Despatch to certain of His Majesty’s Representatives abroad in regard to alleged Cases of Ill-treatment of Natives and to the Existence of Trade Monopolies in the Independent State of the Congo.
The Marquess of Lansdowne to His Majesty’s Representatives at Paris, Berlin, Rome, St. Petersburgh, Vienna, Madrid, Constantinople, Brussels, Lisbon, the Hague, Copenhagen, and Stockholm.
Sir,
Foreign Office, August 8, 1903.
The attention of His Majesty’s Government has during recent years been repeatedly called to alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and to the existence of trade monopolies in the Independent State of the Congo. Representations to this effect are to be found in Memorials from philanthropic Societies, in communications from commercial bodies, in the public press, and in despatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.
The same matters formed the subject of a debate in the House of Commons on the 20th ultimo, when the House passed the Resolution, a copy of which is inclosed.
In the course of the debate, the official record of which is also inclosed, it was alleged that the object of the Administration was not so much the care and government of the natives as the collection of revenue; that this object was pursued by means of a system of forced labour, differing only in name from slavery; that the demands upon each village were exacted with a strictness which constantly degenerated into great cruelty, and that the men composing the armed force of the State were in many cases recruited from the most warlike and savage tribes, who not infrequently terrorized over their own officers and maltreated the natives without regard to discipline or fear of punishment.
As regards the ill-treatment of natives, a distinction may be drawn between isolated acts of cruelty committed by individuals, whether in the service of the State or not, and a system of administration involving and accompanied by systematic cruelty or oppression.
The fact that many individual instances of cruelty have taken place in the Congo State is proved beyond possibility of contradiction by the occurrence of cases in which white officials have been convicted of outrages on natives. These white officials must, however, in view of the vast extent of the territory under their administration, in most cases be of necessity isolated the one from the other, with the result that detection becomes additionally difficult. It is therefore not unfair to assume that the number of convictions falls considerably short of the number of actual offences committed.
It is, however, with regard to the system of administration that the most serious allegations are brought against the Independent State.
It is reported that no efforts are made to fit the native by training for industrial pursuits; that the method of obtaining men for labour or for military service is often but little different from that formerly employed to obtain slaves; and that force is now as much required to take the native to the place of service as it used to be to convey the captured slave. It is also reported that constant compulsion has to be exercised in order to exact the collection of the amount of forest produce allotted to each village as the equivalent of the number of days’ labour due from the inhabitants, and that this compulsion is often exercised by irresponsible native soldiers uncontrolled by any European officer.
His Majesty’s Government do not know precisely to what extent these accusations may be true; but they have been so repeatedly made, and have received such wide credence, that it is no longer possible to ignore them, and the question has now arisen whether the Congo State can be considered to have fulfilled the special pledges, given under the Berlin Act, to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care for their moral and material advancement.
The graver charges against the State relate almost exclusively to the upper valleys of the Congo and of its affluents. The lands forming these vast territories are held either by the State itself or by Companies closely connected with the State, under a system which, whatever its object, has effectually kept out the independent trader, as opposed to the owner or to the occupier of the soil, and has consequently made it difficult to obtain independent testimony.
His Majesty’s Government have further laboured under the disadvantage that British interests have not justified the maintenance of a large Consular staff in the Congo territories. It is true that in 1901 His Majesty’s Government decided to appoint a Consul of wide African experience to reside permanently in the State, but his time has been principally occupied in the investigation of complaints preferred by British subjects, and he has as yet been unable to travel into the interior and to acquire, by personal inspection, knowledge of the condition of the enormous territory forming his district.
His reports on the cases of British subjects, which have formed the basis of representations to the Government of the Independent State, afford, however, examples of grave maladministration and ill-treatment. These cases do not concern natives of the Congo State, and are therefore in themselves alien to the subject of this despatch; but as they occurred in the immediate vicinity of Boma, the seat of the central staff, and in regard to British subjects, most of whom were under formal engagements, they undoubtedly lead to the belief that the natives, who have no one in the position of a Consul to whom they can appeal and have no formal engagements, receive even less consideration at the hands of the officers of the Government.
