‘Consular jurisdiction in Persia.’ [‎14r] (27/36)

27
deemed to be and to have been appointed, and to have and to have had jurisdiction, under
the provisions of this Act.
8. The law relating to offences and to Criminal Procedure for the time being in force in.
British India, shall, subject as to procedure to
Extension of criminal law of British India gu^ modifications as the Governor General in
to British subjects in i ative tates. Council from time to time directs, extend to all
British subjects, European and Native, in Native States.
The only other point in Colonel Prideaux's letter which need he
mentioned ^ is his suggestion that if it he deeided to constitute the
President at Bushire a Consul General, it would perhaps he conyenient
if he were commissioned hy Her Majesty as Consul General for the
provinee of Pars and its dependencies.
It remains to refer to some observations made hy the Government
of India in their letter on the general question of the jurisdiction at
present exercised hy their officers in the Gulf. They write ;—
3. As regards the jurisdiction exercised by our officers on the Persian littoral, we note
that Her Majesty's Government have agreed to our orders directing the old practice to be
continued. In the case of the Hindu convert to Islam at Kerraan, the British Minister at
the Court of the Shah has received instructions to act on the theory that the jurisdiction
exists. Lieutenant-Colonel Prideaux, in the report which accompanies this despatch, con
firms our impressions that, at least in respect to our own subjects and clients, the Persians
never dispute the jurisdiction. The list of cases submitted by Lieutenant-Colonel Ross
shows that the greater part of such cases are settled one way -or another, and that those
which are mentioned by Lieutenant-Colonel Prideaux as lingering till the parties are ex
hausted, a result not unknown under more regular systems, cannot be very many. In short,
the jurisdiction appears, with all its defects, to have a substantial and an useful existence,
and to be quite capable of sustaining an Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. , supposing that the negotiation
for a Convention fails, or is very long protracted. We invite your Lordship's attention to
this point, and especially to paragraph 6 of the letter of Lieutenant-Colonel Prideaux, in
which ho states that the weak point is not lack of jurisdiction in the Crown, but lack of
authority in the officers by whom such jurisdiction is exercised. This defect would be
remedied at once by an Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. .
The ahove remarks, read in connection with previous observations
to the same effect, indicate, I think, that the Government of India
are inclined to doubt both the expediency of opening negotiations with
the Government of Persia on so delicate a subject, and the necessity
for setting in motion the elaborate machinery which has been suggested,
so far, at any rate, as the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. is concerned. Before, there
fore, proposing to the Poreign Office that Mr. Taylour Thomson should
be* Instructed to address the Persian Government in view to the con
clusion of a Convention which may allow practical effect to be given
to what may be called Mr. Heilly's scheme, the Secretary of State
mav be disposed to reconsider the whole question, and to determine
whether the more prudent course, and the one which would really meet
the necessities of the case from an Indian point of view, would not be
to revert to the original proposals of
* Letter No. 19, dated 24th June Government of India,* (1) that the
18 ' 3 ' draft Order "should be carefully ex-
pressed so as not to assume more jurisdiction than is now permitted,"
but should <c go to the full extent of that jurisdictionand (2) that
the arrangements regarding the Persian shores should he kept quite
distinct from those for the interior of Persia.
It will, perhaps, be most convenient to take the second point first.
On going carefully through the papers, it will be seen that the view
of the Government of India is, in fact, shared by competent judges.
It is true that Sir P. Erancis and Sir A. Kemball in their joint report
expressed themselves in an opposite sense, but the former gentleman,
for reasons which have been set out at length (see p. 13), subsequently
changed his opinion. Mr. Taylour Thomson, too, recommended that
on the Persian littoral and islands a different system of law should be
applied in cases in which British natives of India were alone concerned,
to that which should be applied in other cases and in the interior, and
that appeal in such cases should lie to a different authority, viz., to
Bombay instead of to Teheran. On the other hand, Mr. Reilly, adverting
specially to Sir P. Prancis' final view, is of opinion that " it would be