§ MR. GIBSONasked the Undersecretary of State for India. Is the number of surgeons of the Indian Medical Service under and up to five years' service, as shown by the recently issued Bengal Army List of December 1883, who are employed on "unemployed" pay, in Bengal alone, twenty-eight out of a total of fifty-nine surgeons; is it a fact that all these twenty-eight surgeons employed on "unemployed" pay are not only supernumerary to the actual number of appointments, but are even also supernumerary to those surgeons who are only "officiating" for officers who really hold these actual appointments, but are at present on leave; is it a fact that, considering only the cases of all surgeons under and up to five years' service, as shown by the Bengal Army List of December 1883, fifty-four surgeons, out of a total number of fifty-nine joined, would have to retire from the list in question before any candidates who compete for the "appointments" offered for competition in February can obtain any of the rates of pay now termed "substantive;" what is the nature and value of the five ''appointments" advertised for competition for February 1884, and what is the nature and value of the five "appointments" that have been advertised for competition in August 1884; is there, in the whole Indian Staff Corps, one instance of an "unemployed Lieutenant" drawing the pay of 256 rupees per mensem, as alleged by 1472 him; and, is it a fact that when being "instructed," or doing duty, the officers of the Indian Medical Service actually receive less pay than their brethren of the same standing in the Army Medical Department?
§ MR. J. K. CROSSSir, I will answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's six Questions as follows:—(1) Yes; of 53, not 59, surgeons of five years' service and under, shown in the latest Bengal Army List, 28 are on unemployed pay. (2) Yes; these 28 gentlemen, who form a portion of the Reserve needed for the Medical Service, are in excess of the officiating and substantive appointments. The ordinary reserve to meet furloughs and casualties is 20 per cent on the number of appointments; but the actual number of furlough absentees this year falls considerably short of that proportion. (3) I am not sure that I understand this Question, though I have spent two hours over it. It is obvious that substantive appointments must be vacated before new men can fill them; but the retirements will be at the top, and not at the bottom of the List. The average number of casualties for the last 10 years in the Indian Medical Service has been 31. Assuming this average to be continued, it will be the number of substantive appointments annually vacated. (4) This Question is asked under an evident misapprehension of the nature of the appointments to the Indian Medical Service. The Secretary of State advertised that an examination of candidates for five appointments in Her Majesty's Indian Medical Service would be held in February, 1884. These are simply appointments to the Indian Medical Service, and five candidates were selected from 21 who presented themselves, the whole 21 being duly qualified, (5) No, Sir; so far as I know, there is not one, nor have I ever made any allegation to that effect. There is no need for a Reserve for the Indian Staff Corps; but if there were any unemployed lieutenants, they would receive 256 rupees per mensem. (6) Yes; while merely doing duty with British or Native troops, officers of the Indian Medical Service draw less pay than officers of the Army Medical Department of the same standing in India; but for the remainder of their service their prospects are much better, and their average salaries much higher.