"السلطة القنصلية في بلاد فارس." [و‎‎٤] (٣٦/٧)

Sir P. Prancis and Colonel Pelly, but they made the following sug
gestions :—
We would suggest that the arrangement regarding the Persian shores be kept quite
distinct from those for the interior of Persia. The latter must be under the Minister at
Teheran and the English Foreign Ofliee. The former should be under Colonel Pelly and
the Government of India. It Avill, we think, be safer, and less likely to give rise to mis
understanding, to give Colonel Pelly the designation of Consul-General or Consul, and his
subordinates the designation of Consuls or Vice-Consuls, in addition to the titles of
Resident, or Assistant Resident, or Political Agent, as the case may be. Appeals from
subordinates in the Gulf should be first to the Resident or Consul-General, and then to
Bombay. Appeals from Gwadur should, as in the case of the Muscat Consulate, be to
Bombay direct. The general executive control should be with the Government of India,
and in this respect we consider that the Muscat Order should be modified. Should a
Consul-General be appointed as a Court of Appeal, it is a question for consideration whether
the limits placed by the Muscat Order on the power of fine and imprisonment may not be
properly enlarged.
The Government of India considered it unnecessary and inexpedient
to obtain from the independent Chiefs of the Gulf any formal assent to
the exercise within their territories of a jurisdiction which had never
been questioned.
Colonel Pelly, who was at that time engaged with Sir Bartle Frere at
Zanzibar, was instructed to proceed to Constantinople, when that duty
was over, for the purpose of conferring with Sir Philip Francis, and
preparing the draft of an Order in Council; but, owing to his sub-
• Letter to Foreign Offlee, loth sequent appointment as Governor
July 1873. General s Agent in Rajpootana, the
arrangement fell through,* and the
duty was entrusted to Sir Arnold Kemball.
That gentleman and Sir P. Francis accordingly met, and submitted
to the Foreign Office an elaborate Report, dated the 4th September
1873. 1
Before noticing the contents of this Report, it should be mentioned
that, in a Letter dated the 24th January 1873, ^o. 20, the Government
of India sent home, with their support, a proposal of Colonel Pelly, that
a mixed tribunal should be established at Bushire, for the adjudication
of cases in which British subjects might be plaintiffs and Persians
defendants. As, however, such an arrangement clearly required a new
treaty, they suggested that the matter should not enter into the dis
cussion of the Order in Council, but that the latter should be so worded
that it should adapt itself to any additional jurisdiction which the
Persian Government or other Powers might concede.
The joint Report of Sir P. Francis and Sir A. Kemball was based on
the assumption that Her Majesty was empowered by sufferance, or
usage, or under treaty stipulations, to delegate jurisdiction to her re
presentatives in Persia and the States and territories bordering on the
Persian Gulf. The exercise of Civil jurisdiction, as described in the
paragraphs of the India Letter, dated 24th January 1873, which have
been quoted, appeared to be fully established as well in the interior of
Persia as on the Persian littoral. As regards Criminal jurisdiction
based on sufferance and usage, the assumption was that at Bushire the
trial as well as the punishment of the offender, being a British or pro
tected subject, would be left to the British authorities; and at Tabreez
also a case incidentally reported by Her Majesty's Minister at Teheran
justified the same view of British jurisdiction, although there was some
doubt whether, of right and in practice, trial did not rest with the
Persian tribunals, an offender being merely handed over to the Consul
for punishment. The facts beiDg as above, the following was the con
clusion of the Report as to the form of the Order, so far as related to
Persia: —
Jn respect to Criminal as well as to Civil jurisdiction, the Turkish Order in Council
appears to us to bo well suited to the circumstances of Persia. We believe, at least, that
there is nothing in the provisions of the Turkish Order to debar us from usin^ existino-
privileges in Persia, or from participating, under "the most favoured nation" clause, in any
privileges that may hereafter be conceded to other Powers in that country. '