EYRE AND SPOTTISWOODE, EAST HARDING STREET, FLEET STREET, E.C.,
AND 32, ABINGDON STREET, WESTMINSTER, S.W.;
OR OLIVER AND BOYD, EDINBURGH;
OR E. PONSONBY, 116, GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN.
[Cd. 1809.] _Price_ 1_d._
Despatch to certain of His Majesty’s Representatives abroad in
regard to alleged Cases of Ill-treatment of Natives and to the
Existence of Trade Monopolies in the Independent State of the
Congo.
_The Marquess of Lansdowne to His Majesty’s Representatives at
Paris, Berlin, Rome, St. Petersburgh, Vienna, Madrid,
Constantinople, Brussels, Lisbon, the Hague, Copenhagen, and
Stockholm._
Sir,
_Foreign Office, August 8, 1903._
The attention of His Majesty’s Government has during recent years been
repeatedly called to alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and to
the existence of trade monopolies in the Independent State of the Congo.
Representations to this effect are to be found in Memorials from
philanthropic Societies, in communications from commercial bodies, in
the public press, and in despatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.
The same matters formed the subject of a debate in the House of Commons
on the 20th ultimo, when the House passed the Resolution, a copy of
which is inclosed.
In the course of the debate, the official record of which is also
inclosed, it was alleged that the object of the Administration was not
so much the care and government of the natives as the collection of
revenue; that this object was pursued by means of a system of forced
labour, differing only in name from slavery; that the demands upon each
village were exacted with a strictness which constantly degenerated into
great cruelty, and that the men composing the armed force of the State
were in many cases recruited from the most warlike and savage tribes,
who not infrequently terrorized over their own officers and maltreated
the natives without regard to discipline or fear of punishment.
As regards the ill-treatment of natives, a distinction may be drawn
between isolated acts of cruelty committed by individuals, whether in
the service of the State or not, and a system of administration
involving and accompanied by systematic cruelty or oppression.
The fact that many individual instances of cruelty have taken place in
the Congo State is proved beyond possibility of contradiction by the
occurrence of cases in which white officials have been convicted of
outrages on natives. These white officials must, however, in view of the
vast extent of the territory under their administration, in most cases
be of necessity isolated the one from the other, with the result that
detection becomes additionally difficult. It is therefore not unfair to
assume that the number of convictions falls considerably short of the
number of actual offences committed.
It is, however, with regard to the system of administration that the
most serious allegations are brought against the Independent State.
It is reported that no efforts are made to fit the native by training
for industrial pursuits; that the method of obtaining men for labour or
for military service is often but little different from that formerly
employed to obtain slaves; and that force is now as much required to
take the native to the place of service as it used to be to convey the
captured slave. It is also reported that constant compulsion has to be
exercised in order to exact the collection of the amount of forest
produce allotted to each village as the equivalent of the number of
days’ labour due from the inhabitants, and that this compulsion is often
exercised by irresponsible native soldiers uncontrolled by any European
officer.
His Majesty’s Government do not know precisely to what extent these
accusations may be true; but they have been so repeatedly made, and have
received such wide credence, that it is no longer possible to ignore
them, and the question has now arisen whether the Congo State can be
considered to have fulfilled the special pledges, given under the Berlin
Act, to watch over the preservation of the native tribes, and to care
for their moral and material advancement.
The graver charges against the State relate almost exclusively to the
upper valleys of the Congo and of its affluents. The lands forming these
vast territories are held either by the State itself or by Companies
closely connected with the State, under a system which, whatever its
object, has effectually kept out the independent trader, as opposed to
the owner or to the occupier of the soil, and has consequently made it
difficult to obtain independent testimony.
His Majesty’s Government have further laboured under the disadvantage
that British interests have not justified the maintenance of a large
Consular staff in the Congo territories. It is true that in 1901 His
Majesty’s Government decided to appoint a Consul of wide African
experience to reside permanently in the State, but his time has been
principally occupied in the investigation of complaints preferred by
British subjects, and he has as yet been unable to travel into the
interior and to acquire, by personal inspection, knowledge of the
condition of the enormous territory forming his district.
His reports on the cases of British subjects, which have formed the
basis of representations to the Government of the Independent State,
afford, however, examples of grave maladministration and ill-treatment.
These cases do not concern natives of the Congo State, and are therefore
in themselves alien to the subject of this despatch; but as they
occurred in the immediate vicinity of Boma, the seat of the central
staff, and in regard to British subjects, most of whom were under formal
engagements, they undoubtedly lead to the belief that the natives, who
have no one in the position of a Consul to whom they can appeal and have
no formal engagements, receive even less consideration at the hands of
the officers of the Government.
