CO-ORDINATED TEXT OF VARIOUS INSTRUCTIONS RESPECTING RELATIONS BETWEEN CONGO STATE OFFICIALS AND NATIVES

It will be the especial care of Heads of Expeditions and of District Commissioners to see that their subordinates, of whatever degree, act, in their dealings with the natives, with the tact which is necessary to avoid such conflict as might arise from misunderstandings or from proceedings which run too sharply counter to native habits and customs.

They will recommend their officers to proceed slowly in reforming the native, and will draw their serious attention to the danger of trying to obtain too rapid results. Before using force, they will try to enter into negotiations with the natives, and they must remember that it is better to obtain redress for harm done to the State by pacific means rather than by force of arms.

The Government are aware that energetic measures of repression are sometimes necessary, but they consider that such measures should be used only in exceptional cases, and after every means of conciliation has been exhausted.

In many cases negotiations skilfully conducted and prolonged will avoid direct hostilities.

It is, for instance, obviously advisable, with a view to avoid bloodshed, to make use of such Chiefs as are at once devoted to the State and in friendly relations with the tribes in conflict with the authorities.

In this way the natives, and especially those who are not in continuous relations with Europeans, will not misunderstand the intentions and sentiments of the State towards them, a misunderstanding which would certainly arise from a too hasty recourse to extreme measures.

In any case, whenever resort to force has become inevitable, the Government must receive exact and complete information in regard to the motives which have led to its employment, and operations must, as far as possible, be so carried out that only the guilty suffer.

No officer is to engage in hostilities with the natives, unless in self-defence, or duly authorised by the Commissioner of his district or the Head of his expedition.

Moreover, the regular and auxiliary troops engaged in warlike operations must always be commanded by a European. No exception to this rule will be admitted, and officers who transgress it will render themselves liable to dismissal as well as to any judicial proceedings it may be thought advisable to institute against them.

In case of hostilities, the property of natives is not to be destroyed, and under no pretext may villages be burnt as a means of repression. The European commissioned and non-commissioned officers will take especial care that the operations shall be conducted in such a manner as to avoid all cruelty. Wounded rebels are to receive careful attention, and the bodies of the dead must be respected. The barbarous mutilation of dead bodies, as often practised by the natives among themselves, is to be absolutely forbidden by the Europeans.

All Europeans at the head of troops engaged in warfare will be held personally responsible for all such cruelties as they may tolerate; all guilty persons will be brought before a military Court and dealt with according to law.

Prisoners of war and hostages are to be treated humanely, and their ill-usage is strictly forbidden.

Any women and children found among them shall be placed under the immediate protection of the officer in command of the operations.

Officers of the State must remember that the disciplinary penalties provided by the Military Regulations are only applicable to such as are military recruits, and then only for offences against discipline and in accordance with the special provisions of the said Regulations.

The said penalties can, under no pretence, be put into force against non-military servants of the State or against the natives, whether rebels or not.

Those among them who are accused of offences or crimes must be remitted to the competent Tribunals and tried according to law.

Should officers of the State infringe the Rules laid down respecting the relations which they are to have with the natives, or tolerate mutilations and cruelties on the part of their soldiers, they will, in case of a specified offence, be remitted to a Court of Justice. They would, in any case, be subjected to disciplinary punishment. Moreover, the guilty officers, if already decorated with the Service Star, will lose their right to wear it.

It is equally indispensable that officers should act justly, and in accordance with the instructions in force, in their dealings with the servants of the State. They are forbidden to act illegally, i. e., to inflict punishments other than those provided for breaches of discipline or to disregard legal forms for the purpose of repressing offences of which the servants of the State, and notably soldiers, may be guilty. When sentences have been passed, they must be undergone in accordance with the specified legal conditions.

Any officer departing from these Rules would be guilty of abuse of authority, and render himself liable to dismissal.

District Commissioners and Heads of expeditions must exercise the most vigilant control over such detachments of black soldiers as they may be obliged to place among the natives. These detachments must on no account be provided with improved firearms. Their task is exclusively one of protection and supervision.

They are never to intervene in quarrels between natives. They must confine themselves to informing the nearest station commanded by an European.

It is the duty of the European officers to make frequent inspections of such detachments, and to see that they do not in any way transgress the limits imposed upon them by their orders. They are to summon the neighbouring native Chiefs on the occasion of these inspections, and will receive their complaints, should they have any to make.

The Negro officers of the stations are strictly forbidden themselves to take any measures of repression against the natives; the duty of taking measures, when occasion arises, devolves upon the European officers alone.

The arrangements to be made with the villages must be concluded by a European.

Any Chief of a Negro station levying exactions on the natives, or ill-treating them, or in any way abusing his authority over them, must be prosecuted according to law, and immediately suspended from his duties.

The Heads of expeditions and Commissioners of Districts are personally responsible for the conduct of any Negro posts under their orders. They would be guilty of a very serious offence if they gave these detachments any duties other than those defined above, and if they did not constantly supervise them and immediately repress all abuses coming under their notice.

REPORT OF THE FIRST MEETING OF THE COMMISSION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIVES, HELD AT LEOPOLDVILLE ON MAY 17, 1897. PRESENT, THE REVEREND FATHER VAN HENCXTHOVEN, DR. SIMS, AND THE SECRETARY, MR. GRENFELL

In the absence of Mgr. van Ronslé, the Rev. Father van Hencxthoven was elected President for the sitting.

