‘Consular jurisdiction in Persia.’ [‎15v] (30/36)

30
10 , ^ , 1Q w. and which misrht be questioned by a party
»Lctterdated31stDecemberl8/5. ii i i 1 r\ xi • • /
Enclosure to India, letter No. 46, adversely affected by it. On tins point,
dated 25th February 187H. Colonel Eoss* remarks ;
That instances of such a kind have, if not wholly evaded, at least been rare and un
important, is due, I think in a great meaisure :—
1st. To the great caution, prudence, and tact exercised by the Political Officers under the
impression of the delicate nature of the subject.
2nd. That few cases have presented themselves for adjudication involving very large
pecuniary interests.
3rd. That most of the British subjects residing within the limits of the jurisdiction are
natives of India, who from natural temperament and other reasons are indisposed to raise
such a question.
If cases of magnitude happened to occur, I think it extremely probable that the parties
against whom awards should be made would, especially if Englishmen, question the validity
of such award. In cases of a refusal to abide by it there seems to be no means of enforcing
such judgment locally.
The case of Moolchund and Morwarud, two British subjects, which
gave rise to the above remarks, and which, after four years of correspon
dence between the Bushire Kesidency, the mission at Teheran and the
Persian authorities, is still unsettled, would almost certainly have been
disposed of long agOj had the Resident's powers been defined by Order
in Council.
So also as to criminal cases. British Indian subjects may be dealt
with under the provisions of Indian Act XI. of 1872 which has been
quoted ; but under present circumstances the Resident has no power to
proceed against either a European British subject or the subject of a pro
tected Native State; as Colonel Prideaux observes, " there seems no
" via media between allowing an Englishman accused of a serious
" offence to go scot-free, or waiving our extra-territorial jurisdiction in
<f his case and handing him over to the local authorities for trial."
Continued absence of crime among European British subjects in the
Gulf cannot be relied upon, and unless some Order be issued, a failure
of justice may occur at any time.
An Order of the limited scope suggested could not, of course, in all its
provisions be made to apply absolutely to Civil cases in which Persians
are concerned, whether as plaintiffs or defendants. Persian plaintiffs
must come to the British Court in the first instance, but there might be
difficulty about appeal. Persian defendants could not be compelled to
come to the British Court, and the Persian authorities might object
to their doing so voluntarily. Such cases would have to be dealt with
diplomatically, as at present. The objections to resorting to diplomacy
for a settlement of cases which are fitting subjects for legal proceedings
are obvious; but Colonel Ross' list shows that in trivial cases,—and in
the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , the cases are mostly trivial, though there are ex
ceptions,—this method of procedure is fairly effective, for cases to linger
until the parties are exhausted is, as the Government of India remark,
a result which is not unknown elsewhere.
The broad question, therefore, which the Secretary of State in Council
has to consider is, whether he will press the Foreign Office to take the
necessary steps to give effect to the scheme of Consular Jurisdiction for
the whole of Persia, which has been elaborated by the late Sir P.
Francis, Sir A. Kcmball and Mr. Reilly,—the necessary preliminary
being a Convention with Persia; or whether he will suggest the framing,
without further delay, of an Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. of more limited scope,
which shall be applicable, in the first instance, only to the littoral of the
Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. , unless Lord Derby should think it essential to include in
it arrangements for the interior of Persia. There is, of course, a third
alternative, viz., to drop the question, and let matters rest as they are;
but I presume that the adoption of this will not be thought expedient.
In the event of it being decided to issue an Order, limited in its scope,
as has been suggested, it will be necessary to decide whether a local
Judge of Appeal shall be established at Bushire, or whether all appeals
from the Resident, when allowed, shall go to Bombay. On this point it