مجموعة ٣٠/ ٣٦ "البحرين: ادعاء يوسف لطفعلي خنجي، وهو أحد الرعايا الفارسيين، ضد الشيخ حمد فيما يخص مصنع للثلج" [و‎‎١‎٦‎٧] (٣٤٠/٣٣٣)

CONFIDENTIAL.
T r B. 422.
India Ollice
P. 1632/30.
Exercise of Jurisdiction in Cases affecting Foreign Subjects
in Bahrein by the British Political Authorities.
Jurisdiction over British Subjects.
1. Article 4 of the Convention of 1861 between the Sheikh of Bahrein
and the British Government provides that “ all offences which they {British
subjects) may commit, or which may be committed against them, shall be
reserved for the decisions of the British Resident, provided the British Agent
located at Bahrein shall fail to adjust them satisfactorily.”
Jurisdiction in Cases affecting- Foreigners.
2. By the Agreement of 22nd December 1880 and the Exclusive
Agreement of 13th March 1892, the Sheikh bound himself not to enter into
any agreement or correspondence with any Governments other than His
Majesty’s Government; not to allow the Agents of such Governments to
reside within his territory without the assent of His Majesty’s Government;
and not to alienate, mortgage, or give for occupation any part of his
territories save to His Majesty’s Government.
Responsibility for the protection of foreigners in Bahrein may be regarded
as having passed to His Majesty’s Government as a corollary to these two
Agreements. But the question of jurisdiction does not appear to have
arisen in an active form until 1900. In December of that year the
Assistant Political Agent, Bahrein, reported that a German subject,
Mr. Wonckhaus, intended to open a branch of his business in Bahrein. The
Political Resident suggested that, in the event of any mercantile or other
cases arising between Bahreini subjects and Mr. Wonckhaus or his agent, the
Assistant Political Agent should be instructed to deal with such cases as if
they were cases between British subjects and subjects of the Sheikh.
3. The Government of India informed the Political Resident in reply
that “ Mr. Wonckhaus being a foreigner and not a protected person, the
Assistant Political Agent cannot claim any jurisdiction in such cases.
Mr. Wonckhaus and his agent, if a foreigner and not a native Indian subject
of His Majesty, must be regarded as liable in such cases to the jurisdiction
of the Sheikh.
“ As, however, the Sheikh is bound, under treaty, not to admit the
consular agencies of other nations without the consent of the British
Government, it is expedient that the British representative should, as a
matter of courtesy, extend his good offices to European foreigners in any
disputes between them and the Chief of Bahrein,or his subjects, and, in the
event of necessity, he should claim to protect all such foreigners as he would
a British subject. I am to request that Mr. Gaskin may be instructed to
this effect.”
The action taken by the Government of India was subsequently approved
by His M ajesty’s Government.
4. In June 1903, the question having arisen of the purchase by Mr.
Wonckhaus of certain premises in Bahrein which he had hitherto held on a
temporary lease, the Government of India instructed the Political Resident
as follows :—“ In view ... of the belief which Mr. Wonckhaus is reported
to hold that, in the event of his acquiring property, he will not be amenable
to local law, but will be subject to the extra-territorial jurisdiction of Courts
of his own country (though there are none such with local jurisdiction in
Bahrein), the Government of India approve your proposal to warn the Sheikh
of Bahrein that no such acquisition can give to any Consul or other
representative of a foreign nation the right to enter into direct relations with
the Chief, and that, should any such official address the Chief, he should be
referred to the British authorities. The position should also be clearly
explained to Mr. Wonckhaus.”
4371 75 3.30
Lr. d. 4 May 1901,
No. 708 E.A., end.
in G. of I. Desp. 72,
of 9 May 1901
P. 614/01.
Secret Desp. to
G. of I., No. 16, of
21 June 1901:
P. 2063/01.
Lr. from G. of I. to
Pol. Res., No. 1156
of 2 June 1903:
P. 845/03.