Seeing that the members of the Commission live far apart, and in view of the difficulty of all the members meeting, it was decided that three members should form a quorum.

The members of the Commission found that from the date of the constitution of the Commission, so far as their personal experience went, the laws of the State had been duly administered with a view to the protection of life and property, as well as to the well-being of the community. They found, further, that every case of injustice brought to the notice of the authorities had been immediately followed by measures of the most energetic description.

In the absence of Mr. Bentley, his Report was communicated to the Secretary. He writes that the Judge of the district where he resides, had, in each case notified to him, at once taken measures to punish the guilty, some cases having been settled satisfactorily, and the others being before the Court. The Judge informed Mr. Bentley that he would always be ready, on receiving a week’s notice, to go to Lutete, and try any case.

The members of the Commission, recalling the days of native rule, take this opportunity of recording their sincere appreciation of, and their gratitude for, the law and order introduced by the Independent State into the districts where they reside.

The members of the Commission also record with the deepest satisfaction their opinion that, as far as they know, the laws forbidding the introduction of alcoholic liquor for natives to the east of the River N’Kissi have been satisfactorily enforced. They consider the restriction of the zone up to the west of the River Kwilu as a really judicious and beneficent measure, and they trust that the Government will be as successful within the new limit as heretofore within the old.

The members of the Commission deeply regret that ordeal by poison is still practised over so great an extent of the country, and that its suppression is so difficult. In those districts which are more completely administered, ordeal by poison is practised in secret, owing to the penalties of the law, and the members hope that the same measures of repression will be taken in the interior districts as soon as the organisation of the Government allows of it.

The Commission desire to call the attention of the Government to the fact that all its members are chosen from the Stanley Pool district and below, and that no one has been chosen from the immense districts which are supposed to furnish the reason for the existence of the Commission for the protection of the natives.

The members of the Commission, also, seeing that it is only possible for them to act within the very narrow scope of their personal experience, venture to hope that the Inspector specially nominated by His Majesty the King-Sovereign, will soon arrive, seeing that his powers of observation would be infinitely greater than our own.

(Signed) George Grenfell, Secretary.

Leopoldville, May 17, 1897.

PROTECTION OF NATIVES—COMMISSION

Leopold II., King of the Belgians, Sovereign of the Independent State of the Congo, to all present and to come, greeting:

On reconsideration of our Decree of the 18th September, 1896, appointing a Commission for the protection of natives:

On the suggestion of our Secretary of State,

We have decreed and do hereby decree:

Article I. The following are appointed members of this Commission, for the period of two years mentioned by the said Decree:

Mgr. van Ronslé, Bishop of Thymbrium, Vicar Apostolic of the Vicariat of Belgian Congo, President.

The Reverend Father van Hencxthoven, J., of the Society of Jesus.

The Reverend Father Cambier, of the Congregation of Scheut.

Mr. William Holman Bentley, of the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation.

Dr. A. Sims, of the American Baptist Missionary Union.

Mr. George Grenfell, of the Baptist Missionary Society Corporation, Secretary.

Art. 2. The members of the Commission shall carry out their mandate in accordance with the terms of the above-mentioned Decree of the 18th September, 1896.

Art. 3. Our Secretary of State is intrusted with the execution of the present Decree.

Done at Brussels, March 23, 1901.

(Signed) Leopold.

By the King-Sovereign:
In the name of the Secretary of State,
The Secretaries-General,

(Signed) Chevalier de Cuvelier,
H. Droogmans,
Liebrechts.

DISPATCH TO CERTAIN OF HIS MAJESTY’S REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD IN REGARD TO ALLEGED CASES OF ILL-TREATMENT OF NATIVES AND TO THE EXISTENCE OF TRADE MONOPOLIES IN THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF THE CONGO

The Marquess of Lansdowne to His Majesty’s Representatives at Paris, Berlin, Rome, St, Petersburg, Vienna, Madrid, Constantinople, Brussels, Lisbon, the Hague, Copenhagen, and Stockholm.

Foreign Office, August 8, 1903.

Sir,

The attention of His Majesty’s Government has during recent years been repeatedly called to alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and to the existence of trade monopolies in the Independent State of the Congo. Representations to this effect are to be found in memorials from philanthropic societies, in communications from commercial bodies, in the public press, and in dispatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.

The same matters formed the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on the 20th ultimo, when the House passed the Resolution, a copy of which is inclosed.

In the course of the debate, the official record of which is also inclosed, it was alleged that the object of the Administration was not so much the care and government of the natives as the collection of revenue; that this object was pursued by means of a system of forced labour, differing only in name from slavery; that the demands upon each village were exacted with a strictness which constantly degenerated into great cruelty; and that the men composing the armed force of the State were in many cases recruited from the most warlike and savage tribes, who not infrequently terrorised over their own officers and maltreated the natives without regard to discipline or fear of punishment.

As regards the ill-treatment of natives, a distinction may be drawn between isolated acts of cruelty committed by individuals, whether in the service of the State or not, and a system of administration involving and accompanied by systematic cruelty or oppression.

The fact that many individual instances of cruelty have taken place in the Congo State is proved beyond possibility of contradiction by the occurrence of cases in which white officials have been convicted of outrages on natives. These white officials must, however, in view of the vast extent of the territory under their administration, in most cases be of necessity isolated the one from the other, with the result that detection becomes additionally difficult. It is therefore not unfair to assume that the number of convictions falls considerably short of the number of actual offences committed.

It is, however, with regard to the system of administration that the most serious allegations are brought against the Independent State.

