Page 265 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

121
,3th.—In 1868 Mr. Alison, addressing one of the sons of Mr. J. Malcolm (and this
identical son, in whose instance the present question lias been reopened) wrote "in all such
matters " fvif., treaty rights, etc ),'• you would do well to consult and be guided by the
advice of Her Majesty's Resident at Bushirc."
Vide enclosure of 8th October 1868.
,^/,,-On the 26th September Her Majesty’s Minister at Tehran gave the said
Mr. J. Malcolm a pass or document, bearing the Royal Arms and the seal of the Legation, :
declaring him to be a British protected subject,
Vide *00101010 No. J3 of 36th December 1868. and requiring all it may concern to afford him
every assistance.
jgth.—In 1867 the Persian Governor of Ispahan gave Mr. J. Malcolm a pass, declaring
Vide enclosure of October 1867 in translated purport, him to be a dependent of the British Govern­
ment.
i6lh—In 1864 the Secretary to the Government of Bombay declared Mr. J. Malcolm
entitled to British Consular protection. Other
Vide enclosure of 8th November 1S64.
similar documents have been issued by this
Residency.
411. In 1871 the Governor of Yezd arbitrarily extorted from the Agent of
Messrs. Malcolm at Yezd a duty of 559 kerons on 180. loads of sugar belonging
to them, which were accompaincd by the usual Custom House certificate, show­
ing that the import duty of 5 per cent, had been duly paid.
412. The following was the opinion expressed by the Foreign Office to
Mr. Alison:—
No. 16, dated Foreign Office, i8lh March 1872.
From—E*Rl Granville, K G., Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
To—C. Alison, Esq., C.B.. Her Majesty’s Minister at Tehran.
1 have been in communication with the Indict Office and the proper Law Officer of the
crown on your despatch No 157 of the 3rd November last respecting the levy by Mohamed
Khan, late Governor of Yezd, of 559 Krans on some sugar belonging to Messrs. Malcolm,
Persian subjects under British protection at Bushirc, and I have been advised that Messrs.
Malcolm are entitled to receive the support of Her Majesty’s Government in resisting the
imposition of the tax in question, and that the Persian authorities cannot now with any
reason maintain that Messrs. Malcolm are not entitled to the protection of Her Majesty's
Government, seeing that they have been treated as British subjects by those authorities
when the import duty of 5 per cent was levied on their goods of which they hold the usual
Custom House certificates.
I understand from your despatch above referred to that British subjects pay once for
all import duty of 5 per cent, while natives pay comparatively a very small import duty,
but are liable to pay transit duties from which British subjects are exempt.
Upon the general question as to the proper interpretation to be given to the Treaty of
Paris, / am of opinion that this Treaty was not intended to prohibit British protection
being continued to persons who had prior to the Treaty engaged it.
413. In 1877 the question was raised whether Messrs. Malcolm were entitled
to own British vessels and fly the British
Political A., January 1878, Nea. X19-120.
flag.
414. The opinion of the Advocate-General (Mr. G. C. Paul) was taken by
the Government of India in which they agreed (their letter No. i8o-P., dated 19th
January 1878), and is quoted below :—
By Section 18 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, it is provided that no ship shall be
deemed a British ship unless she belongs wholly to owners of the following descriptio u :—
(1) Natural born British subjects.
(2) Persons made denizens by denization or naturalized by or pursuant to any Act
of the Imperial Legislature or by or pursuant to any Act or Ordinance of the
proper legislative authority in any British possession.
(3) Bodies corporate as described in such Section.
Messrs. Malcolm and Co. of Bushire, although Persian subjects, have, as regards their
trade under the circumstances detailed in the papers submitted with this case, been
allowed British protection, and the question is whether the extension of such protection
enables Messrs. Malcolm and Co. to own British ships. Having regard to the terms or
Section 18 above quoted, I am of opinion that the firm of Messrs. Malcolm and Co. are
not entitled to own British ships. They do not come within the descriptions contained
in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 18. The right to fly the British flag appertains to a
British ship, and the improper assumption of the British character by flying ihe British
flag is made punishable by Section 103 of the Mcrchaut Shipping Act, 1854. The same
[S640FD]