THE CONGO CAMPAIGN IN ENGLAND
[Sidenote: Some English Traits.]
THE English are an admirable people, who have excelled in every
department of human effort; but the evidence of the more critical
among them, with whom love of fair play counts for as much as pride
of race, has never failed to reveal in the national character (as
of course in the character of every nation) a goodly number of weak
spots whereat the critic and the wit may profitably direct their
shafts. John Bull, the trader, is a keen-eyed, hard-headed bargainer.
Good; it behoves every merchant to be no less. He regards the whole
world as his farm by right divine, and resents his exclusion from any
part of it. When his remonstrance is met by counter-remonstrance, he
points to his home markets and his colonies, and emphasises the fact
that these British markets are open (long after his own trade has
been firmly established therein) to the traders of the world.
[Illustration: A Beautiful Spot in Mayumbe.]
But it is in his ultra-sentimental mood that John Bull is seen at
his worst. Has there been a conflict between some semi-barbarous
tribes in that seething cauldron of discontent, the Balkans, and
the Sultan’s troops have thrashed them indiscriminately and
dispersed them, John Bull, or at least that part of him which wears
white ties and is described as “reverend,” rushes off to Exeter
Hall and demands the prayers of the churches and the forces of his
Government for the suppression of the inhuman atrocities which he
denounces. (Incidentally, but in unmistakable terms, he at the same
time calls the attention of his audience to the joyful fact that it
is their duty and privilege to assist in this good work by giving
liberally of their money.) Of course it is but a section of the
English people which approves and supports this sort of thing, and a
still smaller section that exploits it. But in a country politically
constituted as England is, where the suffrage is almost universal, it
is sufficiently large and influential to influence from time to time
the conduct of the British Government. This is more particularly the
case where the interests of the pseudo-humanitarians and those of the
traders happen to coincide. On such occasions, fortunately somewhat
rare, the spectacle of Cant and Commerce in alliance is enough to
bring a smile to the face of a sphinx.
[Sidenote: A Strange Alliance.]
Protestant missionaries of various sects, in rivalry with each other,
but often alike in being envious of the superior results obtained by
Roman Catholic missionaries in the Congo Free State, denounce the
Congo Government as a gang of barbarous extortioners, oppressors,
murderers. A small but active set of Liverpool merchants, dismayed at
finding that what twenty years ago they regarded as worthless has,
under judicious Belgian administration, become a valuable asset, and
some of whom appear willing to resort to any means by which they may
at least be enabled to share the prize, join their forces to those
of the missionaries. Lies fall as thickly as leaves in Vallombrosa.
No sooner is one mendacious story refuted than ten others take its
place. The Congo campaign multiplies its adherents, it gathers force
daily, its voice becomes more and more thunderous, until at last it
invades the British House of Commons and moves a British minister to
write a puerile dispatch to the Great Powers, which the Great Powers,
in the exercise of their common-sense, politely ignore. Only up to a
certain point does Baron Münchausen triumph. _Verb. sap._
[Sidenote: Why is John Bull Silent?]
What magnificent material for the mouthings of certain English
ultra-humanitarians would be the lynching of Negroes in our own
Southern States! The jail-breakings, the hangings, shootings, and
burnings—could more effective subjects for stereopticon slides and
the perfervid oratory of paid lecturers be devised? And all true and
ready to hand, needing neither lies nor distortions! Alas! nothing
can be made out of that campaign. It will not pay to call our country
to account for its neglect or failure to suppress these things. The
United States own a fleet which, if not as strong as it should be, is
sufficiently powerful to inspire respect; and our President can at
any time call up an army of a million citizen soldiers, volunteers
of proved valour. With the Congo Free State this is not the case.
Caution was ever a prominent characteristic of John Bull, and he
has carefully noted that fact. Neutral little Belgium may safely
be bullied, her King libelled, and his enterprise misrepresented
and held up to the scorn of an undiscriminating world, too busy
to undertake a careful analysis of motives or even to distinguish
between the true and the false.
