Page 263 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

H9
(lix) Cases of Seth Apear and his son Vagharshak Apear, 1852-93.
407-A. Seth Apear was born in Calcutta of Persian Armenian parents and
held a passport certifying that he was a
External A., December 1893, N01. 51-57.
British subject by birth. He was, however,
up to the year 1892 treated as a Persian subject while in Persia, but in conse­
quence of Lord Salisbury’s ruling* in his despatch to Sir E. Baring, dated 1 ith Janu­ .
ary 1889, the Resident received instructions from the Government of India that
persons in the position of Messrs. Apear should be regarded as British subjects
in Persia.
407-B. Lord Salisbury's ruling of 1889, however, had been modified by
Lord Rosebury’s ruling in 1S93.
The question was then whether he could in view of this ruling be regarded
as a British subject. Mr. Seth Apear’s father died in 1847 in India, where he
had emigrated at the commencement of the 19th century. There was no evi­
dence, however, whether he had naturalized himself as a British subject. The
Persian Naturalization Law (Act of 1894) would require that the Shah's per­
mission should be obtained to change nationality of a Persian subject.
407*0. Such being the difficulties in regard to Seth Apear’s nationality,
there arose in 1903 the question regarding
External A., December 1903, Nos. 20-27.
the nationality of his son V. Apear. He
was born in Persia but was in the service of Messrs. Apear of Calcutta.
He went to Persia in 1903 with a passport describing him as a British sub­
ject, by birth, which was a mistake committed in the Foreign Office at Calcutta.
The Karguzar, in respecting the passports, declared it to be invalid and insisted
on Mr. Apear paying 60 Krans for a Persian passport plus a fine of 250 Krans.
He further impounded the passport.
The question of V. Apear’s nationality depended on the view taken of the
status of his father.
407-D. Colonel Kemball in writing to Sir A. Hardinge pointed out these
difficulties, but urged that the Karguzar had no right to impound the passport
or to fine Mr. Apear and was entitled only to the usual visa fee. On representa­
tions being made at Tehran instructions were issed to the Karguzar to return
the passport and remit the fine, if it was not in accordance with the passport
regulations.

(lx) Question of grant of certificates of naturalization to persons of Persian origin
residing in India, 1892.
40S. In this letter No. 4932, dated 1st August 1892, to the Government of
India, the Bombay Government enquired
External A., December 1892, Nos. 47-50.
as to the views held by the Government of
India regarding the grant of certificates of naturalization to different classes of
persons and among others to merchants carrying on trade from Bombay with
Persia. The practice of the Bombay Government was to refuse certificate of
naturalization to a Persian subject unless the applicant established beyond dis­
pute his intention to take up a permanent settlement in India. The Government
of India entirely approved of the course followed by the Bombay Government
(letter No. 2U2-E., dated 1 (5th November 1892).

(Ixi) Question as to the grant of passport to one Abdullah bin Hussain bin Ali Soora-
aya of Lingah, born in Bombay of a Bahreinese naturalized British subject, 1900.
409. The above person applied to the Bombay Government for a passport.
He was born in Bombay in 1S65, his father being a native of Bahrein and 10
years after the applicant’s birth, his father was granted certificate of naturaliza­
tion as a British Indian subject. In these circumstances he was a British subject

• See paragraph 397 abovo.