The Maroquine dynasties.--Family of the Shereefian Monarchs.--Personal
appearances and character of Muley Abd Errahman.--Refutation of the
charge of human sacrifices against the Moorish Princes.--Genealogy of
the reigning dynasty of Morocco.--The tyraufc Yezeed, (half
Irish).--Muley Suleiman, the "The Shereeff of Shereefs."--Diplomatic
relations of the Emperor of Morocco with European Powers.--Muley Ismael
enamoured with the French Princess de Conti.--Rival diplomacy of France
and England near the Maroquine Court.--Mr. Hay's correspondence with
this Court on the Slave-trade.--Treaties between Great Britain and
Morocco; how defective and requiring amendment.--Unwritten engagements.
Morocco, an immense and unwieldly remnant of the monarchies formed by
the Saracens, or first Arabian conquerors of Africa, has had a series of
dynasties terminating in that of the Shereefs.
1st. The Edristees (pure Saracens,) their capital was Fez, founded by
their great progenitor, Edrio. The dynasty began in A.D. 789, and
continued to 908.
2nd. The Fatamites (also Saracens.) These conquered Egypt, and were the
faction of or lineal descendants of the daughter of the Prophet, the
beautiful pearl-like Fatima, succeeding to the above: this dynasty
continued to 972.
3rd. The Zuheirites (Zeirities, or Zereids) were usurpers of the former
conquerors; their dynasty terminated in 1070.
4th. Moravedi (or Marabouteen,) that is to say, Marabouts, [2] who rose
into consequence about 1050, and their first prince was Aberbekr Omer El
Lamethounx, a native of Sous. Their dynasty terminated in 1149.
5th. The Almohades. These are supposed to be sprung from the Berber
tribes. They conquered all North Western Morocco, and reigned about one
hundred years, the dynasty terminated in 1269.
6th. The Merinites. These in 1250 subjugated the kingdoms of Fez and
Morocco; and in 1480 their dynasty terminated with the Shereef.
7th. The Oatagi (or Ouatasi) [3] were a tribe of obscure origin. In
their time, the Portuguese established themselves on the coast of
Morocco; their dynasty ended in 1550.
8th. The Shereefs (Oulad Ali) of the present dynasty, whose founder was
Hasein, have now occupied the Imperial throne more than three centuries.
This family of Shereefs came from the neighbourhood of Medina in Arabia,
and succeeded to the empire of Morocco by a series of usurpations. They
are divided into two branches, the Sherfah Hoseinee, so named from the
founder of the dynasty, who began to reign at Taroudant and Morocco in
1524, and over all the empire in 1550, and the Sherfah El Fileli, or
Tafilett, whose ancestor was Muley Shereef Ben Ali-el-Hoseinee, and
assumed sovereign power at Tafilett in 1648, from which country he
extended his authority over all the provinces of that empire. Thus the
Shereefs began their reign in the middle of the seventeenth century, and
have now wielded the sword of the Prophet as Caliph of the West these
last two hundred years. I have not heard that there is anywhere a
dynasty of Shereefs except in this country. They are, therefore,
profoundly venerated by all true Mussulmen. It was a great error to
suppose that Abd-el-Kader could have succeeded in dethroning the Emperor
during the hostilities of the Emir against the lineal representative of
the Prophet. Abd-el-Kader is a marabout warrior, greatly revered and
idolized by all enthusiastic Mussulmen throughout North Africa, more
especially in Morocco, the _terre classique_ of holy-fighting men; but
though the Maroquines were disaffected, groaning under the avarice of
their Shereefian Lord, and occasionally do revolt, nevertheless they
would not deliberately set aside the dynasty of the Shereefs, the
veritable root and branch of the Prophet of God, for an adventurer of
other blood, however powerful in arms and in sanctity.
Morocco is the only independent Mussulman kingdom remaining, founded by
the Saracens when they conquered North Africa. Tunis and Tripoli are
regencies of the Port of Tunis, having an hereditary Bey, while Tripoli
is a simple Pasha, removable at pleasure. Algeria has now become an
integral portion of France by the Republic.
Muley Abd Errahman was nominated to the throne by the solemn and dying
request of his uncle, Muley Suleiman, to the detriment of his own
children.
He belonged to one of the most illustrious branches of the reigning
dynasty. In the natural order of succession, he ought to have taken
possession of the Shereefian crown at the end of the last age; but,
being a child, his uncle was preferred; for Mahometan sovereigns and
empire are exposed to convulsions enough, without the additional dangers
and elements of strife attendant on regencies.
