§ SIR D. MACFARLANE
I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, 267 with reference to the recent Return, entitled "East India (Military Expenditure)," and dated India Office, 8th June, 1894, whether he is aware that there is no such general heading as "Military Expenditure" in the Finance and Revenue Accounts of the Government of India; and that there are three distinct headings under which Military Expenditure is shown in the Indian Accounts—namely, "Army Services," "Military Works," and "Special Defence Works"; on what ground in the above-mentioned Return has the general heading "Military Expenditure" been used when the Return has reference only to "Army Services," and why, if this Return was intended to apply to "Army Services" only, has not the usual heading in the Indian Accounts—namely, "Army Services," been retained; whether the figures for gross expenditure on Army Services, as shown in the above-mentioned Return, are affected by the casual purchases of extra stores—i.e., stores which are afterwards sold as surplus stores; whether, during the 18 years covered by the Return, the increase in net Army Expenditure has been Rx. 7,910,271, or nearly Rx.200,000 more than the increase in gross expenditure shown in the Return; whether it is to be inferred from the form of the Return that over Rx.11,000,000 of exceptional Military Expenditure has, during the last eight years, been distributed under the ordinary headings of "Army Services" in the Indian Accounts; whether he will grant a Return showing, for the last 10 years, the ordinary expenditure and the exceptional payments under their respective headings of the Government of India on "Army Services"; and whether Her Majesty's Government will represent to the Government of India the inconvenience of keeping the accounts in such a form that exceptional payments are habitually included under ordinary headings of account, and so made to produce a fictitious fluctuation in what is classed as ordinary expenditure?
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
My answer to the first question is, Yes. In reply to the second question, the reason is that the term "Military Expenditure" was used in my hon. Friend's notice given on 268 the 16th of April, and it was understood to mean "Army Services." The answer to the third question is, Yes. The variation in the regular (not casual) purchases of stores is shown, on page 6 of the Return, to have been from a maximum of Rx.1,154,000 in 1887–8 to a minimum of Rx.462,000. The fourth question correctly states the fact, the reason being that the receipts in 1875–6 were higher by Rx.193,057 than in 1892–3. With regard to the fifth question, the exceptional payments shown on page 4 of the Return amounted to Rx.11,032,781 during the last eight years. Of this about Rx.6,073,500 is the extra expenditure incurred in Burma. The remainder (except "mobilisation" in 1889–90) is included under the head "Miscellaneous Services." In the Indian Financial Statement laid before Parliament each year the amount due to special expeditions is stated. The Return asked for in the sixth question cannot be compiled in England, and it would be little more than a division of the extra expenditure in Burma under the various heads. As to the seventh question, the head "Miscellaneous Services" is used generally for the purpose of including exceptional items which cannot be conveniently classed under the other heads. The amount due to special campaigns, &c., could be shown under a sub-head, if desired, as it is shown in the Return.
§ SIR D. MACFARLANE
I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to an article, at page 247 of the current number of India, on Indian Military Expenditure; and whether the figures which are given in the table at page 248 of the same paper, showing that net Indian Military Expenditure has increased by Rx.7,106,511 during the last eight years out of a total increase of Rx.8,198,596 for the last 18 years, are correct?
§ * MR. H. H. FOWLER
The figures are correct, but it must be remembered (1) that Military Works, which are now included under the head of "Military Expenditure," were not so included eight years ago; and (2) that a part of the increase is the necessary result of the fall in exchange as affecting military pay.