'Expenditure on Malleson Mission and troops in East Persia, 1918 to 1921' [‎5v] (10/34)

JO
5. —Treasunj to 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. .
No. 12609. Treasury Cliambers,
Sir, 17tli Marcli 1920.
With reference to the letter from this Department of the 21st February
(1636) respecting the incidence of cost of General Malleson's Mission at Meshed, I
am directed by the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury to state that in
Their view the same principles of division of cost between the British Exchequer and
the Government of India should be applied to the other troops in East Persia. These
would comprise the lines of communication troops with the Malleson Mission, the
Seistan Levies, the Garrisons at Duzdap and Kvasht, &c.
My Lords hope to learn that the Secretary of State for India in Council agrees
that the charges in respect of General Malleson’s Mission as well as of these troops
may be divided accordingly.
I am, etc.,
The Under Secretary of State G. L. Barstow.
for India.
6. — U ar Office to India. O ffice.
No. 0162/38-1. (M.O. 2.) War Office,
Sir, April 1920.
In reply to your letter No. M. 3420, dated 26th March 1920, regarding the
withdrawal of Major-General Malleson’s force from Meshed, I am commanded by the
Army Council to inform you that they are of opinion that the withdrawal should
commence forthwith, and that orders should be issued to this effect.
The Council agree to the proposals in the first part of para. 7 of the Viceroy’s
telegram, No. 204 S., of the~21st February last. They cannot, however, accept against
Army Funds any portion of the cost of the Consular escorts which it is proposed to
leave at Meshed and Seistan after the withdrawal of the other troops in East Persia.
The retention of these escorts appears to be contemplated as a permanent measure,
quite unconnected with any Expeditionary Force or Army of Occupation, and there
fore the escorts are on the same footing as troops formerly employed in Persia in
peace time with which Army Funds were in no way concerned. If it is urged that
Imperial revenues should bear any portion of the cost of these troops, the matter
should be taken up with the Foreign Office and the Treasury, to each of which
Departments a copy of this letter has. been sent.
I am, etc.,
The Under Secretary of State U. J. Greedy.
for India.
7. —Memorandum by the Secretary of State for War.
(Circulated to the Cabinet.)
When I presented the Army Estimates to the Cabinet, a decision was taken that
General Malleson’s force should be “immediately and entirely withdrawn” from
Meshed. My Estimates have been framed upon this basis, and I have no funds
available, without going again to Parliament, to meet the heavy charge entailed in
maintaining this force. I am strongly opposed to its retention, which is regarded
both by the War Office and 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. as unnecessary. I enquired a few days
ago what progress had been made in the evacuation of this force. 1 am informed that
no progress whatever has been made, as Lord Curzon had requested Mr. Montagu to
postpone the withdrawal, and has stated that the “ withdrawal had net been definitely
decided upon.”
In these circumstances, I do not think the responsibility for asking for further
credits from Parliament ought to fall upon me, and 1 consider also that the subject is
.one which requires early Cabinet attention.
War Office, Winston S. Churchill.
19th April 1920.
8 .— Memorandum by Secretary of State for India, dated 23rd April 1920.
(Circulated to the Cabinet.) •
In view of the memorandum by the Secretary of State for War, I wish to explain
the position of my Office in the matter.
In pursuance of what were understood to be the orders of the Finance Committee
of the Cabinet, a telegram was sent to the Government of India (with the approval