Page 268 - Gulf Precis (VII)_Neat

124
Miraz, Ispahan, Tehran, Yezd and Bombay, some of them being naturalized
British subjects. The steamships owned by the Company wore registered as
British ships and carried British colours. The Local Agents and in the Persian
Gulf ports were Persian subjects, but in the Resident’s opinion, they were entitled
to assistance from British representatives in all matters concerning British ships
and cargo.
422. The following opinion was expressed by Mr. Latham, Acting Advocate
General, Bombay (No. 85, dated and Sep­
Secict, October iS8o, Noi. 131-137.
tember 1880) :—
“The Bombay and Persian Steam Navigation Company '* appears to be registered in
Bombay, and to have its registered office here. The Company is therefore a " body
corporate established subject to the laws of and having its principal place of business
in a British possession," and as such is within the 3rd clause of the 18th Section of the
Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, and qualified to be the owner of a British ship, whatever
may be the nationalities of the shareholders in the Company. The Merchant Shipping Act,
1854, is clear on the point, and no change has been introduced by the Naturalization Act,
1870 (33 and 34 Viet., C. 15). In the case of “The Queen versus Arnand," 92-B.—806,
the law was laid down to the same effect on the more stringent words of 8 and 9 V. C.
89, Section 12 ; the principle.being that the corporation is the owner of the ship; and that
the shareholders arc not owners thereof, albeit they have an interest in the property of the
corporation-
423. The Resident in the Persian Gulf was instructed bv the Government
of India " to grant to the Company the assistance required on the understanding
that their Agents at Bushire and other Gulf parts, being Persian subjects, are not
personally entitled to British protection or to assistance in matters unconnected
with the Company’s vessels and trade.” (The Government of India to the
Bombay Government, dated 12th March 1881, No. 487-E.P.)

(Uvi) Exteinson of British protection to the Dutch firm of Hotz and Son, 1884.
424. In 1884 the Dutch firm of Rotterdam trading at Bushire and called “ the
Perzische Handclsvereeniging J. C. P.
External A., October 1684, Nor. 247-201.
Hotz & Zoon, wound up its business, and
a new firm was formed by one of its members under the name of J. C. P. Hotz
and Son, having its hea-dquarters in London and branches in Bushire, Ispahan
and Shiraz. On the question whether it was entitled to British protection
Mr. Ronald Thomson informed Col. Ross (letter dated 2nd August 1884)
I am directed by Farl Granville to inform you that, although the firm of Hotz and
Son is clearly a Dutch house and must look primarily to the Netherlands representative
for protection, yet his Lordship thinks it desirable in view of the fact'that it is established
in London and that there are large British interests concerned, that you should extend
your good oflices to it, in conjunction with the Netherlands representative, as far as you
consider it expedient for the protection of the British interests involved.
(ixvii) Naturalization of Mr. A. M. J. Lucas, a telegraph clerk in the Persian Gulf,
1872.
425. Mr. Lucas, an Armenian Christian, born in Persia, was a son of an Arme­
Judicial A., June 189,, Nos. 19-20. nian priest, who had resided at Calcutta for
about 15 years and had served about 13
Political A., June 1879, Nos 25-30.
years in the Indo-European Telegraph
Department at Karachi and in various places in the Gulf. He wished to.
obtain a certificate of naturalization as a British subject. The Government
of India thought that there was no objection to the request of Mr. Lucas being
complied with, and that the best course for him would be to apply to the
Foreign Office conforming as nearly as possible the instructions marked A and
A-A in the despatch from the Secretary of State, No. 83, dated 1 ith. October
1871, which, though relating to the naturalization of officers in the Diplomatic
and Consular Services, were apparently of general application (Government of
India to the Resident, No. 69-E.J., dated 13th May 1S75).
426. In writing to the Secretary of State the Government of India ex*
pressed the opinion that Mr. Lucas was
Political A., November 1879, No. 65.
entitled to the certificate he sought under
section 7 of Act XXXIII Viet., chapter 14, and should conform to the rules
mentioned above (No. 74, dated 23rd October 1879).

I