§ MR. J. K. CROSSMy hon. Friend the Member for North Derbyshire (Mr. Cheetham) asked me on Monday night—the 9th—with respect to the division between the Indian and the British Exchequers of the charges of the Indian Contingent sent to Suakin, whether any assurances had been received that the 1088 employment of Indian troops in the Soudan on the proposed terms met with the approval of the Indian authorities? I replied that Her Majesty's Government had received no protests whatever, and that I thought that if any objections had been entertained in India, Her Majesty's Government would have heard of them. I should mention that on the 9th of February the Viceroy had been informed by telegram of the details of the Force required from India, and had been also informed, in the following words, of the proposed financial arrangement:—
The British Treasury will defray all additional expense caused to the Indian Treasury by the employment of these troops.When I answered my hon. Friend on Monday night no objection had been received from the Government of India to the financial arrangements proposed in the telegram which I have just quoted. But on the following morning—Tuesday, 10th of March—we received a despatch, dated February 17, in which the Government of India say that they—May have imperfectly apprehended the precise nature of the arrangement.This despatch of February 17 seemed to imply that they were not perfectly satisfied; but, at the same time, in a Circular Order of the 12th of February, which was received by the same mail as the despatch of the 17th of February, they say that—The whole of the extra expenditure will, as in the Abyssinian Expedition, he debited to Her Majesty's Imperial Government.A telegram was, therefore, sent on the 10th instant, explaining the arrangement, which strictly follows the Abyssinian precedent, and asking whether this does not meet their wishes. To this telegram the following reply has been received, which, with the permission of the House, I will read—Telegram from the Viceroy, dated Calcutta, March 11, 1885.Though your proposal doss not altogether coincide with that contained in our financial despatch, No. 53, of February 17, we acquiesce in the arrangements suggested.I have thought it better to make this statement, lest there should be the slightest misapprehension on the subject.