'Expenditure on Malleson Mission and troops in East Persia, 1918 to 1921' [‎5r] (9/34)

9
4
Commissioners of the Treasury will agree to the following statement of the resultant
disposal of the cost of this Mission :—
(1) Expenditure on the Mission up to the date of the withdrawal to Meshed to be
a military charge debitable to Imperial revenues (subject of course-to a contribution
from Indian revenues of the normal cost of officers and men of the Indian Establish
ment employed in the Mission).
(2) As regards the date to be taken as that of withdrawal to Meshed, the facts
are :—
(a) The Mission has always been at Meshed, though General Malleson and his
officers visited Transcaspia where most of his troops were.
(b) The last of these troops crossed the border into Persia on 6th April 1919,
though all of them did not return to Meshed, and some still are on the
frontier,
(c) From mid-day of 16th April 1919 the force under General Malleson was
transferred from the command of the General Officer Commanding,
Constantinople, to that of the Commander-in-Chief, India.
From these facts two possible dates emerge, viz., 6th and 16th April 1919, and
Mr. Montagu suggests that the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury should accept
the 16th April 1919 as being the more^suitable date.
(3) From the 16th April 1919 subsequent non-military expenditure would
accordingly be divisible between Imperial and Indian revenues on the half-and-half
principle, subject to the proviso that purely military charges after 16th April 1919
should, as before, be dealt with by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury
as agreed to in their letters of 21st August 1916, Xo. 19988, and 27th March 1919
No. 13060.
The Secretary, Treasury.
I am, &c.,
A. Hirtzel.
4. —Treasury to India O ffice.
No. 1636. Treasury Chambers,
Sir, ^ 21st February 1920.
The Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury have had before Them
your letter of the 9th ultimo (M. 29865) respecting the incidence of cost of General
Malleson’s Mission at Meshed.
In reply I am to state that the Secretary of State for India in Council has
apparently misapprehended the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as
regards the division of cost between India and the Imperial Exchequer as set forth
in the memorandum forwarded semi-officially on the 12th November last. The
proposal in the concluding paragraph of that memorandum was that in view of the
impossibility of making an accurate division of cost between the military and the
political side of the Mission, a compromise should be arrived at under which the cost
up to the date of the withdrawal to Meshed, which My Lords are prepared to accept
as the 16th April 1919, will be borne by Imperial funds subject to the usual
deduction in respect of normal military charges which fall on Indian funds, and that
as from that date the excess cost of the Mission over the normal charges which fall on
India should be borne as to one moiety by the Imperial Exchequer and as regards the
remaining moiety by Indian funds.
If My Lords rightly understand the intention of Sir A. Hirtzel’s letter,
Mr. Montagu proposes that the charges subsequent to the 16th April 1919 should be
divided into (a) political and (6) military, and that the Indian revenue should beat-
only half the cost of the political charges. The whole argument of the Treasury
memorandum was that it is not possible to make an accurate division between
political and military charges, and that in consideration of the acceptance by Imperial
funds of charges prior to the 16th April 1919, half the total charges for the period
subsequent to that date should be borne by the Government of India.
My Lords hope to learn that on reconsideration the Secretary of State for India
in Council is prepared to accept this compromise.
I am, Ac.,
The Under Secretary of State G. L. Barstow.
for India.
3136