It is reported that no efforts are made to fit the native by training for industrial pursuits; that the method of obtaining men for labour or for military service is often but little different from that formerly employed to obtain slaves; and that force is now as much required to take the native to the place of service as it used to be to convey the captured slave. It is also reported that constant compulsion has to be exercised in order to exact the collection of the amount of forest produce allotted to each village as the equivalent of the number of days’ labour due from the inhabitants, and that this compulsion is often exercised by irresponsible native soldiers uncontrolled by any European officer.

His Majesty’s Government do not know precisely to what extent these accusations may be true; but they have been so repeatedly made, and have received such wide credence, that it is no longer possible to ignore them, and the question has now arisen whether the Congo State can be considered to have fulfilled the special pledges, given under the Berlin Act, to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for their moral and material advancement.

The graver charges against the State relate almost exclusively to the upper valleys of the Congo and of its affluents. The lands forming these vast territories are held either by the State itself or by Companies closely connected with the State, under a system which, whatever its object, has effectually kept out the independent trader, as opposed to the owner or to the occupier of the soil, and has consequently made it difficult to obtain independent testimony.

His Majesty’s Government have further laboured under the disadvantage that British interests have not justified the maintenance of a large Consular staff in the Congo territories. It is true that in 1901 His Majesty’s Government decided to appoint a Consul of wide African experience to reside permanently in the State, but his time has been principally occupied in the investigation of complaints preferred by British subjects, and he has as yet been unable to travel into the interior and to acquire, by personal inspection, knowledge of the condition of the enormous territory forming his district.

His reports on the cases of British subjects, which have formed the basis of representations to the Government of the Independent State, afford, however, examples of grave maladministration and ill-treatment. These cases do not concern natives of the Congo State, and are therefore in themselves alien to the subject of this dispatch; but as they occurred in the immediate vicinity of Boma, the seat of the central staff, and in regard to British subjects, most of whom were under formal engagements, they undoubtedly lead to the belief that the natives, who have no one in the position of a Consul to whom they can appeal and have no formal engagements, receive even less consideration at the hands of the officers of the Government.

Moreover, information which has reached His Majesty’s Government from British officers in territory adjacent to that of the State tends to show that, notwithstanding the obligations accepted under Article VI. of the Berlin Act, no attempt at any administration of the natives is made, and that the officers of the Government do not apparently concern themselves with such work, but devote all their energy to the collection of revenue. The natives are left entirely to themselves, so far as any assistance in their government or in their affairs is concerned. The Congo stations are shunned, the only natives seen being soldiers, prisoners, and men who are brought in to work. The neighbourhood of stations which are known to have been populous a few years ago is now uninhabited, and emigration on a large scale takes place to the territory of neighbouring States, the natives usually averring that they are driven away from their homes by the tyranny and exaction of the soldiers.

The sentiments which undoubtedly animated the founders of the Congo State and the representatives of the Powers at Berlin were such as to deserve the cordial sympathy of the British Government, who have been loath to believe either that the beneficent intentions with which the Congo State was constituted, and of which it gave so solemn a pledge at Berlin, have in any way been abandoned, or that every effort has not been made to realise them.

But the fact remains that there is a feeling of grave suspicion, widely prevalent among the people of this country, in regard to the condition of affairs in the Congo State, and there is a deep conviction that the many charges brought against the State’s administration must be founded on a basis of truth.

In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government are of opinion that it is incumbent upon the Powers parties to the Berlin Act to confer together and to consider whether the obligations undertaken by the Congo State in regard to the natives have been fulfilled; and, if not, whether the Signatory Powers are not bound to make such representations as may secure the due observance of the provisions contained in the Act.

As indicated at the beginning of this dispatch, His Majesty’s Government also wish to bring to the notice of the Powers the question which has arisen in regard to rights of trade in the basin of the Congo.

Article I. of the Berlin Act provides that the trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom in the basin of the Congo; and Article V. provides that no Power which exercises sovereign rights in the basin shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade.

In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, the system of trade now existing in the Independent State of the Congo is not in harmony with these provisions.

With the exception of a relatively small area on the Lower Congo, and with the further exception of the small plots actually occupied by the huts and cultivation patches of the natives, the whole territory is claimed as the private property either of the State or of holders of land concessions. Within these regions the State or, as the case may be, the concession-holder alone may trade in the natural produce of the soil. The fruits gathered by the natives are accounted the property of the State, or of the concession-holder, and may not be acquired by others. In such circumstances, His Majesty’s Government are unable to see that there exists the complete freedom of trade or absence of monopoly in trade which is required by the Berlin Act. On the contrary, no one other than the agents of the State or of the concession-holder has the opportunity to enter into trade relations with the natives; or, if he does succeed in reaching the natives, he finds that the only material which the natives can give in exchange for his trade goods or his money is claimed as having been the property of the State or of the concession-holder from the moment it was gathered by the native.

His Majesty’s Government in no way deny either that the State has the right to partition the State lands among bona-fide occupants, or that the natives will, as the land is so divided out among bona-fide occupiers, lose their right of roaming over it and collecting the natural fruits which it produces. But His Majesty’s Government maintain that until unoccupied land is reduced into individual occupation, and so long as the produce can only be collected by the native, the native should be free to dispose of that produce as he pleases.

