'Précis of the Affairs of the Persian Coast and Islands, 1854-1905 By J A Saldanha, BA LL B' [‎67r] (133/212)

121
t3th. I n 1368 Mr. Alison, addressing one of the sons of Mr. J. Malcolm (and this
identical son, in whose instance the present question has been reopened) wrote "in all such
matters' treaty rights, etc you would do well to consult and be guided by the
Vide enclosure of 8th October 1868. advice of Her Majesty's Resident at Bushire."
™ /^T?" the 26th S e P temher Her Majesty's Minister at Tehran gave the said
Mr. J. Malcolm a pass or document, bearing the Royal Arms and the seal of the Legation,
Vi* ,ndo»re N,. 5, o, D e c em b„ ,868. reo^irin^ Pr0t f
every assistance. requ.nng all .t may concern to afford Imn
75 M._In 1867 the Persian Governor of Ispahan gave Mr. J. Malcolm a pass, declaring
Vtde enclosure of October 1867 in translated purport, him to be a dependent of the British Govern
ment.
i6t/i —In 1864 the Secretary to the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. declared Mr. J. Malcolm
Vide enclosure of sth November 1864. entitled to British Consular protection, other
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. . SimiIar documents hav e been issued by this
M 4iI M In i I f 71 tb ® G 7 err ] or of Yezd arbitrarily extorted from the A^ent of
Messrs. Malcolm at Yezd a duty of 559 kerons on 180 loads of sugar belomW
to t ern .hd. were aoeompamed by the usual Custom House certificate shovvt
ing that the import duty of 5 per cent, had been duly paid.
Mr AHson^—- folIoWing WaS the 0 P inion expressed by the Foreign Office to
No. t6, dated Foreign Office, 18th March 1872.
From E arl G r.kv.lle, K G., Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
To— C. A lison, Esq., C.B.. Her Majesty's Minister at Tehran.
1 have been in communication with the Indk Office and the proper Law Officer of the
crown on yoiir despatch 157 ot the 3rd November last respecting the levy by Mohamed
Khan, late Governor of Yezd of 559 Krans on some sngar belonging to Messrs. Malcdm
Pers.an subjects under Br.t.sh protecfon at Bushire, and I have been advised that Messrs'
Malcolm are ent.tled to rece.ve the support of Her Majesty's Government in resisting the
imposition of the tax in question, and that the Persian authorities cannot now with any
reason mamtam that Messrs. Malcolm are not entitled to the protection ot Her MaLtv's
Government, seeing that they have bee,, treated as British subjects by those authoritTes
Custom HcmseCertificates. Per ^ 0n their *°° ds uf the usual
I understand from your despatch above referred to that British subjects pay once for
all import duty of 5 per cent wh.'e natives pay comparatively a very small import duty
but are liable to pay transit duties from which British subjects are exempt.
Upon the general question as to the proper interpretation to be given to the Treaty of
Pans, I am of opinion that this Treaty was not
being continued to persons who had prior to the Treaty engaged it,
4 I 3- ^ *877 the question was raised whether Messrs. Malcolm were entitled
Political A., January 1878, Ncs. x 19-120. ^ own British vessels and fly the British
414. The opinion of the Advocate-General (Mr. G. C. Paul) was taken by
the Government of India in which they agreed (their letter No. 180 -P., dated loth
January 1878), and is quoted below:—
Se p h0 . n l \? fthe Mercha " t Shi PP»ng Act, 1854. it is provided that no ship shall be
deemed a British ship unless she belongs wholly to owners of the following description :
(1) Natural born British subjects.
(2) Persons made denizens by denization or naturalized by or pursuant to any Act
the Im P e " a } Legislature or by or pursuant to any Act or Ordinance of the
prope; legislative authority in any British possession.
(3) Bodies corporate as described in such Section.
Messrs. Malcolm and Co. of Bushire, although Persian subjects, have, as regards their
trade under the circumstances detailed in the papers submitted with this case, been
allowed British protection, and the question is whether the extension of such protection
enables Messrs, Malcolm and Co. to own British ships. Having regard to the terms or
bection 18 above quoted, I am of opinion that the firm of Messrs. Malcolm and Co. are
not entitled to ovvn British ships. They do not come within the descriptions contained
in sub-sections (1) and (3) of Section 18. The right to fly the British flag appertains to a
British ship, and the improper assumption of the British character by flyincr the British
flag is made punishable by Section 103 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854. The same
[S640FD]