'Précis of the Affairs of the Persian Coast and Islands, 1854-1905 By J A Saldanha, BA LL B' [‎66v] (132/212)

I 20
by birth and unless he had changed his nationality he was entitled to a passport
as such. The father, however, had taken up his residence at Lingah in the ser
vice of a British Company. On reference to the Government of India, they held
that this circumstance by itself did not deprive him of his status as a naturalized
British subject. Bahrein was not a Persian possession, but the present status of
the applicant's father would not affect the applicant ; there appeared in the cir
cumstances stated no valid reason for refusing the passport applied for (No. 915-
E., dated 28th April 1900).
(Ixii) Status of Messrs. Malcolm of Bushire, 1872.
410. Messrs. Malcolm of Bushire had for many years been treated as British
proteges, though Persian subjects, but this
Political A., June 1872, Nos. 271-302. •*! j-UD'
J privilege was contested by the Persian
authorities in 1871. The history of the family Is told in Colonel Pelly's letter
No. 55—19, dated 13th January 1872, to the Bombay Government:—
/st. —A period of more than half a century has elapsed since the grandfather of the
present proteges was introduced to British protection ; and, on more than one occasion, he
was in charge of this 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. during the absence of the Resident.
the 10th December 1830 (that is to say, more than forty years ago), the
Me enclosure No. 2890 o! .S30. f ? ther of ^
the protection of this 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. by His Excel
lency the then Governor of Bombay on the ground of the claims of his family on the Bri
tish Government.
jrd. —On the 13th August 1845, Her Majesty's then Minister at Tehran instructed
Vide enclosure to Sir Justin Shell's despatch of 3rd this 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. that the Earl of Aberdeen had
August 1845. given his sanction that British protection should
be extended to Mr, Malcolm and his brothers'*
4^.—-In 1849 the question of Messrs. Malcolm paying duty at five per cent, as a Bri-
Vide Colonel Farranfs despatch to Major Hennell, 'J, 311 Sub i e . Ct , ar ° Se ' ^ Lo . rd r Palmerston directed
dated 15th August 1849, and enclosure. Messrs. Malcolm to be informed that persons
Also Major HenneU's letter to Colonel Farrant, No. « entitled to British protection," and claiming it,
352, ddted 10th September 1849. , j i.- 11 A i t- ,
" must pay duties like British subjects.
Messrs. Malcolm elected to pay the five per cent, duty, and have, I believe, continued to
pay it down to this day.
jth. —When the war with Persia broke out in 1846-57, the Malcolm family were con
sidered and treated as British subjects, were removed accordingly on boardship, and suffer
ed in their trade and general interests, in common with other British subjects.
6th. —The present proteges, whose right to protection is now called in question by the
Persian Minister for Foreign Affairs, were included among the families enjoying British
protection, as above set forth before the war,
Fzfik Mr, Alison's letter of 8th September quoted in yth.—At the conclusion of the War^ it was
my letter to Mr. s. Malcolm, dated 5th October 1871, -clearly understood between Earl Cowley and
enclosed. ^ Ferrokh Khan that the renunciation of the right
of protection was not to have a retrospective action."
Sth. —That after the conclusion of the war, the then British Minister, Sir Henry Raw-
Kfrfe Mr. Alison's letter of 8th September to my ad- linson, included the names of the Malcolms in a
dress ■ ^ list of British proteges, which he submitted to
Her Majesty's Government in i860.
Earl Russell, in his despatch No. 64 of the 25th August i860, instructed His
Vide enclosed paragraph 4 of Mr. Alison's despatch Excellency, Mr. Alison, "that no person now en-
No. 157 Of 3rd November 1871. to Earl Granville. j oying British protection should be deprived of
10th. —That from the date of the Persian war down to the present time the Malcolm
family have continued to receive British protection, and to pay the duties laid down by
Treaty for British subjects, and this with the cognizance of the Persian authorities and
Government.
nth. —That even in the very instance on which the question of their protection is now
re-opened, the Persian Government in the first place ordered their local Governor to
reimburse Messrs. Malcolm on the application of Her Majesty's Minister.
12th. —In 1866 the British Consul at Tehran, addressing one of the family, stated
Vide Mr. Glen's letter enclosed of 10th August 18^6 " Mr. Alison has distinctly informed the Persian
to Mr. Malcolm. Government that he is bound by the Foreign
Office instructions of Lord Aberdeen in 1843 t0 protect you.''