In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government consider that the time has come when the Powers parties to the Berlin Act should consider whether the system of trade now prevailing in the Independent State is in harmony with the provisions of the Act; and, in particular, whether the system of making grants of vast areas of territory is permissible under the Act if the effect of such grants is in practice to create a monopoly of trade by excluding all persons other than the concession-holder from trading with the natives in that area. Such a result is inevitable if the grants are made in favour of persons or Companies who cannot themselves use the land or collect its produce, but must depend for obtaining it upon the natives, who are allowed to deal only with the grantees.

His Majesty’s Government will be glad to receive any suggestions which the Governments of the Signatory Powers may be disposed to make in reference to this important question, which might perhaps constitute, wholly or in part, the subject of a reference to the Tribunal at the Hague.

I request that you will read this dispatch to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and leave a copy of it with his Excellency.

I am, etc.,
(Signed) Lansdowne.

REPLY OF THE CONGO STATE GOVERNMENT TO THE BRITISH DISPATCH OF AUGUST 8TH, TO THE POWERS SIGNATORY TO THE BERLIN ACT

Brussels, September 17, 1903.

The Government of the Independent State of the Congo have examined the dispatch from the Foreign Office, dated the 8th August last, which was communicated to the Signatory Powers of the Berlin Act, and declare themselves in agreement with His Majesty’s Government on two fundamental points, viz., that natives ought to be treated with humanity and gradually led into the paths of civilisation, and that freedom of commerce in the Conventional Basin of the Congo ought to be entire and complete.

They deny, however, that the manner in which the State is administered involves a systematic régime “of cruelty or oppression,” and that the principle of commercial freedom would introduce modifications in the rights of property as universally understood, seeing that there is not a word to this effect in the Berlin Act. The Congo State observes that there is in that Act no provision which would sanction restrictions of any kind on the exercise of the rights of property, or give to one Signatory Power the right of intervention in the interior administration of another. It desires faithfully to observe the Berlin Act, that great International Act which binds all Signatory or Adhering Powers, according to the clear grammatical sense of the text, which none has power either to take from or add to.

The English note observes that it is within the last few years that a definite shape has been assumed by the campaign conducted in England against the Congo State, on the two-fold pretext of the ill-treatment of natives and the existence of commercial monopolies.

It is indeed worthy of remark that this campaign dates from the time when the prosperity of the State became assured. The State had been founded for years, and administered in the same way as it is now; its principles in regard to the State-ownership of vacant lands, and the manner in which its armed forces were organised and recruited, were known to the public, without any interest in the matter being shown by the philanthropists and traders to whose opinion the note begins by referring. This was the period during which the State Budget could only be balanced by means of the King-Sovereign’s subsidies and Belgian loans, and when the commerce of the Congo did not attract attention. The term “Congo atrocities” was at that time only used in connection with “the alleged ill-treatment of African natives by English and other adventurers in the Congo Free State.”[85] After 1895 the trade of the Congo State developed remarkably, and the amount of its exports shows a progressive increase from ten millions in 1895 to fifty millions in 1902. It is also about this time that the anti-Congo movement took shape. As the State gave increased proof of vitality and progress, the campaign became more active, reliance being placed on a few individual and isolated cases with a view to using the interests of humanity as a pretext and concealing the real object of a covetousness which, in its impatience, has betrayed itself in the writings of pamphleteers and in the speeches of members of the House of Commons, in which the abolition and partition of the Congo State has been clearly put forward.

Such being the object in view, it became necessary to bring a whole series of charges against the State. So far as the humanitarian side of the question is concerned, the alleged cases of violence offered to natives have once more been brought forward and re-edited ad infinitum. For in all the meetings, writings, and speeches which have latterly been directed against the State, it is always the same facts which are brought up, and the same evidence which is produced. With regard to the economic side of the question, the State has been accused of having violated the Act of Berlin, notwithstanding the legal opinions of such lawyers as are most qualified to speak to the point, which afford ample legal justification both for its commercial and for its land system. With regard to the political side, a heresy in international law has been imagined, viz., that a State, the independence and sovereignty of which are absolute, should, at the same time, owe its position to the intervention of Foreign Powers.

With regard to the cases of ill-treatment of natives, we attach special importance to those which, according to the note, have been reported in the dispatches of His Majesty’s Consular Agents. At the sitting of the House of Commons on the 11th March, 1903, Lord Cranborne referred to these official documents, and we have requested through his Excellency Sir C. Phipps that the British Government will make known to us the facts alluded to. We repeat the request.

The Government of the State have, however, never denied that crimes and offences are committed in the Congo, as in every other country or colony. The note itself recognises that these offences have been brought before the Tribunals, and that the criminals have been punished. The conclusion to be drawn from this is that the State fulfils its mission; the conclusion actually drawn is that “many individual instances of cruelty have taken place in the Congo State,” and that “the number of convictions falls considerably short of the number of offences actually committed.” This deduction does not appear necessarily to follow. It would seem more logical to say that the severe sentences inflicted will serve as a wholesome example, and that a decrease of crime may on that account be looked for. If some offences have indeed, in the extensive territories of the State, escaped the vigilance of the judicial authorities, this is a circumstance which is not peculiar to the Congo State.

