‘WAR DIARY. ARMY HEADQUARTERS, INDIA. […] I.E.F. “D”. Volume 55. PART I. (From 1st to 15th February 1919.)’ [‎12r] (32/396)

APPENDIX 1.
DIARY No. 8209.
Letter No. M.-51713, dated 13th December 1918.
(Received in War Section^ 31st January ]919.)
From—The Secretary, Military Department, India Otfice,
To The Secretary to the Government of India, Army Department, Delhi.
With reference to the Viceroy’s telegram No. 15065 of 9 th November
(Diary No. 19298) and the Secretary of
Diary No. 99653. < State’s telegram No. 8884^ as to the sale
in India of animals no longer required for Army purposes. I forward here
with copy of correspondencet with the
FL W w M 0 offlJe!S. Dierntr. War Office from which it appears that
t Attached 2 pages. the Government’s rule for selling cast
Army horses in India are not in any way affected.
We shall he glad to have a report eventually as to the number of animals
which India is able to absorb from Mesopotamia either by sale to private indivi
duals in India or by way of replenishing normal establishments or in substitu
tion for the ordinary remount shipments.
Working copy to Q. M. G.
Copy to M. S. C., G. S. (S. D. 1, S. D. 3),
Enclosure to Diary No. 8209.
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. ,
Whitehall, S. W. 1.
29th November 1918.
Sir,
In continuation of my letter of the 30th October M.-4460 regarding the sale
to Orientals of surpl us army animals, I am directed to forward a copy of a
telegram from the Government. A copy of paragraph 18 of the Secretary of
State Army Despatch No. 83 of 1917 is also enclosed. The paragraph reports
action taken by the Government regard
ing the sale of cast Army animals in India
No. 15085, dated 9th November.
in response to certain representatives by the R. S. P. C. A. This body was
informed of the action taken and has made no further objection. I am also to
explain that a ‘Transferred subject” means a subject which it is proposed should
be dealt with by the representative Indian element in the new constitutional
machinery recommended in the Montagu Chelmsford report.
It appears to this department that the pledge given by Mr. Lloyd George
in the House of Commons on October 12, 1916 was not intended to cover sale to
Indians hut only to other Orientals not under the British Government such as
Arabs, and also that it had regard to a class of animal much inferior to those
which will soon be demobilised in Mesopotamia and consequently more liable
to ill-usage.
Mr. Montagu is therefore of opinion that so long as cast horses are sold
in India under conditions to which the R. S. P. C. A. take no exception no
further action is necessary.
I am to enclose a copy of a telegram addressed to the Government and to
ask that a decision may be reached as soon as possible as to the pledge, which
it is assumed is not in any case to be regarded as affecting the Government’s
normal practice of selling under certain conditions animals cast from the Army
in India.
I am, etc.,
(Intld.) H. V. C.
The Secretary, War Office.
Q. M. G. 4, 28669.
Enclosure to Diary Eo. 8209. , ,
M. 51713. ' War Office.
116—Gen. No. 6582 (Q. M. G. 4). London, S. W. 1.
5th December 1918.
Sir,
In reply to your letter No. M.-47160 of November 29th I am commended
by the Army Council to inform you that the following instruction has been
issued with reference to the sale in Eastern Theatres of horses surplus on the
demobilisation of Armies, and has been cabled to Commander-in-Chief, Meso
potamia (copy attached) :—
“Animals no longer required by the Armies in the Eastern Theatres of
War should be disposed of to the best advantage by sale or otherwise. At the
same time General Officers Commanding are instructed to exercise a very liberal
discretion in destroying instead of selling horses especially those of British
origin which it maybe found impossible to repatriate or which are not worth
the freight and for which good homes cannot be found on the spot.”
12