The Italian and Portuguese Ministers both wrote to their Governments to demand satisfaction.
S. takes it up personally, and threatens to call out Ordega if an apology is not offered.
Our days of Quixotism are passed; but my fingers tingle to box the fellow’s ears. I do not know how he can return here amidst the nest of hornets he has roused. . . .
Unfortunately, just at this crisis, i.e. on the 14th, appeared an article in the Times which declares that England has no commanding interest in the political condition of Morocco, leading the reader to believe that the action of France is beneficial to British interests.
This leader may have been inspired by those who desire to prepare and mould the minds of the British public for the prosecution of their undoubted future, if not immediate, design of becoming mistress of the Straits and of the Mediterranean from Spartel to Tripoli, and perhaps hereafter to Egypt.
Should France annex or establish a protectorate over Morocco, the port of Tangier might be made a safe and well-fortified harbour for torpedo vessels and the like craft, and other harbours could be formed likewise to the eastward between Tangier and Ceuta. France and Spain would probably be allied in case of war, and our shipping would only pass by running the gauntlet. Gibraltar must fall or come to be of little value as a harbour of refuge. Nelson said, ‘Tangier must either remain in the hands of a neutral Power like Morocco, or England must hold it.’ Of what avail is it that we took our stand about the passage of the Dardanelles, and defended at such cost our free passage through the Suez Canal, if this end of the way to the East and to India can be stopped when it pleases France? Yet the Times says, ‘we have no political interest in Morocco.’
This article is based on a letter dated May 12, addressed to the Editor of the Times by the Secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society, wherein he dwells, and with strong grounds, upon the state of misgovernment, slavery, and other abuses in this country; but Mr. Allen is not always correct, especially when he speaks of my being ‘all-powerful,’ and yet intimates that I do not use my influence to good purpose.
The leader in the Times says that (in the case of the man murdered at Wazan) ‘the action of France has on the whole tended to promote the cause of civilisation, good government, and freedom in a country which has long been a stranger to these blessings.’
Now I know not one single act of the French Government or its Representative in this country which has been beneficial to the cause of civilisation or introduced any reform or improvement in Morocco, and I defy any Frenchman to state them. The compulsory payment by the Moorish Government of numerous claims of French citizens and protected subjects has certainly been obtained, but that can hardly be regarded as beneficial to civilisation, unless the protection afforded to the Sheríf can be considered beneficent. If the proceedings of the Sheríf are not put a stop to, and civil war ensues, a state of anarchy will be produced, and probably a massacre of the unfortunate Jews in the interior.
This would benefit civilisation!