'Persia and the Persian Question by the Hon. George Nathaniel Curzon, M.P.' [‎459] (518/714)

THE GOVERNMENT
459
the mansions of the great. It will be seen that the Persian theory
of justice, as expressed both in judicial sentences, in the infliction
of penalties, and in the prison code, is one of sharp and rapid
procedure, whose object is the punishment (in a manner as roughly
equivalent as possible to the original offence), but in no sense the
reformation, of the culprit.
Not even the most generous estimate of the merits, or the most
lenient consideration of the failings, of the judicial procedure
D^efeets ^ which I have described in this chapter, can blind us
of the to the fact that it is lamentably deficient in the two
system essentials of an effective legal system, viz., a compact
and systematised code of law, and a competent tribunal to ad
minister it. Although the Ecclesiastical Law has been subjected
to a rough codification, this is neither scientific, exhaustive, nor
suited to modern conditions. The Common Law has no written
existence, and is moulded by the arbitrary idiosyncrasies of indi
viduals. ihe jurisdiction of the clerical and secular courts overlap •
nor is there any intelligible distinction between their prerogatives
and functions. Cases are referred to one or the other according to
the fancy of the appellant, and frequently pass through the two
courts in succession. Even if it be thought hazardous or unwise
to interfere with the law based upon the Koran, no voice can
possibly defend the haphazard condition of the Common Law,
which is in a state of disgraceful uncertainty, and, as an instrument
of guidance to the civil magistrates, is practically useless. Finally,
the confusion of the judicial and executive functions in the person
of the same individual, who is at once governor, tax-collector,
police-magistrate, and judge, is a mark of a radically defective
system, and is incompatible with the honest administration of the
law; whilst the proverbial venality of the Persian official renders
litigation a farce unless backed by a well-filled purse and the
adroit understanding how to use it.
In justice to the Shah, it must be said that he is thoroughly
well aware of the crudities and abuses of the Persian system of
Attempts law, which, during his reign, certain efforts have been
at reform ma( j e diminish; but equally in justice to the stub
bornness of Persian character, which no Shah is strong enough
to override, must it be admitted that these efforts have so far re
sulted in dismal failure. Lady Sheil, in her book, speaks of the
institution at the beginning of the present sovereign's reign of