Page 462 - Gulf Precis(VIII)_Neat

38

which the man suspected of importing the arms said that he was a native of
Koweit, the question of legal seizure and liability of the ship was referred to the
law officers of the Crown who replied as follows :—
" We were honoured with Your Lordship’s commands signified in Sir Thomas
Sanderson’s letter of the 27th ultimo, transmitting to us the papers noted in the
accompanying list, relating to a case of importation by the British ship Hathor
of arms into Bushire in contravention of the Persian law.
Sir Thomas Sanderson, after reciting the facts of the case, requested that
we would take the papers into our consideration, and favour Your Lordship with
our opinion on the following points :—
(1) Whether the master of the Hathor was amenable to Persian law ?
(3) Whether the Persian law should not form the subject of a Queen's
Regulation or Regulations under Article 49 of the Persian Coasts and Islands
Orders in Council of 30th December 1889, and under Article 290 of the Persia
(Inland) Order of the same date, so as to enable infringements of its provisions
to be punished in Her Majesty’s Consular Court when such infringements were
committed by British subjects ?
(3) Whether the Persian authorities had any right to detain the ship on
her return to Bushire failing the payment of the fine by the master or charterers ?
(4) Whether the Persian law of 1 st January 1900 could be enforced under
Article 233 of the Persia (Inland) Order containing general provisions for
criminal authority and procedure, taken in connection with Article 10 of the
Persian Coasts and Islands Order with respect to smuggling (see Mr. Spring-
Rice’s telegram No. 85, 14th November, paper B)?
(5) Whether the master could be prosecuted in a British port on the charge
of the arms not having been included in the ship’s manifest (see Mr. Spring-
Rice’s telegram No. 89, paper F)?
(6) Whether the Political Resident in the Persian Gulf (who was also Her
Majesty’s Consul-General) could compel the master's return to Bushire (see
Mr. 9pring-Rice’s telegram No. 89, paper F)?
(7) Whether Persia could claim jurisdiction over the master under Article
7 of the Treaty between Persia and Russia of 22nd February 1828 (paper S)
(see Mr. Spring-Rice’s telegram No. 93, paper I)?
(8) If the answer to the preceding question should be in the negative,
whether the master could be tried by Her Majesty’s Consul-General under
Article 10 of the Persian Coasts and Islands order respecting smuggling, and
Article 57 of the same order conferring the powers of a Justice of the Peace on
Her Majesty’s Consul-General (see Mr. Spring-Rice’s telegram No. 93,
paper I)?
(9) Whether in our opinion any other, and if so, what general instructions
might advantageously be given to Colonel Kemball and Mr. Spring-Rice res­
pectively, in regard to this case ?
(10) What reply should in our opinion be returned to Messrs. Bucknall
Brother’s letter of 26th November?
In obedience to Your Lordship’s commands we have taken the papers
submitted to us into consideration, and have the honour to report—
(1) That in our opinion the master of the Hathar is not amenable to
Persian law.
The importation of arms into Persia is not an offence under the laws of
England, and as the Persian Law of 1st January 1900 has not been made appli­
cable to British subjects, the master has not been guilty of an offence cognisable
in the British Courts in Persia. To acquiesce in his being tried by a Persian
Court would be an abandonment of the position hitherto asserted that British
subjects should be tried in Persia by a British Court, and is, we submit, most
unadvisable.
(2) We think it would be advisable that the Persian Law of 1st January
1900 should be made applicable to British subjects. This may be effected by