'Précis of the Affairs of the Persian Coast and Islands, 1854-1905 By J A Saldanha, BA LL B' [‎55r] (109/212)

97
evidence and ca ^ in ^ accused P er -ns and convicts from one place to
another; but hese are exceptional and comparatively unimportant operations affecting
Foreign Go^Zl^ ^ 33 We " " th0Se W ' thi "' the junsaiction^onfer/edlr the
.nH a 4 " •f r0b ^V W0 i firStS J eCti0nS0f the A ct are only declaratory of the law as it was
and as it would have been decided had it come before a British Court of Justice R,,f
fuS h „ at T t ay be ' that Act takes effert whenever the Crown Acquires
] sdiction. It gives the Crown absolute power to the extent of the iurisdiction so
acquired, and directs all British authorities to conform themselves accordingly.
5- Over and above the direct operation of the Act, the Crown may, by virtue of the
ct, appoint persons to exercise the powers conferred bv sections 3 to 6 ; it may by virtue
of its general prerogative erect Courts for the exercise of the permitted jurisdiction and
may, by virtue of its prerogative as expressly recognised in the Act, declare the law
which is to be administered by its own Courts. ' aeciare the law
6. The position of affairs between the British and Persian Governments anDears to
be as follovvs ;—^or a considerable number of years, apparentlv extending baek to the
time when the Arab Chiefs were Governors of Bushire the British Resident at that
place has exercised civil and criminal juHs
, ' le ? a f. extcnt °f the criminal jurisdiction does not appear to be -very clearly defined
itd I ]" r ' sdtct>on seems to embrace (a) all cases between British subjects
and protected persons {who may be called Brit (b)
same classes of persons are defendants ; (c) all cases between those classes and others [no)
being Persian subjects) provided the parties consent ; and (d) if a Persian subject is
defendant, and a British subject plaintiff, the case is tried m the Persian Courts
but a Residency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, established in the provinces and regions considered part of, or under the influence of, British India. official may be deputed to watch the proceedings. '
., 7 ' that the jurisdiction thus exercised is wider than what is
authorized by the Treaty of Pans, aud that so much of it as is not covered by the Treaty
s that^T ft Tp ' dtS . C A ont T ed ' The argUmenfc u P on which this view is based
is that the Treaty of Pans provides that on the establishment and recognition of Consuls-
General, Vice-Consuls, and Consular Agents, and in the treatment of their respective
subjects and their trade, each contracting party shall be placed on the footing of the most
favoured nation ; that Russia is the most favoured nation, and that the Rusians have no
general power of entertaining civil suits in which Russian subjects are the defendants
But this view appears to us to be erroneous. The fact that the British Government haB
exercised larger powers of jurisdiction than the Russians only proves that not Russia but
Great Britain is the most lavoured nation in this respect. There is nothing in the Treaty
of Pans which says that the British shall not be the most favoured nation. If the privileges
enjoyed by England were less than those accorded to Russia by the Treaty of Turcoman-
cha.!, the T. reaty of Pans would enlarge them. But if they were already greater that
Treaty does not contract them. We are, therefore, of opinion that what Colonel Pelly
/W th yJ d and / rre Z ul "\Pr act * ce "which has been carried on for many years with
the knowledge and consent of the Persian Government is perfectly legal, and ought to be
continued till altered by Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. ,
8. As regards Muscat the Treaty of July 1840 says nothing about crimimal jurisdic-
tion except m one isolated case dealt with by Article IV. We assume, however, that the
Order in Cound 1 * of the^th November 1867 is in accordance with criminal jurisdiction
conferred by usage or sufferance. This Order assumes that the Crown possesses complete
criminal jurisdiction over British subjects, and it gives power to the Consul and the High
Court of Bombay to exercise that jurisdiction, each in his allotted province. As regards
civil jurisdiction none is mentioned in the Order except in suits between British subjects,
whereas the Treaty of_i84o distinctly provides for nearly the same amount of civil jurisdic
tion as exists in Persia. The jurisdiction in Muscat is somewhat larger in one resnect
nnHon / f J f > Britl t h is , P laintiff ' and the subject of another Christian
nation defendant, the suit may be tried by the British authorities, without any consent of
othe^Than^Muscat again ^ ^ COntraCted in res P ect of the subjects of Muhamaden powers
c relations oi the Br » t ish Government with the various independent potentates
ot the Gulf are of the same character as those .with Persia ; at all events the British
Oovernment does not exercise a less amount of jurisdiction in their dominions than in
those of Persia.
10. There remains only to be considered the question of jurisdiction in the Turkish
possessions bordering on the Gulf, There exists already throughout Turkey an establish
ed system of Consular jurisdiction under the control of Her Majesty's Ambasador at
Constantinople, with which it may not perhaps be possible to interfere. If the existing
arrangements regarding Turkey do not admit of modification, then Colonel Pelly's advice
to establish a single jurisdiction for the whole water and littoral of the Persian and Oman
Gulfs must, so far as regards Turkey, be negatived. Otherwise the advice seems to us
very sound, and of considerable importance to the working of the system,
S640FD