Judicial consideration of the English campaign against the Congo,
naturally a difficult task, is rendered doubly so by the general
suppression of material evidence favourable to that State. From
motives best known to their proprietors, one or two important London
newspapers, ever ready to afford space for an attack upon the Congo
Government, however violent or by whomsoever made, frequently decline
to publish replies thereto. Indeed, the more complete the refutation,
and the greater the authority of the writer, the less chance of
its acceptance for publication in these newspapers. Upon several
occasions has Major Harrison been refused space for his temperate
letters to the _Morning Post_, and the _Daily News_, the principal
support of the Aborigines Protection Society, is avowedly against
the continued existence of the Congo Free State. A complete answer
to Mr. Roger Casement’s Report, prepared by the Congo Government,
was unanimously rejected by London editors. This most unjust
partisanship extends even to English press reports of proceedings
in the House of Commons, of which one might reasonably expect to
find in English journals a complete record; or where the exigencies
of space necessitate condensation, that at least that editorial
operation should be performed without bias. That expectation meets
with disappointment.
On June 9, 1904, Sir Charles Dilke, with a fine show of virtue which
has not always characterised his conduct, delivered a speech in the
House of Commons wherein he assumes the truth of the various libels
upon the Congo Government prepared by missionaries, merchants, and
dismissed employees. That speech, and the speeches of such other
members of the British House of Commons as for various reasons have
been induced to follow a similar course, have been reported _in
extenso_, while the speech of Mr. John Campbell, member for South
Armagh, has not so much as been referred to. Mr. Campbell derided
the Congophobes’ plea that they have at heart only the interests of
humanity.
The gold [he remarked] of that fine phrase is alloyed with other
arguments. Commercial considerations have also their weight. Some
speakers began by talking of humanity and ended with commerce.
Others began with commerce and ended with humanity. One honourable
member had thrown overboard the humanitarian theme and flatly
talked business. But, in spite of all the ornamental flowers of
philanthropy, the groundwork of all these speeches is—commerce. The
true motive which prompts the Anti-Congo campaign, conducted with
such vigour in this country and within these walls, was exposed in
a few words by Stanley when he said: “_The sentiment that inspires
the charges against the Congo is jealousy. The Congo is succeeding
better than any other State in Africa._”
One would suppose that sentiments such as these, supported by the
authority of Stanley, would at least be as worthy of a few lines in
an English newspaper as the vague charges of cruelty alleged by
some missionaries based upon what they have been told that somebody
else has heard, etc. But, no! such references are rigidly suppressed
in a large section of the English press, just as much of Mr.
Casement’s Report that is favourable to the Congo Government has been
suppressed.[44]
[Illustration: Interior of Cathedral, Baudouinville (Tanganyika).]
[Illustration: Sisters of New Antwerp Teaching Natives to Weave.]
Just as this book is going to press particulars come to hand of an
incident which throws a strong light upon, the methods adopted by the
enemies of the Congo Free State in manufacturing evidence against it.
The paid officers of the Congo Reform Association in Liverpool, the
Aborigines’ Protection Society, and kindred organisations, must find
it increasingly difficult to justify their existence when tactics
such as are here exposed have to be resorted to.[45]
[Sidenote: A Typical Congophobe Method.]
In 1902, on the recommendation of a high official of the Free State,
Mr. Antoine Benedetti, a cultured gentleman belonging to an ancient
and wealthy family in Sicily, was appointed chief commissary—a post
which had never before been conferred on a foreigner on account of
its special responsibilities. This rapid promotion shows in what
esteem Mr. Benedetti was held by his chiefs.
Mr. Benedetti returned to Europe on November 7, 1904, and when
requested to give his chiefs some information on the existing
situation in the Congo, related circumstances which might well be
considered fit for a novel, if their accuracy were not vouched for by
authentic documents.
