XXI.

Decorative footer

1816.

Nelson was in the Mediterranean at the beginning of the nineteenth century, as every one knows, but the suppression of the Barbary Corsairs formed no part of his instructions. Twice, indeed, he sent a ship of war to inquire into the complaints of the consuls, but without effect; and then on the glorious Twenty-First of October, 1805, the great admiral fell in the supreme hour of victory. Collingwood made no attempt to deal with the Algerine difficulty, beyond sending a civilian agent and a present of a watch, which the Dey consigned to his cook. The British victories appear to have impressed the pirates’ mind but slightly; and in 1812 we find Mr. A’Court (Lord Heytesbury) condescending to negotiate terms between the Corsairs and our allies the Portuguese, by which the latter obtained immunity from molestation and the release of their countrymen by the payment altogether of over a million of dollars, and an annual tribute of $24,000.

To the United States of America belongs thehonour of having first set an example of spirited resistance to the pretensions of the Corsairs. So long as they had been at war with Great Britain, the States were unable to protect their commerce in the Mediterranean; and they were forced to fall in with the prevailing custom and make peace with the robbers on the basis of a bribe over a million of Spanish dollars, and a large annual tribute in money and naval stores. But as soon as the Treaty of Ghent set them free in 1815 they sent a squadron to Algiers, bearing Mr. William Shaler as American consul, and Captains Bainbridge and Stephen Decatur as his assessors in the impending negotiations. The result was that after only two days a Treaty was concluded on June 30, 1815, by which all money payment was abolished, all captives and property were restored, and the United States were placed on the footing of the most favoured nation. The arguments of the Americans appear to have been more eloquent than British broadsides.

Shamed by this unexpected success, the English Government at length sent Lord Exmouth (formerly Sir Edward Pellew) to obtain favourable terms for some of the minor Mediterranean Powers, and to place the Ionian Islands, as British dependencies, on the same footing as England. Yet he was evidently not authorized to proceed to extreme measures or demand unconditional surrender of existing pretensions. He arranged terms for Naples, which still included tribute and presents. Sardinia escaped for a sum down. The Ionians were admitted on the English footing. Then Lord Exmouth went on toTunis and Tripoli, and obtained from the two Beys the promise of the total abolition of Christian slavery.

His proceedings at Tunis were marked by much firmness, and rewarded with commensurate success. He arrived on the 12th of April, 1816, shortly after a Tunisian Corsair, in devastating one of the Sardinian islands, had roused the indignation of Europe. Lord Exmouth demanded nothing less than the total abolition of Christian slavery. “It happened that at this very time Caroline, Princess of Wales, was enjoying the splendid hospitality of Mahmūd Bey in his city palace. Neither party seemed inclined to yield, and matters assumed a very threatening aspect. The mediation of the royal guest was invoked in vain; Lord Exmouth was inexorable. The Princess sent the greater part of her baggage to the Goletta, the British merchants hastened to embark on board the vessels of the squadron, the men-of-war were prepared for action, and the Bey did his best to collect all available reinforcements. The excitement in Tunis was immense, and a pacific solution was considered almost impossible. On the 16th Lord Exmouth, accompanied by Mr. Consul-General Oglander and his staff, proceeded to the Bardo Palace. The flagstaff of the British Agency was previously lowered to indicate a resolution to resort to an appeal to arms in case of failure, and the Princess of Wales expected every hour to be arrested as a hostage. The antecedents of the Bey were not precisely calculated to assuage her alarm, but Mahmūd sent one of his officers to assure her that, come what might, he should never dream of violating the Moslemlaws of hospitality. While the messenger was still with her, Lord Exmouth entered the room and announced the satisfactory termination of his mission. On the following morning the Bey signed a Treaty whereby in the name of the Regency he abolished Christian slavery throughout his dominions. Among the reasons which induced the Bey to yield to the pressure used by Lord Exmouth was the detention of the Sultan’s envoy, bearing the imperial firman and robe of investiture, at Syracuse. The Neapolitan Government would not allow him to depart until the news of the successful result of the British mission had arrived, and Mahmūd felt it impossible to forego the official recognition of his suzerain.”[90]

The wife of George IV. was extremely angry at being interrupted in a delightful course of entertainments, and picnics among the ruins of Carthage and the orange groves, whither she repaired in the Bey’s coach and six, escorted by sixty memlūks. The Tunisians were, of course, indignant at the Bey’s surrender, nor did piracy cease on account of the Treaty. Holland, indeed, repudiated the blackmail in 1819, but Sweden still paid a species of tribute in the form of one hundred and twenty-five cannons in 1827.

