The story of the Congo Free State

by Henry Wellington Wack

FOOTNOTES:

[36] Report to the Belgian Senate, July 25, 1893.

[37] For statistics supporting this statement, see page 287.

[38] Sale of Government Land in the Anglo-Egyptian Soudan, Times (London), July 18, 1904.

[39] Annual Colonial Report, Lagos, 1899.

[40] Approximately twenty-four and one-half acres.

[41] Two Liverpool firms, Messrs. Hatton & Cookson and John Holt & Co., have alone figured in the cases brought before the Courts of Libreville.

[42] Italics by the author.

[43] See Appendix.

CHAPTER XXIX
THE NEMESIS OF LIBEL

On Friday, the 25th of March, 1904, in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, London, the case of Captain Henri Joseph Leon De Keyser, and his colleagues-in-arms, Commandants Chaltin and Dubreucq, against Captain Guy Burrows, an Englishman, one time in the service of the Congo Free State, and his publishers, Messrs. R. A. Everett & Co., London, came on for trial before Mr. Justice Ridley and a special jury.

The trial of this action for libel is the first which has, so far, been determined against those who are charged with traducing the men whose courage in, and devotion to, the Congo cause has erected a prosperous State in the heart of savage Africa. The case irradiates much that has been long proceeding in Great Britain, and that has recently received significant impetus in the United States through the action of certain persons operating from the city of Boston.

The author has no acquaintance with any of the parties to this case, but deems it incumbent upon one who essays to write a full history of the Congo Free State to include an account of litigation which in its proceedings and result reveals and explains many things with which the present work will not otherwise specifically deal.

Belgian officers brought this action against an English officer, whom they charged with libel and attempted blackmail, before a British jury. Captain Guy Burrows, the defendant, had published a book containing false statements of atrocities in the Congo. He had followed the Liverpool and Boston custom of attributing villainy to the officers of the Congo State Government. But unlike the Liverpool and Boston general allegations, Captain Burrows attributed the wrongful acts to Captain De Keyser and Commandants Chaltin and Dubreucq. What the Court thought of the case as it sensationally unfolded itself may be gleaned from the observations and summing up of Mr. Justice Ridley. What the jury felt is indicated in its verdict for damages against the defendants in all the cases.

To ensure the fairest statement of this interesting and informing suit, the following quotations, verbatim et literatim, are taken from a stenographic report of the trial.

There was a fine array of learned counsel on both sides, among whom Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., Mr. J. Eldon Bankes, K.C., and Mr. Lewis Thomas (instructed by Messrs. Bird, Strode & Bird, solicitors) appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr. Crispe, K.C., and Mr. Swanton for the defendant Burrows; and Mr. Germaine, K.C., and Mr. G. A. Scott for the defendants, Messrs. R. A. Everett & Co.

Defendants’ counsel opened the case by asking leave of the Court to withdraw his clients’ plea of justification, by which, in popular terms, he stated that Captain Burrows was unable to prove any of the monstrous accusations he had made against Captain De Keyser and his colleagues, in the book which contained the libels complained of. After this dramatic collapse of previous pretence, Sir Edward Clarke proceeded with the case as follows:

May it please your Lordship.—Gentlemen of the Jury, I feel bound to preface the observations that I have to make to you upon this case by just a very short reference to what has taken place this morning. A very sudden transformation has occurred in the condition of the case, and in the issues which are to be put before you. In February last year Captain De Keyser, a gentleman who has served in the Belgian Army, and who has been employed in the Congo Free State, found himself compelled, by circumstances which I shall explain to you in a few minutes, to take the opportunity of bringing this action against Captain Burrows and against some London publishers in respect of accusations against him of the gravest possible kind—accusations dishonouring to his character as a man of honour and as a man of humanity, and dishonouring to him as an officer in the Belgian Army; and he brought his action in February last year. Thereupon, in the course of the year, Captain Burrows puts on a defence in the month of April or May, and Messrs. Everett & Company put on a defence in the month of August, in which they say that those accusations against Captain De Keyser were true; and what were called Particulars, to which, however, I need not now refer, were put in, in which it was alleged that Captain De Keyser had been guilty of infamous conduct as a servant of the Government of the Congo Free State. This case has gone on month after month. There have been questions as to the time when it should be tried, and those who were advising Captain De Keyser and those who are interested in this matter have had the anxious duty of taking care that it never could possibly be said that the Defendants did not have a fair opportunity of trial. The case stood over for a considerable time, and even so lately as when it was before the Lord Chief Justice there was a practical assent on the part of the Plaintiffs to the postponement of the case in order that no one should ever say that the Defendants had not the fullest opportunity of putting their case before you; and now, at this moment, when we come into Court to-day, suddenly, the statement that the accusations are true is absolutely struck out. Not only do the Defendants say that they are not prepared to call witnesses to support the allegation that those allegations are true, but they appear not to be prepared even to challenge Captain De Keyser himself, or to ask him any questions as to his conduct in the Congo Free State. I do not know how far I may be allowed to go—how far it may be possible in the present state of the Pleadings for me to get any absolute vindication of Captain De Keyser in this Court. I daresay my Lord will be indulgent with me with regard to that, looking at the very cruel position in which this gallant officer has been placed by accusations made against him which might affect, and, I believe, have affected him, very seriously in private life—accusations which have come to be known and to be talked about—accusations, as he was prepared to show, which were absolutely untrue, and accusations at the very last moment withdrawn, struck away from the Record, when not only has he been here prepared to give his evidence, but when we have tried to get, and succeeded in getting, as many of those as could be possibly called here who were associated with him in his responsible work in the Congo Free State to carry to a demonstration the proof that he could give that there was not a tittle of foundation for the injurious statements that have been made about him. Now, at the last moment, it comes to a question of publication, and my learned friends have taken the position that if I can prove against them that there was a publication of these libels, then they are without a defence, and are not able to say that there is any truth in the statements that they have made, and must submit to such verdict as you may give in the matter. As to the verdict, I do not know whether, in the ultimate results, the amount of it will matter very much, but you may think, when you hear the statement I have to make to you with regard to the publication of these accusations, that it is a case in which, whether there is ever any possibility of recovering the money or not, at all events there should be a very definite expression of your view with regard to the conduct that these parties have pursued. I shall prove not only a publication, but I shall prove an attempt to blackmail the Belgian authorities, and the authorities of the Congo Free State, by these people in conjunction, Captain Burrows and Everett & Co. I believe I shall prove it up to the hilt, and then it will be for you to say, by your verdict, what you think of the conduct of which they have been guilty.

Gentlemen, I must limit very closely the observations which I was going to make to you. My learned friend and I had somewhat laboriously prepared ourselves for dealing with all the possible issues of fact that might be raised in this case that were suggested by the accusations against Captain De Keyser. That has passed out of the case, and I must treat very shortly the questions with which I should otherwise have had at some length to deal. It is essential when you are considering the persons against whom, if I prove the publication, your verdict must go, for you to consider who those persons are. The accusations which were made have been made by Captain Burrows and published by the Everetts, and were accusations which concerned the course of government in the Congo Free State, a matter which has attracted great attention from time to time and with regard to which certain very strong statements have been made in this country and elsewhere.

Native Christians of the Village of Our Lady of Lourdes, near the Mission of Luluabourg, 1897.