The English note proceeds chiefly on hypotheses and suppositions: “It was alleged ... It is reported ... It is also reported ...” and it even says that “His Majesty’s Government do not know precisely to what extent these accusations may be true.” This is an acknowledgment that, in the eyes of the British Government themselves, the accusations in question are neither established nor proved. And, indeed, the violence, the passion, and the improbability of many of these accusations must raise doubt in an impartial mind as to their genuineness. To give but one example:—a great deal has been made of the statement that, in a train coming down from Leopoldville to Matadi, three carriages were full of slaves, a dozen of whom were in chains and guarded by soldiers. The Governor-General was asked for a report on the case. He replied: “The individuals represented as composing a convoy of slaves were, the great majority of them (125), levies proceeding from the district of Lualaba-Kassai, Lake Leopold II., and the Bangalas to the camp in the Lower Congo. Annexed you will find lists of these persons. As regards the men in chains, they were certain individuals on whom sentence had been passed by the territorial Tribunal at Basoko, and who were on their way to undergo their sentence at the central prison at Boma. They are Nos. 3642 to 3649 on the prison register at Boma.”

In the same way, quite a recent “interview,” in which the usual accusations of cruelty were reproduced, is due to a person formerly in the employ of the State, who was “declared unfit for service,” and who has failed to persuade the State to accept his proposal to write for the press articles favourable to the Administration.

The note ignores the replies, contradictions, and corrections which the attacks on the agents of the State have occasioned at the various times when they have taken place. It ignores the official declarations publicly made by the Government of the State in June last, after the debate in the House of Commons on the 20th May, the report of which is annexed to the note. We also annex the text of these declarations which dealt, by anticipation, with the considerations set forth in the dispatch of the 8th August.

The only fresh cause of complaint which the note brings forward—doubtless with the object of explaining the not unimportant fact that the English Consul, who has resided in the Congo since 1901, does not appear to support, by his personal authority, the accusations of private individuals—is that this agent has been “principally occupied in the investigation of complaints preferred by British subjects.” The impression which one would derive from this is that such complaints have been exceptionally numerous. No doubt the Consul has, on different occasions, communicated with the Administration at Boma in the interests of his countrymen, but the subjects of his representations, if one may judge by such of their number as the English Legation has had to bring to the notice of the Central Government at Brussels, do not appear, either in number or importance, to have been more than matters of everyday administrative routine: some cases in particular concerned the regulation of the succession to property in the Congo left by deceased English subjects; the object in others was to repair errors of judicial procedure, such as occur elsewhere, and it is not even alleged that the proper action has not been taken upon these representations. The same Consul, who was appointed in 1898, wrote to the Governor-General on the 2nd July, 1901, as follows:

“I pray believe me when I express now, not only for myself, but for my fellow-countrymen in this part of Africa, our very sincere appreciation of your efforts on behalf of the general community—efforts to promote goodwill among all and to bring together the various elements of our local life.”

Nor do the predecessors of Mr. R. Casement—for English Consuls with jurisdiction in the Congo were appointed by His Majesty’s Government as long ago as 1888—appear to have been absorbed in the examination of innumerable complaints; at all events, that is not the view taken in the Report (the only one published) by Consul Pickersgill, who, by the mere fact of giving an account of his journey into the interior of the Congo as far as Stanley Falls, disproves the alleged impossibility for the English consular agents to form an opinion de visu in regard to every part of their district.

With regard to the charges against the administrative system of the State, the note deals with taxes, public armed forces, and what is termed forced labour.

It is, at bottom, the contributions made by the Congo natives to the public charges which are criticised, as if there existed a single country or colony in which the inhabitants do not, under one form or another, bear a part in such charges. A State without resources is inconceivable. On what legitimate grounds could the exemption of natives from all taxes be based, seeing that they are the first to benefit by the material and moral advantages introduced into Africa? As they have no money, a contribution in the shape of labour is required from them. It has been said that, if Africa is ever to be redeemed from barbarism, it must be by getting the Negro to understand the meaning of work by the obligation of paying taxes.

“It is a question [of native labour] which has engaged my most careful attention in connection with West Africa and other Colonies. To listen to the right honourable gentlemen, you would almost think that it would be a good thing for the native to be idle. I think it is a good thing for him to be industrious; and by every means in our power we must teach him to work.... No people ever have lived in the world’s history who would not work. In the interests of the natives all over Africa, we have to teach them to work.”

Such was the language used by Mr. Chamberlain in the House of Commons on the 6th August, 1901; and still more recently he expressed himself as follows:

“We are all of us taxed, and taxed heavily. Is that a system of forced labour?... To say that because we put a tax on the native therefore he is reduced to a condition of servitude and of forced labour is, to my mind, absolutely ridiculous.... It is perfectly fair to my mind that the native should contribute something towards the cost of administering the country.”—(House of Commons, 9th March, 1903.)

“If that really is the last word of civilisation, if we are to proceed on the assumption that the nearer the native or any human being comes to a pig the more desirable is his condition, of course I have nothing to say.... I must continue to believe that, at all events, the progress of the native in civilisation will not be secured until he has been convinced of the necessity and the dignity of labour. Therefore, I think that anything we reasonably can do to induce the native to labour is a desirable thing.”

And he defended the principle of taxing the native on the ground that “the existence of the tax is an inducement to him to work.”—(House of Commons, 24th March, 1903.)

Moreover, it is to be observed that in nearly every part of Africa the natives are taxed. In the Transvaal every native pays a “head tax” of £2; in the Orange River Colony he is subject to a “poll tax”; in Southern Rhodesia, Bechuanaland, Basutoland, Uganda, and Natal a “hut-tax” is levied; in Cape Colony we find a “hut-tax” and a “labour tax”; in German East Africa also a tax is levied on huts, payable either in money, in kind, or in labour. This species of tax has also been applied in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, where payment could be made “in kind by rice or palm nuts,” and it has been suggested that work on roads and useful works should be accepted in lieu of payment in money or produce.

