File 3839/1916 Pt 1 'Persia: - Incidence of expenditure in - question of revising the agreement of 1900' [‎355r] (724/880)

J t will be seen that, if the 7 OOOZ. contributed by the 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. had
been very U clifferent” 8r ° SS F ° reign ° ffice outla y. the result would have
The calculation would then have been :
Indian expenditure - _ _
Foreign Office expenditure (21,825^-7,0001;
Excess expenditure by India
Half this excess - - _ _
£
- 30,522
14,825
- 15,697
7,848
If the contribution of 7,OOOZ. to the Foreign Office had been reduced
b\ this sura, it would have been converted into a contribution from the
Foreign Office to India of 8480
£ fuither correction necessary to equalise expenditure was the omission
from the Foreign Office figures of annual expenditure in accordance with the
* Appendix 4 to this iSTote. recommendations of the Commission
„ 0007 . ...... (paragraph 246 of their Report*) of a
sum ol 8ddfi included on account of the Karun River subsidy. The Com
mission recommended that the Basra-Baghdad subsidy paid by India should
be regarded as the equivalent of the Karun subsidy paid by the Foreign
Office. Sir Henry Waterfield was not, of course, responsible for the omission
of this further correction. With this correction it will be seen that the
expenditure met by India was greater than that met by the Foreign Office
by 16,530L (15,697L, as above-f- 833L), and that, to equalise matters our
contribution of 7,OOOZ a year to the Foreign Office ought to have been
16,530
reduced by £ ^ -- 8,*265Z. (he., turned into a contribution by the
Foreign Office to us of 1,265Z.)
As a matter of fact the Royal Commission recommended! a reduction of
our contribution by 5,OOOZ. or 3,265Z.
short of what the reduction should have
been, and India was thus left to bear
alone an annual expenditure of 3,265Z.
X 2 — 6,530Z. (besides being required
under the terms of the settlement of
1900, to pay 400Z. a year separately on
t See Paragraphs 242, 356, and 364 of
their Report (Appendix 5 to this note).
The “ Agreement of 1900 ” was embodied
in Treasury Letter 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. of 11th
September 1900, and letter from India
Office to Treasury, 11th October 1900 (Ap
pendix 8 to this note).
account of Kerman).!
India was also required under the
2. Further, in the interval between
the period covered by the figures given
by Sir H. Waterfield and September
1900, the date of the Agreement which
followed on the Report of the Welby
Commission, the expenditure of the
Government of India had risen considerably, while that of the Foreign Office
had remained practically stationary. The figures are as follows :—
Agreement of 1900 to contribute 1,400Z. a
year for Basra, but on the other hand, in
the interval between the period covered by
Sir H. Waterfield’s figures, and the issue
of the Report the administration of Basra
had been taken over by the Poreign Office.
India :
Average expenditure in Persia and 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
1899-1900 and 1900-01 shown in Government of India’s
Foreign Letter of 27th March 1902, Ho. 56§ (excluding
figures for Hodeida
§ Extract given in Appendix 6 to this an( ^ Camaran, and
note. i , •
also superannuation
charges, which latter were excluded from the correspond
ing Foreign Office figures) - - -
Add contribution to Foreign Office in respect of Basra, from
1899-190U - - - - - -
(an increase of 6,7S8Z.).
35,860
1,400
37,260