'Correspondence and Memoranda Respecting Consular Jurisdiction in Persia, 1873-74' [‎131r] (19/48)

■' ■ - •••«
that ce the Kussians, as the most-favoured nation, have no general
power of entertaining civil suits in which Russian subjects are
defendants,' they, the Russians, appear nevertheless to exercise such a
power. On this point Mr. Abbott, giving the result of his experience
at Tabreez, says that " in civil cases the Persian Government would
never think of interfering in a suit in which the defendant were a
British subject—they would look to the Consul for redress." The
inference is therefore against the Russians foregoing an undisputed
privilege, though, as Mr. Abbott's account of the practice of the
Russian Consulate General at Tabreez is very imperfect, the fact
ought perhaps to be certified by further inquiry.
4. As regards criminal jurisdiction in Persia, based on sufferance
and usage, though £ *' not so clearly defined,' , the assumption is that at
Bushire the trial as well as the punishment of the offender, being a
British, subject or "protege/' and the prosecutor being a Persian
subject, would be left to the British authorities. At Tabreez also a
case is incidentally reported by Her Majesty's Minister at Teheran
which justifies the same view of British jurisdiction. Her Majesty's
Consul-General there having proceeded to try certain Greeks (British
" prot^g^s'') on the charge of maltreating a Persian subject, inflicted
a fine upon the offenders. The Persian authorities, without objecting
to the course taken by him, protested only against the inadequacy of
the penalty. On the other hand, Mr. Abbott, in reporting on the
proposed establishment of British jurisdiction in Persia, remarks that
" in criminal cases occurring between English and Persian subjects,
the English might be condemned by a Persian tribunal, but his
punishment would not rest with the native authorities, who would
have to make him over to the Consul to be sent to the British
dominions to meet his deserts." He leaves it to be inferred thereby
that jurisdiction in such cases, to the extent at least of trial, rests of
right and in practice with the Persian authorities.
5. The value of the privileges thus assumed cannot be overrated,
and (viewing the character of Persian administration of law, the nature
of Mahommedan jurisprudence, and the state of prisons in Persia) if
prescriptively established, ought no doubt to be maintained un
diminished. In the matter of the disposal and punishment of the
convict in Persia, our rights would in most respects be the same
as those we enjoy in Turkey, and, as being equally claimed by Russia,
could not we presume be disputed. But in respect of recourse to a
British Consular tribunal for the trial and judgment of an offender
being a British subject, we apprehend that the exercise of this larger
privilege, though by usage hitherto conceded to us in Egypt, may
depend (more especially in complicated cases where more than
one foreigner, other than Persian, should be concerned) on common
consent, and may be indefensible in Persia against Treaty stipulations
or the practice of the most favoured nation. Inconvenience might
result from assuming authoritatively more extended powers than are
arrogated not only by Russia, but by the other European nations
having Treaties with Persia.
6. In respect then to criminal as well as to civil jurisdiction, the
Turkish Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. appears to us to be well suited to the
circumstances of Persia. We believe at least that there is nothing in
the provisions of the Turkish Order to debar us either from using
existing privileges in Persia, or from participating under " the most
favoured-nation " clause in any privileges that may hereafter be
conceded to other Powers in that country.
7. The only matters which would appear to affect our recom
mendation of the Turkish Order relate Istly to the proposed exercise
of jurisdiction on separate conditions in different parts of Persia,
and 2ndly, to the propriety or otherwise of conferring Consular Com
missions on Her Majesty's Representatives in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. .
These matters form subjects of discussion in the correspondence and
documents before us.
[87] F
Letter to Her Majesty's Minister at
Teheran, dated August 18,1862, No. 39.
Criminal jurisdiction in Persia.
Precedents adducible.
Case in point quoted. No. 25/201, Govern
ment of Bombay to Government of India,
dated October 3, 1868.
Letters to Foreign Office, Nos. 22 and 25,
dated February 7 and 12, 1866.
Letter to Her Majesty's Minister at
Teheran, No. 1, dated January 8, 1866.
Privileges involved.
I
H
Application of Turkish Order in Council A regulation issued by the sovereign of the United Kingdom on the advice of the Privy Council. to
Persia recommended.