Now, Gentlemen, the Congo Free State is a State which, as a separate and independent State, has not existed very long. It was in the year 1884 or 1885 that that State was constituted under the Government of the King of the Belgians, who is called the King Sovereign of the State, and it has from that time been administered by Belgian authorities as the authority of the Free State. It has been a Government in process of construction, and it was not, perhaps, until the year 1891 that it can be said that there was an organised system of government extending over the Congo Free State. It is an enormous area of over 800,000 square miles. It is an area scantily populated, but populated by savages of almost the lowest type of existence, savages among whom the practice of cannibalism, the practice of mutilation of enemies who have been killed in battle, and of violent punishments as between one tribe and another, had reigned without check until the representatives of civilisation came, in the officers of the Congo Free State, and established some sort of organisation and government throughout that country. The difficulties have been enormous. The difficulty of dealing with an area of more than 800,000 square miles with only a very few hundred white men who were in command of black troops, drawn from the very tribes whose habits I just now referred to, has been enormous. It has been one of the most anxious and difficult tasks that a civilised country ever undertook. That task has been fulfilled—on the whole with signal success. No set of men are absolutely free from reproach. The position of the representatives of the Congo Free State has been an extremely difficult one. At the time when Captain De Keyser went out, a captain and seventy-five men had been killed a few weeks before, very near to the place where he was sent to carry on his work. Every white man is surrounded by hundreds or thousands of black men, and is in a position not only of great responsibility but of great personal danger and of great difficulty, and there may have been here and there a default on the part of now one and now another of the officers in the employ of the Congo Free State. It has not been the fault of that State, for from time to time orders have been issued to the officers of the Free State, by which it has been attempted to prevent any sort of misconduct, and there have been administrative orders by which severe punishments have been inflicted on the natives for cannibalism or for the mutilation of persons who have been killed in battle, and this amelioration of the condition of the people has been going on with great success. Captain Burrows, who wrote against Captain De Keyser these most atrocious libels, has been on two occasions in the employment of the Congo Free State. He was employed there from June, 1894, until September, 1897. He never had an opportunity of seeing or knowing the character of the work which Captain De Keyser did, for they were together only fourteen days in the year 1897. But from 1894 to 1897 Captain Burrows was out in the Congo Free State. He came back to Europe in 1897, and the first interesting circumstance about him is that he became at once the champion of the Congo Free State against allegations made by Captain Salusbury. In 1896 Captain Salusbury had made accusations against certain officers of the Congo Free State, and one of his allegations had been that there were mutilations—hand-cutting and the like. Captain Burrows made himself the defender of the Congo Free State and of its administration. He had had four years’ experience, and he sought an interview with the Étoile Belge, and had a conversation with the representative of that newspaper, which was published; and you will find in a letter from Captain Burrows that he takes to himself the credit for what he had done in getting rid of, or answering, the accusations of Captain Salusbury. I will read a line or two from this statement: “As for his accusations,”—that is, Captain Salusbury’s accusations against the Congo State and the Belgian officers who employ him,—“they fail from the outset. It is without any compulsion that the natives enlist in the public forces. The harvest of ivory and caoutchouc gives rise to no atrocity. I have witnessed none of the odious deeds related by Captain Salusbury, and they certainly would have come to my knowledge if they had been real. I say this for the simple reason that it is true.” Then at the end he says as to the action of the Government: “With such accounts one is silent instead of becoming an accuser. I do not pretend that all is perfect at Congo. It certainly commits errors sometimes, but truth compels me to state that the Government seeks only to redress them, and to punish those who have been guilty of it. The Belgian officers do not use their men brutally at will as Captain Salusbury has affirmed. Indeed, the soldiers are much attached to the greater number of their white chiefs, and the latter can confidently count on their courage and devotion in time of war.”

The close of it all was—and this you will find extremely important when you see what Captain Burrows was saying later: “The tales that have been told of cut hands are all pure legend. I have never seen a living native mutilated. As for the cannibal customs of certain tribes of the Congo, they should not be charged to the whites, who do what they can to modify them, but who can only succeed in doing it after lapse of time.” That was as explicit as it was possible to be. That was published in the year 1898. He came back in 1897. You will find a reference in the letter which I am going to read. He published a book. I will read the letter first. The letter is the 20th November, 1897. “Dear Mr. Liebrechts,—I send you the last article of Mr. Salusbury.... I do not like asking anything for myself, but if it were possible for you to obtain for me the order of the ‘Lion,’ and that I should be named the Captain Commandant of the first class, Salusbury would know it, and this would be an absolute denial of his exposures.... I have an idea of writing a book entitled The Truth about the Congo. It should be dedicated (I do not know if that is the word) to the King, and an introduction written by Stanley. What do you think of the idea? Yours always, Burrows.” M. Liebrechts is the Secretary General of the Congo Free State, resident in Brussels. He has had the administration of the Congo under the King for years past. He himself served for six years in the Congo, came back, and has been Under Secretary for the Congo Free State since 1889. He has been Secretary General for the State, and has had the responsibility for the administration of the place, and is at present here in Court.

Drying Rubber in the Forest (Kassai).

