Papers of the Interdepartmental Conference on Middle Eastern Affairs [‎52v] (104/290)

6
military reasons, and, in any case he had Mr. Lloyd George’s
assurance that M. Clemenceau had said that Mosul 'was ours. No
objection to this extension need therefore be anticipated.
General Faddiffe said there was urgent military need of at least
a light railway to Mosul if the troops there were not to be withdrawn
in the near future. Nor in the present unsettled state of the country
did it seem practicable that they should be withdrawn ; the recent
murder of a political officer in those parts (Captain A. C. Pearson)
looked like a premonition of a coming storm.
Mr. Kidslon said that the question of extending the railway to-
Mosul had already been discussed by the Eastern Committee. Lord
Curzon had taken exception to the proposal, and had pointed out
that it was contrary to our agreement with the French.
General Fadcliffe said he endorsed what Colonel Wilson had
said as to Paris being unlikely to raise objection to this line. It
was fully understood in Paris that no objection to our occupation of
Mosul would be made.
If this Conference thought that it ought not to attempt to decide
the question to-day, it might be possible to put before Lord Curzon
our recommendation that a narrow-gauge railway to Mosul should
be sanctioned.
Mr. Shuckburgh asked how long it would take to build.
Colonel Wilson said that if orders were received at once, a
2 ft. 6 in. railway could be pushed through by the end of July.
Mr. Waterfield suggested that if such a recommendation were
made a rider should be added asking that the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs should communicate, either informally or officially,
on the question of expenditure with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
He had been instructed to state that decisions of this kind ought to
be communicated to the Chancellor.
Mr. Shuckburgh said, with reference to the taking over of the
“ quasi-civil ” Departments, putting on one side the questions of the
railways, would it satisfy Colonel Wilson if instructions were sent
to each authority in the sense of paragraph 9 of the Memorandum
before the Conference ?
Colonel Wilson said that, as regards paragraph 9(1), the men
concerned were entitled to their return passages to England under
War Office regulations in the ordinary course. They had earned
their leave in the Army, and it seemed to him that the Army was
bound to bear the expense of bringing them back to England. It
seemed possible, however, that the cost of the passage from
England to Mesopotamia at the expiry of their leave might be
accepted as a charge against the revenue of the occupied territory.
Mr. Waterfield said the Army was not bound to bring a man
back if he did not wish to come back. He considered that the
charges for both passages should be met by the Civil Administration.
Mr. Shuckburgh said that the War Office was willing to take
that responsibility.
Colonel Wilson said he was already acting on the lines laid
down in proposal 9 (2), and had found it absolutely necessary in the
case of about 10 per cent, of the staff.
After a brief discussion the Conference decided :—
1 . That the recommendations laid down in paragraph 9 ( 1 ),.
( 2 ), and (3) of 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. Memorandum of the
2nd April be accepted, but that the proposal contained
in paragraph 9 (4) should remain, for the present, in
abeyance.