The Sun.
London, England, 1862-07-18 00:00:00

ROYAL 4COM MISSION.

The Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod appeared at the bar
and cited the Speaker to the House of Lords to hear the
Royal assent given by commission to certain bills.
On his return the sitting was suspended.
At six o'clock the house resumed.
The house having resolved itself into a committee upon

EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS,
between Mr.
preliminary
Laingend
Sir C. WOOD, in moving certain formal resolutions,
afteretwe a fe
rheimmaereklsf,erheftehre redto the differences
en
subject of these ac-
counts, expressing his regret that there should be any per-
sonal ingredient in these differences. He complained of the
extreme inaccuracy of the accounts transmitted from India,
which, he said, had been a source of the greatest annoy-
ance to him, and which deprived the public of the means of
knowing what they had a right to:know—the real state o f
the Indian finances. He then proceeded to show, in details
of figures, the alleged errors in the accounts furnished
from India for the years 1860 61, 1861-62, and the esti-
mate for 1862-63, accompanied by explanations ot the sources
of the errors, which it is impossible to compress into a
summary that would be intelligible. The result, in 1862.
61, was that Mr. Laing had over-estimated his surplus
about £1,000,000, and, having remitted taxes to the amount
of £725,000, he had really a deficit of revenue in that year.
Mr. Laing, he observed, had assumed that, the cash ba-
lances in the Indian treasuries having increased, he must
have a considerable surplus revenue, Sir Charles argued
that this was an untenable assumption, and that Mr.
Laing's theory was erroneous. liefe thenthe rupee into sterling
discussedtheegrliuensg-
tion as to the loss by exchange
money in the railway accounts, being 2d. in the rupee,
which loss had been omitted in the accounts sent from

India, insisting upon the fallacy of the reasons assigned by
the Indian Government for the omission. He disputed Mr.
Laing's views upon the subject of the repayment of ad

vances, another disturbing element in the accounts, pro-
fessing his utter astonishment at the arguments he had
employed to support and justify these views; and he
reiterated his own opinions on the subject. Having thus
cleared the ground, he proceeded to state what the finances
of India really had been in the last three years
Years. Revenue. Charge.
1860-61
1861-62
1862.63 42,971,000 43,255,000
The result showed, he observed, a deficit of revenue in each
year, which he expected would disappear at the end of the
present year, as we were approaching, he thought, a sound
system of Indian finance. He stated the progress made in
public works in India; and, with respect to cotton, he had
been informed, he said, by Sir George Clerk, that the growth
of cotton had considerably increased. He was decidedly of
opinion that Government ought net to interfere in this
matter; that an adequate demand would produce an ade-
quate supply ; but all assistance needed by cotton merchants
in conducting their own transactions, he added, should be
afforded. He adverted to the changes made in the Indian
Councils and the Governmental departments, and in the law
tribunals in India; to the state of the Civil Service, andto the
reductions in the army. He dwelt upon the good effects
which had resulted from the policy now pursued towards
the native Princes of the country, and from the measures
taken to create an intermediate class connected with the
land between the chiefs and the peasantry. To these
measures, the merit of which is due to Lord Canning, the
Government had determined, as a proper complement, to
carry out as soon as practicable throughout British India a
permanent settlement of land tenures. Our Indian empire,
he remarked, had suffered a shock which had left its lesson.
Our power had been sustained by military strength; but a
source of still greater strength would be found in the
attachment of the people of India. In conclusion, Sir
Charles paid a warm tribute to the character and services
of Lord Canning. . . .

Mr. H. SEYMOUR thought that Mr. Laing's mistakes
were excusable, the Government of India having concurred
in his views, and Sir C. Wood not having given him timely
notice of the errors. As to some of the questions, Mr.
Laing, he thought, whether right or wrong, was not open
to animadversion. He urged the necessity of a larger ex-
penditure upon roads in India, and that more discretion
should be left to the Government in India. He complained
of the present home administration and of the great expense
of the Department,
Mr. SMOLLETT admitted that there had been a great
reduction of expenditure in India and a material advance in
the prosperity of the country ; but he complained that the
management of the Indian finances, a clear and simple
matter, was very faulty; that the deficiencies were caused
by extravagance ; that there was a mystification about rail-
way transactions, and protested against the mixing up of
the public money of the Government with the private
money of adventurers. Besides railways, the Government
patronized other companies, which were floated by means
of the mischievous system of guarantees, and hence the
derangement of the Indian finances, over which the house
did not exercise a proper control.
Mr. GREGSON observed, that, if there had been no
Government guarantee, there would, in his opinion, have
been no railways in India. He made a few remarks upon
the points in dispute between Sir C. Wood and Mr. Laing.
Mr. VANSITTART blamed Mr. Laing fur his hasty
utterance of a prosperity speech, and, upon the assumption
that he had a surplus of £903,814, throwing away a large
amount of revenue.
Mr. CRAWFORD accused Mr. Smollett of hating
spoken of Indian railway companies without a correct
knowledge of the facts. Upon the financial questions, par-
ticularly with reference to the loss by exchange of the
rupee, he explained the effect of the arrangement between
Government and the railway companies, and his own view
of the subject, which, to a certain extent, coincided with
argued that it would be a violation of the first principles of
that of Sir Charles Wood. As to the cotton question ho
political econ3my for the Government to interfere. It was
matter of satisfaction to observe, he said, the great extension
of the products of India. He expressed his gratification at
the statement of Sir C. Wood.
Mr. KINNAI RD condemned the ahe
attack he had
Smollett had spoken of individuals, d the
r in which Mr.
made upon the Madras Irrigation Company
Colonel DlCKSONdefended
Mr. Smollett, who, he
thought, had justly exposed a scheme that could no be re-
munerative.
Mr. BUXTON said a few words upon the exchange
question.
inste repayment ettthatthiays question was merely
of advances, the
Colonel SYKES
one of accounts, anwdossrth
discussion. He objected to the
question was not
rot
troops troops maintained in India.
large number of
ARSH, who suggested a
and ornaments in India,
tax upon jewelryin.
Mr. PULLER, the course of his observations upon
questions in dispute, remarked that a good deal of con.
After some remmaruksPby Mr. M.
' the. arose from the partial and incomplete character of
fusion
the Indian accounts.
. Sir C. WOOD made a detailed reply upon a few points
(the Committee having dwindled down to about 30 mem-
bers), and the resolutions were then agreed to.
On the order for considering the Lords' Amendments of
the Lunacy (Scotland) Bill,
The LOAD-ADVOCATE called attention to a matter
connected with the bill in which he was personally con-
cerned, and to the introduction into it of a clause which
completely altered its character. He moved that the house
do not agree to the clause referred to.
Mr. BLACKBURN moved an amendment of the clause,
\
in which the Lord-Advocate acquiesced, and the clause so
amended was agreed to.
The remaining orders having been disposed of the house
adjourned at 2 o'clock.