Coll 6/21(2) 'Saudi Arabia: Relations with H.M.G.: Saudi Legation in London and British Minister in Jeddah. Prolongation of Treaty of Jedda.' [‎292v] (584/761)

at Riyadh, or to the Saudi Government after your return to Jedda, a formal and
confidential note in the above sense.
6. The draft regulation itself appears to me to be of a sufficiently
satisfactory character to justify the abandonment by His Majesty’s Government
of their right of manumission. It contains, however, certain points which could
be much improved; and I desire that you will discuss them with the proper
authorities before you formally agree to the present draft.
7. I understand that you are satisfied that the prohibition against the
import of slaves into Saudi Arabia by sea, contained in sub-head 1 of article 1,
is clearly intended to be of universal application, notwithstanding the reference
in the preamble of the article to so-called “ treaty States.” In this case, no
further amendment to this sub-head is essential; though this point would be
placed beyond any possible doubt if the words “ from any country ” were added
at the end of the sub-head.
8. A point of greater importance is in sub-head 2 of article 1, where I agree
with you that an amendment should be inserted to make it clear that the exception
would not cover persons recently enslaved in the Yemen, and that the “ document ”
provided for should mean an official document of such a nature as would establish
the fact that the person to whom it refers was already a slave before the
inauguration of the present regime in the Hejaz. Such an amendment would
not alter the purport of the sub-head, and should therefore not be difficult to
obtain. You will therefore make every effort to persuade the Saudi authorities
to introduce it.
9. Article 4 of the draft regulation has formed the subject of much
discussion between you and Fuad Bey, and I share your objection to agreeing to
the time limit established in it, which would deprive of any remedy persons
“ unlawfully ” enslaved before the inauguration of the Saudi regime in the Hejaz,
i.e., before 1925, whereas such persons have at present some chance of regaining
their liberty by taking refuge at His Majesty’s Legation at Jedda. You should
endeavour, therefore, to secure an amendment of it in a form which would extend
the period to an earlier date or, better still, impose no time limit at all. Failing
this, I should be satisfied with a formula which would provide for redress in
really hard cases dating from before the Saudi regime, e.g., cases in which the
applicant or his relatives could show a clear recollection of the circumstances
of the enslavement. On the other hand, ten years have now elapsed since the
institution of the Saudi regime in the Hejaz, and the number of persons enslaved
before that time who are still likely to seek manumission at His Majesty’s
Legation at Jedda is steadily decreasing. While therefore the proposed article
might involve hardship in a limited number of cases of persons enslaved before
the institution of the Saudi regime in the Hejaz who may still be hoping to regain
their liberty by seeking manumission from His Majesty’s Legation, the fact that
these persons have taken no such action for so long a period renders the matter
one rather of theoretical than of practical importance, and the objections to the
proposed article are in practice likely to become less and less cogent. It thus
seems questionable whether His Majesty’s Government would be justified in
risking on this point alone the loss of the other important advantages of potential
future value presented by the draft regulation. You may therefore in the last
resort, if unable to overcome the strong objections of the Saudi Government to
any amendment of this article, accept the article in its present form.
10. A further point on which I request that you will make every effort to
secure an amendment of the draft regulation is the final proviso of article 5,
which appears to give a slave-owner the power to reserve to himself at the time
of a marriage between his slaves the right eventually to separate the husbfind
and wife. I recognise that this proviso is based on ancient and still existing
practice in Arabia where, moreover, marriage relations are generally of a looser
character than in non-Moslem countries. None the less, it is particularly
repugnant to western ideas and may well cause considerable criticism when the
regulations become known in this country and have to be invoked publicly in
justification of the action of His Majesty’s Government in abandoning their right
of manumission. While, therefore, it is most desirable on the one hand that
article 5 of the draft regulation be amended in this respect, I am, on the other
hand, well aware that there are limits beyond which King Abdul Aziz cannot go
in opposing practices which have the approval of the overwhelming majoritv
of his subjects in general, and of the Ulema in particular. You may thus find