The legality of a tax is, therefore, not affected by the mode of its payment, whether in money or in kind, so long as the amount is not excessive. It is certainly not so in the Congo, where the work done by the native does not represent more than forty hours’ work a month. Such work, moreover, is paid for, and the tax in kind thus gives the native as it were some return for his labour.

Payment of taxes is obligatory everywhere; and non-payment involves measures of compulsion. The regulations under which the hut-tax is levied impose on the native, for non-payment, such penalties as imprisonment and forced labour. Nor in the Congo is payment of taxes optional. Repressive measures have occasionally been rendered necessary elsewhere by the refusal of natives to conform to the law, e. g., the disturbances at Sierra Leone, in connection with which an English publicist, speaking of the police force, states:

“Between July, 1894, and February, 1896, no fewer than sixty-two convictions, admittedly representing a small proportion of offences actually committed, were recorded against them for flogging, plundering, and generally maltreating the natives.”

Further instances might be recalled of the opposition encountered among native populations to the institution of governmental regulations. Civilisation necessarily comes into collision with their savage instincts and barbarous customs and habits; and it can be understood that they submit but impatiently to, and even try to escape from, a state of society which seems to them to be restrictive of their licence and excesses. It frequently happens in Africa that an exodus of natives takes place from one territory to another, in the hope of finding beyond the frontier a government less well established or less strong, and of thus freeing themselves from all obligations and restraints. Natives of the State may quite well, under the influence of considerations of this kind, have crossed into neighbouring territories, although no kind of emigration on a large scale, such as is referred to in the English note, has ever been reported by the commandants of the frontier provinces. On the contrary, it is a fact that natives in the Upper Nile region who had settled in British territory have returned to the left bank in consequence of the imposition of new taxes by the English authorities. Besides, if it is these territories which are alluded to, the information contained in the note would seem to be in contradiction with other particulars furnished, for instance, by Sir Harry Johnston.

“This much I can speak of with certainty and emphasis, that from the British frontier near Fort George to the limit of my journeys into the Mbuba country of the Congo Free State, up and down the Semliki, the natives appear to be prosperous and happy.... The extent to which they were building their villages and cultivating their plantations within the precincts of Fort Mbeni showed that they had no fear of the Belgians.”

Major H. H. Gibbons, who was for several months on the Upper Nile, writes:

“Having had occasion to know many officers, and to visit their stations in the Congo State, I am convinced that their behaviour has been much misunderstood by the press. I have quoted as a proof my experience, which is at variance with an article recently published in the English press, in which they are accused of great cruelties.”

The declaration of last June, of which a copy is enclosed, has disposed of the criticisms directed against the public forces of the State, by pointing out that recruitment for them is regulated by law, and that it is only one man in every 10,000 who is affected. To say that “the method of obtaining men for military service is often but little different from that formerly employed to obtain slaves” is to misunderstand the carefully drawn regulations which have, on the contrary, been issued to check abuses. Levies take place in each district; the District Commissioners settle the mode of conscription in agreement with the native chiefs. Voluntary enlistment, and numerous re-enlistments, easily fill up the ranks, which only reach, all told, the moderate total of 15,000 men.

Those who allege, as the note says, that “the men composing the armed force of the State were in many cases recruited from the most warlike and savage tribes” must be unaware that the public forces are recruited from every province, and from the whole population. It is inconceivable that the authorities of a State, with due regard to its interests, should form an army out of undisciplined and savage elements, and instances are to be found—such as the excesses said to have been perpetrated by irregular levies in Uganda, and the revolts which formerly occurred in the Congo—which, on the contrary, render it necessary that special care should be exercised in raising armed forces. The European establishment, consisting of Belgian, Italian, Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish officers, maintains strict discipline, and it would be vain to seek the actual facts alluded to in the assertion that the soldiers “not infrequently terrorised over their own officers.” Such an assertion is as unfounded as the one “that compulsion is often exercised by irresponsible native soldiers uncontrolled by any European officer.” For a long time past the authorities have been alive to the danger arising from the existence of stations of Negro soldiers, who inevitably abuse their authority, as recognised in the Report of Sir D. Chalmers on the insurrection in Sierra Leone. In the Congo such stations have been gradually abolished.

Those who do not refuse to accept patent facts will recognise that, of the reproaches levelled at the State, the most unjust is the statement “that no attempt at any administration for the natives is made, and that the officers of the Government do not apparently concern themselves with such work.”

It is astonishing to come across such an assertion in a dispatch from a government, one of whose members, Lord Cranborne, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stated on the 20th May last:

“There was no doubt that the administration of the Congo Government had been marked by a very high degree of a certain kind of administrative development. There were railways, there were steamers upon the river, hospitals had been established, and all the machinery of elaborate judicial and police systems had been set up.”

Another member of the House of Commons acknowledged:

“That the Congo State had done good work in excluding alcoholic liquor from the greater part of their domain; that they had established a certain number of hospitals, had diminished smallpox by means of vaccination, and had suppressed the Arab Slave Trade.”

However limited these admissions, still they contradict the assertion now made that “the natives are left entirely to themselves, so far as any assistance in their government or in their affairs is concerned.”

Such does not seem to have been the conclusion at which Mr. Pickersgill, the English Consul, had arrived as long ago as 1898.