In that letter he refers to an introduction written by Stanley—that is, Sir Henry M. Stanley. Here is the book that was published. It was not called The Truth about Central Africa; it was called The Land of the Pigmies. It is dedicated to the King of the Belgians by permission, and it does contain an introduction by Stanley. It purports to give a full account of the Congo State, and I need hardly say there is not the smallest reference in it as to any sort of atrocity. At one page there is a statement of a man being caught, who had been guilty of inhuman conduct, and of his being most severely punished, but that is given as an instance of the untruth of the stories that inhumanity was allowed. This was the position in 1898. Captain Burrows went back in June, 1898, and was at Basoko from 1898 till February, 1901. Then he came back to Europe on the 21st of May, 1901. He wrote a letter to Mr. Liebrechts. You will be interested to note the attitude he takes with regard to his treatment by the Congo Free State. “Sir, I have the honour to ask you to have the goodness to request the Government to permit me to convert into capital (i. e., sell) my allotment of the public debt 4 per cent. Congo Free State, granted by your letter dated the 19th April, 1901.” The explanation is that when an officer has served in the Congo for a certain time and retires from the service there is allotted to him a certain income from the Public Debt, and he is allowed to take that as a lump sum, instead of receiving the interest from year to year upon the proportion which is allotted to him. “The motives which have decided me to make this request are as follows: It is more than probable that I shall not return any more to the Congo. I shall in all probability go to the Transvaal, and in that case the stock granted to me would be almost useless. It would indeed be difficult for me to again enter into service with the State after having been four times passed over for promotion by officers of shorter terms of service. Moreover, I have never received any increase of pay during the two years and six months of my last term of service as Commissioner of the district of Aruwimi. In spite of services rendered since my arrival in the Congo in July, 1898, I was the object of unrelenting suspicion on the part of several functionaries of the State, and I am informed that many of these gentlemen disparage me to the State. Amongst the services which I have rendered I can remind you that it was I who silenced Captain Salusbury. I wrote and published a book distinctly favourable to the State, for which Sir Henry M. Stanley was pleased to write the introduction. I regret, Sir, that such circumstances oblige me to quit the service of the State.... I have the honour to remain, District Commissioner Burrows.” You see by that that he was leaving the service. He was stating his grievances: that his pay had not been properly raised, and that he had not received sufficient distinction. The next thing that happens is on the 15th of November, 1901—a note which is the beginning, as you watch from this point, of the scheme by which it was attempted to blackmail the Government of the Congo Free State, or anybody else, by the combination of Captain Burrows and Messrs. Everett, publishers of his second book. On the 15th of November, 1901, this very curious note was written: “Dear Monsieur Liebrechts. I should be very grateful if you would have the kindness to tell me if the State wishes to employ me again. If so, will you let me know the conditions? Mr. Canisius is here. He says that he is engaged in writing a book on the Congo.” That is a very interesting bit of information. Monsieur Canisius was a gentleman who had been in the employment of the Congo Free State, and had left that employment to go into the employment of a private Company, and then had desired to come back into the employment of the Congo Free State. He had been refused. It is a rule, I think, with the Congo Free State not to take back into the State service those who have left to serve in private companies. Captain Burrows says: “Canisius is here. He is engaged in writing a book on the Congo.” M. Canisius was not there; M. Canisius at that time was on the Gold Coast! It was a very curious notification to send: “Are you going to have me back into the State service? There is somebody here who is writing a book.” On the 23rd of November he was answered by Commandant Liebrechts: “I have duly received your letter of the 15th of November and hasten to thank you for the communication you have been good enough to make me. I heard Monsieur Canisius was spreading certain calumnies about the State.” On the 16th December Captain Burrows writes again: “I presume that your letter is a refusal on the part of the Free State to re-engage me for a third term of service. I beg you to enlighten me on this point, then I shall know whether I am free or not to do what I wish”—another very interesting suggestion; it is enlightened very much by what you will hear shortly. On the 21st of December M. Liebrechts writes thus: “I quite understood at the time of our last conversations, that you no longer wished to resume service at the Congo, and we seemed to be agreed that a post suitable to your capabilities would be very difficult to find in Africa. You must not, however, conclude that we shall no longer be able to make use of your services should an occasion arise, for special missions, such as may arise at any moment in other regions. If you were inclined to hold yourself at our disposal, I should be obliged if you would let me know.” On the 31st December Captain Burrows wrote: “I do not remember the conversation alluded to in your letter of the 21st December, in which I said quite plainly that I no longer wished to resume service at the Congo. I understood that it was a question of the conditions under which it would be impossible to resume such service. You ask me if I am disposed to hold myself at the disposal of the State with a view of being employed for special missions which may arise at any moment in other regions. Am I to understand that I am still in the service of the State or not? And if so, under what conditions of remuneration, etc.?” On the 2nd of January, 1902, Commandant Liebrechts writes: “In reply to your letter of the 31st December, 1901, I hasten to inform you that your agreement ended with your return to Europe, and that since then you have, according to our laws and regulations, ceased to be a member of our staff. It is precisely for this reason that I asked you in my last letter if it would suit you to hold yourself at our disposal for a certain period—let us say two years. You will have to undertake during that period any mission with which we might entrust you. Of course, if you accepted this proposal, an annual salary would be allowed to you for that period of two years. But before deciding this point I should like to know if, in itself, our proposal commends itself to you. I should be obliged if you would reply as soon as possible.”

Gentlemen of the Jury, we have come now to January, 1902. There was an end of the negotiations, so to speak, between Captain Burrows and Commandant Liebrechts, and Captain Burrows found himself, to use his own expression, free to do as he chose.

During the early part of 1902, he began writing some things, and an advertisement appeared in the Wide World Magazine in which an announcement was made of “Life in the Congo Free State,” a series of articles which were to be published, written by Captain Guy Burrows. The advertisement reads: “Captain Burrows was recently in the employ of the Congo Free State Government, and in his official capacity has seen much of the misgovernment which prevails in that little-known territory. He has a good deal to say about the atrocities which have taken place in connection with the rubber industry, and the sworn testimony and photographic evidence which he holds will no doubt create a sensation in high circles. Captain Burrows’ articles in the Wide World will be illustrated with his own snapshots.” That was the advertisement that appeared. Why there was a mention of atrocities in it appears presently. The articles appeared in April, May, and June, in the Wide World. They are articles with regard to the Congo State, and there is not one syllable in them about any atrocity of any sort or kind. That is what he was doing in the early part or middle of the year 1902. In the latter part of this year an agreement was entered into between Captain Burrows as author, and E. A. Everett & Co., London, as publishers, for the publication of a work then entitled The Congo Free State. This was signed on November 17, 1902. On the 24th of November, 1902, this letter was written by Everett & Co. to the Secretary of State of the Congo Free State at Brussels: “Sir, we have recently concluded a contract with Captain Guy Burrows, well known to the English public as having served some years in the service [sic] of the Congo Free State, to publish an important work on the Congo Free State. The information contained in this book is of such a startling character, and contains so many revelations concerning the administration of the Congo Free State of Belgium, that we thought it well to advise you of its publication beforehand, and at the same time to enquire if we may have the honour of offering you the Belgian rights for publication in your country. We are arranging for simultaneous publication in Italy, Germany, France, Norway, and Sweden, and the United States of America. We need hardly say that the book will be well got up, and illustrated with a very large number of valuable and unique photographs taken on the spot by the author and others. If you wish to move in the matter of this offer, we should be glad if you would let us know at your earliest convenience....” That, written on the 24th to the Secretary General, was followed by a curious communication sent to the editor of the Independance Belge at Brussels, on the 27th November by Everett & Co.: “Dear Sir, We send you the advance notice of the enclosed valuable work, and trust you may find room to insert the same in your literary column. If you have an agent here, we could, perhaps, tell him of some of the marvellous revelations in this book, but which we could not put on paper.” On the 8th of December Commandant Liebrechts wrote to him: “I have received your letter of the 24th ulto., in which you inform me that you have agreed with Captain Guy Burrows for the publication of a work on the Congo State, and you offer me the rights of publication in Belgium. Before replying to your proposition I wish to see the manuscript or a proof of the book.” On the 9th Messrs. Everett & Co. wrote: “We are in receipt of your letter of the 8th inst., for which we have to thank you, and we much regret that we are unable to comply with your request in sending you the MSS. of this book, as we are under a contract with the author not to part with the MSS. under any consideration whatever. We should, however, be happy to send you the title and contents so as to give you some idea of the nature and scope of the book, and we should also be willing to show the MSS. to any of your accredited agents in London (by appointment). The MSS., signed documents, and photographs are of such vital importance that we should not care to put them through the post, for fear of loss. We understand that the author, Captain Burrows, was lately a District Commissioner for the Congo Free State, and is a Chevalier of the Order of the Lion of Belgium.” In consequence of their offer to show those documents to anybody who was sent over, Mr. Bigwood came over to this country, and he saw Messrs. Everett. He met them and had a conversation with them, and then there was shown to him the document of which this is a copy, called “The Curse of Central Africa.” It was the same document as had already been sent to the Independance Belge. At the end of chapter xxv., the very last chapter, there is this: “A Belgian’s treatment of a native chief—more bestial than human—goes unpunished.” That was afterwards applied to Captain De Keyser. Then comes a list of illustrations. At the end there is a list of Belgian officers and officials who, the author alleged, are responsible for the atrocities mentioned in this book; and a series of names included the name of Captain De Keyser.

