"ملخص لشؤون الساحل الفارسي والجزر، ١٨٥٤-١٩٠٥، بقلم ج. أ. سالدانها، بكالوريوس القانون" [ظ‎‎٥‎٣] (٢١٢/١٠٦)

327. Colonel Pelly replied* concurring generally in the views of Sir P. Francis
so far as they concerned his own jurisdiction
* No. 240-.4S. dated..th March 187,. ^ ^ of his assistants on the p ers i an
Coast. " But," he added,
'* if the orders in Council limit its provisions to Persian territory, it would, in so far as the
jurisdiction of this Residency is concerned, provide for only one littoral of the Persian Gulf,
Whereas a large number and indeed the majority of cases arise along the Arab littoral. If
possible, it would, I think, be very desirable that the order in Council should include all
such regions as may be inciuded within the Resident's jurisdiction.
** هذه التواريخ تقريبية *«•***»
" Our interests in these regions being mainly British IifcPan, and bulk of British subjects
here trading or residing being British Indian or connected with India, I am of opinion that
the officials of this Residence should remain wholly subordinate to the Indian Government.
" Constituting this jurisdiction in part in subordination to the Foreign Office and in part
insubordination to the Indian authorities would, I apprehend, irtad to confusion and delays,
and occasionally even to conflict in instructions."
328. Again in his letter to the Bombay Government of 14th December 1871
and the postscript thereto, Colonel Pelly remarks:—
" —That my charge is not wholly or principally in Persia ; and that what is required
in respect to this residency is authority to treat civil and criminal matters which may have
place at any point, whether Arabian or Persian, or Turkish, round the shore line of the
Gulfs of Persia and and whether these matters may happen as between British
subjects, or, as they far more frequently do happen, between a British subject as native.
" 2nd ,—That if the intention be to provide for consular jurisdiction in Persia gener-
No. 1302-388, dated 14th December 1871, and ally, Her Majesty's Minister at Tehran would
P.S., dated 17th June 1872. seem to be the official who, by his position in
the country and his relations to Her Majesty's Foreign Office, would be best qualified for
determining what rules and provisions may be required.
i( 3^^—.That I be empowered to delegate consular duties any particular point to one
of my Assistants as occasion may from time to time require. At present I am continually
hampered by these small questions, particularly at Bushire. Our political relations round
the two Gulfs are my proper charge,
>l 4th.—That the position of this Residency in relation to Her Majesty's Foreign Office
and its officers should be determined. This, however, is a subject on which I had particu
larly desired to communicate orally with higher authority in India."
329. With reference to the classes of persons who should be brought within
the consular jurisdiction, which was one of the principal questions raised by the
Government of India in their letter No. 1808, dated 25th August, the following
are Colonel Felly's views (his letter No. 1438-384, dated 4th September 1872)
" I would respectfully submit that the letter No. 1808 almost seems to answer its own
question, as it concludes with the following words, that unless good ground be shown for
doing otherwise * * * * * , the jurisdiction of the Courts to be estab-
lished should be confined to persons born wholly of British parentage.
" However, I would now venture to submit that the jurisdiction of the Courts should,
in my opinion, exclude all matters, whether civil or criminal, in which persons born of
foreign parentage are concerned as defendants: in other words, the mere accident of a
person of foreign parentage having been born within British India or other British territory,
or the fact of a person of foreign parentage having received letters of Consular protection
should not eiiiitle that person to the jurisdiction of the Court. But person born wholly of
British parentage (strictly so understood), and also person bond fide born of British Indian
parentage should, I think, be included in the jurisdiction of the Court. 1 think also that on
grounds of policy and equity, those persons who, although foreigners by parentage, received
British protection prior to our Treaty with Persia of 1857, should also" be included in the
jurisdiction of the Court. This class is not numerous and is insusceptible of being added
to under our present Treaty relations.
" But it appears to me that whatever may be enacted on this matter, it would be
" Vide page 16 of the Preface to 2nd Edition advisable to avail ourselves of past experience.
tfLTLTJ^Z% C :"- en ' a " eS °"' a>er - Clauses which clear and equitable, some-
"The immiscible characters of Christian and times lai1 ^ the working. In the present in-
Turk are still attested by the exemption of the stance we have an exemplar in the Courts in
former from the civil and criminal jurisdiction of Turkey. What Sir Robert Phillimore calls the
. l * r ■ !i,h 1 1Duri ' ils - immiscibility of the Christian and Mahommedan
in Turkey applies at least equally to Persia, and I fchink the safest course would be for
someofficer with local experience in Persia to be associated with the Judge and Consul-
General at Constantinople, and for them to draft an order in Council Committee. This is.
the course 1 have already more than once suggested.