'PRINCIPAL DESPATCHES AND CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO PERSIA CONNECTED WITH THE SUMMARY OF EVENTS AND MEASURES OF VICEROYALTY OF HIS EXCELLENCY LORD CURZON OF KEDDLESTON IN THE FOREIGN DEPARTMENT. JANUARY 1899 TO NOVEMBER 1905. VOLUME IV-PART IV. PERSIA.' [‎29v] (63/136)

[ 1
III,
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. .
A—-Charges home by Her Majesty’s Government —
Baghdad, Mosul and Karbela
B—Charges borne by the Government of India 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. —
131
Baghdad Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India.
Basrah Consulate (to be paid at the Home Treasury)
Tigris Postal subsidy
Maintenance of “ Comet ” ... '
... 1,600
... 2,506
Total Indian charges ... 10,604
65. According to these figures, which we have been at much pains to verify,
it appears that upon the various establishments maintained by the British
Government in Persia, the Imperial Government spends £15,466 and the Gov
ernment of India £61,052 per annum. If 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. he included in the
calculation, as we think it must in fairness he, and as it was in a statement
prepared for and presented to the Royal Commission on Indian expenditure
in 1896, the totals will amount to Great Britain £15,597, India £71,656.
66. . It will not, we apprehend, he denied that these contributions do not
at all fairly represent the respective proportions of Imperial and of Indian
interest in Persia and its surroundings. The argument into which we entered
in an earlier part of this despatch will have failed in its purpose if it has not
given good grounds for thinking that in the determination of British interests
in Persia too much stress has hitherto been laid upon the Indian, and too little
upon the British, cjuota, and that a more even partition both of responsibility
and of financial • burden might with reason be adopted in the future.
67. This however is a question which we are not at the present moment
called upon to discuss with any minuteness, the more so as it is understood to be
one of the subjects that have attracted the attention of the Royal Commission
above alluded to, and that are likely to be dealt with in its Report. We observe
that in the evidence so far printed and published, some attention has been paid to
the case, and we reserve till the appearance of the final Report, any further
remarks that we may have to offer thereon.
68. We would observe, however, in strict connection with fhn mw;™