In transmitting the sceptre to him, Muley Suleiman, therefore, only
performed an act of justice.
Muley Abd Errahman, during his long reign, rendered the imperial
authority more solid than formerly, and established a species of
conservative government in a semi-barbarous country, and exposed to
continual commotions, like all Asiatic and African states. In governing
the multitudinous and heterogeneous tribes of his empire, his grand
maxim has ever been, like Austria, with her various states and hostile
interests of different people, "Divide et empera." When will sovereigns
learn to govern their people upon principles of homogenity of interests,
natural good will, and fraternal feeling? Alas! we have reason to fear,
never. It seems nations are to be governed always by setting up one
portion of the people against the other.
Muley Abd Errahman was chosen by his uncle, on account of his pacific
and frugal habits, educated as he was by being made in early life the
administrator of the customs in Mogador, and as a prince likely to
preserve and consolidate the empire. The anticipations of the uncle have
been abundantly realized by the nephew, for Muley Abd Errahman, with the
exception of the short period of the French hostilities, (which was not
his own work and happened in spite of him), has preserved the intact
without, and quiet during the many years he has occupied the throne.
His Moorish Majesty, who is advanced in life, is a man of middle
stature. He has dark and expressive eyes, and, as already observed, is a
mulatto of a fifth caste. Colour excites no prejudices either in the
sovereign or in the subject. This Emperor is so simple in his habits and
dress, that he can only be distinguished from his officers and governors
of provinces by the _thall_, or parasol, the Shereefian emblem of
royalty. The Emperor's son, when out on a military expedition, is also
honoured by the presence of the Imperial parasol, which was found in
Sidi Mohammed's tent at the Battle of Isly. Muley Abd Errahman is not
given to excesses of any kind, (unless avarice is so considered), though
his three harems of Fas, Miknas, and Morocco may be _stocked_, or more
politely, adorned, with a thousand ladies or so, and the treasures of
the empire are at his disposal. He is not a man of blood; [4] he rarely
decapitates a minister or a governor, notwithstanding that he frequently
confiscates their property, and sometimes imprisons them to discover
their treasures, and drain them of their last farthing. The Emperor
lives on good terms with the rest of his family. He has one son,
Governor of Fez (Sidi Mohammed), and another son, Governor of Rabat. The
greater part of the royal family reside at Tafilett, the ancient country
of the _Sherfah_, or Shereefs, and is still especially appropriated for
their residence. Ali Bey reported as the information of his time, that
there were at Tafilett no less than two thousand Shereefs, who all
pretended to have a right to the throne of Morocco, and who, for that
reasons enjoyed certain gratifications paid them by the reigning Sultan.
He adds that, during an interregnum, many of them took up arms and threw
the empire into anarchy. This state of things is happily past, and, as
to the number of the Shereefs at Tafilett, all that we know is, there is
a small fortified town, inhabited entirely by Shereefs, living in
moderate, if not impoverished circumstances.
The Shereefian Sultans of Morocco are not only the successors of the
Arabian Sovereigns of Spain, but may justly dispute the Caliphat with
the Osmanlis, or Turkish Sultans. Their right to be the chiefs of
Islamism is better founded than the pretended Apostolic successors at
Rome, who, in matters of religion, they in some points resemble.
I introduce here, with some unimportant variations, a translation from
Gräberg de Hëmso of the Imperial Shereefian pedigree, to correspond with
the genealogical tableaux, which the reader will find in succeeding
pages, of the Moorish dynasties of Tunis and Tripoli.
GENEALOGY OF THE REIGNING DYNASTY OF MOROCCO.
1. Ali-Ben-Abou-Thaleb; died in 661 of the Christian Era; surnamed "The
accepted of God," of the most ancient tribe of Hashem, and husband of
Fatima, styled Ey-Zarah, or, "The Pearl," only daughter of Mahomet.
2. Hosein, or El-Hosein-es-Sebet, _i.e._ "The Nephew;" died in 1680;
from him was derived the patronymic El-Hoseinee, which all the Shereefs
bear,
3. Hasan-el-Muthna, _i.e._ "The Striker;" died in 719; brother of
Mohammed, from whom pretended to descend, in the 16th degree, Mohammed
Ben Tumert, founder of the dynasty of the Almohadi, in 1120.