Captain Burrows was in England on the 16th of December. He had a conversation with Everett on the 17th of December. This note was written to Mr. Bigwood at the Hotel Metropole by R. A. Everett: “With reference to your visit yesterday at my office, I think it would be to your advantage for you to call upon me at my club. I shall be here during the evening.” That was the National Liberal Club, Whitehall Place. On the 17th, Everett was at the National Liberal Club, and he was there with Captain Burrows and young Mr. Everett, and then a very interesting agreement was signed which throws a very clear light indeed upon the correspondence that had been going on with Brussels. It is witnessed by A. E. C. Everett, that is, the son, who went over to Brussels and posted the post cards in bad French. Captain Burrows signs it: “I hereby agree to pay Mr. John George Leigh the sum of £500, if and when my publishers, R. A. Everett & Co., 42, Essex Street, Strand, receive the amount which may be paid by the Belgian Government for the non-publication of the manuscript written by myself and him entitled ‘The Curse of Central Africa.’ In case the book is published I agree to pay Mr. J. G. Leigh one third of the profits accruing from such publication as per agreement with the said publishers.” There never was more definite evidence of the intention with which these communications had been made with Brussels. If they had succeeded in extorting from the Belgian Government by any apprehension of the publication of these documents, a substantial sum of money—£500—was to be paid under that agreement.

Mr. Leigh is a brother-in-law of Mr. Canisius, and Mr. Leigh eventually signed the introduction to the book. He is a journalist. That agreement having been made on the 17th, on the 30th Mr. Everett writes another letter to the State Secretary: “At the request of Mr. Bigwood, who called upon us recently on your behalf, we send you a revise of the title-page, and one or two chapters of this book” (you will hear from Mr. Bigwood that that is not true; he did not request them to send anything at all), “and we shall be glad if you will let us know definitely, and at once, whether you wish to go any further in this matter. The more important photographs detailing the cruelties are being enlarged from the originals, so please do not take the enclosed to be the size.—We have the honour to remain your obedient servants, R. A. Everett & Co.”

In the documents you will find the passages to which I have now come, which are contained in this: “Flogging a native by order of De Keyser. At Basoko, the headquarters station of the district of the Aruwimi, where the notorious De Keyser [meaning thereby the Plaintiff], of hand-cutting fame, was in command, women were daily flogged for the most trivial offences, etc.” This, you will notice, is stated to have occurred in November, 1897. It was a time when Captain Burrows himself was not in the Congo State at all, but you will hear from Captain De Keyser that there is not the smallest ground for the allegation of cruelty that was made against him. It is true that a chief was taken down in the steamer on which Captain De Keyser was, but the suggestion that he was treated in that barbarous fashion is entirely untrue. The next passage which has to be read is with regard to Basoko, and as to Basoko, what I have told you is that at Basoko, for fourteen days only, Captain Burrows was at the place where Captain De Keyser had his command. “At Basoko, the headquarters station of the district of the Aruwimi, women used to be flogged almost daily for the most trivial offences. In one case five women were beaten for daring to go to a village a short way up the river to buy food without having previously informed the commandant.” Thus, after six and a half years, during which no breath of accusation has been made with regard to these matters by Captain Burrows, there comes this extraordinary attack: “De Keyser, of hand-cutting fame”; “De Keyser’s massacre”; De Keyser described as walking about the station where he was employed with his gun, and shooting with reckless cruelty at the natives—De Keyser, who is accused of taking a man prisoner and practically roasting him on the stack-pipe of the boat as he is going down the river. There was not only that, but the imputation of habitually flogging women at this place. These odious and appalling accusations, the echo of which follows a man through his whole life, are made against him, and made against him by whom? By a man who had been in the service of the Congo State itself, who, in the year 1897, as I have shown, made himself the defender of the administration of the Congo State, and declared in an article which was put in the interview which he had with L’Étoile Belge, that there was no foundation whatever for the accusations which had been made against the Belgian officers, and he was able to say so because he knew the truth. He attacked Captain Salusbury and disposed of that. This man, who in 1897 was taking that attitude, who afterwards leaves the service of the Congo State and feels himself aggrieved because he has not been so highly paid, because he has not had such distinction conferred upon him as others have had conferred,—he, seven years afterwards, enters into this—is it too much to call it a conspiracy? They are grave accusations, accusations which, if there had been any semblance of truth in them, or if there had been any honest reason for their being made, would have been made long before in different circumstances and in a different way. At the time when they are eventually made, they are made in a way which will not do public service, but will put money in Captain Burrows’ pocket and into the pockets of the publishers who are joining with him in publishing. It is perfectly impossible to misunderstand the correspondence with Commandant Liebrechts. If this had been an honest thing, honestly done by Captain Burrows in the performance of any public duty, do you think there would have been a going first to a publisher and then a letter from that publisher inviting the Belgian Government to consider what it would be worth their while to pay for the suppression of this book? There is no question as to the meaning of that letter. What do you think was the object of putting a crowd of names into the revise, some of which afterwards disappeared? Why, it was because the object was the illegitimate object of endeavouring to bring pressure upon the Belgian Government and to induce them to pay money to buy up this book. It was not for any public object at all, but because the mention of these names, showing that there was a list of persons formerly or at present in the Congo Company’s service against whom accusations might be brought, might make it worth the while of the Belgian Government to prevent a great scandal by procuring the suppression of this book. But the Congo Free State or the Belgian Government was not going to buy up the book in order to suppress it or in order to prevent its publication. As one of the witnesses, Commandant Liebrechts, said, “For the first time we found that we should be in a position to deal with specific statements.” It is all very well for people to be spreading over the world—I do not care whether they are in reports or interviews or anything else—general statements with regard to things that are done in the Congo Free State. Commandant Liebrechts says there had been complaints: “I had heard on more than one occasion of complaints being made as to conduct in the Congo. Whenever it was known, and found out, it was dealt with and it was punished. These allegations about maladministration of the Congo Free State had been spread about from time to time by interviews, suggestions, newspaper reports, and the like, but here we saw that there was an opportunity for the men who were personally attacked to come and vindicate themselves from the charges which were made against them.” Therefore, there was no attempt to buy this book, and the conspirators were disappointed who had been preparing this revise, and cramming it with an enormous amount of material which it was thought would frighten the Belgian Government from permitting it to be dealt with. I do not know what the price might have been which they would have asked for, but that there was a price they were thinking of you will see in a minute or two. What did they expect to get for it? We do not know. But we do know this, that there were two principals in the matter, and there was by way of being a subordinate. I speak of Mr. Leigh as a subordinate. I do not suggest in the least that he was associated with the attempt that was being made in Belgium, but what we know is, that he was doing a minor part of the work, that the manuscript was said to have been Captain Burrows’ manuscript, that the materials for this book were supposed to be Captain Burrows’ materials, and Captain Burrows therefore was the principal person, and Messrs. Everett had lent their name and their work, and were acting with Captain Burrows, and no doubt expected a very large share of the money that would be got from the Belgian Government. If Mr. Leigh, in his modest inconspicuous, and irresponsible position, was to get £500 for helping in putting together the materials for this book, what do you think that Captain Burrows and Mr. Everett thought that they might be able to extort from the fear of the Belgian Government that this thing would go all over the world?

The address to the jury of Mr. Crispe, counsel for the Defendant Burrows, was often eloquent, always adroit, and showed great skill in defending a cause to which the main defence had been abandoned when the pleas of justification were withdrawn.