Having gained his point at Tunis and Tripoli—a most unexpected triumph—Lord Exmouth came back to Algiers, and endeavoured to negotiate the same concessions there, coolly taking up his position within short range of the batteries. His proposals were indignantly rejected, and he was personally insulted; two of his officers weredragged from their horses by the mob, and marched through the streets with their hands tied behind their backs; the consul, Mr. McDonell, was put under guard, and his wife and other ladies of his family were ignominiously driven into the town from the country house.[91]Lord Exmouth had no instructions for such an emergency; he arranged that ambassadors should be sent from Algiers to London and Constantinople to discuss his proposal; and then regretfully sailed for England. He had hardly returned when news arrived of extensive massacres of Italians living under British protection at Bona and Oran by order of the Dey—an order actually issued while the British admiral was at Algiers. Lord Exmouth was immediately instructed to finish his work. On the 25th of July in the same year his flagship, theQueen Charlotte, 108, led a squadron of eighteen men of war, of from ten to one hundred and four guns, and including three seventy-fours, out of Portsmouth harbour. At Gibraltar the Dutch admiral, Baron Van Capellan, begged to be allowed to join in the attack with six vessels, chiefly thirty-sixes, and when the time came he fought his ships admirably. On the 27th of August they arrived in the roads of Algiers. ThePrometheushad been sent ahead to bring off the consul McDonell and his family. Captain Dashwood succeeded in bringing Mrs. and Miss McDonell on board; but a second boat was less fortunate: the consul’s baby took the opportunity of crying just as it was being carried in a basket past the sentinel, by the ship’s surgeon, who believed hehad quieted it. The whole party were taken before the Dey, who, however, released all but the boat’s crew, and, as “a solitary instance of his humanity,” sent the baby on board. The Consul-General himself remained a prisoner.

No reply being vouchsafed to his flag of truce, Lord Exmouth bore up to the attack, and theQueen Charlottedropped anchor in the entrance of the Mole, some fifty yards off, and was lashed to a mast which was made fast to the shore. A shot from the Mole, instantly answered from the flagship, opened the battle. “Then commenced a fire,” wrote the admiral, “as animated and well-supported as I believe was ever witnessed, from a quarter before three till nine, without intermission, and which did not cease altogether till half-past eleven [P.M.]. The ships immediately following me were admirably and coolly taking up their stations, with a precision even beyond my most sanguine hope; and never did the British flag receive, on any occasion, more zealous and honourable support.

“The battle was fairly at issue between a handful of Britons, in the noble cause of Christianity, and a horde of fanatics, assembled round their city, and enclosed within its fortifications, to obey the dictates of their Despot. The cause of God and humanity prevailed; and so devoted was every creature in the fleet, that even British women served at the same guns with their husbands, and, during a contest of many hours, never shrank from danger, but animated all around them.”

Some of the men-of-war, especially theImpregnable,Rear-AdmiralMilne, were hard beset; but about ten o’clock at night the main batteries were silenced, and in a state of ruin, and “all the ships in the port, with the exception of the outer frigate [which had been boarded], were in flames, which extended rapidly over the whole arsenal, storehouses, and gun-boats, exhibiting a spectacle of awful grandeur and interest no pen can describe.”[92]At one o’clock everything in the Marine seemed on fire: two ships wrapped in flames drifted out of the port. Heavy thunder, lightning, and rain, increased the lurid effect of the scene.

Next morning, says Mr. Shaler, “the combined fleets are at anchor in the bay, apparently little damaged; every part of the town appeared to have suffered. The Marine batteries are in ruins, and may be occupied without any effort. Lord Exmouth holds the fate of Algiers in his hands.”

Instead, however, of demolishing the last vestige of the fortifications, and exacting pledges for future good behaviour, the admiral concluded a treaty by which prisoners of war in future should be exchanged and not enslaved; and the whole of the slaves in Algiers, to the number of 1,642 (chiefly Italian, onlyeighteen English), were at once set at liberty, and the Dey was made to refund the money, amounting to nearly four hundred dollars, which he had that year extorted from the Italian States. Finally, he was made to publicly apologize to the unfortunate McDonell, who had been confined during the siege half naked in the cell for condemned murderers, loaded with chains, fastened to the wall, exposed to the heavy rain, and momentarily expecting his doom. He was now reinstated, and publicly thanked by the admiral.

