INTRODUCTION
By the Earl of Cromer
I have been asked to write a short introduction to this book, and I have no hesitation in complying with the request.
Although the high motives and disinterested devotion which inspire missionary and philanthropic effort are very generally recognized, there is often a predisposition—more frequently felt than expressed—not only amongst responsible officials but also in the minds of no inconsiderable portion of the public to accept with some reserve both the accuracy of the facts and the soundness of the conclusions emanating wholly from these sources. This scepticism, provided it be not allowed to degenerate into unworthy prejudice, is not merely healthy but even commendable. I could mention cases within my own knowledge where missionary zeal was certainly allowed to outrun discretion. It is the duty of responsible officials to be sceptical in such matters. Whilst sympathizing with humanitarians they should endeavour to remedy whatever of quixotism is to be found in their suggestions; and to guide those from whom those suggestions emanate along a path calculated to ensure the achievement of their objects by the adoption of practical methods which will be consonant with the moral and material interests of the Empire at large.
Occasional errors, the result of unchecked enthusiasm in a noble cause, cannot, however, for one moment be allowed to outweigh the immense benefits conferred on civilization by missionary and philanthropic agencies. Nowhere have these benefits been more conspicuous than in the case of the Congo.
The fact that but a few years ago the administration of the Congo was a disgrace to civilized Europe is now so fully recognized, not only in this country, but also—to the honour of the Belgians be it said—in Belgium itself, that it is scarcely necessary to labour the point. One startling fact is sufficient to demonstrate its true character. According to an estimate made by Sir Reginald Wingate,[1] the population of the Soudan under the Mahdi’s rule was reduced from 8,525,000 to 1,870,500 persons; in other words over 75 per cent. of the inhabitants died from disease or were killed in external or internal wars. The civilized European who for some years presided over the destinies of the Congo was no more merciful, save as a matter of percentage, than the ignorant and fanatical Dervish at Khartoum. Mr. Harris states ([p. 208]) that, under the régime of King Leopold, the Congo population was reduced from 20,000,000 to 8,000,000.[2] More than this. It is generally impossible in the long run to pronounce a complete divorce between moral and material interests. It will, therefore, be no matter for surprise that the Leopoldian policy was as unsuccessful from an economic as it was from an humanitarian point of view. It is now clear that unbridled company-mongering has gone far to destroy the sources of wealth to which it owed its birth. Mr. Harris tells a piteous tale of the manner in which the rubber vines have been handled, and, generally of the condition of the plantations. Neither, having regard to the wanton destruction of elephants ([p. 213]) does ivory appear to have been much more tenderly treated than rubber.
Even the most hardened sceptic as regards the utility of missionary enterprise will not, I think, be prepared to deny that to the Missionaries, in conjunction with Mr. Morel, the main credit accrues of having brought home to the British public, and eventually to the public of Europe, the iniquities which, but a short time ago, were being practised under European sanction in the heart of Africa.
Amongst this devoted band, many of whom have paid with their lives the heavy toll which cruel Africa exacts, none have been more steadfast in their determination to insist on the reform of the Congo administration than the writer of this book—Mr. Harris. None, moreover, have brought a more evenly-balanced mind to bear on the numerous problems which perplex the African administrator. Mr. Harris may be an enthusiast, but of this I am well convinced—both by frequent personal intercourse and from a careful perusal of his work—that his enthusiasm is tempered by reason and by a solid appreciation of the difference between the ideal and the practical. He wisely ([p. 35]) deprecates undue Missionary interference with local customs. He has even something ([pp. 58-60]) to say in palliation of polygamy, and if I rightly understand his remarks on [p. 154], he does not utterly exclude a resort to forced labour under certain conditions and under certain circumstances.
