Page 239 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat
P. 239

95
              " So far as this Residency is concerned, I would again draw attention to the fact that
           what is required is first—
              " An order in Council or other authoritative document investing the Resident with
           legal jurisdiction round the whole littoral, whether Arabian, Persian, or other, and on the
           waters of the Gulf of Persia and Oman.
                                         once^morc^nrncsUy^oficiting9t hematic ntion^of
             •• The Government of Indin would probnbiy higher authority to the desirability of a modifica-
           wish to consider this correspondence (regarding tion in the Commercial Treaty* with Persia. It
           claims of British subjects) in connection with the may be argued that this subject is irrelevent to
                                  Consular the one under discussion But in my deferential
           Court, which would hnve cognizance only ot dis» opinion the question of cases wherein British
           puies as between two British subjects, is some subjects or proteges arc plaintiffs, and Persian
                                         subjects defendants, is kindred to the question
           ptompt and equitable disposal of suits or com- on which I am now reporting. Practice, indeed,
           plaints preferred by British against Persian tub- in SOine instances shows the two questions to be
           Jeclt*                        curiously and pcrplcxingly intermixed.
              “Jurisdiction of the character contemplated in the Government Resolution is doubtless
           desirable, and with time must become increasingly so. But some arrangement under which
           British subjects and protfges maybe enabled with confidence to prosecute their claims
           against Persian subjects is, in my opinion, essential to the dcvclopement of trade and to
           the interests of our subjects.
              w I understand that in Turkey this necessity is provided for by a sort of mixed Mer­
           cantile Board, and I think that if I or any other officer be ordered to Constantinople, this
           subject should form a part of the discussions to be carried on between Sir Philip Francis
           and myself or the officer deputed/'
               330. Lastly, as regards the authority for the application of the Foreign Juris­
           diction Act to the territories of the Chiefs and tribes on the Arab Coast, whom we
           hold to be independent both of Persia and Turkey, Colonel Pelly reported:—
             Rasool Khyir.ab.   Ejman.      “ As at present informed, I beg most res-
             Shargah.      Dcba>-        pectfully to submit that in my opinion it is not
             Omul Gowain.  Aboothabee.   cither necessary or expedient to obtain the assent
           of the Rulers of the territories in question.
              u By usage and sufferance we have long exercised, and do now exercise, every power
           and jurisdiction over our subjects resident in the territories of the above named Trucial
           Chiefdoms that could be contemplated by the Foreign Jurisdiction Act and orders in Council
           framed under its provisions: while to propose a fresh Treaty article would appear to the
           Chiefs supererogatory, and might awaken suspicions in their minds, especially at a
           time when Turkish intrigues have so recently disturbed the Arab coast line."
               He again urged the advisability of his proceeding to Constantinople, whereby
           he
           “ could observe the working of the Courts at Constantinople and discuss with Sir
             Vide my letter No. 1061-281, dated x6th Sep- Phillip the question of the proposed important
           tember 1871.                  alteration in the Commercial Treaty with Persia,
           AprU°i872mCnl Reso,ut,on No* 2323, datcd ,9th having for its object the better and more equit-
             My letter No. 858-214, dated 1st June 1872. able adjudication of disputes wherein British
             Government letter No. 3967, dated 3rd July subjects may be plaintiffs and Persian subjects
           1872                          defendants.”
               331. The Bombay Government in sending up these papers replied to the
           three questions put by the Government of India:—
             Question.—What is the actual practice  To No. /. Answer.—When British subjects
           at present prevailing in the Gulf as regards are concerned as defendants the following is
           jurisdiction in cases where British subjects the course of proceedings:—
           are concerned ?
              “ In Maskat they are dealt with under the Consular jurisdiction enjoyed by the Politi­
           cal Agent under the High Court of Bombay.
              “ Those in Turkish territory come under the jurisdiction of the Vice-Consul at Busreh.
              11 Thoso in Arab Coast States have not required the exercise of criminal jurisdiction.
              “ Those in the Persian ports have been dealt with by the Political Resident and his
           Assistants, both in criminal and civil cases, in the exercise of an irregular jurisdiction, for
           which there is no proper authority, and which might at any time be called'ih question by
           the parties af^cctcd.,,
   234   235   236   237   238   239   240   241   242   243   244