Gentlemen [said Counsel for Everett & Co., one of the defendants], apart from what Commandant Liebrechts termed “moral damage,” there is no evidence of actual damage suffered by Captain De Keyser in this having come to the knowledge of Commandant Liebrechts. Commandant Liebrechts says that he had investigated these charges and found out that they were false. If so, the repetition of them could have no effect upon his mind as regards the complicity of Captain De Keyser in them, and therefore, so far as that is concerned, no damage could have been suffered with reference to Commandant Liebrechts.

Those are the facts on the question. I now ask you to deal with the printer in this case in the most general and lenient manner that you can. He has, as I told you in opening, been compelled to accept the evidence given him by the man who brings him the material. He safeguards himself to an extent, or at all events his bona fides [sic], he safeguards by obtaining the statement in that agreement that these allegations are true, and that there is nothing libellous in the work that he is about to produce. Mr. Everett has not been able to establish the plea of justification, and if the statements, as Captain De Keyser says now, in the books are untrue, Mr. Everett can only express his regret that he should have accepted from Captain Burrows, on Captain Burrows’ assurance that they were true, statements which were false, and which have led Mr. Everett to being made a Defendant in an action for libel.

Gentlemen, I ask you to say that throughout Mr. Everett has believed in the truth and the proof of these allegations; that otherwise he would not have published the book, and placed himself in such a dangerous and perilous condition; and I ask you further to say that whether the Plaintiff comes here to-day to vindicate and clear the character of Captain De Keyser, or whether he comes here to vindicate and clear the character of the Congo Free State administration, there was no necessity, in order to do that, to try and blacken the character of the Defendant, Mr. Everett.

Mission Children at New Antwerp.

Mr. Justice Ridley, in charging the jury, after disposing of several minor matters, said:

What is the real case here? The action is brought by Captain De Keyser to clear his character against libels which have been published. I do not wish to use epithets in a case like this, but they are certainly libels of a most serious character. It is charged that he had been guilty of abominable outrages against the natives, against men and women who were under his government, a thing which is of an atrocious character, enough to blacken the good name of any one for the rest of his life. That is what he came here about; he came to say that this was a libellous statement, to say that it was untrue, and to ask for a verdict from you. The answer of the Defendants is that it was true. That has remained their answer until yesterday morning, when it ceased to be their answer.

We have been listening this afternoon to statements made by Counsel, in which it appears that they complain because they cannot cross-examine, or they cannot examine, or they cannot do something or other. It seems to me that, upon the other hand, it is the Plaintiff who has the right of complaint, that he has been brought here with such a plea on the Record until the very last minute. That is very late, is it not? It is absolutely untrue that he ever did any one of those things. There is not one tittle of evidence to that effect, and nobody dare say so.

It appears that Captain Burrows, who is one of the Defendants, was out in the Congo at an earlier year. I am not sure when; he returned to Europe on November 20, 1897. He was at that time a supporter of the Government in respect of the charges made by a person named Salusbury. In 1898 he brought out another book, called “The Land of the Pigmies,” against which I have nothing to say. It contained nothing at all in the shape of a charge against anybody in respect of this matter. He then went back again to the Congo, but he returned in 1901, and then commenced a correspondence between him and Commandant Liebrechts. There is an earlier letter in which he states that he is proposing to bring out another book. Later on there is correspondence as to which I agree, that it shows that he and the Belgian Government parted on terms not of dismissal of him, but upon a proposal being made that if he liked to place himself at their disposal for two years they would pay him a salary, and that he must be ready to accept any expedition on which he was asked to go. He declined that service. That was at the end of 1901. In the following year he published certain articles in the Wide World. They contained nothing at all about cruelties, as I understand, although they contained articles about the administration of the Congo Free State. That was in the year 1902; but when we get to the autumn of 1902 a new state of things commences, because up to that time you will see there is nothing to indicate that he had taken up a hostile position against either the administration of the Congo Free State or against any one who had been concerned in it. But on the 17th November things begin to assume a somewhat different complexion. There is the Agreement of the 17th November, 1902, made between Captain Burrows and Messrs. Everett & Co., under which the author warrants that the work is to be an original work. He names the work then as The Congo Free State. The publishers agree to pay him the sum of £250 on account, and a royalty of 15 per cent. On the 24th November, when that agreement was in force, a letter was written by Messrs. Everett & Co. to Commandant Liebrechts. Now the point of this letter is: Was the action of the Defendants bona fide in this matter? Are they persons who have unwittingly fallen into a false statement, or have they done a thing with a purpose regardless of the consequences? Have they done the thing which is what we commonly call blackmail, or forcing people to pay over money unless they wish to have a foul charge made against them?

These are the letters which bear upon this matter. The first is November 24th: “We have recently concluded a contract with Captain Guy Burrows, well known to the English public as having served some years in the service of the Congo Free State, to publish an important work on the Congo Free State. The information contained in the book is of such a startling character, and contains so many revelations concerning the administration of the Congo Free State by Belgium, that we thought it well to advise you of its publication beforehand, and at the same time to inquire if we may have the honour of offering you the Belgian rights for publication in your country.” That may mean nothing but what it says, but it may have a sinister meaning in it. It may be that the fact that “the information contained in the book is of such a startling character, and contains so many revelations concerning the administration of the Congo Free State,” that the point which is meant to be taken by those to whom it is written is: Is it worth your while to buy it up and stop it; not to publish it, but to have the right of publication so as to prevent it from being published in the ordinary way? Is that the meaning of the letter, or is it merely a bona fide offer of trying to push a book which is supposed and intended to be innocent, and to get people to push the sale of it? If that was the object, one is rather at a loss to understand how it could be to their interest to publish revelations concerning the administration of the Congo Free State by themselves, and, of course, contrary to the good faith and to the proper administration of the Government. That it might be to their interest to buy it up, and refuse to publish it, I can understand; the other part I have a difficulty in following. It states: “We are arranging for a simultaneous publication in Italy, Germany, France, Norway, Sweden, and the United States of America.” I suppose this could not also be bought up through some agents of the Government of Belgium, but if so, it would be a larger sum to come to the publishers. That is the letter of the 24th. On the 27th, by the same people is sent to the paper in Brussels an “advance notice of the enclosed valuable work.” That is the first issue which contains a list of the persons who are implicated in the atrocities. It does not contain the chapter which is the subject of this libel, but it contains a list of Belgian officers and officials responsible for the atrocities mentioned in this book. That is sent to the leading paper in Belgium. With what object? Do you think it possible that they thought that by some means or other it would come to the knowledge of the Government through the Press, or through some other means, that there was something which it would be worth their buying?

