The Sun.
London, England, 1836-02-26 00:00:00

STIRLING CANAL,

Sir A. AGNEW had 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 he 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 see 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 was not altogether fair. Even
if the Standing Orders had not been 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, hear, 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 PECHELL 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'
Magistrates of Seaford in Sussex. They had decided that
this woman was a widow, on account of t'he 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 complained against. He thought that the shortest
course he could take tit ould 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 corning 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 go