Moreover, in so far as my experience enables me to form an opinion, Mr. Harris has acquired a firm grasp of the main principles which should guide Europeans who are called upon to rule over a backward and primitive society, and of the fact that prolonged neglect of those principles must sooner or later lead to failure or even disaster. He writes as a fair-minded and thoroughly well-informed observer. Throughout his pages may be found many acute observations on the various problems which, in forms more or less identical, tax the ingenuity of the governing race wherever the white and the coloured man meet as ruler and subject. Notably Mr. Harris dwells ([p. 67]) on the great influence exerted by the example set by officials; this example, he thinks—most rightly in my opinion—is more important than the issue of laws and decrees. Here, he says—and I quote the passage with regret—“is where the Belgian and French Congo officials have failed so utterly.” To put the matter in another, and somewhat mathematical, form, I have always held that 75 per cent. of the influence of British officials for good depends on character, and only 25 per cent. on brains. Mistakes arising from defective intelligence will generally admit to being rectified. Those which are due to defects of character are more often irremediable. My belief is that the great and well-deserved success which has attended Sir Reginald Wingate’s administration of the Soudan arises in no small degree from a recognition of this common-place, and from its practical application in the choice of officials. I am not sure that its importance is always adequately recognized in London. It is well to encourage the importation of cocoa and palm oil into the London market. But it is better to acquire the reputation, which ([p. 280]) Mr. Harris says has passed into a proverb in the Congo, that “the Englishman never lies.”
For these reasons I have no hesitation in recommending this book to the public. Mr. Harris’ facts may perhaps be called in question by others possessing greater local knowledge than any to which I can pretend. His conclusions—notably those in his final chapter in which he re-arranges the map of Africa in a somewhat daring spirit—manifestly admit of wide differences of opinion. But he speaks with a unique knowledge of his subject. The opportunities which, with praiseworthy zeal, he and his devoted companion made for themselves to acquire a real knowledge of African affairs has been exceptional. He has thus produced a book in which the ordinary reader cannot fail to be interested if it is only by reason of the vivid and picturesque account it gives of African life and travel, and in which those who have paid special attention to African administration will find many useful indications of the directions in which their efforts towards reform may best be applied. Whatever may be thought of some of Mr. Harris’ suggestions, it cannot but be an advantage, more especially now that attention is being more and more drawn to African affairs, that the Government, Parliament, and the general public should learn what one so eminently qualified as Mr. Harris to instruct them in the facts of the case has to say on the subject.
Mr. Harris is not sparing in his criticisms, neither does he withhold praise when he considers it is due. Whilst strongly condemning the slavery—for such it virtually is—that the Government of Portugal permits in its Colonies, he dwells ([p. 296]) on the “kindly nature” of the Portuguese themselves, and significantly adds “there is no colour-bar in the Portuguese dominions.”[3] He appears to find little to commend in French administration, and much ([pp. 90 and 91]) to condemn in their commercial policy. He does justice ([p. 88]) to the thoroughness and wisdom of the Germans in all matters connected with trade, and does not, as I venture to think, detract from the merits of the liberal policy which they have adopted by alluding to the fact that it is based on self-interested motives. On the other hand, he strongly condemns ([p. 142]) the German treatment of the natives. He dwells ([p. 92]) on the petty and vexatious obstacles placed in the way of a trade by the Belgian officials of the Congo, of which “even Belgian merchants complain,” and he has, of course, little to say in favor of Belgian administration in other respects. But he has the fairness to admit ([p. 209]) that since the annexation of the Congo by Belgium the death rate has diminished and the birth rate increased—a fact which, after the experiences of the Leopoldian régime, appears to me to be very eloquent, and to reflect much credit on the Belgian Government. Moreover, he tells us that “wherever the Belgian reforms have been most completely applied, there the ravages of sleeping sickness appear to be more or less checked.”
These observations are interesting, as they enable a comparison to be made with the results obtained under different systems of government, but they deal with matters for which—save to a limited degree in the Congo, and also perhaps to some slight extent as regards the continuance of slavery in the Portuguese possessions—neither the British Government nor the British nation are in any degree responsible. The internal policy to be adopted in the African territories possessed by France and Germany is a matter solely for the consideration of Frenchmen and Germans. But Mr. Harris has a good deal to say about the conduct of affairs in British African possessions, and it will be well if public attention is directed to his remarks in this connection, lest having preached to others we may ourselves become castaways.