Now came Mr. Bigwood. The result upon the Belgian Government was not that they made an offer; they made nothing of the sort. They said, We will find out what this is; and they sent Mr. Bigwood over, whose evidence we heard yesterday, and who says that he then saw and took back with him not only the first issue, which is the one I have just been mentioning as containing the names of the officers, but that he also saw upon the table the second issue, which is now put forward as the first of the two libels in the case, but he did not take it with him. It was sent upon the 30th December, as you know. Now, an important thing upon this part of the case seems to me to be the document of the 17th December. That is, you see, between the two dates; it is after the 24th and the 27th November, and it is about the time of the visit of Mr. Bigwood, or just after he had left. Mr. Bigwood had seen on the table the second issue, but he had not taken it; it was not sent until the 30th December. In the interval we have got a document which is signed by Captain Burrows, and which says: “I hereby agree to pay to Mr. John George Leigh” (who is the man whose signature appears in the introduction), “the sum of £500 if and when my publishers, Messrs. Everett & Co., receive the amount which may be paid by the Belgian Government.” What for, do you think, gentlemen? You will say, of course, for the publication of the book. But it is not so: it is for the non-publication of the book. Therefore he is to get £500, which is to be paid by the Belgian Government for not publishing the book; that is to say, for suppressing it. Nothing could be plainer. “If the Belgian Government think it worth their while to buy it up, so that it should not be published, I will pay you £500.” It is under his own hand and signature, and I cannot see what the answer to it is. To my mind it is absolutely conclusive. I do not know whether you will consider that the meaning of the first letter is not that the book should be published broadcast but that the rights of publishing it should be bought up with the view of stopping its being published broadcast. He goes on: “For the non-publication of the manuscripts written by myself and him, entitled ‘The Curse of Central Africa.’ In case the book is published, I agree to pay Mr. Leigh one-third of the profits accruing from such publication as per agreement with the said publisher.” That, of course, goes for nothing. It is the first part, and it appears to me to be clear upon that, that the meaning of such words must be that the object was not to get the Belgian Government not to publish, but to prevent the publication. Now, if so, of course I am perfectly aware that that is not the point of the case, but you cannot keep out of your mind in a case of this kind what has been the conduct of those who are responsible for the libels which have been published. Is it a case in which they have done the thing with a bona fide intention to produce and to bring to light, and to make to cease outrages and atrocities which have been committed in any part of the world, or is it, on the other hand, to make a profit out of something which has been brought to their knowledge to the detriment of other people? If you think that this was done to get a profit by forcing the Belgian Government to buy their silence, it would appear to me that you would deal with the matter upon a different footing to that on which you would be willing to deal with it if you thought that the Defendants, from beginning to end, had done their best to alleviate the mischief which their published statements might have unfortunately brought about.

You must also, I think, look at the conduct of those who were guilty of having published this libel. Have they done the best they could to alleviate the consequences, or have they, on the other hand, maintained the fact that it was true until almost the eleventh hour; and have they also, or have they not, whilst this matter has been going on, been actuated by other motives, not merely the motive of bringing to light in the public interest a scandal that was going on, but by the idea that out of this business they would make some ugly profit for themselves?

The jury retired at 3.22 o’clock. In ten minutes it returned a verdict for the plaintiff, Captain De Keyser, awarding him £500 damages and costs. Sir Edward Clarke, plaintiff’s counsel, having moved the Court to make the preliminary injunction forbidding publication of the book perpetual, defendant’s counsel gave expression to the thought that if the Court complied, it would be a “very hard and cruel proceeding.” In replying to this observation, Sir Edward Clarke said:

I do not know that the interference with the business of persons who publish libels like this is a public misfortune; but it would be very unfortunate indeed if after the Jury have found a verdict in my favour upon this matter, and awarded substantial damages, that the Defendant should be free from the Injunction which has gone on for the last year. I do not ask your Lordship to vary the Injunction, but I ask your Lordship that the Injunction which lasted while this matter was in dispute shall be made perpetual.

The terms of the Injunction which was granted by Mr. Justice Bigham are these: “Ordered that the Defendants, their servants and agents and each and every of them be restrained and an Injunction be granted restraining the Defendants, their servants and agents, and each and every of them, from printing or selling or otherwise distributing a book entitled ‘The Curse of South Africa’ under that or any other title, or any portion of the said book under that title or any other title.” I submit that I am at least entitled to be continued in the protection which existed while the action was pending.

I was so protected when it was uncertain whether I had sustained any grievance or not. Now it has been established, and I have recovered substantial damages for that grievance, I surely am entitled to a continuation of that protection.

Mr. Justice Ridley: I shall make it perpetual.

Thereupon counsel for defendants in the remaining cases of Chaltin versus Captain Burrows and Everett & Co., and Dubreucq versus the same, agreed to submit to a verdict in favour of the plaintiffs for £50 damages and costs. The jury returned verdicts for this sum, and the Court made perpetual the injunction against the publication of the book.

So resulted the first opportunity Belgian officers in the service of the Congo Free State have had to vindicate their characters during the long campaign which certain persons have, from varying motives, waged against the youngest and most progressive State in Africa.

CHAPTER XXX
THE CONGO CAMPAIGN IN ENGLAND

Some English Traits.

THE English are an admirable people, who have excelled in every department of human effort; but the evidence of the more critical among them, with whom love of fair play counts for as much as pride of race, has never failed to reveal in the national character (as of course in the character of every nation) a goodly number of weak spots whereat the critic and the wit may profitably direct their shafts. John Bull, the trader, is a keen-eyed, hard-headed bargainer. Good; it behoves every merchant to be no less. He regards the whole world as his farm by right divine, and resents his exclusion from any part of it. When his remonstrance is met by counter-remonstrance, he points to his home markets and his colonies, and emphasises the fact that these British markets are open (long after his own trade has been firmly established therein) to the traders of the world.

A Beautiful Spot in Mayumbe.

But it is in his ultra-sentimental mood that John Bull is seen at his worst. Has there been a conflict between some semi-barbarous tribes in that seething cauldron of discontent, the Balkans, and the Sultan’s troops have thrashed them indiscriminately and dispersed them, John Bull, or at least that part of him which wears white ties and is described as “reverend,” rushes off to Exeter Hall and demands the prayers of the churches and the forces of his Government for the suppression of the inhuman atrocities which he denounces. (Incidentally, but in unmistakable terms, he at the same time calls the attention of his audience to the joyful fact that it is their duty and privilege to assist in this good work by giving liberally of their money.) Of course it is but a section of the English people which approves and supports this sort of thing, and a still smaller section that exploits it. But in a country politically constituted as England is, where the suffrage is almost universal, it is sufficiently large and influential to influence from time to time the conduct of the British Government. This is more particularly the case where the interests of the pseudo-humanitarians and those of the traders happen to coincide. On such occasions, fortunately somewhat rare, the spectacle of Cant and Commerce in alliance is enough to bring a smile to the face of a sphinx.

A Strange Alliance.

Protestant missionaries of various sects, in rivalry with each other, but often alike in being envious of the superior results obtained by Roman Catholic missionaries in the Congo Free State, denounce the Congo Government as a gang of barbarous extortioners, oppressors, murderers. A small but active set of Liverpool merchants, dismayed at finding that what twenty years ago they regarded as worthless has, under judicious Belgian administration, become a valuable asset, and some of whom appear willing to resort to any means by which they may at least be enabled to share the prize, join their forces to those of the missionaries. Lies fall as thickly as leaves in Vallombrosa. No sooner is one mendacious story refuted than ten others take its place. The Congo campaign multiplies its adherents, it gathers force daily, its voice becomes more and more thunderous, until at last it invades the British House of Commons and moves a British minister to write a puerile dispatch to the Great Powers, which the Great Powers, in the exercise of their common-sense, politely ignore. Only up to a certain point does Baron Münchausen triumph. Verb. sap.

Why is John Bull Silent?

