Page 241 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

97
powers for taking evidence and carrying accused persons and convicts from one place to
another; but these arc exceptional and comparatively unimportant operations, affecting
persons aud things external to, as well as those within, the jurisdiction conferred by the
Foreign Government.
4. Probably two first sections of the Act arc only declaratory of the law as it was,
and as it would have been decided had it come before a British Court of Justice. But
however that may be, it is clear that the Act takes effect whenever the Crown acquirrs
jurisdiction. It gives the Crown absolute power to the extent of the jurisdiction so
acquired, and directs all British authorities to conform themselves accordingly.
5. Over and above the direct operation of the Act, the Crown may, by virtue of the
Act, appoint persons to exercise the powers conferred by sections 3 to 6; it may by virtue
of its general prerogative erect Courts for the exercise of the permitted jurisdiction, and
it inay, by virtue of its prerogative as expressly recognised in the Act, declare the law
which is to be administered by its own Courts.
6. The position of affairs between the British and Persian Governments appears to
be as follows:—For a considerable number of years, apparently extending back to the
time when the Arab Chiefs were Governors of Bushirc the British Resident at that
place has exercised civil and criminal jurisdiction over a certain area. The nature
and legal extent of the criminal jurisdiction does not appear to be very clearly defined.
The civil jurisdiction however seems to embrace (a) all eases between British subjects
and protected persons (who may be called British clients) : (b) all cases in which the
same classes of persons arc defendants ; (c) all cases between those classes and oihei s (not
being Persian subjects) provided the parties consent ; and (dl if a Persian subject is
defendant, and a British subject plaintiff, the case is tried in the Persian Courts,
but a Residency official may be deputed to watch the proceedings.
7. // has been suggested that the jurisdiction thus exercised is wider than what is
authorised by the Treaty of Paris, aud that so much of it as is not covered by the Treaty
is irregular, and ought to be discontinued. The argument upon which this view is based
is that the Treaty of Paris provides that on the establishment and recognition of Consuls-
General, Vice-Consuls, and Consular Agents, and in the treatment of their respective
subjects and their trade, each contracting party shall be placed on the footing of the most
favoured nation ; that Russia is the most favoured nation, and that the Rusians have no
general power of entertaining civil suits in which Russian subjects are the defendants.
But this view appears to us to be erroneous. The fact that the British Government has
exercised larger powers of jurisdiction than the Russians only proves that not Russia but
Great Britain is the most favoured nation in this respect. There is nothing in the Treaty
of Paris which says that the British shall not be the most favoured nation. If the privileges
enjoyed by England were less than those accorded to Russia by the Treaty of Turcoman-
chai, the Treaty of Paris would enlarge them. But if they were already greater that
Treaty does not contract them. We are, therefore, of opinion that what Colonel Pelly
calls “ the old and irregular practice ” which has been carried on for many years with
the knowledge and consent of the Persian Government is perfectly legal, and ought to be
continued till altered by Order in Council.
8. As regards Muscat the Treaty of July 1840 says nothing about crimimal jurisdic­
tion except in one isolated case dealt with by Article IV. We assume, however, that the
Order in Council* of the £th November 1867 is in accordance with criminal jurisdiction
conferred by usage or sufferance. This Order assumes that the Crown possesses complete
criminal jurisdiction over British subjects, and it gives power to the Consul and the High
Court of Bombay to exercise that jurisdiction, each in his allotted province. As regards
civil jurisdiction none is mentioned in the Order except in suits between British subjects,
whereas the Treaty of 1840 distinctly provides for nearly the same amount of civil jurisdic­
tion ns exists in Persia. The jurisdiction in Muscat is somewhat larger in one respect,
as under Article V, if a British subject is plaintiff, and the subject of another Christian
nation defendant, the suit may be tried by the British authorities, without any consent of
the parties, though again it is contracted in respect of the subjects of Muhamaden powers
other than Muscat.
9. The relations of the British Government with the various independent potentates
of the Gulf are of the same character as those .with Persia ; at all events the British
Government does not exercise a less amount of jurisdiction in their dominions than in
those of Persia.
10. There remains only to be considered the question of jurisdiction in the Turkish
possessions bordering on the Gulf. There exists already throughout Turkey an establish­
ed system of Consular jurisdiction under the control of Her Majesty's Ambasador at
Constantinople, with which it may not perhaps be possible to interfere. If the existing
arrangements regarding Turkey do not admit of modification, then Colonel Pelly’s advice
to establish a single jurisdiction for the whole water and littoral of the Persian and Oman
Gulfs must, so far as regards Turkey, be negatived. Otherwise the advice seems to us
very sound, and of considerable importance to the working of the system.
S640FD