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?
Enter page number
PreviousNext
Page 9 of 52
Words from 8234 to 9257
of 53114
