THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20. 1909. BARBARITY IN MOROCCO.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9627, 20 October 1909, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20. 1909. BARBARITY IN MOROCCO.

European civilisation stands aghast at the appalling cruelties inflicted by the semi-civilised or frankly barbarous potet.tates of States which have been brought into political rela- ' tion with European Power?. Mulai Hafid's method of dealing with Bu Hamara, the Pretender, who was captured a few weeks ago and taken to the Moorish capital in a cage, must give a painful shock to the European statesmen who have formally recognised Mulai Hafid as the Ruler of a sovereign State, entitled to claim the ordinary courtesies of diplomatic intercourse. In casting the hapless Bu Hamara into an enclosed garden containing famished lions, and then taking up a position at an open window from which he could watch the efforts ot the hobbled victim to escape his doom, Mulai Hafid out-Neroed Nero, and at the same time reminded Europe that Islam had lagged at least a couple of centuries behind Christendom in developing the moral sense which regards the infliction of torture under the forms of law with aversion and disgust. It is true that the rulers' of Christian Europe during the Middle Ages, and even later, were accustomed to inflict cruelties which were even more blood-curdling to read about than , the grotesque ghastliness of the punishment devised by Mulai Hafid for the captured Pretender. Who can read Motley's "Eutch Republic" at this day or such a book as "The Crimes of the Borgias," by Dumas, without experiencing a cold shudder of horror at the diabolical ingenuity of the tortures which were practised upon unfortunate mpn, women, and children who were accused either of heresay or treason? Happily the advance of scientific attainments has been accompanied by a development of the moral faculties. Knowledge has brought with it wise toleration and benign clemency, and with those occasional exceptions which testify to the extreme pertiracy of the elements of the Tennysonian "ape and tiger" in the human race, the infliction of brutal cruelty as an act of law is confined to ignorant, semi-barbarians like Mulai Hafid. If the threatened conflict between Is- i

lamism and Christendom ever comes to pass, there is no doubt that the contest will he waged between two races not less strikingly unequal in moral than in mental qualities. In Mohammedan countries, such as Persia and Afghanistan, as well as Morocco, barbarous cruelty still characterises the normal administration of government. The ex-Shah of Persia was accustomed to urder those who oojected to his rule to be flogged to death. Strange tales are told by Anglo-In-dian military officers of the cruelties of Habibulah Khan, the present Am eerof Afghanistan, and Kipling has recorded a few of the more ferocious punishments inflicted by Habibulah's late father. Abdurrahman. Yet even in punishments infiictid by Mohammedan potentates for political offences there seems to be a noticeable lessening of rigour as compared with the exploits of their predecessors of a generation ago. Possibly the influence of European stanJurds of thought has not been without its effect. It is difficult fur any State to maintain itself in such complete isolation that the example of more progressive and highly cultivated states can be unfelt, and just as the craving for self-government has passed trom one country to another almost with the speed of burning gunpowder so too, the humanitarian feeling has made its way, as far as the treatment of political opponents is concerned, even to the remotest corners. Mulai Hafid's exploit may be regarded as the ghastly freak of a reactionary. His brother, Abdul Aziz, who previously occupied the throne, exhibited no such brutal tendencies, and receut history has shown ny the fate of Abdul-Hamid in Turkey and Mohammed Ati in Persia that the reign of a cruel autocrat is liable in these days to be summarily cut short. While Mulai Hafid's cruelty is exceptional and abnormal for a modern potentate, even in Morocco, it \a not likely that the representatives of the Powers will allow it to pass without significant remonstrance. Mulai Hafid was warned that the Powers, whose good will he is compelled to cultivate, would not allow him 10 torture his prisoner before executing him. The treatment meted out to Bu Hamara was an affront to every civilised Power having diplomatic representatives in Morocco. And the Powers , who have made Mulai Hafid Sultan ; by their recognition can unmake him if they choose.