Page 267 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

123
ship from the jurisdiction of the State within whose territorial waters it may he found, but
that immunity docs not extend so far as to exempt subjects of that State from process under
the law of the State to which they are subject, nor can it be presumed, unless the circum­
stances are very exceptional, that any such State will concede to foreign ships a right to
withdraw its subjects from the jurisdiction to which they arc liable by their allegiance, by
landing them elsewhere than on Persian soil.
The Commanders of the Indian Government vessels may therefore cither ply with
requisitions of the nature under notice, or may allow the Persian authorities to take the
pilots away themselves.
(Ixiv) Status of persons born of Indians in Persia.
Case of Mahomed bin Abdulla of Min ah.

419. In October 1879 Colonel Ross referred the application of a person
named Mahomed bin Abdulla, residing
Political A.. Doccmbcr 1879, Nos- 6*9.
at Minab, near Bandar Abbas, in
Persian territory, to be enrolled as a British Indian subject, and to be
protected as such. The father of this man was in his youth a Hindu by
religion and an inhabitant of Multan, whence he emigrated to Persia about
1871 and soon after became a convert to Muhammadanism and married a
Persian woman of Minab. The applicant was the issue of the marriage,
born in Persia, a land-owner and domiciled permanently, as was the father, in
that country.
419-A. It was not alleged that the applicant (or any of the family) had ever
been formally enrolled as a British subject, but he maintained that they have ever
considered themselves entitled to that staius.
The Persian officials, on the other hand, averred that the applicant has pre­
viously asserted himself a subject of Persia and claimed him as such.
In 1862 it was ruled that the Khojah or Lootiyah emigrants from Sind, who
Government of India letter No. 313, dated 5th settled at Maskat previous to the British
March 1862, to Government of Bombay, etc. conquest of Sind, and acquiring a Maskat
domicile, had never returned to their native country after its conquest, are not
entitled to be considered British subjects. The same ruling would, the Resident
presumed, apply to similar settlers in Persia, and in the present instance the fact
of the original emigrant becoming a Muhammadan, strengthens the presumption
that he had completely abandoned his native country as well as religion.
419-B. It would appear therefore that the father was never in reality a British
subject, though doubtless it would have been open to him at any time during his
life after the British annexation to become so, whilst the son, the applicant, had
a Persian domicile of origin coupled with permanent residence in Persia.
410-C. After consulting the Advocate General (G. C. Paul), the Govern­
ment of India held that the man in question was not entitled to be enrolled as a
British subject: he was a Persian subject and it appeared from the Resident’s
report that the Persian authorities claimed him as such (No. 2629 E., dated 8th
December 1879).
(lxv) Claim of theBombay and Persian |Steam Navigation Company for Consular
protection on the Persian Gulf, 1881.
420. In 1880 the Bombay and Persian Steam Navigation Company in a
petition to the Government of Bombay
Secret, September 1680, Nos. 131-134.
represented that their ships were registered
as British ships and carried the British flag. They therefore prayed that their
agents might receive the assistance of British Consuls and Political Officers in
the Persian Gulf in matters connected with the company’s views and the cargo
carried and offered for carriage in those views.

421. Colonel Ross reported that the company was composed of Persian and
British Indian shareholders, amongst the
Political A., March 1881, Not. 68-69.
Persians many being residents of Bushire,