Page 165 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

149
CHAPTER XXIX.

British Subjects and British ex-territorial jurisdiction.

(i) QueBtion of Rovisional Jurisdiction of tlio High Court of Bombay over
Criminal Procccdiugs of tho British Consul at Maskat, 1899—1900.
082. In Juno 1899, Major Fagan in his capacity as Consul and Political
External A., February 1000, Noe. G—8. Agent, Maskat, called upon Eatansi
Eiteranl A., April 1100, No. 1. Pursliotam, to report to tho Agency whe­
ther or not ho was in possession of a power-of-attorney authorising him to act
as Agent at Maskat for Messrs. A. and T. J. Malcolm. Tho accused, says
Major Fagan, practically declined to give him tho information, for which
offeuco Eatansi had to pay a penalty in tho shape of a fine of Its. 200 plus 7
days’ simple imprisonment.
683. Eatansi filed an application for tho rovisional jurisdiction of the
Bombay High Court, hut it was hold hy that Court that it had no such juris­
diction over the criminal proceedings of the Consul at Maskat (Judgment, dated
6th December 1899).
684. Neither tho papers nor tho judgment of Major Fagan show under
what law or regulation or in what caso he called upon Eatansi to give him tho
information required.
I
(ii) Memorial from certain British Indian subjects residing in Maskat praying for the
revision of the Maskat Order in Council of 1867*
685. The recent proceedings of Major Fagan were soon followed by a
memorial addressed to the Bombay Gov­
External A., Octobor 19C0, No*. 18—20.
ernment by certain British Indian sub­
jects of Maskat praying for the revision of the Maskat Order in Council of 1867
by providing for the introduction of the Criminal Procedure Code in the
Maskat Agency Court, and for the appearance of ploaders in that Court and by
certain other amendments.
686. Captain Cox was of opinion that the Order in Council had worked
smoothly without hardship in the past and was quite sufficient to meet the
requirements of Maskat “ in tho present/’ Colonel Kemball held the same
opinion. Tho Bombay Government was accordingly told to inform the peti*
tioners that no sufficient cause existed for tho introduction of the changes
desired by them (No. 1823-E. A., dated 11th September 1900).
(iii) Acquisition and transfer of immovable property in Maskat by British subjects
and British protected persons-
687. In his despatch to tho Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, No. 424,
i.cr.t b,, October 1902, N'.. i]6. dated 21st September 1902, Major Cox
pointed out that frequent applications
were made to him by the Indian baniahs for delivery of possession of lands of
Arabs mortgaged to them, which the Arabs were unablo to redeem, that to
refuse the applications was calculated to damage the British prestige, but to
interfere to rouse awJi-British feeling. Secondly, there was danger of the Indian
Baniahs who owned many buildings and building sites, disposing of them to
foreigners like the Eussians and intriguing Frenchmen like M. Goguyer.
As this second reason was a pressing one, Major Cox published the following
notification :—
NOTIFICATION.
In pursuance of the power and authority vested in His Britannio Majesty’s Consul at
Maskat by Article 1 of the Maskat Ordor in Council, dated 4th November 1H67, for the
maintenance of the peace, ordor, and discipline of His Majesty's subjeots residing within the
Oman territories of His Highness the Sultan of Ma«kat, notice is hereby given to all subjects
of His Majosty Edward VII, King of Great Britain and Ireland and Emperor of India, that