WITH reference to my despatch of the 19th April, I transmit to you, for communication to the Congo Government, a Memorandum on the remaining points in the “Notes” handed to you on the 13th March which would appear to His Majesty’s Government to call for observation.
I request you, in presenting this Memorandum, to take the opportunity of stating that His Majesty’s Government much regret that, in M. de Cuvelier’s Memorandum of the 14th May, a more definite reply is not returned to the inquiries which they deemed it necessary to make before considering whether they could furnish the full text of Mr. Casement’s Report. My despatch explained that the names in the Report had been suppressed, not from any want of confidence in the Central Government of the Congo State, but from apprehension that the information, if made generally public, would place it in the power of persons charged with abuses to procure the suppression or repudiation of evidence, or to punish those who had given it. His Majesty’s Government asked, therefore, whether the Congo Government would accept full responsibility for the use which would be made of the information, and would communicate the measures they were prepared to adopt and enforce in order to protect the witnesses who gave evidence to Mr. Casement from the possibility of exposure to acts of intimidation or retaliation. It was clearly incumbent upon His Majesty’s Government to provide as far as possible for the safety of those at any rate whose statements to a British officer were made with no knowledge that they would be cited by name as responsible for charges upon which public proceedings would be based. They entertained therefore no doubt that the Congo Government would appreciate their motives, and would willingly undertake, in furtherance of the object which both Governments have in view, to meet, so far as lay in their power, the requirements of the case. The Memorandum handed to you by M. de Cuvelier, after dwelling upon the necessity of full information for the purpose of investigation, merely declares that the Government of the Congo are ready to give an assurance that proceedings will be taken against all who attempt to suborn witnesses, but that they cannot prejudice or prevent legal measures instituted in defence of their honour or reputation by those who may have been falsely accused.
His Majesty’s Government cannot accept as adequate or satisfactory an answer which implies that the information which they are asked to supply will be accessible to the very persons whose conduct has been impugned, before any measures have been taken to shield the witnesses from the exercise of improper pressure. They have, of course, never entertained the idea that the Congo Government would connive at any such malpractice as the subornation of witnesses. They have not asked, and have never intended to suggest, that legal remedies should be denied to those against whom unfounded accusations have been publicly brought, nor do they desire that those, if any, who have given such false evidence should be shielded from the proper legal penalty for their offence. What they require is that the Congo Government, in accordance with the recognized principles of civilized administration, will take every means to secure that the witnesses, if their names should be divulged, will suffer no harm in their property or persons from the unlawful violence of those to whose desire for revenge they may be exposed. No argument can be entertained to the effect that acts of violence are improbable or impossible under a system such as that revealed by the Judgment pronounced by the Court of Appeal at Boma in the Caudron Case, and His Majesty’s Government earnestly trust that the Congo Government will recognize the immense service that will be rendered both to the cause of humanity and to the credit of their own officers by promoting unreservedly a full and public investigation by a Tribunal of recognized competence and impartiality into the charges made against their agents and against their system of administration.
There is another point to which His Majesty’s Government must call attention. The inquiry promised in the “Notes” is, no doubt, intended to be of a searching and impartial character, and His Majesty’s Government hoped that they would before now have received some indication of the measures designed to carry out this intention. In the peculiar circumstances which have arisen, strict impartiality will hardly be attributed to an investigation conducted as in the Epondo case solely by the officers of the State or by the agents of the Concessionary Companies, nor will the result carry conviction to the degree which seems essential. The matter is one which must be left to the decision of the Congo Government, and it is only because, in the judgment of His Majesty’s Government, the whole question at issue turns in a great measure upon the position and character of those charged with the inquiry that they feel justified in mentioning the point, and in suggesting that a Special Commission should be appointed, composed of Members of well-established reputation, and in part, at least, of persons unconnected with the Congo State, to whom the fullest powers should be intrusted both as regards the collection of evidence and the measures for the protection of witnesses. Were a Commission of this character appointed His Majesty’s Government would be prepared to place at the disposal of the Members, for their own use and guidance, all the information they possess respecting the position of affairs in the Congo, and would give them every assistance, in the confident belief that an independent Commission such as they have suggested would elicit the truth, and effect in a manner commanding general acceptance a settlement of the existing controversy.
You will read this despatch to M. de Cuvelier and give a copy of it to his Excellency. Copies of the despatch and of the inclosed Memorandum will also be forwarded to the Powers who were Parties to the Berlin Act.
I am, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.
Inclosure in No. 5.
Memorandum.
THE first portion of the “Notes” refers to the desire expressed by the Congo Government for the production of the previous Reports of His Majesty’s Consuls alluded to in the Circular of His Majesty’s Government of the 8th August last. This matter has already been dealt with in the despatch addressed to Sir C. Phipps on the 19th of April.
The next point in the “Notes” is the statement made by Mr. Casement that the population has decreased in certain districts; doubt is expressed as to how, in the course of his rapid visits, he was able to arrive at the figures which he gives, and attention is drawn to alleged discrepancies in those figures. With regard to Mr. Casement’s ability to form an opinion on the subject, it is to be observed that the means at his disposal for doing so were neither greater nor less than those of Mgr. van Ronslé, viz., personal knowledge of what the population had been in former years and what it appeared to him to be at the date of his last visit. The alleged discrepancy in his figures consists in the fact that, having estimated the population of the entire community of the F line of villages at 500, a few lines further on he estimates that of “the several villages whose task it is to keep the wood post victualled” at 240. The explanation is to be found in the fact that in the first instance Mr. Casement alluded to all the villages comprising the Settlement, whereas in the second he referred only to the inhabitants of that portion of the Settlement whose business it was to supply food for the neighbouring wood-cutting post.