‘Consular jurisdiction in Persia.’ [‎12v] (24/36)

24
11. Tt is true that the difliculty about intermarriages, which led to our intervention of this
plan for Turkey, has not arisen in Persia. But the other reasons assigned by us for allowing
persons born in a countiy to tali easily into the society of that country, apply as strongly to
Persia as to Turkey. We will restate them here,—
(a) Any Government may reasonably object to the growth of an alien community pos
sessing exceptional privileges within its confines.
(A) Children of Asiatics born and bred in Persia, especially if bred in the Mussulman
religion, are likely to combine easily with the society of their native country, and in
this case we may well concede to the Persian Government the principle that those
who are born within the territorial limits of a State are subjects of that State.
(c) It is to our own interest to get rid of the trouble and the embarrassment caused by the
existence of protected communities in foreign countries, and we should contract
not extend them, so far as is consistent with our duty as rulers.
(cT) It is consistent with our duty as rulers to adopt this policy when those who might be
claimed as our subjects, by birth and religion combined, readily intermingle with
the people of the country.
12. If, therefore, the exclusion of Persian-born children of Class II. from the circle of our
subjects be likely to avoid complications with the Shah's Government, advantageous to our
selves, and justifiable on the ground that such persons blend readily with their co-religionists
in the country, it appears to follow that the proposal to exclude them is not inapplicable to
the case, but, on the contrary, is calculated to facilitate the course of the negotiations.
From the terms of the original India letter on the subject, which have
been quoted (page 18), it will he seen that in the case of Turkey the
proposal distinctly was that marriage with Turkish women should be
allowed to Mahomedans and prohibited to others, and that the children,
not merely of Mahomedans married to Turkish women, but of Mahome-
dans generally, should, if born in Turkey, be Turkish subjects. In the
letter on the subject of consular jurisdiction in Persia, it was suggested
that, for the purpose of determining the right of an Indian to'receive
British protection in that country, " a division into two classes might be
" desirable in Persia as in Turkey. " This was naturally understood to
mean that Mahomedans should be excluded from such protection. It now
appears that this conclusion was erroneous, and that the suggestion was
intended to be that Mahomedan British subjects in Persia should receive
protection, but that their children born in Persia should not, and that we
should " concede to the Persian Government the principle that those who
<c are born within the territorial limits of a State are subiects of that
" State."
Any discussion of the policy of such a concession of principle would
be alike beyond my province and my competence. I am not informed
whether it has been decided to make it to Turkey; if so, the precedent
would probably be followed in the case of Persia; but, adverting to the
view of the Government of India that Persian-born children of the
suggested Class II. "blend readily with their co-religionists in the
" country," it is perhaps not irrelevant to observe that what may be
true of Turkey is not necessarily true of Persia. The majority of our
Mahomedan Indian subjects are, like the majority of the Turkish Ma
homedans, Soonis; the majority of Persians are Shiahs; therefore, if,
as I believe is the case, the feelings with which the members of the two
sects regard one another is not very different from that with which
Christians in some countries regard Jews, and various sects of Ciiristians
in most countries regarded each other not so very long ago, the blending
spoken of by the Government of India, though probable in Turkey,
cannot be regarded as by any means so probable in Persia.
The third point referred to the Government of India was, the desira
bility or otherwise of reserving power to the British Courts to remit
cases to the local tribunals. This seems to them a desirable practice to
allow, but they hardly think it expedient to stipulate it in the Conven
tion. They observe,—
It is not likely that the Persians will refuse to investigate cases remitted to them, and we
might find a difficulty in binding them to adjudicate without inconveniently bindino- ourselves
to refer. 0
17. The Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. should empower the British Courts to remit such cases, and the
authority should, we think, be given in wide and general terms. Probably it would be quite
sufficient to qualify the case admitting of reference as " cases which from their petty and