It was, indeed, satisfactory to have at last administered some salutary discipline to the insolent robbers of Algiers; but it had been well if the lesson had been final. Their fleet was certainly gone: they had but two vessels left. Their fortifications were severely damaged, but these were soon repaired. No doubt it was no small advantage to have demonstrated that their batteries could be turned and silenced; but it would have been better to have taken care that they should never mount another gun. Even the moral effect of the victory seems to have been shortlived, for when, in 1819, in pursuance of certain resolutions expressed at the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle (1818) the French and English admirals delivered “identical notes” to the new Dey, that potentate replied after his manner by throwing up earthworks.

As a matter of fact the same course of insolence and violence continued after the Battle of Algiers as before. Free European girls were carried off by the Dey; the British consulate was forced open, and even the women’s rooms searched; Mr. McDonell was stillvictimized; and the diplomacy and a little fancy firing of Sir Harry Neale in 1824 failed to produce the least effect. Mr. McDonell had to be recalled, and the Dey as usual had his own way. Nothing but downright conquest could stop the plague, and that final measure was reserved for another nation than the English.

FOOTNOTES:[90]Broadley, 85-6.[91]Playfair, 256.[92]Lord Exmouth’s Despatch, August 26, 1816. See also the American Consul Shaler’s Report to his Government, September 13th, quoted by Playfair, 269-72. The bombardment destroyed a large part of Mr. Shaler’s house, and shells were perpetually whizzing by his ears. His report is full of graphic details, and he was always a true friend of the unlucky McDonell. It is stated that the fleet fired 118 tons of powder, 50,000 shot, nearly 1,000 shells, &c. The English lost 128 killed and 690 wounded. The admiral was wounded in three places, his telescope broken in his hand, and his coat cut to strips. Nor was the Dey less forward at the post of danger.

[90]Broadley, 85-6.

[91]Playfair, 256.

[92]Lord Exmouth’s Despatch, August 26, 1816. See also the American Consul Shaler’s Report to his Government, September 13th, quoted by Playfair, 269-72. The bombardment destroyed a large part of Mr. Shaler’s house, and shells were perpetually whizzing by his ears. His report is full of graphic details, and he was always a true friend of the unlucky McDonell. It is stated that the fleet fired 118 tons of powder, 50,000 shot, nearly 1,000 shells, &c. The English lost 128 killed and 690 wounded. The admiral was wounded in three places, his telescope broken in his hand, and his coat cut to strips. Nor was the Dey less forward at the post of danger.

Decorative footer

1830-1881.

The successes of the English and American fleets had produced their effects, not so much in arresting the course of piracy, as in encouraging the European States to defy the pirates. Thecoup de grâcewas administered by France—thevis-à-vis, the natural opponent of the Algerine Corsairs, and perhaps the chief sufferer by their attacks. A dispute in April, 1827, between the French consul and the Dey, in which the former forgot the decencies of diplomatic language, and the latter lost his temper and struck the offender with the handle of his fan, led to an ineffectual blockade of Algiers by a French squadron for two years, during which the Algerines aggravated the breach by several acts of barbarity displayed towards French prisoners. Matters grew to a crisis; in August, 1829, the Dey dismissed a French envoy and fired upon his ship as he was retiring under a flag of truce; and it became evident that war on a decisive scale was now inevitable.

Accordingly, on May 26th, 1830, a large fleetsailed out of Toulon. Admiral Duperré commanded, and the land-forces on board numbered thirty-seven thousand foot, besides cavalry and artillery. Delayed by stress of weather, the fleet was not sighted off Algiers till June 13th, when it anchored in the Bay of Sidi Ferrūj, and there landed next day, with little opposition, and began to throw up entrenchments. A force of Arabs and Kabyles was severely defeated on the 19th, with the loss of their camp and provisions, and the French slowly pushed their way towards the city, beating back the Algerines as they advanced. The defenders fought game to the last, but the odds were overwhelming, and the only wonder is that so overpowering a force of besiegers, both by sea and land, should have evinced so much caution and diffidence of their own immense superiority. On July 4th, the actual bombardment of the city began; the Fort de l’Empereur was taken, after the Algerines had blown up the powder magazine; and the Dey asked for terms of surrender. Safety of person and property for himself and for the inhabitants of the city was promised by the French commander, and on this condition the enemy occupied Algiers on the following day, July 5th. A week later the Dey, with his family and attendants and belongings, sailed for Naples in a French frigate, and Algiers had seen the last of its Mohammedan rulers.[93]