4. Abdullah-el-Kamel, _i.e._ "The Perfect;" in 752, father of Edris, the
progenitor or founder of the dynasty of the Edristi in Morocco, and who
had six brothers.
5. Mohammed, surnamed "The pious and just soul;" in 784, had five
children who were the branches of a numerous family. (Between Mohammed
and El-Hasem who follows, some assert that three gererations succeeded).
6. El-Kasem, in 852; brother of Abdullah, from whom it is said the
Caliphs of Egypt and Morocco are descended.
7. Ismail; about 890.
8. Ahmed; in 901.
9. El-Hasan; in 943.
10. Ali; in 970, (excluded from the genealogy published by Ali Bey, but
noted by several good authorities).
11. Abubekr; 996.
12. El-Husan, in 1012.
13. Abubekr El-Arfat, _i.e._ "The Knower," in 1043.
14. Mohammed, in 1071.
15. Abdullah, in 1109.
16. Hasan, in 1132; brother of a Mohammed, who emigrated to Morocco.
17. Mohammed, in 1174.
18. Abou-el-Kasem Abd Errahman, in 1207.
19. Mohammed, in 1236.
20. El-Kaseru, in 1271, brother of Ahmed, who also emigrated into
Africa, and was father of eight children, one of whom was:
21. El-Hasan, who, in 1266, upon the demand of a tribe of Berbers of
Moghrawa, was sent by his father into the kingdom of Segelmesa (now
Tafilett) and Draha, where, through his descendants, he became the
common progenitor of the Maroquine Shereefs.
22. Mohammed, in 1367.
23. El-Hasan, in 1391, by his son, Mohammed, he became grandfather of
Hosem, who, during 1507, founded the first dynasty of the Hoseinee
Shereefs in Segelmesa, and the extreme south of Morocco, which dynasty,
after twelve years, made itself master of the kingdom of Morocco.
24. Ali-es-Shereef, _i.e._ "The noble," died in 1437, was the first to
assume this name, and had, after forty years elapsed, two sons, the
first, Muley Mahommed, by a concubine, and the second:
25. Yousef, by a legitimate wife; he retired into Arabia, where he died
in 1485. It was said of Yousef, that no child was born to him until his
eightieth year, when he had five children, the first born of which was,
26. Ali, who died in 1527, and had at least, eighty male children.
27. Mohammed, in 1691, brother of Muley Meherrez, a famous brigand, and
afterwards a king of Tafilett: this Mohammed was father of many
children, and among the rest--
28. Ali, who was called by his uncle from Zambo (?) into
Moghrele-el-Aksa Morocco about the year 1620, and died in 1632, after
having founded the second, and present, dynasty of the Hoseinee
Shereefs, surnamed the _Filei_,
29. Muley Shereeff, died in 1652; he had eighty sons, and a hundred
and twenty-four daughters.
30. Muley Ismail, in 1727.
31. Muley Abdullah, in 1757.
32. Sidi Mohammed, in 1789.
33. Muley Yezeed, who assumed the surname of El-Mahdee _i.e._ "the
director," in 1792.
34. Muley Hisham, in 1794.
35. Muley Suleiman, in 1822.
36. Muley Abd Errahman, nephew of Muley Suleiman and eldest son of
Muley Hisham, the reigning Shereefian prince. [5]
In the Shereefian lineage of Muley Suleiman, copied for Ali Bey by the
Emperor himself, and which is very meagre and unsatisfactory, we miss
the names of the two brothers, the Princes Yezeed and Hisham, who
disputed the succession on the death of their father, Sidi Mohammed
which happened in April 1790 or 1789, when the Emperor was on a military
expedition to quell the rebellion of his son, Yezeed--the tyrant whose
bad fame and detestable cruelties filled with horror all the North
African world. The Emperor Suleiman evidently suppressed these names, as
disfiguring the lustre of the holy pedigree; although Yezeed was the
hereditary prince, and succeeded his father three days after his death,
being proclaimed Sultan at Salee with accustomed pomp and magnificence.
This monster in human shape, having excited a civil war against himself
by his horrid barbarities, was mortally wounded by a poisoned arrow,
shot from a secret hand, and died in February 1792, the 22nd month of
his reign, and 44th year of his age.
