مجموعة ٦/ ١٩ "الجزيرة العربية: (المملكة العربية السعودية) التقرير السنوي لمملكة الحجاز ونجد." [ظ‎‎٢‎٣‎٠] (٥٤٠/٤٦١)

safeguard if ex-slaves were consigned to the Ethiopian consul at Jibuti, and a
notification made to the Ethiopian Government in each case by the Legation at
Addis Ababa. As a result of the discussion in London, it was suggested to him
that he should seek the consent of the Ethiopian Government to the procedure,
preferably on the understanding that they would accept any ex-slaves as to whose
Abyssinian origin the Legation in Jedda had no reasonable doubt, or, if they
could not agree to this, on the understanding that each case would be referred to
them. It was hoped that they would, moreover, agree to the cost of repatriation.
In his reply to these instructions, Sir S. Barton expressed doubt as to the utility
of attempting to tie the Ethiopian Government to any general understanding, and
suggested that it would be preferable to deal with individual cases as and when
they might arise on the lines followed in one recent case (see the following
paragraph). His despatch was still being considered at the end of the year. The
question of practical arrangements for despatching ex-slaves from Jedda to
Jibuti was also outstanding. There are occasional direct opportunities.
Otherwise, it is necessary to arrange for transhipment, e.g., at Aden, or perhaps
Port Sudan.
195. His Majesty’s Minister at Jedda was compelled in 1931 to modify the
opinion which he had previously held that the danger of the pilgrimage being
used as a cloak for slaving transactions was not serious in present conditions.
Two cases in which it had been so used came definitely to the notice of the
Legation. In view of the small total number of slaves who succeed in taking refuge,
it can only be surmised that these two were merely examples of a larger class.
The first was the case of two lads from Addis Ababa who had been induced by
a compatriot to undertake the pilgrimage early in the year and who, having
accomplished it, were sold into slavery in Mecca. One of them found his way
to the Legation. Subsequent enquiries established the truth of his story so
completely that the Hejazi Government themselves admitted that the lads had
been wrongfully enslaved. They were, in due course, repatriated by arrangement
with the Ethiopian Government, who accepted liability for the expenditure
involved. The second case arose in December, when a Nigerian took refuge,
claiming to have been brought on pilgrimage by his master in 1930, and sold^in
the Hejaz. The investigation of this case presented more difficulty, but there
were strong grounds for accepting the man’s story, and the Hejazi' authorities,
who had at first attempted to claim him as a Royal slave (see the following
paragraph), consented to his embarkation for Port Sudan on the ground that
he had been improperly enslaved while on pilgrimage.
196. The man just mentioned was one of two who fled from the house in
Mecca of Sheikh Abdullah Suleyman, the Director-General of Finance. In both
cases the Hejazi Government claimed that they were the property of Ibn Saud
and should not be given asylum or manumitted by the Legation. They relied
on an alleged undertaking given by Sir G. Clayton in 1927 that the right of
manumission maintained by the letters attached to the Treaty of Jedda should
not be used in favour of slaves belonging to the King. Although Sir G. Clayton
left no record of such an undertaking, there are reasons to suppose that he may
have given some sort of assurance regarding persons employed by Ibn Saud as
personal servants or soldiers. Sir A. Ryan would therefore have been prepared,
following on an exchange of views at the Foreign Office in 1930, to assume the
existence of an understanding which would compel him to return any slave, not
demonstrably a British subject, who had actually fled from the household of the
King, or, indeed, any prince immediately related to His Majesty. He was not
prepared to refuse manumission to persons in the previous possession of Sheikh
Abdullah Suleyman on the ground that they were claimed as being, nevertheless,
the King’s property. The case of the Nigerian was speedily disposed of by the
admission of the Hejazi Government that he was a wrongfully enslaved pilgrim,
so that the claim of Royal ownership lapsed. The other case had important
consequences, but did not come to a head until January 1932.
197. The number of slaves manumitted by the Legation in 1931 was sixteen
males and six females. All except one male, who preferred to seek work locally,
and thiee females emancipated by their owners, were embarked for repatriation.
One Abyssinian male slave repented of his desire for freedom after coming to
the Legation. One alleged Royal slave was awaiting disposal at the end of