SKETCHES OF THE HISTORY AND PRESENT CONDITION OF TRIPOLI, WITH SOME
ACCOUNTS OF THE OTHER BARBARY STATES. NO. X.--(Continued.)
The writer of these Sketches endeavors to give _entire_ in each
number, some distinct portion of the history of the Barbary States;
this however is in some cases impracticable, either from want of time
on his part, or from want of place in the sheets of the Messenger. The
present number will contain merely the conclusion of the portion,
commenced in the last, so that the next, may embrace the whole of the
war between France and Algiers.
* * * * *
In a country where the establishment of innocence or guilt depends
much less on the weight and character of evidence, than on the
interests or influence of those possessing power, and where punishment
is entirely disproportioned to offence, no unfavorable inference could
be fairly drawn from the flight of the accused. The D'Ghies family had
been uniformly the friends of the Americans, and Hassuna although
suspected of too much devotion to the interests of France, upon the
whole bore a fair character, and was on terms of social intimacy with
the family of Mr. Coxe. The charge against him was of a strange
nature, and one not likely to be substantiated; he protested that he
was innocent of all improper conduct with regard to the unfortunate
traveller, that the British Consul was anxious to procure his
destruction from motives of personal enmity, and that his only desire
was to go to England where he could easily clear himself from all
imputations. Nor could any feelings of peculiar delicacy towards the
British Consul be expected to influence Mr. Coxe on this occasion. The
efforts made by Warrington in 1818 to rescue Morat Rais, after the
attack on the American Consul, have been already noticed; he had also
in 1828 endeavored, though ineffectually, to protect Dr. Sherry an
Englishman who had circulated a story that the frigate Philadelphia
was burnt by Maltese hired for the purpose by the Americans; and he
had on various other occasions advanced pretensions to superiority
over the Consul of the United States, which were unfounded and
insulting.
Under these circumstances, Mr. Coxe resolved to protect the fugitive
minister, and he therefore immediately wrote a letter to the Pasha, in
which he requested a _Teskera_ or written assurance under the seal of
the State, that no attempt would be made to molest Hassuna; stating at
the same time, that he only required what was frequently granted to
the other Consuls. No answer having been made to this request, it was
repeated on the 7th of August. On the 9th the Pasha replied by letter
that he could not grant the warrant for Hassuna's safety, as the
affair was one of great importance between himself and the British
Government, and in which the American Consul was in no wise concerned;
he added that if Mr. Coxe could obtain Warrington's permission in
writing to interfere in the case and deposite it with him, he would
make no farther objection, and that the American Consul "might however
keep Hassuna in his house until the affair should be decided."
Mr. Coxe was naturally indignant at the terms of this letter, by which
his exercise of a right allowed to other Consuls, was made to depend
upon the will of the representative of Great Britain; and the more so
as he had reason to suspect, that it had been dictated by Warrington
himself. To keep Hassuna in his house until the affair was decided,
would be merely to act as his jailer until the hour of his execution;
for the Pasha it was well known would not scruple to declare him
guilty of theft or murder if the British Consul should require it, and
it would be scarcely reconcileable either with principle or usage, to
continue to protect a man, after his conviction of such crimes
according to the forms of law of the country.
Fortunately at this moment the American sloop of war Fairfield had
just entered the harbor of Tripoli, and her commander Captain Parker,
after examining the circumstances of the case as far as known, agreed
to receive Hassuna on board his ship, and to conduct him to some place
from which he could with safety proceed to England. Being anxious
however to secure themselves from charges of improper conduct on the
part of the Government, the plan was privately intimated to Yusuf, and
they were not disappointed in their expectations, that he would
rejoice at being thus delivered from the difficulty. The guards were
indeed doubled on that night, and they patroled the streets leading
from the American Consulate to the harbor, but this was only intended
to deceive Warrington; for Hassuna was safely conducted on board the
Fairfield, in the dress of a Christian, without any interruption from
the numerous parties of soldiers whom they met on the way.
When Hassuna's evasion was known in Tripoli, the utmost joy was
manifested by the inhabitants, and he received on board the Fairfield
the visits of Hadji Massen and of many other principal persons of the
city, who congratulated him openly on his escape from the vengeance of
the British Consul. The Fairfield remained in Tripoli until the 14th
of August, during which period every attention was received by her
officers from the Pasha and his Court; she then sailed for Tunis, and
from that place to Port Mahon, where Hassuna left her; but instead of
proceeding to England as he had declared to be his intention, he went
by way of Spain to France in which country he has since resided.