On being struck with the fatal weapon, he was carried to his palace at
Dar-el-Beida, where he only survived a single day; but yet during this
brief period, and whilst in the agony of dissolution, it is said, the
tyrant committed more crimes and outrages, and caused more people to be
sacrificed, than in his whole lifetime, determining with the vengeance
of a pure fiend, that if his people would not weep for his death they
should mourn for the loss of their friends and relations, like the old
tyrant Herod. How instinctively imitative is crime! Yezeed was of
course, not buried at the cross-roads, (Heaven forefend!) or in a
cemetery for criminals and infidels, for being a Shereef, and divine
(not royal) blood running in his veins, he was interred with great
solemnities at the mosque of _Kobah Sherfah_ (tombs of the Shereefs),
beside the mausoleums wherein repose the awful ashes of the princes and
kings, who, in ages gone by, have devastated the Empire of Morocco, and
inflicted incalculable miseries on its unfortunate inhabitants, whilst
plenarily exercising their divine right, to do wrong as sovereigns, or
as invested with inviolable Shereefian privileges as lineal successors
of the Prophets of God! [6]
A civil war still followed this monster's death, and the empire was rent
and partitioned into three portions, in each of which a pretender
disputed for the possession of the Shereefian throne. The poor people
had now three tyrants for one. The two grand competitors, however, were
Muley Hisham, who was proclaimed Sultan in the south at Morrocco and
Sous, and Muley Suleiman, who was saluted as Emperor in the north at
Fez. In 1795, Hisham retired to a sanctuary where he soon died, and then
Muley Suleimau was proclaimed in the southern provinces
Emir-el-Monmeneen, and Sultan of the whole empire.
Muley Suleiman proved to be a good and patriotic prince, "the Shereef of
Shereefs," whilst he maintained, by a just administration, tranquility
in his own state, and cultivated peace with Europe. During his long
reign of a quarter of a century, at a period when all the Christian
powers were convulsed with war, he wisely remained neutral, and his
subjects were happy in the enjoyment of peace and prosperity. He died on
the 28th March 1820, about the 50th year of his age, after having, with
his last breath declared his nephew, Muley Abd Errahman, the legitimate
and hereditary successor of the Shereefs, and so restoring the lineal
descent of these celebrated Mussulman sovereigns. The most glorious as
well as the most beneficent and acceptable act of the reign of Muley
Suleiman, so far as European nations were concerned, was the abolition
of Christian slavery in his States. In former times, the Maroquine
Moors, smarting under the ills inflicted upon them by Spain and
breathing revenge, subjected their Christian captives to more cruel
bondage, than, ever were experienced by the same victims of the Corsairs
in Algeria, the stronghold of this nefarious trade.
The Shereefs have been accustomed to wrap themselves up in their sublime
indifference, as to the fate and fortunes of Europe. During late
centuries, their diplomatic intercourse with European princes has been
scarcely relieved by a single interesting event, beyond their piratical
wars and our complaisant redemptions of their prisoners. But, in the
reign of Louis XIV., Muley Ismail having heard an extremely seductive
account of the Princesse de Conti (Mademoiselle de Blois), natural
daughter of the Grand Monarch and Mademoiselle de la Valliere, by means
of his ambassador, Abdullah Ben Aissa, had the chivalrous temerity to
demand her in marriage. "Our Sultan," said the ambassador, "will marry
her according to the law of God and the Prophet, but she shall not be
forced to abandon her religion, or manner of living; and she will be
able to find all that her heart desires in the palace of my
sovereign--if it please God."
This request, of course, could not be granted, but the "king of
Christian kings" replied very graciously, "that the difference alone of
religion prevented the consummation of the happiness of the Shereef of
Shereefs." This humble demand of the hand of the princess mightily
amused "the Court of Courts," and its hireling poets taxed their wit to
the utmost in chanting the praises of the royal virgin, who had attacked
the regards (or the growls) of the Numidian Tiger, as Muley Ismail was
politely designated. Take this as a specimen,--
"Votre beauté, grande princesse,
Porte les traits dont elle blesse
Jusques aux plus sauvages lieux:
L'Afrique avec vous capitule,
Et les conquêtes de vos yeux
Vont plus loin que celles d'Hercule."
