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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.
[Illustration: 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.