Papers of the Interdepartmental Conference on Middle Eastern Affairs [‎113r] (225/290)

Captain Griffin pointed out that it was desirable to receive information as soon as
possible regarding provision of funds. The labour question was the chief difficulty as
most of the labour was imported from India. If the programme was not to be sanctioned
then labour would have to be repatriated, and he pointed out that it was necessary to
continue to pay the men until they actually returned to their homes. On the other
hand, if money were not provided in good time and labour in the meantime repatriated,
he pointed out that it would take a very long time to secure fresh labour from India.
He added that the proposed central workshops at Baghdad were an absolute necessity.
At present there were four local workshops in operation—a system which was unsatis
factory An East India Company trading post. from both a financial and technical point of view.
In reply to a question by Sir Arthur Hirtzel, Captain Griffin stated that in India
on lines other than State lines railway rates were controlled, and that no constructional
or survey 7- work could be undertaken without Government sanction. there was an
arrangement by which the railways were bound to carry the necessary military traffic.
Major Hobart said that the General Staff were only concerned in the present
question, and in so far as that some arrangement for transport of troops in case of
emergency was absolutely 7 essential. In this connection some, form of State control was
indispensable. In view of the fact that in India the Punjab lines are State-owned
railways, he considered that there was an even stronger case for State-owned lines in
Mesopotamia, both now and for some time to come. In view of the stringent conditions
which it would be necessary to impose from the military point ot view, he did not
consider that any company would consent to take the railway over.
After some discussion, General May said the question of the Civil Administration
taking over the inland water transport should be considered, and he pressed that this
should be done at an early date concurrently with the railways.
Colonel Redman pointed out that there were no estimates available.
General May then suggested that the financial aspects of the question should be
discussed bv the Sub-Committee on the 1st proximo.
This was agreed to.
Sir Arthur Tlirtzel referred to the question of the disposal of rivercraft in
Mesopotamia. He said the general attitude 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. was in favour of free
navigation as far as possible.
General May, with reference to the sale of vessels by Lord Inchcape, stated that
the War Office attitude was that anything that would cause dissatisfaction or unrest
was to be avoided. It was very late, however, to cancel our arrangements with Lord
Inchcape in which the Ministry of Munitions were vitally concerned. I hen attitude
was that they could get rid of the ships in any way they thought fit in the interests
of the taxpayer.
Colonel Redman observed that, owing to the fact that the railways were not
completed, it was improbable that the General Officer Commanding, Mesopotamia, had
declared many vessels surplus to requirements. He considered the best form of control
was a system of licences or control of rates.
Captain Hough remarked that the facilities for local purchasers appeared quite
inadequate.
2he Chairman suggested that the possibility of not proceeding further in the
transaction with Lord Inchcape might be put to Colonel Wilson.
Mr. Millar observed that it was unsatisfactory 7 to bolster up the railways by’
increasing to an artificial extent the river charges. He considered it too late to cancel
arrangements with Lord Inchcape, and remarked that it was not known yet whether
Lord Inchcape had sold the ships, the sale of which was announced for 15th lenuaiy.
He pointed out that the system ot licences, &c., would affect the sale ad\eisely.
Mr. Shuckburgh stated that Lord Inchcape had telegraphed to the same effect.
Mr. Garbett, in reply to a question by Mr. Millar, observed that it was a reasonable
assumption that Lord Inchcape, whose firms controlled the ocean transport trom Basra
to Bombay, were reported to be interested in the Persian Railway, and had absorbed
Lynch and Co., the pre-war monopolists of the r l igris trading fleet, would benefit )\
the sale of river craft in Mesopotamia. He pointed out that what must be avoided
was a false adjustment of through rates. Lord Inchcape was now in a position ,o