'File 18/55 I (C 101) Bahrain Order in Council' [‎96v] (207/477)

Under the Slave Trade Act 1873, Section 5, a Vice-Admiralty Court in Her-
Mdjesty s Dovniuions has slave trade jurisdiction.
Similar jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court at Muscat as the joint
result of the Slave Trade (l^ast African Courts) Act of the same year and the
Slave Trade (East African Courts) Act, 1879, and the Muscat Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council.
1867, Article 29. The Slave Trade (East African Courts) Act, 1873, confers
upon " an East African Court " the slave trade jurisdiction of a Vice-Admiralty
Court m Her Majesty s possesszoTis abroad, and the Act (>1 IS/.) him^s the
Muscat Court within the definition of East African Court if jurisdiction in
relation to the slave trade is conferred upon it by Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. passed
before or after the passing of that Act.
At that date therefore, it would appear that jurisdiction in slave trade cases
could not have been validly conferred upon a Consular Court in the Persian
Gulf outside Muscat.
Under Section 2 (I), of the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890, certain
courts became Colonial Courts of Admiralty, and have under Section 2 (2) and
(3), the same jurisdiction as the High Court of Admiralty in England, and as a
Vice-Admiralty Court under any Imperial Act or ( olouial law, except that in
matters relating to the slave trade their jurisdiction is that of a Vice-Admiralty
Court, and not of the High Court.
If the language of Sub-section (3) of Section 2 is looked at carefully (' k . . .
" any enactment referring to a Vice-Admiralty Court . . . contained in an
" Act of the Imperial Parliament . . . shall apply to a i olonial ^ on it ol
" Admiralty, and be read as if Colonial Court oi Admiralty were substitutod
u for ' Vice-Admiralty Court . . . "') the effect would appear to be only to
confer on Colonial Courts of Admiralty in Her Majesty's possessions, juris
diction under the Slave Lrade Act oi li v 'i3, because ailei such substilution ol
words is made as directed above, the words in the Slave Irade Act ol liS/*),
Section 5, " in Her Majesty's Dominions out of the United Kingdom' would
continue to appear. i • wi t
If this is the correct construction. Section \2 of the ( olonial Courts ol
Admiralty, 1890, does not seem to help. That section provides that an Order
in Council may direct that the Act, subject to the conditions, exceptions, and
qualifications, if any, contained in the Order, shall apply to any extra-territoiial
court as if the court were a Colonial Court of Admiralty.
The application of "the Act" to the consular courts in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran.
would not get rid of the limitation existing under the legislation of 187.) that
to be qualified to exercise slave trade jurisdiction a court must either be in
His Majesty's dominions or be an East African ( ourt. _
Some confirmation of this view is atlorded by the language of Section 13 of
the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, which deals with rules for procedure in
slave trade matters re " in Colonial Courts of Admiralty and \ ice-Admiralty
" Courts in the exercise of their jurisdiction in matters relating to the slave
" trade, and in and from East African Courts as defined by the Slave Trade
" (East'African Courts) Act, 1873 and 1879." r i lis language looks as if the
East African Courts must still trace their slave trade jurisdiction to the special
Acts relating to it, and not to their Admiralty jurisdiction as Colonial Courts
of Admiralty.
Unless the construction of these various Acts indicated above is correct,
the effect of Article 29 of the Persian Coast and Islands Order, 1907, and
corresponding provisions in other Orders would seem to be that slave trade
jurisdiction was enjoyed by the courts under that Order until the l^oreign
Jurisdiction Admiralty Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. 1910, Article 4 (4)6, took it away
again; and it certainly was not the intention ol the Order ol I'M) to diminish
or curtail the existing jurisdiction of any of the Courts referred to.
ENCLOSURE No. 3 -.—India Office to Foreign Office.
India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. ,
g- r 6th August 1913.
I am directed to acknowledge the receipt ol your letter of the 21st
July, No. 26,740, enclosing copy of a memorandum regarding the legal
difficulty in giving Slave Trade jurisdiction to the Persian Coast Court and