“Has the welfare of the African,” he asks, “been duly cared for in the Congo State?” He answers: “The State has restricted the liquor trade.... It is scarcely possible to overestimate the service which is being rendered by the Congo Government to its subjects in this matter.... Intertribal wars have been suppressed over a wide area, and the imposition of European authority being steadily pursued, the boundaries of peace are constantly extending.... The State must be congratulated upon the security it has created for all who live within the shelter of its flag and abide by its laws and regulations.... Credit is also due to the Congo Government in respect of the diminution of cannibalism.... The yoke of the notorious Arab slave-traders has been broken, and traffic in human beings amongst the natives themselves has been diminished to a considerable degree.”

This Report also showed that the labour of the native was remunerated, and gave due credit to the State for its efforts to instruct the young natives, and to open schools.

Since 1898 the general condition of the native has been still further improved. The system of carriers (le portage à dos d’homme), the hardships of which, so far as the native was concerned, were specially pointed out by Mr. Pickersgill, has disappeared from those parts of the country where it was most practised, in consequence of the opening of railways. Elsewhere motor cars are used as means of transport. The “sentry,” the station of Negro soldiers which the Consul criticised, not without reason, no longer exists. Cattle have been introduced into every district. Sanitary commissions have been instituted. Schools and workshops have multiplied.

“The native,” says the enclosed document,[86] “is better housed, better clad, and better fed; he is replacing his huts by better built and healthier dwelling-places; thanks to existing transport facilities, he is able to obtain the produce necessary to satisfy his new wants; workshops have been opened for him, where he learns handicrafts, such as those of the blacksmith, carpenter, mechanic, and mason; he extends his plantations and, taking example by the white man, learns rational modes of agriculture; he is always able to obtain medical assistance; he sends his children to the State school-colonies and to the missionary schools.”

As stated in the House of Commons, it is only right to recognise that the material and moral regeneration of Central Africa cannot be the work of a day. The results so far obtained have been considerable, and these we shall try to consolidate and develop, in spite of the way in which an effort is being made to hamper the action of the State, which in the real interests of civilisation should rather be promoted.

The English note does not show that the economic system of the State is in opposition to the Berlin Act. It does not meet the points of law and fact by means of which the State has demonstrated the conformity of its system of land tenure and concessions with the provisions of that Act. It does not explain either how or why freedom of trade—a term used at the Conference of Berlin in its usual, grammatical, and economic sense—is incomplete in the Congo State because there are landowners there.

The note confuses the utilisation of his property by the owner with trade. The native who collects on behalf of the owner does not become the owner of what is so collected, and naturally cannot dispose of it to a third party, any more than a miner can rob the proprietor of the produce of the mine and dispose of it himself. These rules are in accordance with the principles of justice and are explained in numerous documents, such as legal opinions and judicial decisions, some of which are annexed. His Majesty’s Government do not deny that the State is justified in allotting domain lands to bona-fide occupants, or that the native has no longer any right to the produce of the soil as soon as the “land is reduced into individual occupation.” The distinction is without legal foundation. If the State can part with land, it is because the native is not the owner; by what title could he then retain a right to the produce of property which has been lawfully acquired by others? Could it be contended, for instance, that the Lower Congo Railway Company, or the South Cameroons Company, or the Italian Colonial Trading Company are, on the ground that they are not at present in occupation, bound to allow the native to plunder the territories allotted to them? As a matter of fact, moreover, in the Congo State the appropriation of lands worked on Government account or by the Concessionary companies is an accomplished fact. The State and the companies have devoted large sums, amounting to many millions of francs, to the development of the lands in question, and more especially to that of the forests. There can, therefore, be no doubt that throughout the territories of the Congo the State really and completely works its property, just as the companies really and completely work their concessions.

The state of affairs then which actually exists, and is established in the Independent State, is such that there is really no need, as far as the State itself is concerned, to dwell longer on the theory set forth in the note which deals in turn with the rights of the State, with those of bona-fide occupiers, and those of the natives.

Still this theory calls for the attention of the Powers in view of the serious difficulties which would arise were it to be implicitly accepted.

The note lays down the three following propositions:

“The State has the right to partition the State lands among bona-fide occupants.”

“The natives will, as the land is so divided out amongst bona-fide occupiers, lose their right of roaming over it and collecting the natural fruits which it produces.”

“Until unoccupied land is reduced into individual occupation, and so long as the produce can only be collected by the native, the native should be free to dispose of that produce as he pleases.”

There is no single one of these propositions but apparently excludes the other two, and, as a matter of fact, such contradictions amount to a denial of the right to grant concessions.

If bona-fide occupiers ever existed they have become proprietors; occupation, where it can be exercised is, under all legislative codes, one of the methods by which property can be acquired, and in the Congo State titles of ownership deriving from it have been legally registered. If the land has never been legally occupied, it is without an owner, or, rather the State is the owner; the State can allot it to a third party, for whom such allotment is a complete and absolute title. In either case it is hard to see how the fruits of the soil can be reserved for any but the owner on the pretext that the latter is not able to collect the produce of his property.

By a curious contradiction it is observed in the note that, as a consequence of the allotment of lands by the State, the natives “lose their right of collecting the natural fruits,” and, on the other hand, that they retain the right of disposing of these fruits “until unoccupied land is reduced into [sic] individual occupation.” It is difficult to understand what is meant by a right which belongs to the natives or not according to the action of a third party. Either they lost their rights on the lands being allotted, and in that case they have lost them entirely and completely, or else they have retained them, and are entitled to retain them, although the “land is reduced into [sic] individual occupation.”