While at Boma, Mr. Benedetti noticed that a Negro named Shanu, a
British subject from Lagos, was trying to discover his opinions
on Congo policy and administration. Shanu having been at one time
in the employ of the State, Mr. Benedetti suspected nothing; but
in the course of conversation with the Negro, he perceived what
Shanu wanted to get from him. Shanu boasted to Mr. Benedetti of the
humanitarian character of the English campaign against the Congo, and
he further hinted that, if he were correctly informed, Mr. Benedetti
would surely join in the said campaign, a course which would be of
great advantage to him. Mr. Benedetti pretended to share the views
of Shanu, who thereupon pushed the matter home by producing some
letters of Mr. Edmund Deville Morel, Secretary of the Congo Reform
Association.
In one of these letters, Mr. Morel informs Shanu that Mr. Benedetti,
commissary at Boma, has been spoken of to him as one who would be
a valuable acquisition in the English campaign against the Congo.
Mr. Benedetti at once saw what was expected of him; he realised
that efforts were being made to enlist in the anti-Congo campaign
the numerous Italians in the service of the Free State; and, with
the sole desire of protecting the honour of his fellow-countrymen
in the Congo, he resolved to defeat Mr. Morel’s plans. With a view
of gaining Shanu’s confidence, he declared himself to be on the
Negro’s side, and by so doing compromised himself in the eyes of his
official colleagues. He told Shanu—who lost no time in informing
Mr. Morel—that by virtue of his position, he was able to make some
startling revelations. Shanu thereupon suggested that he should
send in his resignation, giving as the reason certain compromising
allegations against the Free State. Shanu then wrote to Mr. Morel to
the effect that he and Mr. Benedetti agreed that the latter was just
the man to lead the campaign against the Congo. On the receipt of Mr.
Morel’s reply, the departure of Mr. Benedetti was decided upon.
Mr. Benedetti was promised his passage money to Europe, as well as
compensation for the loss of his place under the Free State, and,
later, a handsome bonus. Mr. Morel requested Mr. Benedetti to meet
him at the Exchange Station Hotel, Liverpool, on the 19th November,
and to announce his arrival by the following telegram:
“Morel care Jellani arrived Benedetti.”
Under these circumstances, Mr. Benedetti sent in his resignation,
alleging that private business called him to Europe. He left by the
SS. _Philippeville_, and the British Consul at Boma gave him ten
pounds sterling for his travelling expenses. The receipt for this sum
was made out by Mr. Benedetti in the name of Shanu.
Up to the time of his departure, Mr. Benedetti had discharged his
duties so well that he was congratulated by the local authorities.
Having spoken to nobody about the course he was adopting, so little
was his sudden departure understood that his colleagues were
mystified. He could not, of course, enlighten them without showing
his hand. Mr. Benedetti landed at Antwerp on November 7th, and on the
17th arrived at Liverpool, having previously despatched to Mr. Morel
the telegram agreed upon. After some delay Mr. Morel went to see Mr.
Benedetti at the Exchange Station Hotel in that city.
Mr. Morel appeared somewhat distrustful, and asked Mr. Benedetti if
he had authenticating documents. The latter produced some unimportant
papers, which he pretended were valuable, and told the Secretary of
the Congo Reform Association some sensational stories of absolutely
imaginary crimes. In short, Mr. Benedetti played his game so well
that Mr. Morel no longer hesitated to close the affair, but said he
would introduce to him a gentleman who was greatly interested in the
Congo.
In response to a telephonic message from Mr. Morel there arrived
Mr. John Holt, a merchant, of Dale Street, Liverpool. Mr. Holt is
Vice-President of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce and a member
of the Congo Reform Association. Mr. Morel told Mr. Holt what Mr.
Benedetti had said, and then certain practical questions were
discussed. It was agreed that Mr. Benedetti should relate in the
_West African Mail_ the stories that he had just invented; but Mr.
Benedetti, wishing to gain time, stated that he would rather publish
them first in Italy, after which the organ of the Congo Reform
Association might reproduce them. It was decided also to issue a
pamphlet, for which Mr. Benedetti was to receive eighty pounds.
