File 3839/1916 Pt 1 'Persia: - Incidence of expenditure in - question of revising the agreement of 1900' [‎352r] (718/880)

Foreign Office:
Actual outlay in Persia in 1907-08 - 31/118
Deduct advance by India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. in
1907-08 - - - 487
30,931
Payment to India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. in 1909-10 in
respect of Persian expenditure in
1907-08 _ _ _ - 16,818
Total
47,749
Excess of expenditure by India over
expenditure by Foreign Office - £2,752
II. Turkish Arabia A term used by the British officials to describe the territory roughly corresponding to, but not coextensive with, modern-day Iraq under the control of the Ottoman Empire. : —
In addition India is bearing the larger part of the Diplomatic and
Consular Establishments in Turkish Arabia A term used by the British officials to describe the territory roughly corresponding to, but not coextensive with, modern-day Iraq under the control of the Ottoman Empire. , which was supposed to have
been shared as a consequence of the recommendation of the Welby Com
mission {see note on Persian expenditure attached). The average annual
outlay by India is about 0,000b, in addition to a special contribution of
1,400b to the Foreign Office in respect of Basra, in the annual subsidy.
The Foreign Office spend about 1,500b a year on Basra and give us a
small contribution towards Baghdad (half of Mr. Gaskin’s salary.)
III. Muscat:—
India bears the whole charges, amounting to about 9,000b
* Note by Political Department: — 4he total excess outlay falling upon
Bahrein.
Kashgar.
Note by Financial Department :—
Cbll/T'&XTI/ *
Total expenditure 1908-09, Rs. 56,002
= 3,700Z. Budget, 1910-11, Rs. 55,970 =
3,700Z.
(Appendix to India Estimates).
Kashgar :
Pay of Special Assistant, Rs. 1,850.
(Punjab Estimates, Cashmere : Esta
blishment and other charges.)
India in respect of Persia, Turkish
Arabia, and Muscat, thus amounts to
about 17,750Z.t There may also be
Diplomatic and Consular expenditure
in connection with some other places
outside Persia which is borne entirely
by India. The Political Department
would be in a position to say whether
this is the caseA
IV. China : —
As regards China the arrangement from 1834 to 1875 was that India paid
one-third of the charges, from i870—89 India paid a fixed contribution
of 15,000b a year. As a result of the Foreign Office Conference in 1891
the contribution was reduced to 12,500b, a rate which was to continue in
force till 1899-1900. The Welby Commission considered that the interest
of India in the China trade had thus always been officially acknowledged,
and that it must be borne in mind that “India depends for a considerable
proportion of her revenue on the opium trade with China. One-third o
the divisible charges they stated would amount to about 20,000b a y ea B but
they recommended that the decision of the Foreign Office Conference should
he maintained for a period of five or six years, the contribution t en o e
revised. The payment of 12,500b a year in respect of China was however,
one of those which the Imperial Government agreed to forego m lieu o± the
contribution of 50,000b a year from them towards the expenses oi the India
Office, which was recommended by the Welby Commission, r t presen ,
therefore, India may be regarded as contributing 12,500b towards expenditure
1 Themitlay of the Foreign Office in China in 1910-11 is estimated at
89,5001.® approximately. In 1900-01 it was 72,2001.” If I ndia were to pay m
t Shofubris/Atf the excess of Indian expenditure in Turkish Arabia A term used by the British officials to describe the territory roughly corresponding to, but not coextensive with, modern-day Iraq under the control of the Ottoman Empire. is understated
above; the correct figure is 6,816Z., not 6,000Z. (see page 15).
15583. B
!’li i 1
1
K HI 1 1 r