File 3839/1916 Pt 1 'Persia: - Incidence of expenditure in - question of revising the agreement of 1900' [‎427r] (872/880)

The Foreign Office expenditure in
Persia 1907-08 was _ - - 31,418 (Pol. 3194/09).
Or, deducting 487L received from India
Office in 1907- 08 in respect of Persia
as above - - - 30,931
In 1909-10 Foreign Office repaid 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. 16,818£. in respect of
Persia -\- 43:. (in respect of 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 adjustment of difference
of outlay of the two Grovernments in 1907—08 (Pol. 268/10) leaving as a net
result:—
India^ paying ( 1 ) in respect of Persia 66,832L -f 487L — 16,818Z. =
50,501h + (2) in respect of 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. , 6,095L* — 43k = 6,052k
Total 56,553k
Foreign Office paying ( 1 ) in respect of Persia 30,931k + 16,818k, and
(2) in respect of 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. , 43k| Total, 47,792k
_ India thus paid 8,761 Z.f m01 'e than Foreign Office. The explanation of
this difference is as follows :—
II.— Financial effect of Report of Welby Commission.
1. Effect assumed by Commission. —According to the figures before the
Welby Commission (Yob II. of Report, pages 403, 404) the Indian expenditure
in connection with 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. w r as apparently 8,700/. per
annum higher than the Foreign Office expenditure.
They recommended a reduction of 5,000k per annum in the subsidy
annually paid 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. to the Foreign Office.
This would have had the effect, if the sum of 8,700/. per annum had
correctly represented the excess of Indian over Foreign Office expenditure,
of leaving the Indian expenditure less per annum than the Foreign Office
expenditure by 1,300/.
Or, if a sum of 833/. per annum (page 403) spent by the Foreign Office
on the Karum River subsidy be excluded, by 467/.
o
Cj.
Disturbing factors.—As a matter of fact this result was not attained
at September 1900 for the following reasons :—
(1) The Foreign Office expenditure shown in the documents before the
Commission was really 7,000/. a year less than appeared to be the
case, as a deduction of this amount should have been made in
respect of 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. subsidy from the gross outlay of the
Foreign Office shown on page 403.
(2) The outlay by the Government of India in Persia and Turkish
Arabia at September 1900 (taking the average of the figures for
1899-1900 and 1900-01 in Government of India’s Foreign Letter,
27th March 1902, No. 56, as the nearest possible approximation to
this rate) was 30,037/. ( = Persia 24,416/. 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.
5,621k), instead of the 23,523/. in the table laid before the
Commission. Increase 6,514/.
(3) The Foreign Office expenditure in Persia at September 1900 was
(taking as the nearest possible approximation the average figure
for 1899-1900, and 1900-01 given in Annex 3, Enclosure 14,
Political Despatch 14, 6 th February 1903, and omitting expenditure
on Karun Subsidy) 21,966/., instead of 21,825k m table laid
before Commission. Increase 141/.
The result of these three factors would be to leave India at September
1900 paying 7 , 000 k+ 6,514k-141/.-467k more than the Foreign Office^
12,906/."
* Incorrect: see footnote to previous page,
t For more accurate figure see page 13.
X Incorrect: the figure given on page 13 is 9,568L