Some generous promises were made to Mr. Benedetti: five hundred
pounds as damages and his fare paid to Teneriffe by the Congo Reform
Association. At Teneriffe, it was agreed, he should seek to poison
the minds of Italian officers returning from the Congo. Later, Mr.
Holt was to go to Italy where, together with Mr. Benedetti, he was
to subsidise a newspaper to attack the Congo, and if this newspaper
war resulted in the King of Italy recalling Italian officers serving
in the Congo, Mr. Benedetti was to receive a further sum of four
thousand pounds.
The former commissary of Boma would not accept verbal promises; he
requested a document. He demanded first of all a contract for the
publication of the pamphlet. Mr. Benedetti invited Mr. Morel and Mr.
Holt to dinner, and it was during this dinner on the 19th of November
that the clauses of the contract were discussed. Conversation was
carried on to a late hour and Mr. Holt, in an unguarded moment,
remarked that in England everything was done by and for the sake of
business, and that sentiment was obliged to give way to trade. The
signing of the contract was fixed for eleven o’clock on the morning
of the 21st of November, 1904, when the three gentlemen concerned
attended and the following document was drawn up and signed. The text
is in English and French:
Between Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Morel it is agreed as follows:—Mr.
Benedetti agrees to publish in a special pamphlet all the
statements that he made and proved by means of documents on the
evening of the 19th of November at the Exchange Station Hotel, in
the presence of Mr. Morel and Mr. Holt, as well as various other
facts the evidence of which is in his possession in Italy.
Mr. Benedetti shall first submit to Mr. Morel, before the 5th of
December, a rough copy of his pamphlet in English and Italian. Upon
this rough copy Mr. Morel reserves the right to make corrections,
and to send these corrections to Mr. Benedetti by the 9th of
December, unless prevented by _force majeure_.
As soon as the pamphlet has been approved by Mr. Morel, Mr.
Benedetti shall send to Mr. Morel a corrected copy (if corrections
have been made) in English and Italian, as well as a copy of the
original documents in his possession, certified by the British
Consul on the original text.
Mr. Benedetti undertakes to be ready to publish all by 22nd
December, or by such date as Mr. Morel shall telegraph to him.
In any case, Mr. Benedetti will not publish all or any part of the
pamphlet without previous understanding with Mr. Morel as to the
date.
Mr. Benedetti undertakes to place at Mr. Morel’s disposal, after
the publication of the pamphlet, all original papers referred to
in the said pamphlet, and Mr. Morel undertakes to return them, if
required.
Mr. Morel deposits a thousand francs for Mr. Benedetti’s travelling
expenses from Boma.
Mr. Morel undertakes to pay Mr. Benedetti the sum of two thousand
francs, which sum represents the loss to Mr. Benedetti of his
situation in the Congo State, owing to the publication of
statements made in the said pamphlet, as soon as he receives from
Mr. Benedetti notice that the pamphlet has been published in Italy,
and a copy of the pamphlet.
Mr. Morel undertakes to pay the expenses incurred in publishing
the pamphlet in Italy up to the sum of five hundred francs. Mr.
Benedetti undertakes to send two hundred copies of the pamphlet to
Mr. Morel.
It is understood on both sides that the above entirely covers all
relations between Mr. Benedetti and Mr. Morel.
Mr. Morel undertakes to obtain from Mr. Shanu, of Boma, the receipt
for the two hundred and fifty francs handed by Mr. Benedetti to Mr.
Shanu, and to deduct the sum from the two thousand francs above
mentioned.
Signed the 21st November, 1904, at Liverpool Exchange Station Hotel.
E. D. MOREL.
A. BENEDETTI.
Witness to signatures of A. Benedetti and E. D. Morel:
JOHN HOLT,
merchant,
81 Dale Street,
Liverpool.
It is not without interest to call attention to the final clause,
concerning the receipt for the 250 francs which Mr. Benedetti had
given to Shanu, as a guarantee of the £10 which the British Consul at
Boma had given him before his departure.