Moreover, information which has reached His Majesty’s Government from British officers in territory adjacent to that of the State tends to show that, notwithstanding the obligations accepted under Article VI of the Berlin Act, no attempt at any administration of the natives is made, and that the officers of the Government do not apparently concern themselves with such work, but devote all their energy to the collection of revenue. The natives are left entirely to themselves, so far as any assistance in their government or in their affairs is concerned. The Congo stations are shunned, the only natives seen being soldiers, prisoners, and men who are brought in to work. The neighbourhood of stations which are known to have been populous a few years ago is now uninhabited, and emigration on a large scale takes place to the territory of neighbouring States, the natives usually averring that they are driven away from their homes by the tyranny and exaction of the soldiers.
The sentiments which undoubtedly animated the founders of the Congo State and the Representatives of the Powers at Berlin were such as to deserve the cordial sympathy of the British Government, who have been loath to believe either that the beneficent intentions with which the Congo State was constituted, and of which it gave so solemn a pledge at Berlin, have in any way been abandoned, or that every effort has not been made to realize them.
But the fact remains that there is a feeling of grave suspicion, widely prevalent among the people of this country, in regard to the condition of affairs in the Congo State, and there is a deep conviction that the many charges brought against the State’s administration must be founded on a basis of truth.
In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government are of opinion that it is incumbent upon the Powers parties to the Berlin Act to confer together and to consider whether the obligations undertaken by the Congo State in regard to the natives have been fulfilled; and, if not, whether the Signatory Powers are not bound to make such representations as may secure the due observance of the provisions contained in the Act.
As indicated at the beginning of this despatch, His Majesty’s Government also wish to bring to the notice of the Powers the question which has arisen in regard to rights of trade in the basin of the Congo.
Article I of the Berlin Act provides that the trade of all nations shall enjoy complete freedom in the basin of the Congo; and Article V provides that no Power which exercises sovereign rights in the basin shall be allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of trade.
In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, the system of trade now existing in the Independent State of the Congo is not in harmony with these provisions.
With the exception of a relatively small area on the lower Congo, and with the further exception of the small plots actually occupied by the huts and cultivation patches of the natives, the whole territory is claimed as the private property either of the State or of holders of land concessions. Within these regions the State or, as the case may be, the concession-holder alone may trade in the natural produce of the soil. The fruits gathered by the natives are accounted the property of the State, or of the concession-holder, and may not be acquired by others. In such circumstances, His Majesty’s Government are unable to see that there exists the complete freedom of trade or absence of monopoly in trade which is required by the Berlin Act. On the contrary, no one other than the agents of the State or of the concession-holder has the opportunity to enter into trade relations with the natives; or if he does succeed in reaching the natives, he finds that the only material which the natives can give in exchange for his trade goods or his money are claimed as having been the property of the State or of the concession-holder from the moment it was gathered by the native.
His Majesty’s Government in no way deny either that the State has the right to partition the State lands among bonâ fide occupants, or that the natives will, as the land is so divided out among bonâ fide occupiers, lose their right of roaming over it and collecting the natural fruits which it produces. But His Majesty’s Government maintain that until unoccupied land is reduced into individual occupation, and so long as the produce can only be collected by the native, the native should be free to dispose of that produce as he pleases.
In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government consider that the time has come when the Powers parties to the Berlin Act should consider whether the system of trade now prevailing in the Independent State is in harmony with the provisions of the Act; and, in particular, whether the system of making grants of vast areas of territory is permissible under the Act if the effect of such grants is in practice to create a monopoly of trade by excluding all persons other than the concession-holder from trading with the natives in that area. Such a result is inevitable if the grants are made in favour of persons or Companies who cannot themselves use the land or collect its produce, but must depend for obtaining it upon the natives, who are allowed to deal only with the grantees.
His Majesty’s Government will be glad to receive any suggestions which the Governments of the Signatory Powers may be disposed to make in reference to this important question, which might perhaps constitute, wholly or in part, the subject of a reference to the Tribunal at the Hague.
I request that you will read this despatch to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, and leave a copy of it with his Excellency.
I am, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Africa No. 14 (1903).
[2] “Transactions of the Aborigines Protection Society, 1890-1896,” p. 155.
[3] “Transactions of the Aborigines Protection Society, 1890-1896,” p. 155.
[4] See Annex No. 1.
[5] Copies have been sent to the Library of each House of Parliament.
[6] Penal Code, Art. 56 (Decree of the 26th May, 1888, Bulletin Officiel, 1897, p. 31).
[7] Penal Code, Art. 57 (idem, p. 31).
[8] Bulletin Officiel, 1885, p. 31.
[9] Bulletin Officiel, 1887, p. 72.
[10] Bulletin Officiel, 1888, p. 3.
[11] Bulletin Officiel, 1889, p. 218.