What magnificent material for the mouthings of certain English ultra-humanitarians would be the lynching of Negroes in our own Southern States! The jail-breakings, the hangings, shootings, and burnings—could more effective subjects for stereopticon slides and the perfervid oratory of paid lecturers be devised? And all true and ready to hand, needing neither lies nor distortions! Alas! nothing can be made out of that campaign. It will not pay to call our country to account for its neglect or failure to suppress these things. The United States own a fleet which, if not as strong as it should be, is sufficiently powerful to inspire respect; and our President can at any time call up an army of a million citizen soldiers, volunteers of proved valour. With the Congo Free State this is not the case. Caution was ever a prominent characteristic of John Bull, and he has carefully noted that fact. Neutral little Belgium may safely be bullied, her King libelled, and his enterprise misrepresented and held up to the scorn of an undiscriminating world, too busy to undertake a careful analysis of motives or even to distinguish between the true and the false.

Judicial consideration of the English campaign against the Congo, naturally a difficult task, is rendered doubly so by the general suppression of material evidence favourable to that State. From motives best known to their proprietors, one or two important London newspapers, ever ready to afford space for an attack upon the Congo Government, however violent or by whomsoever made, frequently decline to publish replies thereto. Indeed, the more complete the refutation, and the greater the authority of the writer, the less chance of its acceptance for publication in these newspapers. Upon several occasions has Major Harrison been refused space for his temperate letters to the Morning Post, and the Daily News, the principal support of the Aborigines Protection Society, is avowedly against the continued existence of the Congo Free State. A complete answer to Mr. Roger Casement’s Report, prepared by the Congo Government, was unanimously rejected by London editors. This most unjust partisanship extends even to English press reports of proceedings in the House of Commons, of which one might reasonably expect to find in English journals a complete record; or where the exigencies of space necessitate condensation, that at least that editorial operation should be performed without bias. That expectation meets with disappointment.

On June 9, 1904, Sir Charles Dilke, with a fine show of virtue which has not always characterised his conduct, delivered a speech in the House of Commons wherein he assumes the truth of the various libels upon the Congo Government prepared by missionaries, merchants, and dismissed employees. That speech, and the speeches of such other members of the British House of Commons as for various reasons have been induced to follow a similar course, have been reported in extenso, while the speech of Mr. John Campbell, member for South Armagh, has not so much as been referred to. Mr. Campbell derided the Congophobes’ plea that they have at heart only the interests of humanity.

The gold [he remarked] of that fine phrase is alloyed with other arguments. Commercial considerations have also their weight. Some speakers began by talking of humanity and ended with commerce. Others began with commerce and ended with humanity. One honourable member had thrown overboard the humanitarian theme and flatly talked business. But, in spite of all the ornamental flowers of philanthropy, the groundwork of all these speeches is—commerce. The true motive which prompts the Anti-Congo campaign, conducted with such vigour in this country and within these walls, was exposed in a few words by Stanley when he said: “The sentiment that inspires the charges against the Congo is jealousy. The Congo is succeeding better than any other State in Africa.”

One would suppose that sentiments such as these, supported by the authority of Stanley, would at least be as worthy of a few lines in an English newspaper as the vague charges of cruelty alleged by some missionaries based upon what they have been told that somebody else has heard, etc. But, no! such references are rigidly suppressed in a large section of the English press, just as much of Mr. Casement’s Report that is favourable to the Congo Government has been suppressed.[44]

Interior of Cathedral, Baudouinville (Tanganyika).

Sisters of New Antwerp Teaching Natives to Weave.

Just as this book is going to press particulars come to hand of an incident which throws a strong light upon, the methods adopted by the enemies of the Congo Free State in manufacturing evidence against it. The paid officers of the Congo Reform Association in Liverpool, the Aborigines’ Protection Society, and kindred organisations, must find it increasingly difficult to justify their existence when tactics such as are here exposed have to be resorted to.[45]

A Typical Congophobe Method.

In 1902, on the recommendation of a high official of the Free State, Mr. Antoine Benedetti, a cultured gentleman belonging to an ancient and wealthy family in Sicily, was appointed chief commissary—a post which had never before been conferred on a foreigner on account of its special responsibilities. This rapid promotion shows in what esteem Mr. Benedetti was held by his chiefs.

Mr. Benedetti returned to Europe on November 7, 1904, and when requested to give his chiefs some information on the existing situation in the Congo, related circumstances which might well be considered fit for a novel, if their accuracy were not vouched for by authentic documents.

While at Boma, Mr. Benedetti noticed that a Negro named Shanu, a British subject from Lagos, was trying to discover his opinions on Congo policy and administration. Shanu having been at one time in the employ of the State, Mr. Benedetti suspected nothing; but in the course of conversation with the Negro, he perceived what Shanu wanted to get from him. Shanu boasted to Mr. Benedetti of the humanitarian character of the English campaign against the Congo, and he further hinted that, if he were correctly informed, Mr. Benedetti would surely join in the said campaign, a course which would be of great advantage to him. Mr. Benedetti pretended to share the views of Shanu, who thereupon pushed the matter home by producing some letters of Mr. Edmund Deville Morel, Secretary of the Congo Reform Association.

In one of these letters, Mr. Morel informs Shanu that Mr. Benedetti, commissary at Boma, has been spoken of to him as one who would be a valuable acquisition in the English campaign against the Congo. Mr. Benedetti at once saw what was expected of him; he realised that efforts were being made to enlist in the anti-Congo campaign the numerous Italians in the service of the Free State; and, with the sole desire of protecting the honour of his fellow-countrymen in the Congo, he resolved to defeat Mr. Morel’s plans. With a view of gaining Shanu’s confidence, he declared himself to be on the Negro’s side, and by so doing compromised himself in the eyes of his official colleagues. He told Shanu—who lost no time in informing Mr. Morel—that by virtue of his position, he was able to make some startling revelations. Shanu thereupon suggested that he should send in his resignation, giving as the reason certain compromising allegations against the Free State. Shanu then wrote to Mr. Morel to the effect that he and Mr. Benedetti agreed that the latter was just the man to lead the campaign against the Congo. On the receipt of Mr. Morel’s reply, the departure of Mr. Benedetti was decided upon.

Mr. Benedetti was promised his passage money to Europe, as well as compensation for the loss of his place under the Free State, and, later, a handsome bonus. Mr. Morel requested Mr. Benedetti to meet him at the Exchange Station Hotel, Liverpool, on the 19th November, and to announce his arrival by the following telegram:

“Morel care Jellani arrived Benedetti.”

Under these circumstances, Mr. Benedetti sent in his resignation, alleging that private business called him to Europe. He left by the SS. Philippeville, and the British Consul at Boma gave him ten pounds sterling for his travelling expenses. The receipt for this sum was made out by Mr. Benedetti in the name of Shanu.

Up to the time of his departure, Mr. Benedetti had discharged his duties so well that he was congratulated by the local authorities. Having spoken to nobody about the course he was adopting, so little was his sudden departure understood that his colleagues were mystified. He could not, of course, enlighten them without showing his hand. Mr. Benedetti landed at Antwerp on November 7th, and on the 17th arrived at Liverpool, having previously despatched to Mr. Morel the telegram agreed upon. After some delay Mr. Morel went to see Mr. Benedetti at the Exchange Station Hotel in that city.

