The leading article in the Times (London) of the same day described the Congo State’s reply as “weak, inconclusive, and confused.” While Lord Lansdowne’s note had been published in its entirety, the longer reply on behalf of the Congo Free State was accorded scant space in the British press.
From Black and White (London), November 21, 1903:
To pile Pelion on Ossa in the way of accusation only to encounter a rebuff by being non-suited, scarcely recommends itself to the judgment as a course either dignified or statesmanlike. Yet in the present instance the fact that the English Note remains without a single answer from the twelve States to whom it was addressed three months after it was despatched, shows beyond question the trend of Continental opinion.
In the Standard (London) of October 24, 1903, the following utterance would imply a threat:
The Belgian Administration objects to submitting questions of internal government to arbitration, but it would do well to remember that there is an alternative of a still more unpleasant character.
On September 19th the Morning Advertiser (London) has the following to say by way of insight into British desires in Congoland:
Nearly twenty years have passed since a great Englishman came through the Dark Continent and down the Congo, and it has always seemed a strange thing to other Englishmen that the great river of Central Africa should have remained ever since under the domination of the smallest country in Europe.
The general tone of the British press was in support of Lord Lansdowne’s Note, and intolerant of the Congo State’s reply. On the Continent, the weight of opinion favourably acknowledged the force of the Congo State’s reply. In France, Germany, Austria, and Italy certain British journals were severely criticised for suppressing the publication of all evidence favourable to Belgian rule in Congoland, for dignifying the fulminations of E. D. Morel, the penman of the merchants and shippers of Liverpool, the self-appointed coroner of the Congo, sitting in judgment upon the disjecta membra which he so luridly and so falsely portrays in the books which the anti-Congo campaign incidentally serves to advertise. Brief quotations from the arguments of M. Étienne, the French Deputy, have been set forth in a previous chapter. Criticising the London Times for its partisanship, the Dépêche Coloniale of October 16, 1903 stated editorially:
... We invite the great journal [London Times] of the city to cease this chicanery which might discourage men whose task in Africa demands the co-operation of every one. In this task, in its success, we are all interested, and the fact of having opened to commerce the immense territory of the Congo should of itself spare Belgium the bitterness of misdirected criticism.
In La Liberté (Paris) the editor, referring to the Congo State’s reply, says: