'Papers relating to transfer of Middle Eastern Affairs to the Colonial Office and creation of a new Department there, 1920-1921, with Cabinet notes of Milner, Montague, Churchill, self, and others' [‎37r] (73/136)

with which the people are familiar. In this connection it may be noted that
Mr. Lawrence’s statement that the administration generally is conducted in English
is untrue. There is hardly a British officer on the executive staff who is not qualified
in colloquial Arabic.
The revenue of Mesopotamia was collected last year at a cost of 16 per cent.—
not excessive, seeing that in India, after three quarters of a century of settled
government, the cost was 13 per cent. Xo figures are available for a comparison
with Turkish times, but it is clear that the Turkish system must have been
exceedingly costly. No less than six different departments, with separate establish
ments, independently collected revenue and remitted it to Constantinople. Moreover,
almost all branches of revenue were farmed—a system which is notoriously uneco
nomical to the State and burdensome to the taxpayer. It is, therefore, perhaps not
surprising that until the last two years before the war there was a deficit in the
Mesopotamian budget.
At all events, it is said, the 'Turks took much less out of the people than you are
taking ; the Turkish revenue was 2J- millions, and you are taking six. No figures of
Turkish revenue are available here, and I am unable to trace the 2J- millions to any
higher authority than the Daily Mail. The revenue budgeted for in the current
year is about millions (at 2s. to the rupee). Of this sum 2|- millions are furnished
by customs, the rates being the same as under the lurks, and all other heads of
revenue combine to make a little over two millions.
In 1919-20 the corresponding figures (at the same rate of exchange) were Total
revenue 4,142,000?., customs*2,202,OOOL, remaining heads 1,940,000?. The land revenue
in 1919-20 yielded 1,508,000?., for 1920-21 the estimate is 1,581,000?. Mr. Ormsby
Gore, in his admirable speech in the House of Commons debate, sought to make the
point that the revenue had jumped from a little over 1,000,000?. in 1918-19 to
5,000.000?. in 1919-20; but he had failed to notice that his figures for 1918-19
were for Baghdad only, while those for 1919-20 were for Baghdad, Basra and
Mosul. Can it reasonably be said that a taxation revenue of 2,000,000?. is
excessive for the whole of Mesopotamia ? We are told that it is larger than the
Turks’ revenue, and that is probably true—but the explanation is simple. First, the
area under cultivation is now some 15 per cent, or 20 per cent, greater than it was in
Turkish times. Second, the price of grain is something like 300 per cent, higher than
it was before the war. In point of fact, the Turkish land revenue assessments have
almost everywhere been reduced. In the Hiilah division, for example, the Turkish
demand was as much as 60 per cent, of the gross produce on some classes of land:
we have reduced it to 30 per cent, or even 25 per cent., with a rebate of 3 per cent,
for prompt payment. It is true that in certain areas taxation and control are being
imposed on tribes which have never submitted to either. Over the Shamiyeh
division, for example, where the recent trouble has been, the Turks had exercised no
control for 10 years before the war. But our rate of taxation has always been
tempered to the degree of control exercised, and it is noteworthy that the Muntafiks
division—from which in the early days no revenue whatever was collected, and on
which a demand was made only last year—has not joined in the recent outbreak,
and that in the Amarah division such confidence and contentment prevail that the
tribesmen have voluntarily surrendered 24,000 rifles. 1 he Arab likes taxation
as little as anyone else, but there is no evidence that excessive taxation is one of
the contributory causes of the present unrest.
I grant your administration, says Mr. Lawrence: “ We had to set up a war-time
“administration. We had no choice ; but that was two years ago, and we have not
“ yet changed to peace conditions. Indeed, there are yet no signs of change.”^ For
that, at least, 1 admit no responsibility either for myself or for Sir Arnold \\ ilson.
Mr. Lawrence perhaps forgets that juridically the position is the same as it was two
years ago. Mesopotamia is still Turkish territory, and as such is still administered,
under international law, by the army of occupation. It is only two months ago that
the mandate was granted to us. Technically, therefore, our attitude has been correct.
That it has been in the highest degree inexpedient no one can doubt. More than
once since 1917 the Civil Commissioner had pressed for the despatch of a Commission
to examine political conditions on the spot; and for at least a year past it has
been perfectly evident that it was essential to make a move in fulfilment of the
pledges given by His Majesty’s Government. In November last year the India
Office put forward a draft sketch of an Arab Government, and urged that an
immediate announcement should be made. Though Lord Curzon in his telegram to
Sir P. Cox of 14th November agreed—“ We are strongly of opinion that something must
be said without delay ”—it was not until 4th May this year that a formula was arrived