On the 10th of August Mr. Warrington addressed a most angry epistle to
the American Consul, in which after asserting that D'Ghies had been
"proved guilty of fraud and theft and suspected of murder," and taking
it "for granted that the Commander of the Fairfield must be perfectly
well acquainted with the delinquency of the fugitive," he requested
that his letter should be shown to Captain Parker; declaring in
conclusion that should the criminal escape from justice the whole
responsibility would rest upon Mr. Coxe, and the case {70} be
submitted to the American Government. Mr. Coxe replied on the 11th
that he had yet to learn how and when the guilt of Hassuna had been
established; and that although he deeply lamented the fate of Major
Laing, yet his feelings should not prevent him from maintaining the
honor of his flag, nor induce him to submit to any dictation. On
receipt of this answer Col. Warrington entered a protest in the name
of his Government against Mr. Coxe's interference in the affair; the
Pasha also addressed a letter on the 12th to the American Consul, in
which he declared that person answerable for all the consequences of
Hassuna's departure, and expressed his resolution to complain to the
Government of the United States on the subject. This letter although
bearing the seal of the Pasha, was written in Italian in the hand of
the Chancellor of the British Consulate, and delivered by Vanbreugel
the Consul of the Netherlands who was known to be devoted to the
service of Warrington. These circumstances rendered it extremely
probable that the letter was drawn up by the British Consul and merely
sealed by Yusuf as a peace offering, particularly as the British flag
was again displayed on the following day in token of reconciliation.
Under this impression Mr. Coxe replied on the 14th, that so far from
fearing inquiries as to his conduct, he had already submitted the
circumstances to the consideration of his Government, not doubting
that it would approve a course by which the Pasha of Tripoli "had been
indirectly saved from great trouble and uneasiness." Here the American
Consul's agency in the affair terminated; a few days after Yusuf at a
private audience, expressed the most friendly feelings to Mr. Coxe,
and hinted his satisfaction at having been thus happily extricated
from so disagreeable a situation.
Meanwhile Mohammed D'Ghies remained in the house of Baron Rousseau. On
the 12th of August Colonel Warrington accompanied by some other
Consuls, made a formal demand on the Baron for the delivery of Major
Laing's papers, exhibiting the deposition of D'Ghies in support of his
proceedings. Rousseau appeared to be highly indignant at this demand,
and Mohammed on seeing the declaration which was said to have been
made by him, denied all knowledge of it; having been assured however
that no injury would be done to him, he left his asylum and in the
presence of the Pasha and the greater part of the Consular corps, he
repeated the assertion first made to the Bey, declaring at the same
time that his subsequent denial had been extorted from him by the
French Consul, who had threatened otherwise to expel him from his
house. Baron Rousseau upon this struck his flag, and immediately
embarked with his whole family for France, without deigning to make
any reply to the accusations preferred against him; his departure
while the affair was undetermined, and he had nothing to fear but
exposure, was certainly not calculated to produce an impression in his
favor.
Soon after the French Consul had quitted Tripoli, the persons whom the
Pasha had summoned from the South arrived, and were examined in the
presence of the British and other Consuls. It would be unfair to
condemn any man on the testimony of Moors and Arabs, as those people
appear to be morally incapable of giving a correct account;
particularly too when as in this case the examination was exclusively
conducted by those who were opposed to the accused. From the accounts
of Col. Warrington, it appears to have been clearly established by
their examinations, that the papers of Major Laing were received by
Hassuna about the spring of 1828; of their having been delivered by
him to the French Consul no direct evidence has been adduced besides
the declaration of Mohammed D'Ghies. Many collateral circumstances
however united to confirm this statement, and even Mr. Coxe
notwithstanding all the prepossessions which he may be supposed to
have entertained in favor of Hassuna and against Colonel Warrington,
admitted to the latter on the 20th of November 1829, his conviction
that the communications of the unfortunate traveller had been thus
disposed of.
