Page 142 - Gulf Precis (VI)_Neat

120 Part II.
"Tho prcaont contribution of £ 30 a year from the London Foreign Office i* cquivalentat
Iho curront rale of iustorobt to about Its. 4-70.''
114. While negotiations for iho ronowal of Iho lease of the old Residency on
the new terms were going on, Colonel Mockler in his letter No. 40, dated the 19th
January 1892 (paragraph 3), mentioned
External A., March 1592, No*. 220-221 (No. J20).
a very fine property, measuring 17,000
squnro yards, which belonged lo tho late Nawab Sir lkbal-ud-Uowlah. Its ad­
vantages wore that it was situated on (ho Tigris, with good anchorage alongside
for tho Residency steamer. On the other side it was bordered by a wall and
the high road, thus being securo from encroachment. It contained sufficient
room for all the Residency requirements, including sepoy lines, stables and a
gardon, whereas in the old Residency, tho last were detached from the main
buildings. Cortain buildings already standing on the land were said to be convert­
ible at a small cost into sepoy lines ; thore were already stables on it in a fair con­
dition; and the foundation of tho Nawab’s old residence could be utilized for the
Residency. The cost of tho whole was estimated at Its. 80,250 (said to be an.
outside figure) for the site, and Its. 00,000 for the new buildings required. The
6ito was said lo be tho best in Baghdad from all points of view. Colonel Mockler
again referred to it in paragraph 8 of his
External A., March 1593, Nc» 403-680 (No. 629).
letter No 85, dated the 4th February 1893,
in which bo said that a three years’ lease of the prescut Residency would give
sufficient time to build on the new site.
115. Colonel Mockler’s letter No. 3S5, dated the Gth August 1S9G, again
F.itcrnol A., February 1897, Nci. 154-169 (No. mentioned “ a splendid sito ” which ho
164).. would “almost certainly advise Govern­
ment to buy ” for Rs. 50,000. He estimated the cost of building at Its.
1,10,000. The property was described as “ one of bir Ikbal-ud-Daowlah’s, pur­
chased by Nawab Agha Mahomed Khan.” Prom the rough survey of the site
mentioned in paragraph 17 of the letter, it appears to he the property pre­
viously recommended, but of the buildings only a part of the stable was by that
time repairable,
116. In his letter No. 47G, dated 10th August 1897, it was reported that
Nawab A glia Mahomed Khan, after for a
External A., February 1894, Nos. 187*201.
long time demanding Rs. 48,000 for it,
offered to give Government the option of purchase at Ks. 30,000 for six months.
117. Tho old Residency was in a convenient site in the middle of tho
town. But the building did not belong to Government and the sepoy lines
were situated at some distance from it, and as far as tho Resident was concern­
ed, the arrangement under which he occupied a few rooms in practically a
public office was most inconvenient from the want of privacy. The strongest
argument for retaining tho Residency, hitherto, was, apart from this question
of expense, that the buildings were “in great part sound, strong and seasoned,”
and probably repairable at “ no great outlay.” This argument had now disap­
peared, for the ltesidont was of opinion that “this dilapidated old building
would not hold together much longer.” Further the owner was anxious to god
back that property, and the lease expired in April 1899. Another objection to
thebuildiug was that the arrangements of its rooms and courtyards were intend­
i ed for the residence of a Mnhomcdan nobloman with a large Zenana rather,
I and unsuitable as quarters for an European officer.
118. The cost of transfer, in the absence, of special agreement to the con-
: External A., July 1800, Not. 83-90 (No. 83). rary, the purchaser has to pay and is fixed
. by the Land Department on their own
valuation of the property at 1 per cent. In this case the property was valued
at Rs. 43,000, on which tho duty would be Rs. 330. There were besides other
accidental charges. The total came to Rs. 36,081.
119. It was necessary to obtain the permission of the Porte for tho pur­
chase. Ibis was granted after some hesi­
Hid No. 92.
tation, and as in tho case of tho Basrah
Consulate the transfer of the property was allowed to ho made in the namo of
tho British Embassy (Resident’s telegram dated 3rd July 1900).
!
!