Mr. Harris’ position is so completely detached that he may, without the least hesitation, be acquitted of any desire to exalt unduly the achievements of his own countrymen. The spirit in which he writes is not national, but cosmopolitan. Moreover, he is manifestly not greatly enamoured of the proceedings of some, at all events, of the British officials. For these reasons his testimony is all the more valuable when he speaks, as is frequently the case, in terms of warm praise of the successful results which have been attained under British administration. He says it is not only the best in West Central Africa, but that the natives themselves recognize that it is the best. This testimony is all the more satisfactory because the excellence of British rule has not been always fully recognized in those circles in which Mr. Harris principally moves. “With inherent instinct,” he says ([p. 257]), “the British Government recognizes that the real asset of the Colony (i.e. the Gold Coast Colony) is the indigenous inhabitant, whose material and moral progress is not only the first, but the truest interest of the State.” It is by proceeding on this sound principle that the natives have been kept in possession of the land. “The almost phenomenal success of the cocoa industry in the British Colony of the Gold Coast,” Mr. Harris says ([p. 161]), “is due entirely to the fact that the natives are the proprietors of the cocoa farms.” It is also by the adoption of this principle that it has been possible to solve the thorny labour question. “The native farmers of Southern Nigeria and the Gold Coast employ a good deal of native labour and generally speaking find little difficulty in obtaining all they want” ([p. 262]).[4] Mr. Harris claims ([p. 264]) that the economic will be no less satisfactory than the moral results of the liberal policy which has been adopted by Great Britain, and that “the indigenous industry of the British Colonies working in its own interests, unencumbered by the heavy cost of European supervision and the drawbacks of imported contract labour, will, under the guidance of a paternal and sympathetic administration, certainly outdistance and leave far behind in the race of supremacy such systems as those which prevail in San Thomé and Principe.” I trust, and I also believe, that Mr. Harris will prove to be a true prophet.
It is, moreover, the adoption of the principle to which I have alluded above which enabled an American Bishop ([p. 109]) to characterize as “just marvellous” the way in which the English are “covering the Continent with educated natives,” and I am particularly glad he was able to add “with carpenters, bricklayers, and engineers.”
In spite, however, of the unstinted praise which Mr. Harris has to bestow and which makes it clear that, broadly speaking, we may legitimately be proud of what our countrymen, both official and non-official, have accomplished in Western Africa, he indicates certain defects in the administration, some of which appear to me to be well worthy of the attention of the responsible authorities.
In the first place, he says ([p. 125]) that “between the British official class and the merchant community a great gulf is fixed.”[5] If this is the case, there would certainly appear to be something wrong. There ought to be no such gulf. But as I presume there is an official side to the case, which I have never heard, I do not presume to pronounce any opinion on the merits of the point at issue. Neither is it altogether pleasant to read the episode related on [p. 151]. It is clearly not right to march into a church whilst service is going on, impound a number of carriers and “insist on a native clergyman carrying a box containing whisky.” One may charitably hope that the facts of the case were not quite accurately reported to Mr. Harris.
In the absence of adequate local knowledge I cannot pursue the discussion of this branch of the subject any further, but there is one observation I should wish to make. There cannot be a greater mistake than to employ underpaid officials in the outlying dominions of the Crown. We do not want the worst, or even the second best of our race to prosecute the Imperial policy to which we are wedded as a necessity of our national existence. The work presents so many difficulties of various descriptions that if we are to succeed we must impound into the British service the best elements which our race can produce, and, as I am well aware, even when their services are obtained and every care has been taken, mistakes will sometimes occur in making appointments. And if we want the best material we must pay the best price for it. Men of the required type will not submit to all the privations and discomforts, not to speak of the dangers of an African career unless they are adequately remunerated. I know well from bitter experience the difficulties attendant on paying high salaries out of an impoverished, and even out of a semi-bankrupt Treasury. And I also know the criticisms to which, notably in these democratic days, the payment of high salaries is exposed. My answer to the first of these objections is that if the Treasury cannot afford to give adequate salaries to its European agents it is, on all grounds, wiser to diminish the amount of European agency, or even to dispense with it altogether. My own experience has led me to prefer infinitely the employment of two efficient men on £500 a year to that of four doubtfully efficient men on £250. My answer to the second objection is that those who plead against high salaries are generally very ill-informed of the facts with which they are dealing, and that, if ever there was a case when Government, being better informed, should resist a hasty expression of public opinion, it is this.
Are the British agents employed in subordinate positions in Africa adequately paid? From all I have heard I have considerable doubts whether they are so. In dealing with this subject, I have heard it sometimes said: “Candidates are plentiful. If we can get a man on £250 a year or less, why should we give him £500?” I consider this argument not merely pernicious but ridiculous. It would never be used by any one who has been brought face to face with the difficulties which have actually to be encountered. Its application in practice is liable to lead to very serious consequences in the shape of loss of national credit, and possibly in other and even more serious directions.