The Maroquine ambassador, who was also grand admiral of the Moorish
navy, witnessing all the wonders of Paris at the epoch of the Great
Monarch, was dazzled with its beauty and magnificence; nevertheless, he
remained a good Mussulman. He was besides a grateful man, for he saw our
James II. in exile, who had given the admiral liberty without ransom
when he had been captured by English cruisers, and heartily thanked the
fallen prince for his own freedom whilst he condoled with him in his
misfortunes. But the Moorish envoy, in spite of his great influence, was
unable to conclude the treaty of peace, which was desired by France. On
his return to Morocco, the ambassador had so advanced in European ideas
of convenience, or civilization, that he attempted to introduce a taste
for Parisian luxury among his own countrymen.
As in many other parts of the Mediterranean, France and England have
incessantly contended for influence at the Court of Morocco. Various
irregular missions to this Court have been undertaken by European
powers, from the first establishment of the Moorish empire of the West.
The French entered regularly into relations with the western Moors
shortly after us; their flag, indeed, began to appear at their ports in
1555, under Francis I. They succeeded in gaining the favour of the Moors
whilst we occupied Tangier, and Louis XIV. encouraged them in their
efforts to attack or harass our garrison. The nature of our struggles
with the Moors of Morocco can be at once conjectured from the titles of
the pamphlets published in those times, viz.
"_Great_ and _bloody_ news of Tangier," (London 1680), and "The Moors
_blasted_, being a discourse concerning Tangier, especially when it was
under the Earl of Teviot," (London, 1681). But, after the peace of
Utrecht, conceding Gibraltar to England, and which more than compensated
us for the loss of Tangier, the influence of France in Morocco began to
wane, and the trade of this empire was absorbed by the British during
the 18th century. Then, in the beginning of our own age, the battle of
Trafalgar, and the fall of Napoleon, established the supremacy of
British influence over the minds of the Shereefs, which has not been yet
entirely effaced.
Our diplomatic intercouse has been more frequent and interesting with
the Western Moors since the French occupation of Algeria, and we have
exerted our utmost to neutralize the spirit of the war party in Fez,
seconding the naturally pacific mind of Muley Abd Errahman, in order to
remove every pretext of the French for invading this country. How we
succeeded in a critical period will be mentioned at the close of the
present work. [7] But this port, and our influence receiving thereby a
great shock, I am happy to state that the latest account from this most
interesting Moorish country, represents Muley Abd Errahman as steadily
pursuing, by the assistance of his new vizier, Bouseilam, the most
pacific policy. This minister, being very rich, is enabled to
consolidate his power by frequent presents to his royal master, thus
gratifying the most darling passion of Muley Abd Errahman, and Vizier
and Sultan amuse themselves by undertaking plundering expeditions
against insurrectionary tribes, whose sedition they first stimulate, and
then quell, that is to say, by receiving from the unlucky rebels a
handsome gratification.
The late Mr. Hay entered into a correspondence with the Shereefian Court
for the purpose of drawing its attention to the subject of the
slave-trade, and I shall make an extract or two from the letters,
bearing as they do on my present mission.
From three letters addressed by the Sultan to Mr. Hay, I extract the
following passages. "Be it known to you, that the traffic in slaves is a
matter on which all sects and nations have agreed from the time of the
sons of Adam, (on whom be the peace of God up to this day). And we are
not yet aware of its being prohibited by the laws of any sect, and no
one need ask this question, the same being manifest to both high and
low, and requires no more demonstration than the light of the day."
The Apostle of God is quoted as enforcing upon the master to give his
slave the same clothing as himself, and not to exact more labour from
him than he can perform.
Another letter. "It has been prohibited to sell a Muslem, the sacred
_misshaf_, and a young person to an unbeliever," that is to any one who
does not profess the faith of Islam, whether Christian, Jew, or Majousy.
To make a present, or to give as in alms is held in the same light as a
sale. The said Sheikh Khalil also says, "a slave is emancipated by the
law if ill-treated, that is, whether he intends or does actually
ill-treat him. But whether a slave can take with him what he possesses
of property or no, is a matter yet undecided by the doctors of the law."
Another. "Be it known to you, that the religion of Islam--may God exalt
it! has a solid foundation, of which the corner stones are well secured,
and the perfection whereof has been made known to us by God, to whom
belongs all praise in his book, the Forkam (or Koran,) which admits
neither of addition nor diminution. As regards the making of slaves and
trading therewith, it is confirmed by our book, as also of the _Sunnat_
(or traditions) of our Prophet. There is no controversy among the
_Oulamma_ (doctors) on the subject. No one can allow what is prohibited
or prohibit that which is lawful."
