said, he wished to know whether the Bill was printed, and whether it was in the identical form of previous Bills of the same character? He asked this question, because it so happened that on a former occasion a clause was introduced into the Appropriation Act which upset its main provisions, and a promise was then given that in future this Bill should be printed like all other Bills. He also wished to inquire out of what fund and by what authority the sum of £13,000 for costs and damages in an appeal case from the Court of Admiralty at St. Helena, in respect to a vessel called the Newport, seized and condemned there, had been paid? He believed that that sum was paid out of the "droits of the Admiralty," and he wished to know whether that fund was dealt with like other public funds? He would next call attention to a matter which it was important for the House to consider. A very great increase had taken place in the funded debt, and the relation of the funded debt to the unfunded debt was materially altered. This had been done without any legislative interference on the part of Parliament, and some measure ought to be passed to prevent any increase of the funded debt without a resolution or an assent on the part of that House. To prove the fact that the funded debt had increased, he might state that in the financial year ending the 31st of March, 1859, the total amount of the funded debt was £790,671,215, whereas, in the financial year ending in March, 1858, the total amount was £783,360,257. Thug, in the year terminating in last March, there had been an increase in the funded debt of £7,310,958. The annual charge of the debt had also increased from £27,660,000 to £27,895,000, or not less than £235,000. The unfunded debt, on the other hand, had been reduced by the amount of the addition which had been made to the funded debt, and the unfunded debt at the end of 1859 was but £13,277,000, as compared with £20,927,000 at the close of the previous year. This was produced by the conversion of unfunded debt into funded debt in a manner which entailed a loss to the nation. Of course, if it were the pleasure of the House to make this conversion it must be done; but let it be done after a discussion and when the will of the House was distinctly ascertained. He should like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state whether it was intended in the ensuing Session to make any amendments in the law in conformity with the recommenda- tions of the Committee on Public Moneys? At present half the financial system seemed to rest on fiction or on statutes not carried out. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer contemplated any change in that portion of the existing system which enabled the Executive Government, without any authority, to convert the unfunded into funded debt, upon conditions onerous to the public purse? He regretted the absence of the Home Secretary (Sir G. Lewis), who, in the last Parliament, had imputed to a Committee upon which he (Sir Henry Willoughby) had served, with reference to this subject, that they did not know the difference between buying Exchequer Bills at a premium and at a discount. The error was, however, on the part of the right hon. Baronet, and the Report of that Committee showed that the nation had lost upwards of £2,000,000 in consequence of the gigantic system of stockjobbing which had been pursued. In 1844 Mr. Goulburn, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, in receiving a deputation on the subject of savings' banks, denounced most strongly the class of transactions to which he was referring, and stated that so far as his influence extended, such proceedings should never occur again. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would seriously consider the matter to which he had called attention, for he was persuaded that our system of finance rested upon a very hollow foundation, and that the law, instead of being observed, was in many important respects a dead letter.

stated that, in conformity with the general practice, the Consolidated Fund Bill had not been distributed, for it was only printed when some change took place in its form, but it could be obtained by any hon. Members at the Vote-office. The other topics to which the hon. Baronet had referred were of very considerable importance. The hon. Baronet had asked whether it was his intention to propose any changes in the law in consequence of, or in conformity with, the report of the Public Moneys Committee. He agreed generally with the hon. Baronet that the whole system of our finance—by which he meant what related to the custody and management of public moneys as distinguished from raising them on the one hand and spending them on the other—was in a state of considerable incongruity, and although we lived in a country which made it a boast that theory and practice never agreed, and ought not to be forced too much in order to make them square with each other, yet certainly the principle was pushed to a very great length with respect to our finances. He was disposed to agree very much in the spirit of the recommendations of the Public Moneys Committee. He would study their suggestions during the recess, and he hoped next Session to be enabled to submit to the House such proposals as might seem desirable. The hon Baronet had raised a specific question of great importance with respect to the powers possessed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with reference to the conversion and reconversion of public securities—not without the authority of Parliament, for whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer did was done with the authority of the law—but without the distinct cognizance of Parliament in reference to the particular transactions. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought, and had expressed the opinion on a previous occasion, that the powers of the Finance Minister in this respect were larger than they need be, and that they ought to be brought within certain bounds. He was not about to enter into a history of the transaction to which the hon. Member had referred, but, in order to judge whether the reconversion of Exchequer Bills into stock had been an operation profitable to the public or not, they ought to know upon what terms the money had originally been acquired when the Exchequer Bills were purchased. He apprehended that the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time must have found that the course he pursued was more advantageous to the public than the contraction of a loan, In order to form a judgment on the subject, however, a careful examination of the facts would be necessary. He would pronounce, however, no opinion upon the merits of that particular transaction, but he agreed with the hon. Baronet, that it was not desirable that large operations for conversion and reconversion should take place without being brought under the distinct notice of Parliament. The hon. Baronet was a vigilant Member of that House, and was not repelled by the apparent dryness of these subjects from examining them in minute detail; but as that class of hon. Members was very small, he thought it was most desirable that better provision should be made than was at present provided by Jaw for keeping the operations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the distinct and habitual view of the House of Commons. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had given some evidence of the sincerity of his opinion on this subject, for on the eve of quitting office in 1855 he had introduced a Bill which he thought would have gone far towards meeting the views of the hon. Baronet. That Bill, however, was not passed, in consequence of the change of the Government. Without giving any positive pledge on the subject, he could only say that he was anxious to do all in his power to place the control of the House of Commons upon a more effective basis.