[12] See p. 60.
[13] See p. 60.
[14] See p. 64.
[15] See p. 70.
[16] See p. 76.
[17] See p.
[18] See p. 78.
[19] See p. 80.
[20] See p. 81.
[21] September 12. Mr. Whitehead informed me when I passed Lukolela this day, nine of these twenty have died since he wrote the above.—R. C.
[22] Brass rods.
[23] The name of a Military Officer in Command of the troops at that date.
[24] The 62 convictions mentioned occurred between July 1894 and March 1898, not February 1896, as stated in the quotation from an “English publicist.”
[25] Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4.
[26] Rapport, p. 21.
[27] Idem, p. 26.
[28] M. Boudot, missionnaire de la Congo Batolo Mission. “Regions Beyond,” Décembre 1901, p. 337.
[29] W. H. Bentley, “Pioneering on the Congo,” II, p. 229.
[30] Idem, p. 243.
[31] W. H. Bentley, “Pioneering on the Congo,” II, pp. 234-236.
[32] Rapport, p. 29.
[33] Voir Annexe 3.
[34] Rapport, p. 58.
[35] Idem, p. 58.
[36] Idem, p. 56.
[37] Voir Annexe No. 2.
[38] “Regions Beyond,” 1900, p. 198.
[39] “Regions Beyond,” Janvier-Février 1903, p. 53.
[40] Voir Annexe No. 2: “Present, Rev. W. D. Armstrong and Rev. D. J. Danielson, of the Congo Balolo Mission of Bonginda, Vinda Bidiloa (Consul’s Headman) and Bateko, as interpreters, and His Britannic Majesty’s Consul.” Ce passage est omis dans l’Annexe 6 du Rapport du Consul (p. 78).
[41] Rapport, p. 34.
[42] Idem, pp. 76, 77.
[43] Comparez Rapport, pp. 54, 55, et 58.
[44] Rapport, pp. 54, 55.
[45] Idem, p. 56.
[46] Idem, p. 56.
[47] Idem, p. 62.
[48] Idem, p. 57.
[49] “Review of Reviews,” February 14, 1903.
[50] “La Tribuna” de Rome.
[51] Rapport, Annexe 4, p. 77.
[52] Rapport, Annexe 4, p. 30.
[53] Rapport, p. 30.
[54] “Ten Years at Bonginda,” D. McKittrick, “Regions Beyond,” p. 21.
[55] “Congo Contrasts,” Mr. Boudot, “Regions Beyond,” 1900, p. 197.
[56] Rapport, p. 34.
[57] “Regions Beyond,” 1900, p. 150; 1902, p. 209.
[58] Idem, passim.
[59] Idem, 1900, p. 150.
[60] Idem, 1901, p. 27.
[61] Idem, 1900, p. 199.
[62] Idem, 1900, pp. 243, 297, 306.
[63] Idem, 1901, p. 40; 1902, p. 315.
[64] Idem, 1901, p. 40.
[65] Idem, 1900, p. 196.
[66] “Regions Beyond,” 1901, p. 43.
[67] Idem, 1901, p. 60.
[68] Rapport, p. 28.
[69] “Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia,” 1900-1902, p. 408.
[70] “Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia,” 1900-1902, p. 424.
[71] Décret du 6 Octobre, 1891 (“Bulletin Officiel,” 1891, p. 259).
[72] “Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia,” 1900-1902, p. 409.
[73] Idem, p. 410.
[74] Idem, p. 410.
[75] Idem, pp. 145, 146.
[76] Rapport, p. 44.
[77] Annexe 3, p. 26.
[78] “Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia,” 1900-1902, pp. 397 et suivantes.
[79] Rapport, p. 57.
[80] Idem, p. 42.
[81] Idem, p. 43.
[82] La Circulaire du 7 Septembre, 1903, concerne “l’interdiction” d’envoyer des soldats armés sous la conduite des gradés noirs, et non, comme le dit la copie erronée produite par le Consul “l’instruction” (Annexe 7 du Rapport, p. 80).
[83] Report, p. 21.
[84] Idem, p. 26.
[85] M. Boudot, missionary of the Congo Batolo Mission. “Regions Beyond,” December 1901, p. 337.
[86] W. H. Bentley. “Pioneering on the Congo,” II, p. 229.
[87] Idem, p. 243.
[88] “Pioneering on the Congo,” by the Rev. W. Holman Bentley, II, pp. 235-236.
[89] Report, p. 29.
