‘Consular jurisdiction in Persia.’ [‎8v] (16/36)

16
expression as that in Article VIT. of the Russian Treaty, to the effect that civil suits
between Russians are to be decided according to the laws and customs of the Empire of
Russia.
Mr. Reilly dissented from Sir P. Francis' suggestion that the operation
of the Order should he limited to the littoral of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , he
thought " it would he scarcely practicable to carve out a portion of the
" territory of Persia, sever it from the oilier portion hy an imaginary
<c line, and organize in it a system of British judicature, leaving the rest
" of the Persian territory in its present condition, that is, in effect,
" unprovided for." It appeared to him that it would he necessary to
comprise in one Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. , or in several Orders in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. , the
whole of Persia, on some combined and harmonious systems, if not on
one single system, and that it would be better to apply British Indian
law to the whole of Persia.
On the question whether an appeal should be given from the proposed
British Courts in Persia to the High Court of Bombay, or an arrange
ment for local appeal should be made by the appointment of a judge,
Mr. Reilly observed :—
(i.) As regards appeals in cases purely between British subjects, Persia must (as Sir A.
Kemball has pointed out in his reply) be indifferent, inasmuch as she waives jurisdiction in
those cases, both in first instance and in appeal.
(ii. > ) Where there are a Persian plaintiff and a British defendant, I agree with Sir H.
Rawlinson in thinking that there should be no appeal to Constantinople or to Bombay. The
Mixed Court of Appeal suggested would lake these cases.
(hi.) The special Judge of Appeal for Persia, proposed in the Joint Report, and approved
by Sir H. Rawlinson, seems intended to take appeals in all classes of suits, whether mixed or
purely British. But for mixed suits a Mixed Court of Appeal, and not a special British
Judge of Appeal, would be best. As regards purely British suits, there would, 1 apprehend,
be very great advantage in having an Appellate Court on the spot. Appeals would be easily
brought, and the control over the inferior Courts would be effective. The main difficulty, I
suppose, would be in the expense. It is possible, however, that this might be got over by
the appointment of a judge belonging to the Indian Civil Service, or by some arrangement
for the delegation periodically, from the High Court of Bombay, of a judge or high officer of
that Court, to visit Persia. Whatever plan, however, were adopted for a local Tribunal of
Appeal, I think its decisions could scarcely be made absolutely final. In cases of magnitude
or difficulty, a further appeal would probably have to be allowed, and these appeals should,
I think, go to Bombay.
As regards the Arab States, Mr. Heilly thought that there was a
sufficient basis for an Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. in usage and sufferance, and
that, as in the case of Persia, the Ottoman Order in its latest form should
be the model to be followed in its preparation.
On the whole question, the following were Mr. Heilly's recommenda
tions, as summarized by himself :—
(1.) That a uniform system, or combined systems, of judicature for the whole of Persia
should be established by Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. , with adaptations to the different circumstances of
the interior and the littoral.
(2.) That the officers exercising the jurisdiction should not necessarily be Consuls.
(3.) That in purely British suits there should be an appeal in Persia.
(4.) That in purely British suits there should be a final appeal (in proper cases) to the
High Court of Bombay.
(5.) That in mixed suits, with Persian plaintiffs and British defendants, the British courts
should have exclusive jurisdiction in the first instance.
(6.) That in mixed suits, with British plaintiffs and Persiau defendants, mixed courts
should have jurisdiction in the first instance, but with liberty for a Persian defendant to
submit to the British Court.
(7.) That for both these classes of mixed suits there should be a Mixed Court of Appeal
in Persia.
(8.) That British-Indian law, civil and criminal, should be applied throughout.
(9.) That any Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. should, as regards Persia, be based on a separate and
express Convention.
(10.) That like provisions, with proper variations, should be applied to the Aral) States
by Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. , on the basis of usage and sufferance.
Mr. Beilly's memorandum was forwarded * from the Foreign Office to
* ^ ^ this Office, with a request for any obser-
Noveniber 1874^ 28Lu vat ' ion which the Secretary of State for
is oven oer ^ Jndia in Council might have to make
upon his recommeadations, and particularly with reference to his sugges-