Coll 6/19 'Arabia: (Saudi Arabia) Hejaz-Nejd Annual Report.' [‎231v] (463/540)

64
flown, but searches in the territorial waters of the Hejaz proper, as distinct from
Asir, i.e., north of Dahban, should be conducted with great discretion, and should
not be made at all in the vicinity of important ports; and care should be taken to
avoid giving offence to the French and Italian authorities by undue restraint on
dhows legitimately sailing under their colours. It was added that, in view on
the one hand of the irritation likely to be caused among Arabs by the extension of
refuge to runaway slaves, and on the other hand of the conflict with British
principles involved in refusing it, commanding officers should consult British
consular or political representatives as soon as possible regarding the action to be
taken in cases of asylum being sought on board their ships.
(ii) Native vessels in the Red Sea might, by custom, be searched for arms,
whatever the flag flown, in the same waters as those defined for slaves and subject
to the exercise of similar discretion in the territorial waters of the Hejaz proper;
but, in the absence of specific legal sanction for such action, all searches should
be ostensibly for slaves and not for arms. The instructions providing in detail
for various contingencies as regards confiscation prescribed, inter alia, that, even
if suspect arms were found, no further action should be taken in the case of
dhows of proved Hejazi or Asiri origin in the waters of the Hejaz proper.
Attention was drawn to the existence of special agreements with Italy and
Muscat regarding the right of search for arms and to the necessity for not
interfering with small vessels armed by Arabian Governments bordering on the
Red Sea for the protection of their shipping or for the repression of smuggling.
The full text of the instructions under both heads is given in the bi-monthly
Jedda report for September and October 1931.
(c) His Majesty’s Government came to a conservative conclusion on the
question of naval salutes for Hejazi personages. It was laid down in March that
the only salutes to be accorded, apart from those given to Royal personages,
should be 17 guns for ministerial heads of fighting services, 13 for the Governor
of Jedda and 7 for Governors of other ports. The British authorities concerned
made little of the possibility that other navies might adopt a less rigid practice
on occasion. It is believed in Jedda that the French and Italians are guided less
by strict principles than by a desire to give pleasure, an attitude to which
Rear-Admiral Deville confessed in conversation with the Senior Naval Officer,
Red Sea Sloops. The whole matter is, however, of very minor practical
importance.
201. Owing to the lack of ports on the Nejd coast, no question of formal
visits by British warships arises in that part of the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. . No matter
connected with British naval activities in that sea came to the notice of the
Legation in Jedda in 1931, nor was there any apparent repercussion of the
Persian Government’s arrangements for developing their naval organisation with
Italian assistance.
XIII.—Miscellaneous Matters affecting British Interests.
(1) General Position of British Subjects.
202. There was no change in 1931 in the situation described in
paragraphs 191-194 of the annual report for 1930. No occasion arose for any
further definition of the position in regard to capitulatory rights. The Hejaz-
Nejd Government undoubtedly consider them as no longer existent, and the
Legation has no alternative but to acquiesce for all practical purposes in this
view, without, however, expressly admitting it. So far as the ordinary protection
of British interests is concerned, the Government regard the intervention of the
Legation with a jealous eye. When representations are made, their tendency is
to receive them without demur, but to keep any consequential action in the hands
of their own authorities. This is seen especially in matters concerning Moslem
British subjects or protected persons, and more particularly pilgrims, although
there was, perhaps, a somewhat greater readiness on the part of the Ministry for
Foreign Affairs in 1931 than in 1930 to recognise the legitimate concern of the
Legation with general questions relative to the pilgrims’ temporal affairs.
203. Fortunately, the Legation seldom has to concern itself with litigation
in which British subjects are involved. Such lawsuits as arise mostly relate to
the family affairs or estates of Moslems. Commercial cases are rare.' There is no