§ SIR W. WEDDERBURN
I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, with reference to the recent Return entitled "East India (Military Expenditure)," and dated India Office, 8th June, 1894, whether it is to Vie inferred from the form of the Return that Rx.6,073,500 of expenditure incurred in Burma, and classed in the Return among exceptional payments, has, in spite of its exceptional character, been distributed under the ordinary headings of Army Services in the Indian Accounts during the last eight years; whether, if the exceptional payments given in the Return for the last eight years (except those relating to Burma throughout and Mobilisation in 1889–90) are included under the head Miscellaneous Services, he will explain 353 how it happens that in 1891–2 the exceptional payments (excluding those on account of Burma) exceeded the Miscellaneous Services by Rx.62,709, being Rx.959,059 against Rx.896,386, put down for Miscellaneous Services; whether it may be inferred that in 1891–2 there was no other expenditure under the head of Miscellaneous Services except that classed in the Return as exceptional, but that Rx.62,709 of exceptional expenditure was distributed among the various ordinary headings of Army Services in the Indian Accounts; whether the amount expended on Miscellaneous Services during the eight years 1876–7 to 1883–4, both inclusive, when there were no exceptional payments, was, on the average, Rx.416,037, and in 1886–7, the only other year when there were no exceptional payments, Rx.620,706; whether during the five years 1884–5 to 1892–3, both inclusive, the average expenditure under Miscellaneous Services, after deducting all exceptional payments included under that head, was only Rx. 114,002; and whether he can explain this fall of 75 per cent. in the charges under ordinary Miscellaneous Services on any other grounds than that a large portion of the exceptional payments have, as in the case of Burma, been distributed among the ordinary headings of Army Services in the Indian Accounts?
§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
(1.) The extra charges for Upper Burma during the last eight years are included in the ordinary heads of Army Effective Services. They have only been included among exceptional payments in the Return in order to assist in showing how the increase of expenditure has arisen. (2.) In 1891–2 the charges for Upper Burma and Mobilisation are distributed among the several heads to which they appertain. The remainder of the exceptional payments, so far as appears in the Accounts, is included in Miscellaneous Services. (3.) The exceptional expenditure shown in 1891–2 is that mentioned in the Financial Statement. Without reference to India, it cannot be said whether there was other exceptional expenditure in that year. (4.) The expenditure recorded under the head of Miscellaneous Services averaged Rx.416,037 from 1876–7 to 1883–4,and was Rx.620,706 in 1886–7. (5.) There is some mistake in the question; the average expenditure 354 under Miscellaneous Services, after deducting the exceptional payments, appears to be Rx.72,053 for the five years ending 1892–3, and Rx.297,055 for the nine years from 1884–5 to 1892–3. (6.) It is not known how far the payments included in Miscellaneous Services from 1875–6 to 1883–4 included such exceptional payments as are specified in the later years. Probably they were distributed among the various heads, and not compiled separately.