Here, so far as Algiers is concerned, the Story ofthe Corsairs properly ends. But a glance at the events which have occurred during the French occupation may usefully supplement what has already been recorded. The conquest had been marked by a moderation and humanity which did infinite honour to the French arms; it would have been well if a similar policy had distinguished their subsequent proceedings. It is not necessary to dwell upon the assurance given by France to Great Britain that the occupation was only temporary; upon the later announcement of permanent annexation; or upon England’s acquiescence in the perfidy, upon the French engaging never to push their conquests further to the east or west of Algiers—an engagement curiously illustrated by the recent occupation of Tunis. But if the aggrandizement of France in North Africa is matter for regret, infinitely more to be deplored is the manner in which the possession of the interior of the country has been effected. It is not too much to say that from the moment when the French, having merely taken the city of Algiers, began the work of subduing the tribes of the interior in 1830, to the day when they at last set up civil, instead of military, government, after the lessons of the Franco-German war in 1870, the history of Algeria is one long record of stupidly brutal camp-rule, repudiation of sacred engagements, inhuman massacres of unoffending natives of both sexes and all ages, violence without judgment, and severity without reason. One French general after another was sent out to bring the rebellious Arabs and Kabyles into subjection, only to display his own incompetence for the inhuman task,and to return baffled and brutalized by the disgraceful work he thought himself bound to carry out. There is no more humiliating record in the annals of annexation than this miserable conquest of Algiers. It is the old story of trying to govern what the conquerors call “niggers,” without attempting to understand the people first. Temper, justice, insight, and conciliation would have done more in four years than martial intolerance and drum tyranny accomplished in forty.

In all these years of miserable guerilla warfare, in which such well-known commanders as Bugeaud, Pelissier, Canrobert, St. Arnaud, MacMahon, and many more, learned their first demoralizing lessons in warfare, the only people who excite our interest and admiration are the Arab tribes. That they were unwise in resisting the inevitable is indisputable; but it is no less certain that they resisted with splendid valour and indomitable perseverance. Again and again they defeated the superior forces of France in the open field, wrested strong cities from the enemy, and even threatened to extinguish the authority of the alien in Algiers for ever. For all which the invaders had only to thank themselves. Had General Clausel, the first military governor of Algiers, been a wise man, the people might have accepted, by degrees, the sovereignty of France. But the violence of his measures, and his ignorance of the very word “conciliation,” raised up such strenuous opposition, engendered such terrible reprisals, and set the two parties so hopelessly against each other, that nothing less than a prolonged struggle could be expected.

The hero of this sanguinary conflict was ’Abd-el-Kādir, a man who united in his person and character all the virtues of the old Arabs with many of the best results of civilization. Descended from a saintly family, himself learned and devout, a Hāj or Meccan pilgrim; frank, generous, hospitable; and withal a splendid horseman, redoubtable in battle, and fired with the patriotic enthusiasm which belongs to a born leader of men, ’Abd-el-Kādir became the recognized chief of the Arab insurgents. The Dey of Algiers had foreseen danger in the youth, who was forced to fly to Egypt in fear of his life. When he returned, a young man of twenty-four, he found his country in the hands of the French, and his people driven to desperation. His former fame and his father’s name were talismans to draw the impetuous tribes towards him; and he soon had so large a following that the French deemed it prudent for the moment to recognize him (1834) as Emīr of Maskara, his native place, of which he had already been chosen king by general acclamation. Here he prepared for the coming struggle; and when the French discovered a pretext for attacking him in 1835, they were utterly routed on the river Maska. The fortunes of war vacillated in the following year, till in May, 1837, ’Abd-el-Kādir triumphantly defeated a French army in the plain of the Metija. A fresh expedition of twenty thousand met with no better success, for Arabs and Berbers are hard to trap, and ’Abd-el-Kādir, whose strategy evoked the admiration of the Duke of Wellington, was for a time able to baffle all themarshals of France. The whole country, save a few fortified posts, was now under his sway, and the French at last perceived that they had to deal with a pressing danger. They sent out eighty thousand men under Marshal Bugeaud, and the success of this officer’s method of sweeping the country with movable columns was soon apparent. Town after town fell; tribe after tribe made terms; even ’Abd-el-Kādir’s capital, Takidemt, was destroyed; Maskara was subdued (1841); and the heroic chief, still repudiating defeat, retreated to Morocco. Twice he led fresh armies into his own land, in 1843 and 1844; the one succumbed to the Duc d’Aumale, the other to Bugeaud. Pelissier covered himself with peculiar glory by smoking five hundred men, women, and children to death in a cave. At last, seeing the hopelessness of further efforts and the misery they brought upon his people, ’Abd-el-Kādir accepted terms (1847), and surrendered to the Duc d’Aumale on condition of being allowed to retire to Alexandria or Naples. It is needless to add that, in accordance with Algerian precedent, the terms of surrender were subsequently repudiated, though not by the Royal Duke, and the noble Arab was consigned for five years to a French prison. Louis Napoleon eventually allowed him to depart to Brusa, and he finally died at Damascus in 1883, not, however, before he had rendered signal service to his former enemies by protecting the Christians during the massacres of 1860.