Again, what are we to understand by the expressions “bona-fide” occupiers and “individual occupation?” Who is to determine whether the occupier has brought his lands into a state of individual occupation, whether he is able to collect their produce, or whether it is still for the native to do so? In any case, such a question is essentially one to be settled by municipal law.

The note is, moreover, incomplete in another respect. It states that where the land has not yet been worked by those who have a right to it, the option of working should belong to the native. Rights would thus be given to the natives to the prejudice of the Government or of white concessionaires, but the note does not explain how nor by whom the wrong thus caused would be repaired or made good. Though the system thus advocated cannot be applied in the Congo State, as there are no longer any unappropriated lands there, attention should be called to the statement in the interest of white men established in the Conventional Basin. If it is right to treat the Negro well, it is none the less just not to despoil the white man, who, in the interest of all, must remain the dominant race.

From an economic point of view, it would be very regrettable if, in spite of the rights regularly acquired by white men, the domain lands were, even temporarily, handed over to the natives. Such a course would involve a return to their former condition of abandonment, when the natives left them unproductive; for the collection of rubber, the plantation of coffee, cocoa, tobacco, etc., date from the day when the State itself took the initiative: the export trade was insignificant before the impetus it received from Government enterprise. Such a course would furthermore certainly involve the neglect of rational methods of work, of planting and of replanting—measures which the State and the Concessionary companies have assumed as an obligation with a view to securing the preservation of the natural riches of the country.

Never in the Congo, so far as we know, have requests to buy natural produce been addressed to the rightful owners. Up to now the only attempts made have been to buy the produce which has been stolen, and the State, as was its duty, has had those guilty of these unlawful attempts prosecuted.

It is not true, as has been asserted, that the policy of the State has killed trade; it has, on the contrary, created the materials which trade deals in and keeps up the supply; it is thanks to the State that, on the Antwerp market—and soon even in the Congo where the possibility of establishing trade depots is being considered—5000 tons of rubber collected in the Congo can be annually put on sale to all and sundry without privilege or monopoly, while formerly, in 1887, for instance, the rubber export amounted to hardly 30 tons. It is the State which, after having created, at its own expense, the material of trade, carefully preserves the source of it by means of planting and replanting.

It must not be forgotten either that the Congo State has been obliged to rely on its own resources. It was forced to utilise its domain in the public interest. All the receipts of the domain go into the Treasury, as also the dividends of the shares which the State holds in exchange for concessions granted. It has only been by utilising its domain lands, and pledging the greater part of their revenues, that it has been able to raise loans, and encourage the construction of railways by guarantees of interest, thus realising one of the means most advocated by the Brussels Conference for promoting civilisation in Central Africa. Nor has it hesitated to mortgage its domain lands with this object.

The Berlin Act is not opposed to such a course, for it never prescribed the rights of property as there is now an ex post facto attempt to make out, an attempt tending, consciously or not, to the ruin of the whole Conventional Basin of the Congo.

It will not escape the notice of the Powers that the English note, by suggesting a reference to the Court at the Hague, tends to bring into consideration as cases for arbitration questions of sovereignty and internal administration as questions for arbitration which, according to prevailing doctrines, are excluded from arbitral decisions. As far as the present case is concerned, it must be assumed that the suggestion of referring the matter to the Court at the Hague has a general meaning, if it is true that, in the opinion of the English Chambers of Commerce, “the principles and practice introduced into the administration of the affairs of the French Congo, the Congo Free State, and other areas in the Conventional Basin of the Congo being [sic] in direct opposition to the Articles of the Act of Berlin, 1885.” The Government of the Congo State have never ceased advocating arbitration as a mode of settling questions which are of an international nature, and can thus be suitably treated, as, for instance, the divergencies of opinion which have arisen in connection with the lease of the territories of the Bahr-el-Ghazal.

The Government of the Congo State, after careful examination of the English note, remain convinced that, in view of its vagueness, and the complete lack of evidence, which is implicitly admitted, there is no tribunal in the world, supposing there were one possessing competent jurisdiction, which could, far from pronouncing a condemnation, take any decision other than to refuse action on mere supposition.

If the Congo State is attacked, England may admit that she, more than any other nation, has been the object of attacks and accusations of every kind, and the list would be long of the campaigns which have at various times, and even quite recently, been directed against her colonial administration. She has certainly not escaped criticism in regard to her numerous and bloody wars against native populations, nor the reproach of oppressing natives and invading their liberty. Has she not been blamed in regard to the long insurrections in Sierra Leone; to the disturbed state of Nigeria, where quite recently, according to the English newspapers, military measures of repression cost, on one single occasion, the lives of 700 natives, of most of their Chiefs, and of the Sultan; and to the conflict in Somaliland, which is being carried on at the cost of many lives, without, however, exciting expressions of regret in the House of Commons, except on the score of the heavy expense?

Seeing that these attacks have left England indifferent, it is some what surprising to find her now attaching such importance to those made on the Congo State.

There is, however, reason to think that the natives of the Congo State prefer the Government of a small and pacific nation, whose aims remain as peaceful as its creation, which was founded on treaties concluded with the natives.

(Signed) Chr. Dr Cuvelier.

Annexes[87]

I. Bulletin Officiel de l’État Indépendant du Congo, Juin, 1903.
II. Judgments delivered by the Tribunals of French Congo.
III. Opinions of Messrs, van Maldeghem and de Paepe, Van Berchem, Barboux, and Nys.