'الملف رقم 18/55 I (C 101) المرسوم الملكي البريطاني للبحرين' [و‎‎٩‎٧] (٤٧٧/٢٠٨)

the Htihiein (onit. Fn reply I am to say that the Marquess of Crewe agrees
that in order to exercise such jurisdiction a court must either be in His
Majesty's dominions or be in East African Court within the meaning of the
Slave Trade (East African Courts) Act of 1873. The Slave Trade (East
African) Act of 1879 expressly constitutes the Maskat Court an East African
Court, and as the Maskat Order in Council gives that Court Slave Trade
jurisdiction, no difficulty exists so far as tlie Maskat Court is concerned.
With reference however to the view taken in the Memorandum that in 1879
such jurisdiction could not have been validly conferred upon a consular court
in the I ersian Gulf outside Maskat, and to the doubt expressed whether it can
he conferred upon an extra-territorial court, his Lordship is advised that the
Act of 1873 appears expressly to contemplate the conferring of jurisdiction
where there is an existing East African Slave Trade Treaty vvitli a foreign
State on the shores ol the Persian Gulf or in any island lying oft Arabia,
or where there may be a future treaty to that effect, lie admits that in the
absence of an Kast African Slave Trade Treaty, in respect of Bahrein or the
Persian Coast and Islands, the provisions ol Section 7 of the Act do not apply,
and the power under that section to confer jurisdiction on the respective Courts
cannot be exercised ; and he therefore thinks it desirable that this impediment
should be removed, if possible, by the conclusion of new Slave Trade Treaties.
As regards Balm in, 1 am to observe that the Treaty 0 of JOth May 1856
* Aitchison's Treaties, Vol. XII., p 158 ^ villi tlie Sheikh's predecessor is still in
lorce.
If Sir E. Grey concurs in the proposal, his Lordship will address the
(io\ ernment ol India with a view to the negotiation of a new treaty with the
Sheikh. 1 am to inquire whether, as regards the Court of tlie Political
Hesident, Persian Gulf, Sir E. Grey considers that the negotiation of a similar
treaty with Persia is practicable.
1 have, &c..
The Under Secretary of State, T. W. H oldekness.
Foreign Office.
ENCLOSURE No. 4;— Foreign Office to India Office.
No 44,599. Foreign Office,
^ r » 24th October 1913.
i am directed by Secretary Sir Edward Grey to acknowledge the receipt
ol your letter P. of the (ith of August regarding the legal difficulty in
giving slave -trifle jurisdiction to the Persian Coast Court and the Bahrein
Court.
As regards Persia Sir E. Grey concurs in the view of the Marquess of •
Crewe that Mis Majesty's Government can act under the Slave Trade (East
African Courts) Act of 1873 if a slave trade treaty with Persia exists subsequent
to that date. The Anglo-Persian Treaty of 2nd March 1882 is of the above-
mentioned character, and was, by the Order in Council of 8th August 1882,
ordered to be deemed to be an existing slave trade treaty within the meaning
of the Slave Trade Act, 1873. It appears, however, that no Order in Council
has been enacted with reference to this treaty, under Section 7 of the Slave
Irade (East Aliican ( ouits) Act, 18/o, and in thes6 circumstances it appears
to Sir E. Grey that the most convenient course will be to pass an Order in i
Council under Section 7 of the Slave Trade (East African Courts) Act, 1873,1
(a) directing that the treaty shall be deemed to beau existing East African/
slave trade treaty within the meaning of that Act; (h) authorizing the Court of
the Political Resident at Bushire to exercise jurisdiction in matters relating to
the slave trade ; and (c) directing that the Court shall exercise the jurisdiction
conferred on the East African Courts by the Slave Trade (East African Courts)
Act of 1873. ;
Sir E. Grey is advised that all these points can provided for in the same
Order in Council.
T am, therefore, to propose, subject to the concurrence of Lord Crewe, that
action should be taken in the above sense.