The Sun.
London, England, 1859-03-17 00:00:00

LUNATIC POOR (IRELAND) BILL,

On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Colonel GREVILLE moved that the house resolve
itself into such committee this day six months. He
strongly objected to the bill, which had widely de-
parted from the recommendations of the committee
on this subject. He strongly objected to the
bill, as introducing the principle of taxation without repre-
sentation, and to different other provisions.
Lord NAAS deprecated the opposition given to the bill at
this stage, when its principle was discussed on the second
reading. He contended that the bill carried out the spirit,
and, in the important points, the letter, of the report of
the committee. He defended the composition of the com-
mittee, which could not be accused of anypartiality towards
the political party of which he was a member. The prin-
ciple of the bill was to vest the appointments in the grand
jury, who he considered were the best fitted to exercise this
duty. The Uovern:ment had adopted the recommendation
of the committee us to the propriety of removing lunatics
from gaols and workhouses to lunatic asylums, where they
would receive proper medical treatment. To show the
necessity for making additional provision for the poor on
this subject, he would mention that no less than 3,500
lunatic poor in Ireland were without proper accommoda-
tion. it was to be hoped that these asylums would re-
ceive, in addition to paupers, persons who could contribute
something towards their support, but could not avail them-
selves of private lunatic asylums, which in Ireland were
very costly. In fact, with the exception of the appoint-
ment of a central body, they had carried out the recom-
mendations el the commission. Ho quoted the authority
of the report in question to show that there was the greatest
necessity for the amendment of lunatic asylums in Ireland.
The instructions of the privy council were systematically
disregarded, and the management of these institutions was
at variance with that adopted in the modern management
of such asylums. It appeared that there were 53egover-
nors of lunatic asylums in Ireland, of whom only 276 last
year attended, and the fact was that these institutions were
generally managed by two or three persons residing on the,
spot.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD said that the motion of the
gallant member would throw out the bill, and as he con-
sidered they were called on to legislate on the subject he
would suggest to him to withdraw it, and he (Mr. Fitz-
gerald) would bring forward the motion which stood on the
paper in his name. He strongly objected to different pro-
visions of the bill, and in the first instance to the power it
proposed to confer on the Lord Lieutenant, the power of
erecting lunatic asylums without even consulting the grand
juries. He contended the principle involved in that provi-
sion would not be tolerated in this country, and he strongly
recommended the formation of a central board to have
a controlling power in reference to this matter.
He considered that a select committee would be the most
proper body to refer the bill to, instead of submitting the
details to a committee of the whole house, who could not
carry out the necessary alterations with the same efficiency.
Colonel GREVILLE said he would consent to the
withdrawal of his moticn.

The motion was accordingly withdrawn.
Mr. FITZGERALD then moved that the bill be referred
to a select committee ; that it be an instruction to the com-
mittee that they have power to make provision that the
costs, charges, and expenses of providing for and maintain-
ing the lunatic poor in Ireland shall be raised by a rate or
rates to be made, assessed, and levied in the same manner
as the rates for the relief of the destitute poor under the
Irish Poor Relief Acts.
Mr. BRADY supported the amendment. He did not
wish to throw the bill out, but to improve it so as to ren-
der it efficient in dealing with a question of such vast im-
portance.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE also supported the amendment.
Col. FRENCH trusted the noble lord (Lord Naas)
would agree to the course suggested in the amendment.
Mr. OSBORNE considered the bill was so defective that
he did not think it could be ever made a good measure.
He strongly objected to the power conferred by the bill on
grand jurors, who were a fugitive body, and were elected
by the high sheriff, himself a fugitive official. Besides, there
was no security that the whole grand jury system might not
be abolished, and then they would have to confer the power
in question on another body. He urgod on the noble lord
(Lord Naas) to accede to the proposition for referring the
bill to a select committee.
Mr. GREGORY advocated the bill being referred to a
select committee.
Lord NAAS said the hon. member for Ennis misrepre-
sented one provision of the bill, namely, giving an absolute
power to the executive to erect lunatic asylums without the
authority of grand juries. That was the state of the
law at ipresent ; but he, proposed that grand juries
should have the power to appear before the lord-
lieutenant to show ground against the erection of
lunatic asylums in their locality. He would accede to the
wish of the Irish members, and consent to the bill being re-
ferred to a select committee, but he trusted that legislation
on the subject this session would not be shelved.
After some further discussion,
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD said that he would not move
the instruction to the committee, as he understood it would
be informal to do so.
After a few words from Mr. M'EvoY and Lord C.
HAMILTON, the motion for referring the bill to a select
committee was agreed to.
OATHS ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
On the motion for going into committee on this bill,
Mr. S. ESTCOURT said he considered that there should
be some explanati
au given by the hon. member who intro-
duced the bill. Ho supposed that the object of the hon.
member was to restore the declaration of abjuration taken
by Quakers, which was affected by the act of the house
last session.
Mr. BOUVERIE said the object of the bill was simply
to restore Quakers, in regard to the declaration. they were
to make, to the same position they were in prior to the act
alluded
Mr Br.:NTINCK could not see how Quakers could
' make any objection to the words in the declaration of ab-
juration.
The house then went into committee.
Qu olanse I there was some discussion: in which Mr

Bouverie, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Gilpin, Mr. Sotheron Egteourt,
and Mr. Henley took part, but it wag ultimately agreed to.
The remaining clauses were also agreed to, and the house
resumed.