Page 240 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

96
Question —Whether that practico has To No. //. Answer,—No actual ill results
been found to be attended with any ill up to this time ; but looking to the changing
result ? conditions of society in those regions, it would
not be prudent to delay placing matters on a
sounder basis.
Question—To what classes of British To No, 111. Answer.—The Bombay Gov-
subjects tha jurisdiction of the Courts to be ernment question the expediency of limiting
established should apply ? the jurisdiction "to persons born of wholly
British parentage.”
They say:—
"Such a restriction might easily deprive a bond fide British subject of the protection
to which he had a fair claim. It may fairly be urged that the very fact of the existence of
what is termed the ‘heterogenous body of men* spread over the globe as British subjects,
affords strong ground for rendering the contemplated order in Council truly comprehensive
and efficient. We have now in Australia, Canada, the Cape, and New Zealand, great and
increasing communities of undeniable British subjects. Germans and other foreigners are
establishing themselves there and in India in large numbers, and will undoubtedly inter­
marry with the resident population. It is hard to discover any sound reason for depriving
the son of a British father and Foreign mother of the protection of the Court, and His
Excellency is inclined to believe that the extension of the jurisdiction of the Court to all
British subjects would not in practice be found to be so inconvenient as seems to be
apprehended. The Court might be invested with power to determine the status, for its own
purposes, of any one claiming to be a British subject. It might be a rule that whenever
a question on that point was raised, it should be determined before entering upon the suit,
and that the determination should be final. The number of British subjects of importance
taking up their residence in Persian and Arabian towns must be limited. Their arrival
would generally be known to the British authorities, and it would not be difficult for the
Court by rule to fix and declare the nature of the proofs, documentary and others, of
British origin, which they would require in support of a claim to the protection of the
Court.”
With reference to the Secretary of State’s despatch (in which the Secretary
of State desired that Colonel Pelly should
No. 67, dated 31st May 1871.
be instructed to take steps, if necessary, to
procure the requisite assent from the rulers of territories in the Persian Gulf not
subject to Turkey, Persia, or Maskat), the Bombay Government stated that it
would not be necessary to obtain the assent of these rulers, as by usage and
sufferance the British Government had long exercised and did exercise jurisdic­
tion over British subjects in contemplation.
The Bombay Government thought the time had arrived for Colonel Pelly to
proceed to Constantinople and discuss with Sir P. Francis the best mode of
dealing with cases in which British subjects might be plaintiffs, and Persian
defendants, a matter to which he attaches much importance.
332. The following was the reply given
Political A. Notember 1875, Nos. 307-12.
by the Government of India to the Secre-
tary of State in this despatch, dated 24th August 1871
The Governor-General of India iti Council to the Duke of Argyll dated Fort William,
24th January iSyg.
We are at length in a position to reply to Your Grace’s despatch, dated. 31st May
_ _ _ 1871,0a the question of Consular jurisdiction
in Persia and the Persian Gulf; and we have
net Pclij, 24th January 1873. 7a* 0 0 0* now the honour to forward, for the information
of Her Majesty’s Government, a copy of the
papers marginally noted relating to the subject.
2. In the discussion of this question, care must be taken to distingnish between the
legal position of the British Government in relation to Foreign Powers and its position in
respect to its own subjects: points which though quite distinct arc uevertheless easily
confounded.
3. It would seem scarcely necessary for us to observe that the Foreign Jurisdiction
Act cannot confer any jurisdiction as against the Government of a foreign country. It is
intended solely ts bind those over whom the Foreign Government allows British jurisdic­
tion to be exercised. The Act assumes that the jurisdiction has been granted, and is
addressed to remove doubts as to how far such jurisdiction is controlled by English law.
This is done by sections i and 2. By the four next sections the Act confers some useful