Coll 6/19 'Arabia: (Saudi Arabia) Hejaz-Nejd Annual Report.' [‎147v] (295/540)

38
XI. —Slavery and the Slave Trade.
186. Developments in 1934 in connexion with the general questions arising
under this head were mainly a matter of Anglo-Saudi relations, and have therefore
been briefly described in paragraph 66 above. The preliminary consideration of
the subject was facilitated by the completion of the special report foreshadowed
in paragraph 167 of the annual report for 1933. This important paper, the work
of Mr. G. W. Furlonge, reviews the position in regard to slavery in Saudi Arabia
in all its aspects. It was submitted to the Foreign Office on the 15th May.
187. The following table shows the turnover of slaves dealt with under the
right of manumission exercised by the British Legation in Jedda :—
On hand at the beginning of January : 1 male.
Took refuge during the year : 15 males, 12 females, 5 children.
Manumitted and repatriated : 11 males, 4 females, 3 children.
Locally manumitted : 1 male, 5 females, 1 child.
Disposed of under special arrangements (see below) : 2 males, 1 female,
1 child.
Left the Legation voluntarily after taking refuge : 2 males, 1 female.
On hand at the end of December : 1 female.
188. An unusual number of these cases presented special difficulty, which
might have been aggravated but for the excellence of the relations which in the
main prevailed between the Legation and the Saudi Government and the action of
two slaves in leaving voluntarily, one being a woman who had fled from the Amir
Feisal’s household, the other a man whom his late owner claimed most uncon
vincingly as a son of the house, with the support of the local authorities. The
other special cases were as follows :—
{a) A slave, unmistakably belonging to the King’s personal guard, took
refuge on the 11th April. This threatened to reopen the whole
question about Koyal slaves (see paragraph 59 ff of the annual report
for 1932), but the King had at the time every reason not to embark
on a quarrel with His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom.
It was arranged that the man should be returned to the King, without
prejudice to any principles, on the understanding that he would be
freed by His Majesty after a short interval, treated well in the
interval, and held at the disposal of the Legation for repatriation.
Ihese undertakings were duly carried out and the man was embarked
on the 17th May.
(b) The local authorities very strongly supported the contention of a minor
shereef of low character that a married couple, who took refuge with
their child on the 29th March, were not slaves but freeborn, and that
the woman,who accused him of having used her as a concubine, was, in
fact, his own daughter. He, indeed, maintained at the outset that the
man also was his nephew, but this was sustained less vigorously.
There was some danger of exciting religious feeling if the Legation
insisted on sending out of the country a woman alleged to be descended
from the Prophet. It was eventually arranged that the owner should
legally certify the couple to be free and lawfully married, and that
they should be looked after in Jedda by a respectable local family, who
had an indirect interest in the case.
(c) Later in the year a woman took refuge who was undoubtedly the slave of
another shereef, but who was enceinte by the son of her owner. This
case also required delicate handling, as the shereef was very insistent
on getting the child, which was not expected for six months. The
woman herself did not desire repatriation, but professed great fear for
her safety if she returned, even as a freed woman, to the shereef’s
house. To obviate the necessity for further reference to the case in
next year s report, it may be said that it was disposed of in February
1935 by a special arrangement with the shereef. He agreed to give the
woman local manumission, and to have her housed pending confinement
with a relative, who agreed to receive her and to allow the Indian
medical officer to visit her regularly.