This affair excited much attention in Europe when the circumstances
became known there. The British Ambassador at Paris was instructed by
his Government, to demand from that of France, explanations with
regard to the conduct of its Representative in Tripoli. A commission
was accordingly instituted at Paris, which after interrogating
Rousseau and examining the proofs presented, declared the charge
against him to be wholly without foundation, and that against Hassuna
D'Ghies to be unsupported by sufficient evidence. The Government of
Great Britain appears to have been satisfied with this decision; the
measures adopted by France in consequence of it will be hereafter
related. The London Quarterly Review however, in which several
articles relative to Laing had already appeared, protested against the
report of the commission; the number of that periodical for March
1830, contains a statement of the circumstances which occurred in
Tripoli so partial, so unjust, and accompanied with such illiberal
remarks with regard to Mr. Coxe, that some notice of it seems here to
be necessary.
From the minuteness with which many of the events are detailed in this
Review, and the apparent precision as to dates, it is probable that
the materials were furnished by Colonel Warrington himself: yet the
statement is defective with regard to several important particulars;
facts with which the British Consul was undoubtedly acquainted, and
which might have given a different color to the case, are omitted; and
there are errors calculated to lessen confidence in accounts not
confirmed by other testimony than the assertion of the Reviewer. One
of these errors is remarkable, and it is not easy to conceive that it
arose from accident. In the Review it is said that the Pasha made his
declaration respecting the receipt of the papers by Hassuna and their
delivery to the French Consul, on the 5th of August; that in
consequence of this, D'Ghies had taken refuge in the American
Consulate on the 9th, and had been transferred on the same night to
the Fairfield, which sailed the day after. Thus Mr. Coxe is
represented as having acted with so much haste, that it was impossible
for the Pasha or Colonel Warrington to explain the motives of their
desire to arrest Hassuna, or to take any measures for proving his
guilt until he was beyond their reach. Now from the official documents
of the American Consulate, it appears that D'Ghies sought an asylum
there on the 20th of July, that he was placed on board ship on the 9th
of August, and that the Fairfield remained in the harbor until the
14th; he therefore passed nearly three weeks in the house of Mr. Coxe,
during which the Pasha was twice requested {71} to give an assurance
for his safety such as had been often granted in similar cases to
Consuls of other Powers; he was not placed on board the Fairfield
until an invasion of the Consular dwelling was reasonably apprehended,
and he continued in the port five days afterwards on board that ship.
These circumstances must have been known to the person who furnished
the materials for the article, and should in honor have been stated
correctly.
The motives assigned in the Review for Hassuna's intercepting the
papers, are that he had arranged some plan either for destroying Major
Laing, or for extorting money from his friends in order to insure his
safe return; that this plan had been discovered by the traveller, and
that D'Ghies, learning that his schemes had been thus penetrated by
the person who was their principal object, had suppressed the
communications in order to prevent the exposure of his villainy. This
supposition appears to be founded chiefly, if not entirely, on a
passage in one of the letters received from Laing, intimating the
discovery of some treachery on the part of those about him; the charge
that Hassuna had been accessory to the murder of the traveller, is to
be attributed only to the enmity of Warrington, as nothing has been
elicited in any way calculated to confirm it. With regard to the
French Consul's share in the affair, the Reviewer after citing some
plausible reasons for believing him to have been implicated, and many
which are utterly futile, seems to consider that he may have been
induced to such dishonorable conduct purely from desire to obtain
distinction by appropriating to himself in some way, the results of
Laing's expedition. The grounds for this opinion are that Rousseau had
for some time previous, been engaged in researches concerning the
interior of Africa, upon which subject he not only corresponded with
scientific societies in France, but also conducted a journal in
Tripoli.
The Reviewer however in all these accounts and conjectures, is careful
to forget that Hassuna was the Prime Minister of Tripoli, that
political reasons may have impelled him to prevent the delivery of the
papers, and that he may have acted in the whole affair conformably
with the usages not only of Tripoli, but of almost every Government in
Europe. A British officer engaged in exploring the interior of Africa,
may well have been the object of suspicion at Tripoli. Has scientific
research been even ostensibly the only motive for such expeditions?
Would Major Laing have been permitted to proceed under this pretext
through certain parts of Russia? Would a French or Russian officer
until lately have been allowed to visit British India? The Tripoline
Government did not dare refuse a passage to the English traveller
through its dominions; his actions were doubtless observed, and it was
proper that they should have been; his letters may have been opened,
may have been found to contain matter the communication of which would
be dangerous to the state, may have been in consequence destroyed, may
have been even delivered to a Consul of another Power. Such things are
constantly done in St. Petersburg, in Vienna, in Paris, and in many
other places, and although they cannot be defended, yet it is scarcely
fair to brand the African Minister with infamy for that which is daily
practised by Metternich, Nesselrode and Thiers.