He is a first-rate Arabic scholar and even poet, a good artist, a great archæologist, and is writing a work on Tripoli. In two affairs I have tested his assurances of good-will, and have good grounds for being satisfied.
I told him positively that there was no reason why there should not always be a perfect ‘accord’ between us, except on one point, viz. if either of our Governments desired to take possession of Morocco. ‘Kick it out,’ I said, ‘into the Atlantic a hundred miles, and then the sooner Morocco was colonised by a civilised people the better.’
Subsequent intercourse confirmed the favourable impression. In a later letter Sir John writes again of M. Féraud:—
I think I told you that Féraud complained the other day of inaccurate and malevolent reports, about his doings, in local papers, and said he hoped I did not believe them. I told him I was the last man to put any faith in newspapers; that I had been the butt of their shafts, which, at first, had stung; but I had grown so accustomed to abuse that now, when not held up as the author of evil, I feel it and wonder whether I have ceased to be of any importance in the eyes of my revilers. ‘You,’ I said, ‘will soon be accustomed to this also, and find it pleasant.’ ‘Charmes,’ the contributor of Débats, who has been with Féraud to Fas, was in the room, and had been introduced to me. Last year he wrote virulent articles against me, inspired, I think, by Ordega. He was sitting on my right, a little behind me, so I took an opportunity of letting go my shaft, and added, ‘Why, even leading papers in France chose last year to publish virulent and untruthful articles about me; but, far from my having any rancorous feeling against the writers, I am grateful to them. They drew public attention to me and my conduct in such a manner that it was taken up in our Senate, and my conduct and character were vindicated by the Ministers of all parties, and a mark of Her Majesty’s approval conferred upon me. I am grateful to my revilers in England and France.’
When leaving, I gave C. my hand, and my eye, I dare say, twinkled. C. has lately written an article in the Débats on the policy of keeping the status quo in Morocco and disapproving of all the late policy. Féraud evidently inspired it.
In June, 1885, he writes:—
Now I am an old man, having entered my seventieth year. How time glides by. Next year, if I live till then, we shall be quitting this for good. . . .
Féraud is still at the Court. He has made a good name by rejecting the trumped-up and usurious claims of protected Jews. He denounced them to the Sultan, and complained of public notaries who, in league with claimants, had drawn up false documents.
Though he told me and other colleagues he had no affair of importance at Fas, we know better. He aims at obtaining what France wants by cajolery and presents. He eschews menace and force. He is more dangerous and far more able than his predecessor. I shall, I think, get on well with him; I cannot blame him for playing the game which suits his country. If England had been as contiguous to Morocco as is France, I think ere this we should have annexed this misgoverned country; but it would never do for us that France should hold the Straits—the gut of commerce, the passage to India and the East. It is far more likely to be injurious than if she held the Canal. As a sentinel of the Straits, I fire my gun, as a warning, when I know of a move to obtain that object.
An article in Débats says, with some reason, that England, in consequence of her failures in the East, is no longer looked up to by the Moorish Government as before, and Italy is the rising sun. There is some truth in this. . . .