Page 238 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

94
Colonel Pclly replied* concurring generally in the views of Sir P. Francis
3*7-
so far as they concerned his own jurisdiction
• No. 340-145, dsted lltk March 1671.
and that of his assistants on the Porsian
Coast. •“ But,” he added,
'• if the orders in Council limit its provisions to Persian territory, it would, in so far as the
jurisdiction of this Residency is concerned, provide for only one littoral of the Persian Gulf,
whereas a large number and indeed the majority of cases arise along the Arab littoral. If
possible, it would, l think, be very desirable that the order in Council should include all
such regions as may be included within the Resident’s jurisdiction.
" Our interests in these regions being mainly British Ind:an, and bulk of British subjects
here trading or residing being British Indian or connected with India, 1 am of opinion that
the officials of this Residence should remain wholly subordinate to the Indian Government.
" Constituting this jurisdiction in part in subordination to the Foreign Office and in part
insubordination tothe Indian authorities would, I apprehend, lead to confusion and delays,
and occasionally even to conflict in instructions.”
328. Again in his letter to the Bombay Government of 14th December 1871
and the postscript thereto, Colonel Pelly remarks:—
“ 1 */.—That my charge is not wholly or principally in Persia ; and that what is required
in respect to this residency is authority to treat civil and criminal matters which may have
place at any point, whether Arabian or Persian, or Turkish, round the shore line of the
Qulfs of Persia and Oman, and whether these matters may happen as between British
subjects, or, as they far more frequently do happen, between a British subject as native.
" 2nd'—That if the intention be to provide for consular jurisdiction in Persia gener-
No. 1302088, d»ied 14th December 1871, and ally, Her Majesty’s Minister at Tehran would
P.S., dated 171b June 1872. seem to be the official who, by his position in
the country and his relations to Her Majesty's Foreign Office, would be best qualified for
determining what rules and provisions may be required.
“ 3rd —That I be empowered to delegate consular duties any particular point to one
of my Assistants as occasion may from time to time require. At present I am continually
hampered by these small questions, particularly at Bushirc. Our political relations round
the two Gulls are my proper charge.
“4th.—That the position of this Residency in relation to Her Majesty’s Foreign Office
and its officers should be determined. This, however, is a subject on which I bad particu-
larly desired to communicate orally with higher authority in India.”
329. With reference to the classes of persons who should be brought within
the consular jurisdiction, which was one of the principal questions raised by the
Government of India in their letter No. 1808, dated 25th August, the following
are Colonel Pelly’s views (his letter No. 1438-384, dated 4th September 1872):—
“I would respectfully submit that the letter No. 1808 almost seems to answer its own
ouestion, as it concludes with the following words, that unless good ground be shown for
doing otherwise * * * * * , the jurisdiction of the Courts to be estab­
: lished should be confined to persons born wholly of British parentage.
“ However, I would now venture to submit that the jurisdiction of the Courts should,
in my opinion, exclude all matters, whether civil or criminal, in which persons born of
foreign parentage are concerned as defendants: in other words, the mere accident of a
person of foreign parentage having been born within British India or other British territory,
or the fact of a person of foreign parentage having received letters of Consular protection
should not entitle that person to the jurisdiction of the Court. But person born wholly of
British parentage (strictly so understood), and also person bond fide born of British Indian
parentage should, I think, be included in the jurisdiction of the Court. I think also that on
grounds of policy and equity, those persons who, although foreigners by parentage, received
British protection prior to our Treaty with Persia of 1857, should also be included in the
jurisdiction of the Court. 1 his class is not numerous and is insusceptible of being added
to uuder our present Treaty relations.
” But it appears to me that whatever may be enacted on this matter, it would be
" Vide page 16 of the Preface io 2nd Edition advisable to avail ourselves of past experience,
nl Si'Robert Phiiiimore's Commen/driVr on/n/rr. Clauses which read clear and equitable, some-
nat‘*Tbt iimnTsTbie character"* of H ■ *• a times fail in the working. In the present in-
Turk arc still attested by the cxemSTYtht stance we have an exemplar in the Courts in
former from the civil and crimiuai jurisdiction of Turkey. What Sir Robert Philhmore calls tne
Turkish tiiounals.*' immiscibility of the Christian and Mahommedan
in Turkey applies at least equally to Persia, and I think the safest course would be for
some officer with local experience in Persia to be associated with the Judge and Consul-
General at Constantinople, and for them to draft an order in Council Committee. This is-
the course I have already more than once suggested.