Page 139 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

Chapter V. 117

1885, to measure 1J jarib. They also authorised the expenditure of a sum not
exceeding Rs. 9,000 on strengthening and repairing the Consulate, adding Post
Otfico and clerks’ quarters and tlio provision of a new flag-stair. Provision was
also mado for an annual outlay for ropairs of Its. 1,000.
100. There aroso then the objection of the Turkish authorities to the trans­
fer of tho property. The Turkish Law
External A . July 1892, No*. 202-210.
did not prohibit acquisition of immoveable
property by an alien, hut the authorities objected to a transfer in the name of
the Government of India, Secretary of State, the British Embassy or the Con­
sulate. Tho fact was that tho Turks were strongly opposed to foreigners acquir­
ing landed property in their dominions. In this connection wo might quote
tho opinion of Messrs. Lynch and Company in reply to an enquiry by tho
British Council, Basrah, of their experience in the matter:
In reply, wo beg to 6t;ito that we arc not subjected to any exceptional taxes or dues, nor
(Letter tinted tlio 3rd February 1S91). is any open expression or jealousy manifested on
External A., July 1891, Noi. 41-48 (No 40). the part of the Government, but at the same time
our tenure of landed property is not wholly satisfactory. In instances where we have
addressed tho local Government for redress of cortain grievance*, our petitions have always
met with stolid indoferencc, and failing then- settlement through tho mediation of influential
natives, we have been obliged t<> abandon them. It is true that none of the questions liavo
been of vital importance, but the disinclination which is thus shewn to attend to our claims,
augurs, we think that our possession of lauded property hero is not akogothor acceptable to
the Turkish Government.
101. The Porto thus tried all sorts oF obstructive measures against our ac­
quiring tho site in question. In the first
Exiornal A., July 1691, No*. <9-27J.
place, we were told that tlie Porte would
object to the “ Secretary of State.’* “ British Government ” or “Consul’’be­
ing entered in the title deeds as purchaser of the Basrah Consulate. The Gov­
ernment of India enquired whether the difficulty could not be removed by dip­
lomatic action at Constantinople. In reply we wore told that there would bo
difficulties in getting the transfer made in tho Secretary of State’s name but
that the Embassy could arrange for sanction being given to transfer in the name
of the “British Consul.” The Governmnnt of India agreed. Then it appeared
that tho Porto had discovered some objections to “ Cousulato ” and tlio trans­
feree must be the Embassy. The Government of India were asked if they had i
any objections. There was of course none, but the Government of India took
the precaution of getting tho Secretary of State’s leave. That was in Septem­
ber 1893. In February 1894 we learned from the Embassy that tho Poite’s
sanction would be given in two or three days The Porte swung round again,
refused to sanction the transfer in name of Embassy and wanted a private indi­
vidual entered as the purchaser which would not suit us for obvious reasons.
102. It was then proposed by the Government of India that Mr. Beville, tho
British Consul at Basrah, should be the
External A., July 1894, No*. 79-272. (No. 2f.6).
purchaser. Though there were obvious
objections to this course, tho Embassy had no objection to it provided he had
children or other relations to inherit tho property and that sufficient security
could bo given by him. The arrangenmut
External A., July 1894, No*. 79—272 (No. 267).
however was not to he permanent (See
Foreign Department telegram to the Resident, dated the 10th June 1894).
103. The Land Department then began co raise their obstructions to the
transfer sanctioned. Tho matter, after
Scctct E., May 189G, Nos. 160—262.
further repeated representations by tho
Embassy to the Porte, was ultimately settled by an Iradc passed by the Sultan
sanctioning tho transfer to the Embassy
Secret E., May 1691, No*. ICO—262. (No. 216).
(sco Sir P. Currie’s Despatch, dated the
24th May 1895 to the Foreign Office.)
104. In their letter No. 22G7-E., dated the 27th December 1895, tho Gov­
ernment of India then sanctioned the ex­
Secret E„ May 1891, No*. 1G0—262. (No. 249).
penditure of the following sums :—
(1) Rs. 9,000 for repairs and additions to the Consulotc.
(2) Rs. G50, on account of fee to tho Basrah Land Department for effect­
ing transfer of the property.
SG16FD