Lord J. Russell to Mr. Alison .

Sir: I have had under my consideration Sir Henry Rawlinson’s dispatches No. 50, of the 29th of March, and No. 57, of the 11th of April last, inclosing a register of persons enjoying, and claiming to enjoy, British protection in Persia, and requesting definite instructions for his guidance in regard to what constitutes the right of a person to be considered a British subject, and to claim British protection in Persia.

“It does not appear that the Persian government has actually raised any objections, or that any case has arisen urgently calling for a decision as to the nationality or right to protection of any individual or class of persons; but as Sir Henry Rawlinson appeared to apprehend that difficulties would arise, and desired to be instructed before hand what course he was to adopt in each case, as and when it might occur, I have to observe—

“First, that I am ignorant as to what is the course adopted on the points in question [Page 1344] by the other European governments having diplomatic relations with Persia, more particularly France and Russia; and having regard to Articles IX, XI, and XII of the treaty of March 4, 1857, as well as to the necessity of not conceding in practice to Persia more than is conceded to her by these powers on the subject in question, it is impossible for me to furnish you with definite instructions on this head.

“Secondly, I have to point out to you the impracticability of following out strictly, in relation to Persia, or any other Mahometan power, the principles of international law prevailing between Christian powers, so far as regards nationality and the right to protection. This impracticability is abundantly apparent from Sir Henry Rawlinson’s dispatch No. 57 of the 11th of April, in which, whilst insisting upon the propriety of conceding, as it were, a reciprocity in point of principle to Persia in the matter of national status, he nevertheless suggests, in particular instances, doubtless on strong grounds of policy, the propriety of entirely disregarding or departing from any such” principle in actual practice, as, for instance, in the case of the Masulipatan Newal referred to at No. 10, Class VI, in the list inclosed in his before-mentioned dispatch.

“Thirdly, I have to state to you that no new rule or practice, as to the extending or limiting the application of the existing system as to British protection, ought to be adopted, unless it be made common to other powers, especially France and Russia; no such new rule or practice should be retrospective; and no person now enjoying British protection should be deprived thereof by the application or operation of any such new rule or practice.

“With respect, moreover, to the class of cases particularly adverted to by Sir Henry Rawlinson, namely, the children of Persian fathers born in the Queen’s dominions and afterward returning to Persia, I have reason to believe that in Turkey such persons habitually enjoy British protection, unless, indeed, they act in such a manner as to forfeit the right thereto, and to show that they have ‘elected’ the Turkish nationality of their fathers; and I have to state to you, that I see no reason to depart from the instructions laid down on this head by Viscount Palmerston in his dispatch No. 82, of the 14th of September, 1850, to Lieutenant-Colonel Sheil.

“Subject to the above remarks, and considering the question apart from all considerations of usage, policy, or expediency, but exclusively and strictly with reference to the principles of international law prevailing amongst Christian nations, I have to state to you that a child of a Persian father, born in the Queen’s dominions and returning to Persia, will not, whilst in Persia, be entitled to British protection, if (as stated) the law of Persia considers him a Persian subject by reason of his Persian descent; and on this principle Syud Abdullah could not, whilst he remained in Persia, be claimed, or claim to be treated there, as a British subject. Although, therefore, this would be the correct rule of international law, yet, as it has not been hitherto acted on in Persia, I think it very inexpedient that it should now be made a rule of English procedure there, unless it is also made common to all other European nations, and especially France and Russia.

“You will be guided by what I have stated above, when called upon to interfere on behalf of persons having a claim to British protection.

“I am, &c.,

J. RUSSELL.”1

A correspondence took place in 1862 respecting the right of the British consul-general at Bagdad to afford protection to the children of a person named Ali Agha, who was born in India, but was of Persian descent, the Persian government having asserted that the children ought to be placed under the protection of the Persian consul at Bagdad.2

Mr. Alison was instructed that the. British consul-general was authorized upon the principle of the law, and warranted by the usage applicable to the subject, to take under his protection the sons of Ali Agha while they continued resident at Bagdad.3

In 1867, the British resident at Bushire raised a question as to the nationality of the grandson of a British Indian subject born in Persia.

Mr. Alison was instructed that such a person was a British subject by the British statute law, and as such entitled to the good offices of British authorities; but in the case where the father had been domiciled, and the son resident in Persia, it was not reasonable to claim the latter as a British subject, so as to withdraw him from the operation of the laws of his parent state.4

  1. Mr. Alison, No. 64.
  2. Mr. Alison, No. 184; October 26, 1862.
  3. To Mr. Thomson, No. 4; December 31. 1862.
  4. To Mr. Alison, No. 15; November 12, 1867.