'File 5/193 II (B 38) Slavery in the Gulf' [‎9v] (23/475)

0
24. Mr. Bullard, in the note on slavery enclosed in his despatch No. 54 of the g j a
9th June, 1925, also referred to cases where slaves, having been manumitted locally an ^
at the instance of the British or other foreign consuls, have been re-enslaved, and
he suggested that provision should be made for the repatriation to Africa of every
manumitted slave who wished to leave the Hejaz. The cases of manumission without
repatriation are now somewhat rare, perhaps halt a dozen in a year. When they do guo
arise manumission is—and I think can only be—secured by means of persuasion. cag
Sir Gilbert Clayton’s letter only claims the right of manumitting those slaves who ag
apply for manumission and repatriation. On the other hand, the local authorities ag
could hardly withhold in such cases the co-operation promised by article 7 of the du(
Treaty of Jedda, and it would, I think, usually be effective, although they might f
plead absence of legal authority to act if a private slave-owner proved recalcitrant.
In cases of local manumission it is the present practice of this Legation to retain smj
the certificate of manumission as a precaution against re-enslavement; a receipt is w - (
given to the slave and he or she is advised to inform this Legation of any further t j le
oppressive action taken by the former master. In point of fact, however, the
number of local manumissions now being small, it has almost invariably been possible ^
to keep in touch with the slaves’ subsequent movements, and no case of re-enslavement we ,
is known to have occurred recently. As shown above, there has been no serious can
difficulty latterly over the repatriation of slaves who wish to leave the Hejaz.
25. Jedda and Mecca are more affected than other towns by the exercise ol the
right of manumission. One result of the inconvenience caused and the risks involved uni
is that certain well-to-do Arabs in these towns are beginning to employ paid servants ^
instead of slaves for menial tasks. There are several instances of this. 1 he
advantage gained is not alone a material one reckoned in diminished figures, but o>er]
the fact that certain upper-class Arabs are deciding that a large household of slaves mej
is no longer essential to support their dignity has another bearing also; it is me .
important in that it serves to undermine such part of the present practices as rests rey
on custom and tradition. The number of slaves in Jedda has, I am informed,
perceptibly decreased in the course of the last few years. This is evidenced by the oro .
fact that several well-known traders have gone om of business and have adopted
other means of gaining their livelihood. . p UI
26. I may mention that practically no slaves nowadays take refuge in other ^ ag
Legations or consulates in Jedda. In the very rare cases when this has happened ^ ou
within the last year or two, the slaves have, after pourparlers, been handed over to
the British agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. for manumission and repatriation. The foreign consulates would | g r
appear to be apprehensive of becoming embroiled with the Hejaz Government by
taking action themselves. As Mr. Jordan had occasion to report in 1925, a fact j ias
which is even more true to-day, the foreign consuls, with the exception, now as then, ^
of the Netherlands consul, take little or no interest whatever in the slave question. t p e
For the repatriation of Abyssinian slaves the Italian consul allows free passages on ter]
the Italian boats calling at Jedda and proceeding to Massowah, but will have e ^ e
nothing to do with them. They must be placed on board by a member of the staff of W0l
this Legation, and everything done to dissociate the Italian Government from any
possible idea of being implicated in their release. This attitude is regrettable, but I mo]
do not think that in present circumstances the other foreign representatives t p e
concerned could be persuaded, or would be instructed, to do otherwise. From the p ro
point of view of bringing pressure to bear on the King, it would be of advantage if con
this were so, but in practice action on their part would seldom be called for and their
co-operation would, therefore, in the ordinary course of events, have little practical :(X)rn
effect in discouraging slave owning, and I do not think for a moment that their j n t
Governments would consider it worth while raising the issue. It might, perhaps, be moi
difficult, in any case, for His Majesty’s Government to ask these Governments to anv
co-operate over manumission, as His Majesty’s Government is bound separately by
Sir Gilbert Clayton’s letter to the King of the 19th May, 1927, which contemplates i s j
in certain eventualities the renunciation by them of the right of manumission. s hij
27. The exercise of this right has undoubtedly been, and is, of great benefit, tha
but its chief importance lies, I think, in its value as a bargaining asset in any The
negotiations which may take place for the legal abolition of slavery, and the right <\ e p
should not be abandoned, 1 feel sure, except, finally, if and when legislation to this 0 f t
end is passed and is rigorously enforced wit]
28. There is no means of estimating the number of slaves owned in the Hejaz
and Nejd. In the towns the proportion of slaves to the total population is high, cm
possibly even as high as 10 per cent. Prices vary. Those paid for young female per