These extracts shew the _animus_ of the Shereefian correspondence. To
attack the Shereefs on this point of slavery, is to besiege the citadel
of their religion, or that is the interpretation which they are pleased
to put upon the matter; but all forms of bigotry and false principles
will ultimately succumb to the force of truth.
It is necessary to persevere, to persevere always, and the end will be
obtained.
I shall add a word or two on our treaties, or capitulations, as they are
disgracefully called, with the Empire of Morocco, intimating, as they
do, our former submission to the arrogant, piratical demands of the
Barbary Powers in the days of their corsair glory. Our political
relations with Morocco officially commenced in the times of Elizabeth,
or Charles I; but the formal treaty of peace was not concluded until the
last year of the reign of George I, which was ratified in 1729 by George
II, and by the Sultan Muley Ahmed-elt-Thabceby "The golden." Then
followed various other treaties for the security of persons and trade,
and against piracy. All, however, of any value, are embodied in the
treaty between Great Britain and Morocco, signed at Fez, 14th June 1801,
and confirmed, 19th January 1824 by the Sultan Muley Suleiman, which is
considered as still in force, and from which I shall extract two or
three articles, appending observations, for the purpose of shewing its
spirit and bearing on European commerce and civilization. Common sense
tells us that trade can only flourish where there is security for life
and property. We have to examine, whether this security is fully
guaranteed to British subjects, residing in and trading with the empire
to Morocco, by the treaty of 1801 and 1824.
This treaty begins with consuls, and sufficiently provides for their
honour and safety. It then states the privilege of British subjects, and
more particulary of merchants, residing in, and wishing to engage in
commercial speculations in Morocco. These privileges are, on the whole,
also explicitly stated. Afterwards follows two articles on "disputes,"
which clauses were amended and explained in January 1824, when the
treaty was confirmed. These are:--
"VII. Disputes between Moorish subjects and English subjects, shall be
decided in the presence of the English Consuls, provided the decision be
comformable to the Moorish law, in which case the English subject shall
not go before the Kady or Hakem, as the Consul's decision shall suffice.
"VIII. Should any dispute occur between English subjects and Moors, and
that dispute should occasion a complaint from either of the parties, the
Emperor of Morocco shall only decide the matter. If the English subject
be guilty, he shall not be punished with more severity than a Moor would
be; should he escape, no other subject of the English nation shall be
arrested in his stead, and if the escape be made after the decision, in
order to avoid punishment, he shall be sentenced as a Moor would be who
had committed the same crime. Should any dispute occur in the English
territories, between a Moor and an English subject, it shall be decided
by an equal number of the Moors residing there and of Christians,
according to the custom of the place, if not contrary to the Moorish
law."
In the amended clause of Article VIII. We have for any complaint,
substituted serious personal injury, and I cannot but observe that the
making of the Emperor the final judge, in such case, is a stretch of too
great confidence in Moorish justice.
Not that a Sultan of Morocco is necessarily bad or worse than an
European Sovereign, but because a personage of such power and character,
armed with unbounded attributes of despotism over his own subjects, who
are considered his Abeed, or slaves, whilst feebly aided by the
perception of the common rights of men, and imperfectly acquainted with
European civilization, can never, unless, indeed by accident or miracle,
justly decide upon the case of an Englishman, or upon a dispute between
his own and a foreign subject; for besides the ideas and education of
the Emperor, there is the necessity which his Imperial Highness feels,
despot as he is, of exhibiting himself before his people as their
undoubted friend and partial judge.
So strongly have Sultans of Morocco felt this, that many anecdotes might
be cited where the Emperor has indemnified the foreigner for injury done
to him by his own subjects, whilst he has represented to them that he
has decided the case against the stranger. It is surprising how a
British Government could surrender the settlement of the dispute of
their subjects to the final appeal of the Court of Morocco in the
nineteenth century, and, moreover, allow them to be decided, according
to the maxims of the Mohammedan code, or comformable to the Moorish law!
It is not long ago since, indeed just before my arrival in Morocco, that
the Emperor decided a dispute in rather a summary manner, without even
the usual Moorish forms of judicial proceedure by decapitating, a
quasi--European Jew, under French protection, and who once acted as the
Consul of France.
There is something singularly deficient and wrong, although to persons
unacquainted with Barbary, it looks sufficiently fair and just, in the
provision--"he (the English guilty subject) shall not be punished with
more severity than a Moor could be," fairly made? In the first place,
although this does not come under the idea of "serious personal injury,"
would the English people approve of their countrymen suffering the same
punishment as the Moors for theft, by cutting off their right hand?