Though ’Abd-el-Kādir had gone, peace did not settle upon Algeria. Again and again the tribesrevolted, only to feel once more the merciless severity of their military rulers. French colonists did not readily adopt the new field for emigration. It seemed as though the best thing would be to withdraw from a bootless, expensive, and troublesome venture. Louis Napoleon, however, when he visited Algiers in 1865, contrived somewhat to reassure the Kabyles, while he guaranteed their undisturbed possession of their territories; and until his fall there was peace. But the day of weakness for France was the opportunity for Algiers, and another serious revolt broke out; the Kabyles descended from their mountains, and Gen. Durieu had enough to do to hold them in check. The result of this last attempt, and the change of government in France, was the appointment of civil instead of military governors, and since then Algeria has on the whole remained tranquil, though it takes an army of fifty thousand men to keep it so. There are at least no more Algerine Corsairs.

It remains to refer to the affairs of Tunis. If there was provocation for the French occupation of Algiers in 1830, there was none for that of Tunis in 1881.[94]It was a pure piece of aggression, stimulated by the rival efforts of Italy, and encouraged by the timidity of the English Foreign Office, then under the guidance of Lord Granville. A series of diplomatic grievances, based upon no valid grounds, was set up by the ingenious representative of France in the Regency—M. Théodore Roustan,since deservedly exposed—and the resistance of the unfortunate Bey, Mohammed Es-Sādik, to demands which were in themselves preposterous, and which obviously menaced his semi-independence as a viceroy of the Ottoman Empire, received no support from any of the Powers, save Turkey, who was then depressed in influence and resources by the adversities of the Russian invasion. The result was natural: a strong Power, unchecked by efficient rivals, pursued her stealthy policy of aggression against a very weak, but not dishonest, State; and finally seized upon the ridiculous pretext of some disturbances among the tribes bordering on Algeria to invade the territory of the Bey. In vain Mohammed Es-Sādik assured M. Roustan that order had been restored among the tribes; in vain he appealed to all the Powers, and, above all, to England. Lord Granville believed the French Government when it solemnly assured him that “the operations about to commence on the borderland between Algeria and Tunis are meant solely to put an end to the constant inroads of the frontier clans into Algerian territory, and that the independence of the Bey and the integrity of his territory are in no way threatened.” It was Algiers over again, but with even more serious consequences to English influence—indeed to all but French influence—in the Mediterranean. “Perfide Albion” wholly confided in “Perfida Gallia,” and it was too late to protest against the flagrant breach of faith when the French army had taken Kef and Tabarka (April 26, 1881), when the tricolor was floating over Bizerta, andwhen General Bréart, with every circumstance of insolent brutality, had forced the Treaty of Kasr-es-Sa’īd upon the luckless Bey under the muzzles of the guns of the Republic (May 12th). It is difficult to believe that the feeling of the English statesmen of the day is expressed in the words—Haec olim meminisse juvabit.

