduce any measure on the subject
of these duties at so early a period in the session.___( Hear,
hear.) The Report of the Committee could not be acted upon
till 1837, and he could assure the Gentleman that sufficient
time would be afforded between the printing of the schedules
and their consideration in that House.

Mr. G. F. YOUNG—asked a question relative to
a supposed negotiation between the British Ambassador at
Schomberg and the agent of a Foreign Power relative to certain
alterations in the timber duties. He understood arrangements
acre still going forward on the subject.
• Mr. POUL ET THOMSON said, the fact, if it were so,
of the arrangement being still pending, ought to be a sufficient
reason why he should dMecIALT DUTIES ine to answer the question.
.

Mr. WO DE HOUSE made some obssrvations, in a low
tone, relative to a memorial he presented on the subject of
the Malt duties.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
felt it his duty to direct an inquiry into the subject of the
memorial and to the facts stated in the Report. In the
year 1830 the maltsters were entitled to a reduction of
20 per cent. under certain regulations, and it was intended
that the public should have the benefit of the reduction.—
( Hear.) He should be prepared to say, when the proper
time arrived what was the course the Government had deter-
mined upon, but it should be recollected if the prayer of the
memorialists were complied with, there would be a
clear loss to the revenue of 164,000/. per annum.—(Hear.)
If illie4t practices clonl4 not be put an end to, they must call
parl;z2nt to furnish
.. them with additional powers.
upon
ADJOuIIYED DEBATE.
Mr. HUME, on the Order of the:day being read, suggested
that the adjourned debate shpo4 Iptvp precedence.
Mr, D UNCOMSE thought the 44.19grna4 4*te should
taih avnevpvroecteediberneiet,, and if a division too p*e! 01004 Cq-
The SPEAKER said the question was still open.
Mr. HAWE S said, gentlemen on the other side last night
called this a great Constitutional question, and if such were the
fact, wbv not give it precedence ?
Mr. wypiti Fertainli oppose the proposition of