stated, that the "droits" of the Crown was a fund derived from moneys of persons dying intestate, of convicted felons, and from the seizure of vessels, and other sources. The sum of £13,000, which had been paid out of this fund, was for the costs and damages in the case of "Hopper v. the Queen," which arose out of an appeal from the decision of the mixed court at St. Helena in the matter of a slave vessel which had been condemned by that Court. The "droits," of the Crown, like the hereditary revenues of the Crown, presented difficulties in adopting the practice in other cases of bringing the gross receipts into revenue and voting the whole expenses by estimates under the control of the House. At the same time any information respecting the fund could be obtained by any hon. Member who moved for any Return on the subject.

said, that he entertained some strong objections to this Bill, as he feared, that it would not accomplish the object which the Government had in view; namely, on the ground that its provisions were uncertain and unintelligible, and could not be readily understood by the seamen. He also thought the attempt to induce the merchant seamen to form a reserve force would be more likely to be successful if they relaxed the severity of the Articles of War, and offered inducements to officers of the merchant service to enter the reserve force along with the men. He had had some little experience in organizing bodies of men. During the Crimean war he had organized a body of 4,500 men in a very short period; but when it was proposed that the men should be placed under the Articles of War, they declined to join the Army Works Corps, though they stated that they would have no objection to be brought under the Articles of War in the case of actual service in the field. Much confidence, too, had been imparted to the artizans by the fact of their being accompanied by engineers and other persons in a higher position than those with whom they had usually been associated. Entertaining very strong opinions that the Bill would fail in producing the results which were expected, he regretted much that the Government had not consented to make the alterations to which he had referred.

said, he could not but admit that the Articles of War were very old-fashioned, and a good many of them were never acted upon, but the propriety of revising those articles had been considered by the former Board of Admiralty, and was under the consideration of the present Board. The question of inviting officers of the merchant service to join the reserve force was one of great importance and ought to receive due consideration. Such a measure would, however, be attended with very considerable additional expense. Of this he assured his hon. Friend, that in the event of any emergency, the Government would rely on the merchant service, not only to provide seamen, but also good officers.

stated, that the inquiries before the Election Committees during the present Session had shown that the clause in the Act of last year against candidates paying travelling expenses was perfectly useless, and that under it bribery could be perpetrated with impunity. The clause simply stated that it was "illegal" to give money for the payment of travelling expenses, but the Act did not state that such payment was bribery and that it should invalidate any election. The Committees had, in fact, driven a coach and four through the clause. To say that it was illegal to pay travelling expenses was nothing more than might be said of an ordinary assault or any minor misdemeanor, such as giving a man a black eye. Unless the House made travelling expenses bribery they would never put that crime down.

said. he must enter his protest against this kind of legislation in toto. He could only characterize the existing Act as a cloak for covering all sorts of corrupt practices, and thought that it would be better for the present Continuance Bill to drop than to perpetuate an Act of so unsatisfactory a character. He thought that it would be very much better to adopt the plan of having the Members called to the table to state on oath the amount which they had expended, and that they had not committed or sanctioned any bribery whatever at the election. If two or three hon. Members were to be prosecuted for perjury, and sentenced to a few years' penal servitude, the House would soon put an end to the system of bribery.

said, he thought that if the bribers were to be prosecuted, according to the strict letter of the law, as well as those who had been bribed, such a course would check the practice of bribery.

said, that so far from the Act of last year not being sufficiently strict to put down bribery, it was of so stringent a character, and would lead to so much hardship upon hon. Members, if carried out in its integrity, that the Election Committees declined to do their duty in carrying out the Act. If the Act were to be carried out in its stringency, it might be that an hon. Member returned by a very large majority might be unseated if it were known that he had given a pot of beer, or a paltry sum of 5s. to a voter on the day of election, although such acts were not done with the slightest wish to influence the return, nor had had any actual effect upon the election.

observed, that in his opinion the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was unfair in his remarks on the conduct of Election Committees for refusing to carry out the Act of Parliament. They had put a meaning on the Act which he (Mr. Deasy) considered to be a perfectly correct one.

said, that the decisions of the Committees were often contradictory, and it was desirable that they should be guided by some general law. The House would remember that after a former election for Peterborough, an hon. Member (Mr. G. Whalley) was unsealed because at a dinner which was given after the election in the town which he represented, he had sent two dozen of champagne, That was carrying out the Act in all its stringency which no reasonable man could approve.

said, that he believed that some of the disadvantages ascribed to the Act arose from the peculiar construction of the tribunals which administered it. There could be no doubt, however, that the Act of 1854 must be amended during the next Session; and in order to ensure the attention of Parliament to the subject, he would move as an Amendment that the words, "or until the end of the then next Session of Parliament" should be struck out, in order that the period of continuance of the Bill should expire on the 10th of August next.

said, he wished to inquire what necessity there could be for this Continuance Bill at all, seeing that the present Act would remain in force until the end of next Session.

said, this Bill would provide for the emergency of an abrupt termination of the Session before the usual period in August next.