The Bey had been captured—he and since his death Sidi ’Alī Bey have continued to be the figureheads of the French Protectorate—but his people were not so easily subdued. The southern provinces of Tunis broke into open revolt, and for a time there ensued a period of hopeless anarchy, which the French authorities made no effort to control. At last they bestirred themselves, and to some purpose. Sfax was mercilessly bombarded andsacked, houses were blown up with their inhabitants inside them, and a positive reign of terror was inaugurated, in which mutual reprisals, massacres, and executions heightened the horrors of war. The whole country outside the fortified posts became the theatre of bloodshed, robbery, and anarchy. It was the history of Algiersin petto. Things have slowly improved since then, especially since M. Roustan’s recall; doubtless in time Tunis will be as subdued and as docile as Algiers; and meanwhile France is developing the resources of the land, and opening out one of the finest harbours in existence. Yet M. Henri de Rochefort did not, perhaps, exaggerate when he wrote: “We compared the Tunisian expedition to an ordinary fraud. We were mistaken. The Tunis business is a robbery aggravated by murder.” The“Algerian business” was of a similar character.Qui commence bien finit bien, assumes Admiral Jurien de la Gravière in his chapter entitled “Gallia Victrix.” If the history of France in Africa ends in bringing the southern borderlands of the Mediterranean, the old haunts of the Barbary Corsairs, within the pale of civilization, it may some day be possible to bury the unhappy past, and inscribe upon the tombstone the optimistic motto:Finis coronat opus.

FOOTNOTES:[93]See the graphic journal of the British Consul-General, R. W. St. John, published in SirR. Lambert Playfair’sScourge of Christendom, pp. 310-322.[94]For a full account of this scandalous proceeding, see Mr.A. M. Broadley’sTunis, Past and Present.

[93]See the graphic journal of the British Consul-General, R. W. St. John, published in SirR. Lambert Playfair’sScourge of Christendom, pp. 310-322.

[94]For a full account of this scandalous proceeding, see Mr.A. M. Broadley’sTunis, Past and Present.

THE END.

Decorative footer

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXYZ

A’Abd-el-Kādir,305-6’Abd-el-Melik. Khalif,7’Abd-er-Rahmān,7Acre,62Acton, Chevalier,191Aden,98Aegina,97“Africa” (Mahdīya), Siege of,128-133;(Illustr.) 129;taken by Dragut,133;retaken by Doria,134.Aghlabīs,7,21Aix-la-Chapelle, Congress,4,299Alghero,62Algiers,8;taken by D. Pedro Navarro,13;orthography,13n.,16,19;occupied by Urūj Barbarossa,46;ruled by Kheyr-ed-dīn,54;Hasan Aga, viceroy,81;Charles V.’s Expedition,112-123;renegade Pashas,185;Turkish Deys,185-7;its galleys,218ff.;its slaves,235ff.;arrogance of its Deys,257ff.;bombardment,297;French occupation,301-7Algiers (Illustr.) frontispiece, 48, 115Alhucemas,188’Ali Aga,272’Ali Pasha at Lepanto,164,173-6Allen, Sir T.,272Almohades,7,21Almoravides,21Alva, Duke of,113’Amr, General,7Angelo, Fort (Corfu),97Angelo, Fort (Malta),136,142ff.Aragon,23Aranda, Emanuel d’,195Arenela,143Armadores,221Arta, Gulf of,101ff.Astrolabe, 170Astrolabe, observation with,104Atlas range,14Aubusson, D’,66Aumale, Duc d’,306Ayās, Grand Vezīr,96Aydīn Reïs “Drub-Devil,”56,57,89

BBab Azūn,117,118Bab-el-Wēd,117Bainbridge, Capt.,277ff.Balaklava,62Balearic Islands,24,56,57Baltimore in Ireland sacked,233,265Barbarigo,173,175Barbarossa, Urūj, birth,31;Lives of,31n.;arrives at Tunis,32;takes Papal Galleys,35;settles at Jerba,40;attacks Bujēya,40;is wounded,43;second attempt on Bujēya,44;goes to Jījil,44;surprises Shershēl,46;occupies Algiers,49;defeats the Spaniards,50;conquers Tinnis,51;is pursued by the Spaniards,51;and killed,52Barbarossa, Kheyr-ed-dīn, seeKheyr-ed-dīnBarbary peninsula,14ff.Barbary, map of, 17Barcone,231Bastion de France,253-4Bazan, Alvaro de,173Beaufort, Henry,131Bekri, El,26Beshiktash,111Besistān,243Beys of Tunis,22Blake, Admiral,269Blomberg, Barba,167Boccanegra,103Bona,19,24,26Bona, Cape,19Borāk Reïs,66-7Bourbon, Duke of,131Bourbon,Françoisde,106Boyssat,89n.Brigantine (Vergãtina),10,205Bragadino,164Braithwaite, Capt.,191n.Brèves, M. de,226Broadley, A. M.,89n.,257,295,307Bruce, James,273Bugeaud, Marshal,306Bujēya, taken by Spaniards,12;harbour,19,23;besieged byUrūj Barbarossa,40;again,44,51;Charles V. at,122,254Burgol,222