Turning to another point, I notice ([p. 120]) that Mr. Harris states that coloured men are practically debarred from entering the medical service in the West African Colonies, and absolutely in the Gold Coast. If so, I can only say that this regulation contrasts unfavourably with the procedure adopted in other British possessions of which the inhabitants are coloured, and adopted, moreover, without, so far as I am aware, the production of any inconvenience. Possibly there are some special reasons, with which I am unacquainted, which apply to West Africa, but they must be very strong to justify a course so little in harmony with the general practice and policy of the British Government elsewhere.
Mr. Harris deals fully with the subject of education, and in his fifth chapter chivalrously defends the cause of that much-abused individual the “educated native,” whose merits and demerits seem to present a striking identity of character whether his residence be on the banks of the Ganges, the Nile, or the Congo. The old complaint with which Indian administrators are so familiar, that the education afforded is too purely literary, re-appears in West Africa. Mr. Harris, however, dwells with justifiable pride ([p. 109]) on the number of carpenters, bricklayers and other mechanics turned out of the Mission Schools, and ([p. 112]) he most rightly insists on the importance of extending “that largely neglected branch of education—practical agriculture.” He suggests that a Commission should be appointed “to study the whole question of the education of the African peoples in British Equatorial possessions, with the object of ascertaining how far the Government may be able to secure a more even balance between the literary and technical training of natives, and how far it may be possible to so re-adjust existing systems as to avoid denationalization.”
My confidence in the results obtained by appointing Royal Commissions is limited, but they afford a useful machinery for classifying facts and sifting evidence, and thus provide some safeguard against the risk, which is nowhere more conspicuous than in dealing with educational subjects, of generalizing from imperfect or incorrect data. Mr. Harris’ suggestion on this point will, I trust, receive due consideration.
Mr. Harris also dwells ([pp. 113, 114]) on the results which ensue when young Africans are sent to England to obtain legal or medical education. “No strong and friendly hand is outstretched to help them, no responsible person comes forward to take them by the hand and bring them in touch with the better elements of our national life.... Who can be surprised if the only seeds they carry back to the Colonies are those evil ones which produce a crop of tares to the embarrassment of Governments?”
If the Colonial Office and the Missionary Societies, acting either independently or in unison with each other, can devise any satisfactory solution of this very important and also extremely difficult problem, they will earn the gratitude of all who are interested in the well-being of our Asiatic and African dominions. Palliatives for the evils which most assuredly arise under the existing system have been tried by the Governments of India and Egypt, but so far as I know the success of these efforts has not been very marked. I may mention that, so convinced was I that the harm done by sending young Egyptians to England for purposes of education more than counterbalanced the advantages which were obtained that at the cost of a good deal of misrepresentation—which was quite natural under the circumstances—I persistently discouraged the practice, and urged that a preferable system was so to improve higher and technical education on the spot as to render the despatch of students to Europe no longer necessary. I fear, however, my efforts in this respect were not altogether successful, for although higher education in Egypt has unquestionably been much improved, the idea that European attainments can best be cultivated in Europe itself has taken so strong a hold both on Egyptian parents and on the Egyptian governing classes, that it is well-nigh impossible to eradicate it.
By far, however, the most interesting and also the most important part of Mr. Harris’ work is that in which he deals with the future of the African possessions of Belgium and Portugal respectively. Even if I had at my disposal all the information necessary to a thorough treatment of these questions, it would not be possible to deal adequately with the grave issues raised by Mr. Harris within the limits of the present introduction. I confine myself, therefore, to a very few observations.
As regards the Congo, if I understand Mr. Harris’ view correctly, the situation, broadly speaking, is somewhat as follows. Reforms have been executed, and a serious effort, the sincerity of which he does not call in question, has been made to rectify abuses for which neither the Belgian Parliament nor the Belgian nation are in any degree responsible. But although abuses have been checked, the main cause from which they originally sprung has not yet been entirely removed. That cause is that the Government, whose functions should be mainly confined to administration, is still largely interested in commercial enterprises. The State has not yet completely divorced itself from the production of rubber for sale in the European markets. Moreover, the old officials, who are tainted with Leopoldian practices, are still employed. Mr. Harris even goes so far ([p. 221]) as to state that their presence acts as a deterrent to the employment of Belgian officials of a higher type.[6] Mr. Harris thinks—and, for my own part, I do not doubt rightly thinks—that so long as this defective system[7] exists, radical reform of the Congo administration will remain incomplete. But radical reform can only be carried out at a very heavy cost, which the Belgian taxpayers, more especially after the assurances which have been given to them, will be unwilling to bear, and possibly incapable of bearing. Mn Harris, therefore, thinks that the Belgian people will be unable to perform the heavy task which, from no fault of their own, has been thrust upon them. “There are reasons,” he says ([p. 298]), “for believing that the extensive Congo territories are too heavy a responsibility for Belgium.”
