"مراسلات ومذكرات تفاهم تتعلق بالسلطة القضائية للقنصلية في بلاد فارس، ١٨٧٣-٧٤" [ظ‎‎١‎٣‎٥] (٤٨/٢٨)

Remarks by Sir II. Rawlinson.
order expressly to provide for the expected
requirements of the Renter concession.—
{See paragraphs 1 and 4 of Report.)
Mr. Abbott's authority is not worth much,
as he was a very indifferent political officer,
and a still worse jurist; however, on matters
of fact he may of course be trusted, as he
was thoroughly honest and straightforward.
—(See paragraphs 3 and 4 of Report.)
In Turkey we have special capitulations
—{See paragraph 5 of Report.)
Under the capitulations.— {See paragraph
5 of Report, as follows:—" Though by
usage hitherto conceded to us in Egypt.")
Our right of jurisdiction depends, I pre
sume, under the most favoured nation clause,
on the Russian right, and the Russian right
is not even conferred by treaty (at least the
Vllth and VHIth Articles of the Treaty of
Turcomanchai, as far as I remember, are
merely general, and do not specify juisdic-
"iion), but merely follows from " sufferance
and usage," which diplomatically is insuffi
cient ground.— {See paragraph 6 of Re
port.)
I do not think the Turkish Orders in
Council suited to Persia under present cir
cumstances, but it may become so if our
right of jurisdiction is defined by a Con
vention, analagous to the Turkish capitula
tions.— {See paragraph 6 of Report.)
I quite concur in this.— (See last sentence
of paragraph 10 of Report.)
Is the Crown competent to make British
subjects amenable to the Indian I^enalCode
in an independent country like Persia ? If
so, what is to prevent the introduction of
British Indian law into Europe (at Constan
tinople, for instance), or into any of our
Colonies ?— {See paragraph 11 of Report.)
The phrase is, ** هذه التواريخ تقريبية in the establishment and
recognition of Consuls/' that is, in respect
to their authority and privileges, not in
respect to the number to be appointed. At
any rate this point should be decided by
authority.—(.See paragraph 13 of Report.)
Reply of Sir A. Kemball.
seriously endorsed by the Persian Govern-
ment.
In short, we could not consistently advo
cate the concession of a privilege by the
Porte which we have not ourselves recipro
cated to the Persians in Indian—this, too,
when the Porte has never disputed, but the
British Government has refused to tolerate,
the natural right of the native authorities
to exercise jurisdiction over British and
Turkish subjects respectively in Persia.
I have advisedly used the word " tolerate "
to characterize our past action in Persia.
If "usage and sufferance " be inadmissible,
and "the most favoured nationplea in
adequate to justify the continued exercise
of British Consular jurisdiction in Persia, it
would not be easy to define otherwise the
ground on which we have hitherto main
tained (without demur on the part of the
Persian Government) that the British sub
ject is not amenable to the lex loci.
For the rest, the proposed Order in
Council is intended only to legalize the
jurisdiction and to validate the acts of
British Consular Officers. It would be
without force or effect in over-riding Persian
rights beyond the point to which they had
been prescriptively suffered to fall into
abeyance—in other words, to which we had
been prescriptively suffered to ignore them.
It is at any rate presumed that, come
what may, the British Government would
not consent to relinquish British subjects to
the chances of Persian judicial administra
tion. If, then, "usage and sufferance,' ,
and " the most favoured nation " clause of
the Russian Treaty were insufficient justifi
cation of such a course, the proposal at
least to supersede these pleas by a special
convention would not be without risk. If
unreservedly made, it mighi involve, in its
rejection, the abrogation of privileges not
hitherto disputed.
The Report by no means insists upon the
basis of " usage and sufferance" beyond
the point to which it could be substantiated
by the practice of the most favoured nation.
It suggests, on the contrary, that incon
venience might result from exceptional pre
tensions. The Indian Despatches, however,
on the ground of usage, sufferance, and
prescription, argue that England, not
Russia, may be practically the most favoured
nation.
The provisions of the English Treaty of
1857, and of the Russian Treaties con
cluded both at Turcomanchai in 1S28, are
subjoined:—