Moors and Arabs have been so maimed for life, on being convicted of
stealing property to the value of a single shilling! Who will take upon
himself to enumerate the punishments, which may be, and are inflicted
for grave offences? It may be replied that this stipulation of punishing
British subjects, like Moorish, is only on paper, and we have no
examples of its being put into execution. I rejoin, without attempting
to cite proof, that, whilst such an article exists in a treaty, said to
be binding on the Government of England as well as Morocco, there can be
no real security for British subjects in this country; for in the event
of the Maroquines acting strictly upon the articles of this treaty, what
mode of inculpation, or what colour of right, can the British Government
adopt or shew against them? and what are treaties made for, if they do
not bind both parties?
In illustration of the way in which British subjects have their disputes
sometimes settled, according to Articles VII and VIII, I take the
liberty of introducing the case of Mr. Saferty, a respectable Gibraltar
merchant, settled at Mogador. A few months before my arrival in that
place, this gentleman was adjudged, in the presence of his Consul, Mr.
Willshire, and the Governor of Mogador, for repelling an insult offered
to him by a Moor, and sentenced to be imprisoned with felons and
cut-throats in a horrible dungeon. However, Mr. Saferty was attended by
a numerous body of his friends; so when the sentence was given, a cry of
indignation arose, a scuffle ensued, and the prisoner was rescued from
the Moorish police-officers. Mr. Willshire found the means of patching
up the business with the Moorish authorities, and the case was soon
forgotten. "All's well that ends well."
I do not say that the Moors are determinedly vindictive, or seek
quarrels with Europeans; on the contrary, I believe the cause of the
dispute frequently rests with the European, and the bonâ-fide agressor,
some adventurer whose conduct was so bad in his own country, that he
sought Barbary as a refuge from the pursuit of the minister of justice.
What I wish to lay stress on is, the enormous power given to the
Emperor, by a solemn treaty, in making him the final judge, and the
imminent exposure of British subjects to the barbarous punishments of a
semi-civilized people.
Article X is a most singular one. "Renegades from the English nation, or
subjects who change their religion to embrace the Moorish, they being of
unsound mind at the time of turning Moors, shall not be admitted as
Moors, and may again return to their former religion; but if they
afterwards resolve to be Moors, they must abide by their own decision,
and their excuses will not be accepted."
It was a wonderful discovery of our modern morale, that a renegade,
being a madman, should not be considered a renegade in earnest, or
responsible for his actions. Nevertheless, these unfortunate beings,
should they have better thoughts, or as mad-doctors have it, "a lucid
interval," and leave the profession of the Mahometan faith, and
afterwards again relapse into madness, and turn Mahometans once more,
are doomed to irretrievable slavery, or if they relapse, to death
itself; the Mahometan law, punishes relapsing renegades with death. This
curious clause says, "that though being madmen, they must abide their
decision (of unreason) and their excuses will not be accepted." This
said article was confirmed as late as the year 1824 by the
plenipotentiary of a nation, which boasts of being the most free and
civilized of Europe, and whose people spend annually millions for the
conversion of the heathen, and the extinction of the slave-trade.
The last clause of Article IV also demands our attention, viz. "And if
any English merchant should happen to have a vessel in or outside the
port, he may go on board himself, or any of his people, without being
liable to pay anything whatever."
Now in spite of this (but of course forgotten) stipulation, the
merchants of Mogador are not permitted to visit their own vessels, nor
those of other persons which may happen to be in or outside the port. It
is true, the authorities plead the reason of their refusal to be, "The
merchants are indebted to the Emperor:" neither will the authorities
take any security, and arbitrarily, and insolently prohibit, under any
circumstances, the merchants from visiting their vessels. I have said
enough to shew that our treaties (I beg the reader's pardon,
"capitulations") with the Emperor of Morocco, require immediate
revision, and to be amended with articles more suited to the spirit of
the age, and European civilization, as likewise more consistent with the
dignity of Great Britian.
The treaty for the supply of provisions, especially cattle, to the
garrison of Gibraltar is either a verbal one, or a secret arrangement,
for no mention is made of it in the published state paper documents. It
is probably a mere verbal unwritten understanding, but, neverthelesss is
more potent in its working than the written treaties. This is not the
first time that the unwritten has proved stronger than the written
engagement.