[90] K K in “Africa No. 1 (1904).”
[91] See Annex No. 3.
[92] Report, p. 58.
[93] Idem, p. 58.
[94] Idem, p. 56.
[95] See Annex No. 2 (really Inclosure 6 in No. 3).
[96] “Regions Beyond,” 1900, p. 198.
[97] Idem, January-February, 1903, p. 53.
[98] See Annex No. 2. “Present: Rev. W. D. Armstrong and Rev. D. J. Danielson of the Congo Balolo Mission of Bonginda, Vinda Bidilou (Consul’s headman) and Bateko as interpreters, and His Britannic Majesty’s Consul.” This passage is omitted in Annex No. 6 of the Consul’s Report (p. 78).
[99] Report, p. 34.
[100] Idem, pp. 76 and 77.
[101] Cf. Report, pp. 54 and 55 and p. 58.
[102] Report, pp. 54, 55.
[103] Idem, p. 56.
[104] Idem, p. 56.
[105] Idem, p. 62.
[106] Idem, p. 57.
[107] “Review of Reviews,” February 14, 1903.
[108] The “Tribuna” of Rome.
[109] Report. Annex No. 4, p. 77.
[110] Idem, p. 30.
[111] Idem, p. 30.
[112] “Ten Years at Bonginda.” D. McKittrick. “Regions Beyond,” 1900, p. 21.
[113] “Congo Contrasts.” Mr. Boudot. “Regions Beyond,” 1900, p. 197.
[114] Report, p. 34.
[115] “Regions Beyond,” 1900, p. 150; 1902, p. 209.
[116] Idem, passim.
[117] Idem, 1900, p. 150.
[118] Idem, 1901, p. 27.
[119] Idem, 1900, p. 199.
[120] Idem, 1900, pp. 243, 297, 306.
[121] Idem, 1901, p. 40; 1902, p. 315.
[122] Idem, 1901, p. 40.
[123] Idem, 1900, p. 196.
[124] Idem, 1901, p. 43.
[125] Idem, 1901, p. 60.
[126] Report, p. 28.
[127] Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia, 1900-1902, p. 408.
[128] Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia, 1900-1902, p. 408.
[129] Decree of the 6th October, 1891 (“Bulletin Officiel,” 1891, p. 259).
[130] Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia, 1900-1902, p. 409.
[131] Idem, p. 410.
[132] Idem, p. 410.
[133] Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia, 1900-1902, pp. 145, 146.
[134] Report, p. 44.
[135] Annex III, p. 26.
[136] Reports on the Administration of Rhodesia, 1900-1902, pp. 397, &c.
[137] Report, p. 57.
[138] Idem, p. 42.
[139] Report, p. 43.
[140] The Circular of the 7th September, 1903, has reference to the “prohibition” to dispatch armed soldiers in charge of black non-commissioned officers, and not, as would appear from the incorrect copy produced by the Consul, to the “instruction.” (Annex VII of the Report, p. 80).
[141] Passage omis dans le texte de ces notes, tel qu’il se trouve reproduit à l’Annexe 6 du Rapport du Consul.
[142] Passage omis dans le texte annexé au Rapport.
[143] Les déclarations suivantes sont omises dans le texte annexé au Rapport.
[144] Numéro d’ordre du procès-verbal.
[145] Nom du Chef reconnu.
[146] Nom du village ou des villages sous la dépendance du Chef.
[147] Région sur laquelle il exerce son autorité.—Mentionner si l’investiture lui a été donnée pour toute la région.
[148] Nom du Chef auquel il peut être soumis.
[149] Article 9 du Décret du 10 Mars, 1892 (“Bulletin Officiel” de 1892, p. 14):—
“Quiconque commettra ou laissera commettre par des subordonnés, des infractions au présent Décret, ainsi qu’aux Arrêtés et Règlements d’exécution, sera puni de 100 à 1,000 fr. d’amende et de servitude pénale n’excédant pas une année, ou de l’une de ces peines seulement. La peine de servitude pénale sera toujours prononcée, et elle pourra être portée à cinq ans lorsque le délinquant se sera livré au trafic des armes à feu ou de leurs munitions dans les régions où sévit la Traite.
“Dans les cas prévus ci-dessus, les armes, la poudre, les balles, et cartouches sont confisquées.”
[150] See Circular of Governor-General of 29th March, 1901, printed as an Appendix to Mr. Casement’s Report in “Africa No. 1 (1904),” p. 81.