[Illustration: Building a Bridge for the Cataracts Railroad, 1897.]
As to the clause concerning the thousand francs which Mr. Morel
undertook to pay Benedetti for his travelling expenses from Boma, it
came about through the fact that his departure from Boma was not in
accord with the regulations. As his engagement was not terminated,
the question of his being sent home at the expense of the Congo Free
State was not settled. Mr. Holt took from his pocket a roll of Bank
of England notes and paid Mr. Benedetti £40.
As soon as he was in possession of this contract, Mr. Benedetti
returned to Brussels, whence he sent Mr. Morel the following letter:
BRUSSELS, 30th November, 1904.
Mr. E. D. MOREL, Liverpool,
I have the pleasure of remitting herewith to you a cheque on the
South Wales Bank, Limited, No. 109,880, to the order of Mr. John
Holt, merchant, Dale Street, Liverpool, for £40, which this latter
gave me in the Exchange Station Hotel, Liverpool, on the 21st of
this month.
I will also send you a sum of £10 in exchange for the receipt of
Shanu, which you promised to procure for me.
You made a mistake, Sir, when you thought I would play into your
hands in your campaign against the Congo, and thus do grievous harm
to my countrymen working in the Congo.
Believe me, my conduct, from my first interview with Shanu, when
acting for you, till my telegram from Paris on the 28th of this
month, was dictated by a sentiment of duty and patriotism.
A. BENEDETTI.
The telegram to which Mr. Benedetti alludes was addressed to Mr.
Morel from Paris, and was to call his attention to an article in
the _Tribuna_ favourable to the Congo, and to ask him for arguments
in answer to this article for publication in an Italian paper. Mr.
Morel replied that he had not had time to get the _Tribuna_ article
translated.
This edifying incident needs no comment. When the denial of its
genuineness, or a qualification of its meaning and purpose, comes, it
is understood that the Congo Administration will publish a facsimile
of Mr. Morel’s contract with Mr. Benedetti, bearing his signature
and the signature of Mr. John Holt, merchant-philanthropist,
Vice-President of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, etc., in order
that intelligent people may form their own conclusions upon it at
first hand.
Mr. Morel writes to the London _Times_ of December 19, 1904,
defending the part he has played in this Benedetti incident.
“You persist,” says Mr. Morel (addressing M. Roland de Marès),
“to make readers believe that I proposed to pay M. Benedetti for
false testimony, whereas my _rôle_ was limited to giving him the
opportunity he asked for (that is to say, to come to Europe and to
publish under his own name, in the interests of truth and of his
fellow-countrymen), by defraying the expenses of his journey and the
positive pecuniary losses which his action would involve, and by
participating in the printing expenses of his pamphlet.”
FOOTNOTES:
[44] The following letter, addressed to the Secretary of the Congo
Reform Association, Liverpool, on December 8, 1904, by the editor
of the _Catholic Herald_ (London), indicates that certain British
journals are sincerely seeking to expose the truth concerning the
Congo and the motives underlying the campaign against the Free
State in England. The writer of the letter is the publisher of the
thirty-odd leading Catholic papers in the United Kingdom. As a
Member of Parliament, and as an editor, his attitude towards public
questions has always been conscientious and fearless.
“SIR,—The following matters so intimately concern your veracity,
and, therefore, deeply concern the public, in connection with your
anti-Congo campaign and your Congo Reform Society, that I draw your
attention to the fact that this letter will be printed in full
in the _Catholic Herald_ of next week, and will also be sent out
broadcast to the newspapers of this country, so that you may have
a full opportunity of defending yourself from the most serious
charges made therein.
“On the 24th of November last, in defending an abusive attack
made by the London _Daily News_ on the Belgian people, in which
it referred to them as ‘barbarians,’ you made a statement to the
effect that fifteen Congo officials were then in prison at Boma for
the grossest outrages upon natives, and that ten more were awaiting
their trial.