Moreover, information which has reached His Majesty’s Government from
British officers in territory adjacent to that of the State tends to
show that, notwithstanding the obligations accepted under Article VI of
the Berlin Act, no attempt at any administration of the natives is made,
and that the officers of the Government do not apparently concern
themselves with such work, but devote all their energy to the collection
of revenue. The natives are left entirely to themselves, so far as any
assistance in their government or in their affairs is concerned. The
Congo stations are shunned, the only natives seen being soldiers,
prisoners, and men who are brought in to work. The neighbourhood of
stations which are known to have been populous a few years ago is now
uninhabited, and emigration on a large scale takes place to the
territory of neighbouring States, the natives usually averring that they
are driven away from their homes by the tyranny and exaction of the
soldiers.
The sentiments which undoubtedly animated the founders of the Congo
State and the Representatives of the Powers at Berlin were such as to
deserve the cordial sympathy of the British Government, who have been
loath to believe either that the beneficent intentions with which the
Congo State was constituted, and of which it gave so solemn a pledge at
Berlin, have in any way been abandoned, or that every effort has not
been made to realize them.
But the fact remains that there is a feeling of grave suspicion, widely
prevalent among the people of this country, in regard to the condition
of affairs in the Congo State, and there is a deep conviction that the
many charges brought against the State’s administration must be founded
on a basis of truth.
In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government are of opinion that it
is incumbent upon the Powers parties to the Berlin Act to confer
together and to consider whether the obligations undertaken by the Congo
State in regard to the natives have been fulfilled; and, if not, whether
the Signatory Powers are not bound to make such representations as may
secure the due observance of the provisions contained in the Act.
As indicated at the beginning of this despatch, His Majesty’s Government
also wish to bring to the notice of the Powers the question which has
arisen in regard to rights of trade in the basin of the Congo.
Article I of the Berlin Act provides that the trade of all nations shall
enjoy complete freedom in the basin of the Congo; and Article V provides
that no Power which exercises sovereign rights in the basin shall be
allowed to grant therein a monopoly or favour of any kind in matters of
trade.
In the opinion of His Majesty’s Government, the system of trade now
existing in the Independent State of the Congo is not in harmony with
these provisions.
With the exception of a relatively small area on the lower Congo, and
with the further exception of the small plots actually occupied by the
huts and cultivation patches of the natives, the whole territory is
claimed as the private property either of the State or of holders of
land concessions. Within these regions the State or, as the case may be,
the concession-holder alone may trade in the natural produce of the
soil. The fruits gathered by the natives are accounted the property of
the State, or of the concession-holder, and may not be acquired by
others. In such circumstances, His Majesty’s Government are unable to
see that there exists the complete freedom of trade or absence of
monopoly in trade which is required by the Berlin Act. On the contrary,
no one other than the agents of the State or of the concession-holder
has the opportunity to enter into trade relations with the natives; or
if he does succeed in reaching the natives, he finds that the only
material which the natives can give in exchange for his trade goods or
his money are claimed as having been the property of the State or of the
concession-holder from the moment it was gathered by the native.
His Majesty’s Government in no way deny either that the State has the
right to partition the State lands among _bonâ fide_ occupants, or that
the natives will, as the land is so divided out among _bonâ fide_
occupiers, lose their right of roaming over it and collecting the
natural fruits which it produces. But His Majesty’s Government maintain
that until unoccupied land is reduced into individual occupation, and so
long as the produce can only be collected by the native, the native
should be free to dispose of that produce as he pleases.
In these circumstances, His Majesty’s Government consider that the time
has come when the Powers parties to the Berlin Act should consider
whether the system of trade now prevailing in the Independent State is
in harmony with the provisions of the Act; and, in particular, whether
the system of making grants of vast areas of territory is permissible
under the Act if the effect of such grants is in practice to create a
monopoly of trade by excluding all persons other than the
concession-holder from trading with the natives in that area. Such a
result is inevitable if the grants are made in favour of persons or
Companies who cannot themselves use the land or collect its produce, but
must depend for obtaining it upon the natives, who are allowed to deal
only with the grantees.
His Majesty’s Government will be glad to receive any suggestions which
the Governments of the Signatory Powers may be disposed to make in
reference to this important question, which might perhaps constitute,
wholly or in part, the subject of a reference to the Tribunal at the
Hague.
I request that you will read this despatch to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, and leave a copy of it with his Excellency.
I am, &c.
(Signed) LANSDOWNE.