It is very possible that Mr. Harris’ diagnosis is correct. But what is to be the remedy? The remedy which he suggests is that Germany should take over the greater part of the Belgian and a portion of the French Congo, and ([p. 302]) should concede “an adequate quid pro quo” to France. I will not attempt to discuss fully this suggestion which, to the diplomatic mind, is somewhat startling. I will only say that I very greatly doubt the feasibility of arranging any such “adequate quid pro quo” for France as Mr. Harris seems to contemplate. The British attitude in connection with any transfer of the Congo State from its present rulers to Germany appears to me, however, to be abundantly clear. If any amicable arrangement could be made by which Germany should enter into possession of the Congo, we may regard it, from the point of view of British interests, without the least shadow of disfavour or jealousy, but—and this point appears to me to be essential—it must be of such a nature as will not in any degree impair the very friendly relations which now fortunately exist between our own country and France. The well-being of the Congo State, however deserving of consideration, must be rated second in importance to the steadfast maintenance of an arrangement fraught with the utmost benefit not merely to France and England, but to the world in general.
Failing any such rather heroic measures as those proposed by Mr. Harris, the only alternative would appear to be to rely on Belgian action, and to exercise continuous but steady and very friendly pressure in the direction of crowning the work of the Congo reformers. It would be unjust not to recognize the great difficulties which a series of untoward events has created for Belgium. It may well be that if this course is adopted the progress of reform will be relatively slow, and that in the end it will be less effective than that which would be secured by an immediate and radical change of system. But I rise from a perusal of Mr. Harris’ pages with a feeling that Congo reformers have no cause for despair, albeit their ideals may be impossible of realization in the immediate future.
The case of Portugal is, from the British point of view, if not less difficult, certainly far more simple than that of the Congo. If one-half of what Mr. Harris says is correct—and I see no reason whatever to doubt the accuracy of his facts—two points are abundantly clear. The first is that however it may be disguised by an euphemistic nomenclature, slavery virtually exists in the African possessions of Portugal. The second is that the methods adopted in the repatriation of the slaves are open to very strong and very legitimate criticism. The process of dumping down a number of starving blacks on the coast of the mainland and leaving them to find their own way to their distant homes in Central Africa can scarcely be justified.
Portugal is justly proud of her historical connection with Africa and wishes to retain her African possessions. We may heartily sympathize with this honourable wish. I know of no adequate reasons for supposing that the present political status of those possessions is threatened. But, I venture to think, it would be a mistaken kindness to leave the Portuguese under any delusion on one point. There are some things which no British Government, however powerful otherwise, can undertake to perform. First and foremost amongst those things is the use of the warlike strength of the British Empire to maintain a slave State. In spite of the long-standing friendship between the two countries, in spite of historical associations which are endeared to all Englishmen, and in spite of the apparently unequivocal nature of treaty engagements, it would, I feel assured, be quite impossible, should the African possessions of Portugal be seriously menaced, for British arms to be employed in order to retain them under the uncontrolled possession of Portugal, so long as slavery is permitted. It is earnestly to be hoped that, before any such contingency can arise, the Portuguese Government will have removed the barrier which now exists by totally abolishing a system which is worthy of condemnation alike on economic and on moral grounds.
One further incident in connection with the general question is worthy of notice. Mr. Harris says ([p. 200]) that a small number of the slaves now employed at San Thomé are British subjects. There ought surely to be no great difficulty in dealing with this class. African experts would probably be able to say whether the claim to British nationality was justified or the reverse. If justified, it seems to me that the British Government should send a ship to San Thomé, embark the men, and, after having landed them at the most convenient ports on the mainland, make suitable arrangements for despatching them to their respective homes.
CROMER.
36, Wimpole Street,
October, 1912.