“In reply to a communication sent to a member of the Belgian House
of Representatives, a statement is made by the Belgian authorities,
that only two officials are in prison in Boma. This statement
was forwarded to the _Daily News_, which has lent itself to the
disgraceful and lying campaign against the Congo, but, although the
editor has been several times requested to publish it, he has up
till now declined to do so.
“I, therefore, draw your attention to this emphatic contradiction
of your story, and, having every confidence in the honesty and
truthfulness of the statement made by responsible gentlemen in
Brussels, state that your assertion can only be treated as a gross
invention, quite on a par with the other methods of your anti-Congo
campaign.
“But this is not the most serious matter. On the following point,
I charge you with putting forward a statement in the _Daily News_,
with reference to the Congo Reform Society, which you knew to be
untrue, for the purpose of deceiving and misleading the public
of this country. It was stated in a letter which appeared in
the _Daily News_ on November 25th, that Liverpool shippers and
merchants were aiding the Congo Reform Society, and financing it.
On the 29th November a letter appeared from you in the _Daily
News_, in which you denied this, and called upon the writer to
offer an apology for his statement. You proceeded to assert that
you had enclosed (for the private information of the Editor of
the _Daily News_) a list of the subscribers to the Congo Reform
Society, and the editor supported your statement by the assertion
that ‘the list of donors and subscribers supplied does not contain
the names of any British merchants or shippers.’
“The clear purport of your letter was to make it out that there was
no co-operation between the Liverpool shippers and merchants and
this so-called Reform Society, which is nothing more or less than a
bogus name adopted to cover the campaign of falsehood and calumny
which you and your friends have entered upon.
“On November 30th the following statement was published in the
_Daily News_ in answer to your denial:—‘With reference to the
Liverpool merchants I have not seen the “private list” that he (Mr.
Morel) forwards to you. I cannot tell whether it contains the names
of all the subscribers to the Congo Reform Society, but I cannot
accept the denial of the secretary with reference to the Liverpool
merchants, in view of the candid admission of Mr. Fox Bourne that
some of the merchants in Liverpool are working with the Society,
and his further admission that they had helped to finance it. I
believe Mr. Fox Bourne’s statement, and if an apology is required
for perversion of the facts, the secretary of the Congo Reform
Society must make that apology.’
“To that emphatic disproval of your statement, you have up till
now made no reply. In fact you cannot deny Mr. Fox Bourne’s honest
admission, which has already appeared in our columns, and of which
evidently you were entirely ignorant at the time you attempted to
throw dust into the eyes of the readers of the _Daily News_ by your
untruthful denial.
“Now, one of two things: either you are in a position to free
yourself from this charge of deception and untruthful statement put
forward for the purpose of deceiving the public, or you are not.
If you are in a position to do so, come forward immediately, in
the interests of the Congo Reform Society, and of yourself as its
secretary. If you are not in a position to disprove this statement
and to substantiate your words, you stand convicted of flagrant
deception and falsehood on a most important public matter, and
the people of this country will know how to judge a person, or
a society, which descends to such methods for the purpose of
bolstering up selfish and disgraceful designs.
“At the very moment that you were writing this denial in the
columns of the _Daily News_, you were in treaty with a former
Congo official, and bribing him for the purpose of giving evidence
against the Congo State, and as a witness to the document that
passed between you, you called in Mr. John Holt, merchant, 81, Dale
Street, Liverpool, who was associated with you in this attempt
to purchase testimony, and who actually paid, at the Exchange
Hotel, Liverpool, on the 21st November last, a sum of £40 to Mr.
Benedetti, the Congo ex-official referred to, and yet you have the
impudence and the hardihood to assert that the Liverpool shippers
and Liverpool merchants are not associated with the Congo Reform
Society!
“Nor are these all the inventions, perversions, and
misrepresentations which can be proved against you in connection
with this movement.