Mr. Morel appeared somewhat distrustful, and asked Mr. Benedetti if he had authenticating documents. The latter produced some unimportant papers, which he pretended were valuable, and told the Secretary of the Congo Reform Association some sensational stories of absolutely imaginary crimes. In short, Mr. Benedetti played his game so well that Mr. Morel no longer hesitated to close the affair, but said he would introduce to him a gentleman who was greatly interested in the Congo.

In response to a telephonic message from Mr. Morel there arrived Mr. John Holt, a merchant, of Dale Street, Liverpool. Mr. Holt is Vice-President of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and a member of the Congo Reform Association. Mr. Morel told Mr. Holt what Mr. Benedetti had said, and then certain practical questions were discussed. It was agreed that Mr. Benedetti should relate in the West African Mail the stories that he had just invented; but Mr. Benedetti, wishing to gain time, stated that he would rather publish them first in Italy, after which the organ of the Congo Reform Association might reproduce them. It was decided also to issue a pamphlet, for which Mr. Benedetti was to receive eighty pounds. Some generous promises were made to Mr. Benedetti: five hundred pounds as damages and his fare paid to Teneriffe by the Congo Reform Association. At Teneriffe, it was agreed, he should seek to poison the minds of Italian officers returning from the Congo. Later, Mr. Holt was to go to Italy where, together with Mr. Benedetti, he was to subsidise a newspaper to attack the Congo, and if this newspaper war resulted in the King of Italy recalling Italian officers serving in the Congo, Mr. Benedetti was to receive a further sum of four thousand pounds.

The former commissary of Boma would not accept verbal promises; he requested a document. He demanded first of all a contract for the publication of the pamphlet. Mr. Benedetti invited Mr. Morel and Mr. Holt to dinner, and it was during this dinner on the 19th of November that the clauses of the contract were discussed. Conversation was carried on to a late hour and Mr. Holt, in an unguarded moment, remarked that in England everything was done by and for the sake of business, and that sentiment was obliged to give way to trade. The signing of the contract was fixed for eleven o’clock on the morning of the 21st of November, 1904, when the three gentlemen concerned attended and the following document was drawn up and signed. The text is in English and French:

Between Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Morel it is agreed as follows:—Mr. Benedetti agrees to publish in a special pamphlet all the statements that he made and proved by means of documents on the evening of the 19th of November at the Exchange Station Hotel, in the presence of Mr. Morel and Mr. Holt, as well as various other facts the evidence of which is in his possession in Italy.

Mr. Benedetti shall first submit to Mr. Morel, before the 5th of December, a rough copy of his pamphlet in English and Italian. Upon this rough copy Mr. Morel reserves the right to make corrections, and to send these corrections to Mr. Benedetti by the 9th of December, unless prevented by force majeure.

As soon as the pamphlet has been approved by Mr. Morel, Mr. Benedetti shall send to Mr. Morel a corrected copy (if corrections have been made) in English and Italian, as well as a copy of the original documents in his possession, certified by the British Consul on the original text.

Mr. Benedetti undertakes to be ready to publish all by 22nd December, or by such date as Mr. Morel shall telegraph to him.

In any case, Mr. Benedetti will not publish all or any part of the pamphlet without previous understanding with Mr. Morel as to the date.

Mr. Benedetti undertakes to place at Mr. Morel’s disposal, after the publication of the pamphlet, all original papers referred to in the said pamphlet, and Mr. Morel undertakes to return them, if required.

Mr. Morel deposits a thousand francs for Mr. Benedetti’s travelling expenses from Boma.

Mr. Morel undertakes to pay Mr. Benedetti the sum of two thousand francs, which sum represents the loss to Mr. Benedetti of his situation in the Congo State, owing to the publication of statements made in the said pamphlet, as soon as he receives from Mr. Benedetti notice that the pamphlet has been published in Italy, and a copy of the pamphlet.

Mr. Morel undertakes to pay the expenses incurred in publishing the pamphlet in Italy up to the sum of five hundred francs. Mr. Benedetti undertakes to send two hundred copies of the pamphlet to Mr. Morel.

It is understood on both sides that the above entirely covers all relations between Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Morel.

Mr. Morel undertakes to obtain from Mr. Shanu, of Boma, the receipt for the two hundred and fifty francs handed by Mr. Benedetti to Mr. Shanu, and to deduct the sum from the two thousand francs above mentioned.

Signed the 21st November, 1904, at Liverpool Exchange Station Hotel.

E. D. Morel.
A. Benedetti.

Witness to signatures of A. Benedetti and E. D. Morel:

John Holt,
merchant,
81 Dale Street,
Liverpool.

It is not without interest to call attention to the final clause, concerning the receipt for the 250 francs which Mr. Benedetti had given to Shanu, as a guarantee of the £10 which the British Consul at Boma had given him before his departure.

Building a Bridge for the Cataracts Railroad, 1897.

As to the clause concerning the thousand francs which Mr. Morel undertook to pay Benedetti for his travelling expenses from Boma, it came about through the fact that his departure from Boma was not in accord with the regulations. As his engagement was not terminated, the question of his being sent home at the expense of the Congo Free State was not settled. Mr. Holt took from his pocket a roll of Bank of England notes and paid Mr. Benedetti £40.

As soon as he was in possession of this contract, Mr. Benedetti returned to Brussels, whence he sent Mr. Morel the following letter:

Brussels, 30th November, 1904.
Mr. E. D. Morel, Liverpool,

I have the pleasure of remitting herewith to you a cheque on the South Wales Bank, Limited, No. 109,880, to the order of Mr. John Holt, merchant, Dale Street, Liverpool, for £40, which this latter gave me in the Exchange Station Hotel, Liverpool, on the 21st of this month.

I will also send you a sum of £10 in exchange for the receipt of Shanu, which you promised to procure for me.

You made a mistake, Sir, when you thought I would play into your hands in your campaign against the Congo, and thus do grievous harm to my countrymen working in the Congo.

Believe me, my conduct, from my first interview with Shanu, when acting for you, till my telegram from Paris on the 28th of this month, was dictated by a sentiment of duty and patriotism.

A. Benedetti.

The telegram to which Mr. Benedetti alludes was addressed to Mr. Morel from Paris, and was to call his attention to an article in the Tribuna favourable to the Congo, and to ask him for arguments in answer to this article for publication in an Italian paper. Mr. Morel replied that he had not had time to get the Tribuna article translated.

This edifying incident needs no comment. When the denial of its genuineness, or a qualification of its meaning and purpose, comes, it is understood that the Congo Administration will publish a facsimile of Mr. Morel’s contract with Mr. Benedetti, bearing his signature and the signature of Mr. John Holt, merchant-philanthropist, Vice-President of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, etc., in order that intelligent people may form their own conclusions upon it at first hand.

Mr. Morel writes to the London Times of December 19, 1904, defending the part he has played in this Benedetti incident. “You persist,” says Mr. Morel (addressing M. Roland de Marès), “to make readers believe that I proposed to pay M. Benedetti for false testimony, whereas my rôle was limited to giving him the opportunity he asked for (that is to say, to come to Europe and to publish under his own name, in the interests of truth and of his fellow-countrymen), by defraying the expenses of his journey and the positive pecuniary losses which his action would involve, and by participating in the printing expenses of his pamphlet.”