( 3 )
ation, and have little (if any) bearing on the question of economy or extra-
vagance ; but they must first give one or two more examples of the misleading
nature of the printed figures.
In the reports from 1862 to 1871 inclusive, the pay of the Superintendent
of the Dullunda Asylum is not included, and the average for comparison with
other asylums is calculated without this important item, while in all the other
asylums, except Dacca in 1871, the Superintendent's pay is included. From 1872
to 1876 it appears in the accounts and averages, with the effect of enormously
increasing the cost per patient at Dullunda under this head. In 1877 and 1878
it is again excluded, and although the omission is incidentally noticed in a foot-
note, the usual comparative averages are again drawn without note or comment.
In the same way the pay of the Superintendent at Dacca was omitted
from the return of 1871, although this fact is not mentioned in the general report.
At Dacca, again, in 1872 vegetables, milk, cocoanut and castor oil for use
in the asylum were supplied gratis, and the cost for diet and lighting thereby
reduced; whereas in the other asylums they were paid for as usual.
In the statement of comparative cost for 1865, the total expenditure per
patient at Cuttack is given at Rs. 47, that of the other asylums ranging from
Rs. 76 to Rs. 112. No notice is taken of this great discrepancy in the
general report, although the Superintendent himself provides at once an
explanation and the means of furnishing the true figures. The result is arrived
at by dividing the total expenditure by 48, the number of lunatics treated
during the year, instead of by 25.3 the mean daily strength. The real cost
per patient was Rs. 89-11 instead of Rs. 47-4-7.
The Committee consider that no blame attaches to individuals for these
errors, most of which are correct arithmetical statements, and only appear as
blunders by juxtaposition with figures calculated on a different basis. Superin-
tendents of asylums are not trained accountants and may easily fall into
error when dealing with complicated accounts. For two of the mistakes two
different members of the Committee are responsible, and the Secretary to the
Committee was convicted of a somewhat similar mistake in the Sanitary Report
for 1877. The mistakes have arisen from a want of uniformity in the system
of accounts in different asylums and a too ready acceptance of unexplained
figures. With a view to obviate this difficulty, a definite system was ordered
to be introduced in 1872; but so late as 1874 the Surgeon-General writes, " the
accounts are not fairly comparable with each other," although comparisons
continued to be drawn; and the Committee will show that it is doubtful whether
complete uniformity is even yet obtained.
Establishment.
Dullunda ...
Dacca ...
Patna ...
Cuttack ...
Berhampora ...
Hazaribagh ...
1877.
Cost per patient.
Rs.
94
43
40
71
43
37
A.
2
2
4
4
5
9
P.
7
11
5
3
4
1
1878.
Cost per patient.
Rs.
92
45
42
67
37
41
A.
6
13
11
11
0
9
P.
4
1
4
3
8
5
The examples quoted are probably sufficient to show that any real
comparison of the relative cost in former years is almost impossible. The Com-
mittee will, however, endeavour to compare the accounts for 1877 and 1878,
and to explain the great differences and variations, real or apparent. Table I
is compiled from those given in the reports for the two years, but the pay of
the Superintendent at Dullunda has been added to the figures and averages for
that asylum. The Committee will first take the different items of establish-
ment, diet, &c., and will then consider the
net cost as influenced by receipts from
paying patients and profits in the manu-
facturing departments. The first item is
the cost of establishment and the figures
are as noted in the margin.
The differences appear at first sight
very startling, and it would appear that,
while Patna, Dacca, Berhampore, and
Hazaribagh are, as regards establishment,
economically managed, Cuttack and Dul-
lunda are very extravagant. Table II,
however, compiled from the annual re-
ports, shows that so far as the question
of the management is concerned, the
inference would be entirely erroneous, the variations depending on the constitu-
tion of the different establishments, which is to a great extent independent of