Page 257 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

1*3
CHAPTER VII.
Questions of Status.

(lii A) Status in Persia of persons born in British dominions of Persian subjects.
387. This question was raised by Colonel Pelly in 1872, and the acting
Advocate-General, Bombay, Mr. C. J. May hew, expressed as his opinion that
a natural born subject of Her Majesty, who is also entitled to the privileges
of a Persian subject, is in Persia entitled to British protection, although he
may not have ceased to be a Persian subject in accordance with Persian law
and usage." This opinion was, Mr. Mayhew thought, in consonance with Article
4 of 33 Viet., C. 14 (1870):—
'* Any person who, l>y reason of his having been born within the dominions of Her
Majesty, is .a natural born subject, but who also at the time of his birth became, under
the law of any foreign slate, a subject of such state, and is still such subject, may, if of
full age, and not under any disability, make a declaration of alienage in manner aforesaid
and from and after the making of such declaration of alienage, such person shall cease
to be a British subject"
388. The Advocate-General’s opinion was sent by the Government of
Bombay to Colonel Pelly for inlormation and guidance (G. R. No. 5446, dated
14th December 1872).
389. The same question arose in 1874 before the Government of India,
and Mr. Paul, the officiating Advocate-
Secret, January 1871, No». 7-21.
Political A., September 1874. Nos. 54-70. General, held that a person born in British
See the correspondence printed in Secret, Sep- territory of Persian parents and residing:
tember 1876, Nos. 00-95. . ,> ? . V , . n . . , 0
in Persia, is not entitled to British pro­
tection unless such right of protection is exercised by other powers.
The reasons given by him are interesting and quoted below
It may bo stated, as a general rule, that a person of Persian origin born in British
territory is a British subject. I11 M. Stephens Blackstone's Commentaries, sixth edition,
vol. ii, p. 433, the law is thus statcd|:—As to natural born subjects:—And first, all persons
born within the United Kingdom or in the Colonies fall within this description ; and this
extends even to those born of aliens residing in this country, provided their parents were
not at the time in enmity with our Sovereign (see also “ Phillimore’s International Law,”
p. 345)- But the above proposition docs not of itself, in my opinion, carry with it the
consequence that a British subject of Persian origin is entitled to British protection in
Persia. The question whether a British subject of Persian origin is or is not so entitled to
protection in Persia will depend upon a variety of considerations which I will presently
notice.
By the common law of England, a person born of English parents in a country not
parcel of the British dominions was an alien. This rule was subject to some exceptions
not necessary to be stated. The restriction of the common law was subsequently relaxed
by several statutes, and the present law of England on the subject of children born of
English parents may be generally stated as follows. That persons born abroad, whose
fathers or grandfathers by the father’s side were natural born subjects, are deemed to be
natural born subjects (2 Stephens’ Commentaries," sixth edition, pp. 433 and 434). By
the u Code Napoleon,” Book I, Article 10, it is provided that every child of a Frenchman
in a foreign country is French.
Vattle, in his " Law of Nations,” Book I, Chapter XIX, writes as follows: l say
that in order to. be of a country it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is
a citizen, for if h*e is born of a foreigner it will be only the place of his birth and not
of the country. Further on, in the same chapter, the following observations occur
It is asked*whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens?
The laws have decided this question in several countries, and these regulations must be
followed. By the law of nature alone children follow the condition of their father, and
enter into all their rights, the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and
cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking away from a child what nature has given him ;
I say of itself, for civil or political laws may for particular reasons ordain otherwise. But
I suppose the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If
he has fixed his ahotle in a foreign country, he has become a member of another society,
at least as a perpetual inhabitant, and his childreu will be members also.
These authorities show that it is a matter of difficulty and nicety to determine whether
in any given case a person of foreign origin born in a country other than that of his father
S640FD