File 4673/1919 Pt 1 ‘Persian Gulf:- Visit to England of the son of the Sheikh of Bahrein + party. General arrangements + proceedings. Incidence of cost.’ [‎131v] (240/494)

8
I ord Georee Hamilton directs me to express the hope that the Lords of
the Treasury will agree with him in thinking that the recommendations of the
Committee should be approved, with the understanding that they will be acted
upon whenever any occasion arises to wdiich they are applicable.
I have, &c.,
(Signed) A. GOD LEY.
Enclosure in No. 7.
Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Entertainment of Indian and
Colonial Guests.
1. We understand it to be our duty to report upon the course of procedure
to be adopted, and the incidence of the expenditure, in respect of any Indian
or Colonial guests who may visit this country in future by invitation of His
Majesty’s Government.
2. It should be stated, however, that, in the terms of reference contained
in the correspondence which has passed on this subject, there is no express
mention of Colonial guests. But w r e regard the terms as having been implicitly
modified by the addition of a representative of the Colonial Office.
3. The question submitted to us is, in respect of the main principle by
which the answer to it must be determined, a very simple one. To describe
a man as “ a guest visiting this country by invitation of His Majesty’s
Government” is to imply, according to the ordinary acceptation of the w r ords,
that the person so described w r ill live, w r hile he is in this country, at the expense
of the Government by which he has been invited ; that is to say, that he will
he provided by that Government with board, lodging, and other entertainment
of a kind suitable to his position and dignity, and not unworthy of the
reputation of his hosts, for such time as may be covered by the terms of his
invitation. This proposition is so obvious that it w T ould not be w r orth stating,
if it were not that, as regards Indian guests, a different practice has hitherto
obtained ; and the only difficulty is how to account for the fact that, whereas
the charge for the entertainment of Colonial guests has been accepted as a
matter of course by the Imperial Government, the cost of Indian guests in this
country has always, until the present year, been borne by India.
4. \\ e believe that the explanation of this anomaly is to be found in the
fact that the Government of India and the administration of its revenues were
formerly in the hands of the East India Company. The Directors of that
Company, being domiciled in this country, and standing in the place of the
British Government, would naturally undertake the duty of inviting and
entertaining Indian guests ; the cost of such entertainment falling, not upon
the revenues of India (for in those days it could not be said that any such
revenues existed),' but upon the revenues of the Company.
5. By successive Acts of Parliament the position of the East India
Company was modified, and finally the Act of 1858 transferred the Government
of India to the Crown, and placed the revenues derived from the Company s
territories thenceforward to be known as 11 the revenues of India ’’—at the
disposal of the Secretary of State for India in Council. It is not surprising
that, at first, the change in the situation, which had been gradually brought
about by this and by previous Acts, should not have been fully appreciated,
and that the Secretary of State, on stepping into the place of the Company,
should have accepted tins along with the other liabilities of his predecessors.
6. It is, however, plain that, as a matter of fact, the pra ctice of the last
40 years is difficult to defend. From the moment when India became a