“The book that you have just written and published is packed with
such lies and suppressions of truth. You print a travesty of the
case of the man Stokes, who was executed in the Congo, and you say
that the charge against him was ‘of trading with natives,’ whereas,
as a matter of fact, he was proved to have supplied the cruel and
barbarous Arab slave raiders of the Congo, who have been put down
by the Congo Government, with guns and ammunition for the purpose
of carrying on their nefarious work.
“These slave raiders evidently receive your warm sympathy, and the
man Stokes, who helped them to carry on their trade, is held up by
you as a martyr! Yet you dare to appear before the people of this
country as a friend of the natives of the Congo, and your present
campaign is ostensibly carried on for the amelioration of their
condition!
“Again, you have ventured to make a most infamous charge against
Catholic missionaries in the Congo. In a letter to the _Times_
you said that ‘they dared not state in public what they have said
in private.’ In other words, you accuse them of double dealing of
the basest character, like Mr. Fox Bourne, who says, ‘they offer
religion to the natives only as a bribe, or to terrorise them into
further enslavement.’
“You have never produced a single iota of evidence in support of
this statement against the Catholic missionaries, who are doing
such splendid work in the Congo territory. We characterise the
statement as a gross and palpable invention, but, in that respect,
it has only been on a par with the general policy of yourself and
the so-called ‘Congo Reform Society’ in connection with these
matters. “It has also been asserted by the secretary of the
Aborigines’ Protection Society—which has been mainly responsible,
with yourself and the Liverpool shippers and merchants, for working
up this campaign of calumny—that the clerical party in Belgium
is supporting the King in his Congo policy, irrespective of any
atrocities that may be committed, because the King has agreed
to support them in Belgium. This is not only a libel on Belgian
Catholics and the Belgian people—who have been insolently referred
to by the _Daily News_ as ‘barbarians’—but is amply disproved
by the fact that the most recent exposure of your tactics, and
the tactics of your society, has been made in the columns of the
well-known anti-clerical paper, _The Independance Belge_, of
Brussels, which has published the disclosures with reference to
your bribing of a Congo official to secure evidence from him, and
has amply exposed, on many occasions, the selfish and dishonest
character of this anti-Congo campaign.
“You have printed the grossest inventions with reference to the
treatment of British natives in Congo territory. You have said that
at Lagos, and in the surrounding district, if the word ‘Congo’ is
mentioned to a native he will make for the bush if he is on land,
and will jump into the water if he happens to be on sea, in order
to escape going to the Congo!
“A full and impartial inquiry made by a number of English gentlemen
at Lagos, and the evidence of one hundred and seventy-five
natives taken on oath, shows how baseless and unscrupulous is
your statement. One English gentleman declares that ‘in a single
week’s time he would undertake to send two thousand natives to the
Congo, if the English Government would permit their enrolment’—the
taxation being so much heavier in British territory than in Congo
territory, that natives have to seek in the latter the means of
earning the taxation which they are compelled to pay to the British
administration.
“Missionaries of all classes, Catholic and non-Catholic, have borne
ample testimony to the humane and civilising influence of the Congo
administration. Englishmen like Lord Mountmorres, Major Harrison,
of Hull, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Bell, Mr. Holland, Mr. Maguire, as also
Mrs. French-Sheldon, Mrs. Doering, and others, have borne the
most emphatic testimony to the lies and misrepresentations that
have been so sedulously spread by yourself and your friends with
reference to the Congo administration.
“You cannot have failed to notice that in _La Vérité sur le Congo_
for October-November, 1904, page 3, you are accused of actually
having faked certain photographs which appeared in your book—one on
page 49, in which certain natives are represented holding cut-off
hands. The publication referred to says that ‘the hands seem to
have been added afterwards’; and, with regard to a photograph on
page 225 of your book, the same publication says that ‘the chains
around the necks of the natives would also appear to have been
designed on the plate.’
“You have put these photographs forward as real. Will you produce
the negatives and the name of the person who took the actual
photographs? Or will you remain content to rest under the charge of
fabricating evidence of this description to deceive your readers?
