‘Report for the Army Council on Mesopotamia. By Sir John P Hewett, GCSI, KBE’ [‎23r] (50/119)

25
The Grovernment of India decided that the whole of the charges on these three works should
be borne by army funds. This decision is justified, in paragraph 6 of Sir Godfrey Fell’s letter
of the 6th March, 1918, as having been given in accordance with the principles expressed in
paragraph 3 of that letter and quoted in full above. The Civil Commissioner had, in recommending
the distribution of the charges, definitely informed the Government of India that the works had
been carried out entirely (in the case of those undertaken at Nasiriyah) or primarily (in the
other two cases) for military reasons, and therefore the Government of India had determined, in
accordance with the first of the two principles specified, that army funds should bear the cost. In
response to a call from the War Office the Financial Adviser furnished a report. In his letter
of the 4th December, 1917, he gave excellent reasons why, on the merits of the cases, the distribution
advocated by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and the Civil Commissioner should be carried
into effect, but the Government of India declared themselves unable, so long as the two principles held
good, to modify their decision. The works have been visited by Messrs. Buckley and Koche and myself.
There is no question whatever of the benefit which the civil population has derived, and is deriving from
them. The distribution of the cost which the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief and the Civil
Commissioner originally suggested between army funds and the revenues of the occupied territories was,
in our judgment, very fair, and, if anything, favourable to the civil administration, and we are of opinion
that that distribution should now be carried into effect.
49. Early in 1918 the acting Civil Commissioner, in connection with a case in which the amount at
issue was comparatively small, again raised the question of the incidence of cost in cases of expenditure
for the benefit of both military and civil interests, and urged that it should be dealt with on broad lines.
Lieut.-Colonel Wilson contemplated writing to the Foreign and Political Department of the Government
of India on the subject, but, after consultation with the Financial Adviser, it was determined that the
letter quoted in the Viceroy’s telegram of the 20th April, 1918 [Vo. 103 of printed papers^, to the Secretary
of State should be despatched by the General Officer Commanding-in-Chief as embodying both his views
and those of the Civil Commissioner. The object of the recommendation was to get rid of the necessity
for making minor adjustments, and its substance was that the surplus revenues of the occupied territories
should be credited annually to the Imperial Government in relief of the military estimates for irrigation.
The Government of India informed the Secretary of State that they saw no reason to modify the views
expressed in Sir Godfrey Fell’s letter of the 6th March, 1918, or to make any adjustments on the lines
of the suggestion made for the credit to Army funds of the surplus revenues of the occupied territory in
order to meet irrigation charges embodied in the war accounts. The portion of the surplus revenues
to be appropriated towards meeting the expenditure charged to the War Office in the accounts of the
Expeditionary Force was, the Government of India said, essentially one for settlement between the
War Office and His Majesty’s Treasury. A letter to the War Office dated the 9th May, 1918, conveyed
the opinion of the Secretary of State for India that the procedure explained in Sir Godfrey Fell’s letter
of the 6th March was appropriate and convenient, and his hope that the War Office would concur in its
continuance. It was intimated to the Government of India by the Secretary of State in his telegram
of the 7th November last that the War Office would await my report before expressing an opinion. The
principles described in Sir Godfrey Fell’s letter of the 6th March, 1918, are in the meantime being followed.
The War Office was asked, in 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. letter No. F/4248, dated the 9th May, 1918, to concur in the
continuance of this procedure, but did not apparently do so.
50. It is understood that very few references have been made to the Government of India as to the
distribution of cost between civil and military funds in individual cases. The question was raised as to
whether certain recurring charges of a trivial amount incurred by the Telegraph Department at Bughailah,
after troops had been withdrawn from the place, should be debited to the revenues of the occupied terri
tory, but the matter was held to be governed by the orders of the Government of India, and was not
referred to them. In December, 1917, Sir Percy Cox made three references to the Government of India.
Two related to compensation claims arising out of the widening of some streets and a road at Ashar
(Basrah). The amounts involved in these two cases were Ks. 12,685 (£846) and Rs. 38,375 (£2,558)
respectively. The works were undertaken at the instance of the military authorities, who agreed to defray
the cost of construction and upkeep of the roads, on the understanding that incidental compensation was
paid from civil revenues. The justification, which Sir Percy Cox advanced for the debit of the former
charge against the revenues of the occupied territories, was that “ the new road is a great addition to the
amenities of the Ashar Municipal area, and has been of great advantage to the local inhabitants : it
was a measure which was in any case needed in the interests of the health of the community, and of
the latter charge that “the widening of the roads in question is a necessary measure which could not have
been long deferred, and had, in fact, been contemplated by the late Turkish administration : a notable
improvement to the Ashar area has been efiected thereby, and the provision of municipal water supply
and electric lighting has been facilitated.” The third case related to a step which had to be taken “ as
a military measure arising from scarcity of food grains in Baghdad and district,” to encourage the civil
population of Baghdad to emigrate to places in the Basrah wilayat where food was more plentiful. At Kut
untenanted houses calculated to accommodate some 3,000 or 4,000 refugees were repaired at a cost of
Rs 7 000 (£467), and at Basrah temporary huts were constructed by the civil authorities at an estimated cost
ofRs’ 2,00,966 (£13,398) to accommodate some 2,000 people. Sir Percy Cox, in view of the fact that repairs
at Kut would constitute a valuable improvement of civil property, recommended that one-third of the
cost should be borne by civil revenues,, but was not willing to hold them responsible for any portion of
the expenditure at Basrah. The decision of the Government of India (dated the 23rd May, 1918) was
that the principles embodied in Sir Godfrey Fell’s letter of the 6th March, 1918, had been approved by
His Majesty’s Government, and that it was* therefore unnecessary to charge a portion of the expenditure
(C 1781) . D