Page 232 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

88
Court of Directors, however, in their despatch with reference to this matter (dated
7th July, No. 19 of 1858) stated :—
"We wish it to be explained on what ground it is considered part of the duty of the
British representative to recover sums lent by the natives of India to Arab Chiefs, such
a proceeding bring totally opposed to the general principles which regulate our relations
with Native States."
302. In reply to these remarks Captain Jones stated :—
“The recovery of sums lent by our subjects to Arab Chiefs does in reality form no
part of the duty of the British representative in these parts, though in his intercourse with
the Chiefs and people he has always endeavoured by friendly remonstrances to advance
their claims by recommending them to the Chiefs, so that they may receive attention in
regions where, without the occasipnal countenance of protecting authority, their mercantile
transactions and British Indian trade in general would be precarious if not altogether
stagnant.
“ With respect to the case cited in the paragraph in question, it was a gross one
partaking of the nature of a fraud in which the British Agent at Lingah was in some way
involved and through him likely to prove detrimental to the appellant, Pachahbhoy Tejsce.
It seemed to me one, therefore, requiring more than ordinary interference, and while Con­
demning the conduct of the Agent, I deemed it also incumbent on me to exert myself in
the recovery of the sum, which was at last effected, in the manner reported.
“At the same time I am fully impressed with the correction that the adjustment of
ordinary transactions between British Native traders and the Chiefs and the people of
these regions should not come under the consideration of the British Resident, conducted
as such transactions arc, in a complicated and usurious manner, peculiar to a needy popula­
tion on the one hand, and a highly speculative and exacting class like the banians on the
other. Indeed were interference the rule instead of the exception, it would necessitate
Courts of Appeal and British Consular authorities in every petty locality of the Gulf.
Moreover, owing to the insecurity attending trade in all Arab localities, I have more than
once promulgated to those engaged in trade warning that they are pursuing it at their own
risk. The profits are, however, so great that they are heedless of temporary losses and
continue in the prosecution of gain, content with the assurances of our general protection
against open insult or oppression."
303. The Bombay Government, thereupon, decided that—
“ The Resident should, as a general rule, abstain from all interference with the
claims of merchants against Chiefs and others on the shores of the Persian Gulf P
And the Secretary of State, with reference thereto, observed—
“ Her Majesty’s Government are extremely desirous to avoid all useless interference
with the pecuniary and commercial transactions of these Arab Chiefs and tribes, and
cordially approve the orders issued by you on the subject."
(xl) The reading together of the Treaty of Paris, 1857, and the Treaty of the Tur-
komanchai 1828 Commercial Contract.
304. Article9of the treaty of Paris (rz) 1857 concluded* between Persia and
Aitchison’s Treaties, Volume X, Persia, No. England at the dose of the war between
xvin* the two countries in 1856-57 provides as
follows:—
That on the establishment and recognition of Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls
and Consular Agents, each shall be placed in the dominions of the other on the footing of
the most favoured nation; and that the treatment of their respective subjects and their trade
shall also, in every respect, be placed on the footing of the treatment of the subjects and
commerce of the most favoured nation."
3°5* Up to the year 1858 and for many years afterwards the most favour­
able treatment in this reipect was secured to foreigners in the clauses quoted
below in the special Separate Compact added to the Treaty of Turkomanchai
between Russia and Persia, 1828, Aitchinson’s Treaties, Volume X, Appendix
6, Persia
Article 7.
#t All lawsuits and litigation between Russian subjects shall be submitted exclusively
to the investigation and decision of the Mission or of the Consuls of Russia in confor­
mity with the laws and customs of the Russian Empire. So also shall disputes and lawsuits
arising between Russian subjects and those of another Power, in case the two parties
shall consent to such a course. Whenever any disputes or lawsuits shall arise between
• Not*.—The treaty of Paris of 1857 does rot revive any of the treaties between Persia and England concluded
before the war and hence it forms the basis of our relations with Persin.