CCaesarea Augusta,13n.Cairo,21Canale,95Capellan, Van,296Capello,101-4,194Carack,86,103Caramuzel,231Caravel (Illustr.),11,231Cardona, Juan de,150,168,177Carthage,19Castelnuovo,105Catena,9,168n.Cattaro,105Cerda, Juan de la,147Cervantes,177,246-8Cervellon,182Cetraro,84Ceuta,16,20,23,188Challoner, Sir T.,122Charles V.,51,57,77;at Tunis,86-91;at Algiers,112-123,167Chenier,191n.Chesneau,83n.Chioggia,62Christian privileges in Barbary,22Clément, Saint-,161,192Col,55Collingwood, Admiral,292Colonna,163,173,176Comares, Marq. de,51Comelin, Father,255Commercial Treaties,22Compass, 99Condulmiero,103Constantine,55Constantinople,82-3Consuls at Algiers, &c.,259ff.Cordova,7Corfu,95;besieged,96-7Corsica,7,24Cortes,114Cossier,89Cottington,229Courcy, De,131Crossbow, observation with,55Cruz, Marquis of Santa,177Cyprus,72;taken by Turks,162-4

DDamad ’Alī,181Dan, Father,218,219,220,233,235ff.,252ff.Danser, Simon,226Dardanelles,62Daūd Pasha,67-71Decatur, Stephen,283ff.,293Delgarno,188Deli Memi,246Dellāls,243Denis, Sir Peter,264Denmark and Tunis,258ff.Deys of Algiers,22,262ff.Doria, Andrea, drives Kheyr-ed-dīn from the Goletta,43;life up to 1533,76-8;portrait, 79;takes Coron,81;misses Kheyr-ed-dīn,82;expedition to Tunis,86ff.;chases Kheyr-ed-dīn,93;fight off Paxos,95;defeated at Prevesa,101-4;inactivity,110;expedition to Algiers,113ff.;to Mahdīya,133;lets Dragut slip,135;death,140Doria, Giannettino,112,127Doria, Giovanni Andrea,138-40,163,168,173,175Doria, Roger, at Jerba,128Dragut, Reïs (Torghūd),56,98,103,110,112;early career,124;captivity,127;ransom,112,127;at Jerba,128;takes “Africa,”133, and loses it,134;escape from Jerba,135;joins the Ottoman navy,136,138;destroys the Christian fleet at Jerba,140;dies at the siege of Malta,146-9“Drub-Devil” Aydīn,56Duperré, Admiral,302Dynasties of N. Africa,21

EEchinades,173Elba looted,82Elmo, Fort St.,142-9England and Algiers,257ff.Eski Serai,82Evangelista, Master,142Exmouth, Lord,293ff.

FFalcon, Consul,264Fātimīs,7,21,24Ferdinand the Catholic,8,13,44Fez, Bishop of,22Fondi sacked,84-5Formentara,57,224France and Algiers,256ff.,301ff.Francis I.,77,94,106-10Frazer, Hon. A. C.,264Frizell, Consul,266Froissart,128-33Furttenbach,206ff.,232

GGabes, Gulf of,26Galata,62Galleasse,68, (illustr.) 69, 227;description,206,230Galleon (illustr.), 6;description,205Galleot, description,218Galley (illustr.), 37, 64;building at Constantinople,83;(illustr.) 107, 203, 207, 209, 211;description of,200ff.,213ff.Gembloux,178Genoa,23,43,61ff.,77Goletta of Tunis,16,32,78,86Gonzaga, Giulia, escape of,84-5Granada, fall of,8Gravière, Admiral Jurien de la,31n.,59,71,73,81,83,104,123,138,150,177,206,215Greece, raid among the isles of,97Greek fire,131Grimani,67,71,101-4Guaras, Jean de,146

Back to Index Next