'Expenditure on Malleson Mission and troops in East Persia, 1918 to 1921' [‎6r] (11/34)

11
of Mr. Fisher, in my absence) on 10th February informing them that the Cabinet
were of opinion that all troops should be withdrawn from East Persia. At the same
time they were asked for their observations, but it was explained that if the troops
were retained for Indian reasons, the whole cost would probably be thrown on India.
The Government of India replied on 21st February in favour of withdrawal of the
force as such, but my Office, which had agreed with the Foreign Office in strongly
deprecating withdrawal, on military and political grounds, were not convinced b\
their arguments, and approached Lord Curzon with a view to submitting the
question again to the Cabinet. Lord Curzon asked that a memoiandum should be
prepared for his approval, and this necessitated further reference to India to clear
up some financial points. Finally, as Lord Curzon was not satisfied with the
financial proposals made in India’s behalf, he summoned a meeting of the Inter-
llepartmental Conference on Eastern Affairs to discuss the whole question on
17th March. At this meeting Lord Curzon said that “it would assist him very
“ much m putting the case before the Cabinet il he could say that the Government of
“ India were interested to the extent of 50 per cent.” A telegram had, in fact, been
sent to the Government of India on 15th March asking them what was the maximum,
reduction m cost which they could effect and to what extent were thej prepaied to
face it. Their answer, dated 10th March, was felt to make it impossible for 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. to approach the Cabinet again, and official letters were accordingly sent
to the Foreign Office and War Office on 26th March asking if they concurred that
orders should be issued for the immediate commencement of withdrawal. The War
Office concurred, but the Foreign Office on 3rd April stated that Lord Curzon could
not concur, but wished the matter to be discussed again b} 7 the Inter-Depaitmental
Conference! A meeting was therefore held on the eve of Lord Curzon’s departure
for San Remo, as the result of which the letters printed below were exchanged
between him and me. On receipt of his, I explained the position to Mr. Bonar Law,
who decided that no action should be taken until Lord Curzon returned fiom San
Remo and could put the case before the Cabinet himself.
The Eiqht Hon. E. S. Montagu, M.P., to the Right Hon. the Earl Curzon
of Kedleston, K.C., G.C.S.I., G.C.I.E.
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. ,
My dear Curzon, 14th April 1920.
Since the meeting yesterday, I have referred to the Minutes of the rinance
Committee of the Cabinet of the 9th February. They are quite explicit and clear,
and there appears to be nothing contrary to them in the Cabinet Minutes of the
11th February. In accordance with them 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. telegram announced the
decision, while leaving the door open for the Government of India to object, if they
chose.
The present position, therefore, is that the Cabinet ordered withdrawal on
9th February; that on the strength of that order the War Office have made no
further provision in their estimates for the cost of retaining the force ; that the
Government of India (with whom I agree) are unwilling to bear it; and that the
force has not, in fact, been withdrawn, f think you will agree that this is a position
that must be regularised at once, and the only way I see of regulaiismg it,
consistently with the views I hold, is to order the withdrawal to be begun at once
it will take five months—and this I propose to do, unless you are prepared to take
full responsibility (financial and other) for further delay in giving effect to the
decision of the Cabinet. . . ,
I have considered very carefully the possibility of merely reducing the knee,
as you suggested. But this has been proposed to the Government of India, who
maintain that neither from, the military nor from the political point of view is its
retention an Indian interest. I have told the Foreign Office repeatedly that 1 Imd
it increasingly difficult to persuade my Council to sanction the expenditure of Indian
revenues in Persia; it will be impossible for me to do so when the Government of
India themselves disclaim interest in it. . . .
You referred to military expenditure before the war, and it is quite true that
India paid half the cost of the Consular guards and half the post of the troops sent
to Shiraz in 1911. But these troops were not engaged in military operations. Had
they been, it would have been necessary for us, under the Government of India Act,
to obtain the consent of Parliament. That, I submit, is what differentiates the
present case from pre-war precedents. The point is, in fact, under discussion with
the Treasury now as regards the cost of Malleson’s force since it withdrew from
B 2