“The _Catholic Herald_ denounces, and will denounce, outrages upon
natives and wrongdoing and maladministration of native territories,
whether by Belgians or by any other people. No doubt wrongdoing has
taken place; but is it of such a character as justifies people in
this country taking up arms against those responsible for it?
“Is it not rather inseparable from the administration of native
territories? Let any one responsible for native administration
answer this question, but let not the good cause of fair play
and justice for the natives be disgraced and besmirched by the
recklessness and viciousness that have been displayed in connection
with this Congo agitation.
“The _Catholic Herald_ accepts in full all responsibility for the
statements made herein, and for the publication of them, and for
their circulation broadcast through the Press of this country, and
believes that in doing so it is discharging a public duty, not
only to the Catholic name, which you have foully libelled, but
also to the cause of international peace and goodwill, which this
anti-Congo campaign, based on selfish and sordid motives, has done
so much to impair.
“The administration of the Congo will compare more than favourably
with the administration of native territories under British rule.
There is more consideration shown to the natives, more care evinced
for their interests, and they are less heavily taxed, and more
humanely treated in the Congo, than is the case in any British
territory in Africa to-day.
“Some of the lies sent forth on the wings of the Press are hereby
nailed to the counter, and it is to be hoped that yourself, or your
Society, will at once disprove, by any means at your disposal,
charges which, if not so disproved, clearly show that your evidence
in connection with these matters is discredited and untrustworthy,
and that no one will be justified in paying attention to any
statement of yours, unless supported by evidence that has not been
purchased or invented.
“THE EDITOR,
“The _Catholic Herald_.”
[45] From _The Transvaal Trouble, an Extract from the Biography of
the late Sir Bartle Frere_, by John Martineau (pp. 211, 212):
“During these years, about 1879, a society in London, called the
_Aborigines’ Protection Society_, took upon itself the function
of judging between the white and the black races in South Africa,
and of arraigning the conduct of the white race whenever there was
a question between the two. That a society in London, with paid
officers bound to justify their employment by finding something to
complain of, should take upon itself to pronounce judgment upon
difficult and complex questions between races in South Africa was,
on the face of it, not more reasonable than that a society should
be started at Cape Town, say, to protect women and children in
London. By its constitution, which was practically that of _advocatus
diaboli_ against the white man, such a society must always of
necessity take a one-sided view, from which misapprehension and
mischief could hardly fail to result, however carefully considered
were the methods employed.
“The methods employed by the Aborigines’ Protection Society bore
some resemblance to those of mediæval Venice. The Blue-books of the
time are full of letters from the society to the Secretary of State,
detailing stories of alleged oppression or cruelty, and demanding
an inquiry; or sometimes a question was asked to the same effect in
Parliament. It would be many months before the reply to the inquiry
could come back from the Cape, and, in the meantime, the story was
circulated, and the refutation came too late to be listened to. The
society generally refused to give the name of its informant, or the
particulars of time and place, so that, like the lion’s mouth at
Venice, it offered an opportunity to any one—agitator, place-hunter,
or criminal having a spite against a magistrate or official—to injure
him anonymously.... The fear of being denounced by some scoundrel to
the society in some districts seriously interfered with and often
perverted the administration of justice.... In one instance, a man,
on whose testimony is placed special reliance, was discovered to
be a disfrocked clergyman who had been in custody for swindling
another informant, who in turn was a trader who had been in jail for
gun-running.
* * * * *
“Mr. H. Nixon, writing to Sir Bartle Frere, says:
“‘The lawlessness of the coloured races and their hopeless state
of degradation, their drunkenness, and general dissolute habits
may fairly be laid to the baneful influence of the Aborigines’
Protection Society, which has done everything it possibly could
to paralyse the arm of the law in the execution of justice, and I
consider the demoralisation of the natives is entirely due to their
persistent agitation. The drunkenness in this province is quite
alarming and unprecedented.’”