2
I cannot say that I had an opportunity of seeing a full 80 miles of Belgian territory. At the same time, I saw a good deal, and I noticed that, whereas there were numerous villages and huts on the eastern bank and on the islands, on the Belgian side not a sign of a village existed. Indeed, I do not think that any one of our party saw a single human being in Belgian territory, except the Belgian officers and men and the wives and children of the latter. Moreover, not a single native was to be seen either at Kiro or Lado. I asked the Swedish officer at Kiro whether he saw much of the natives. He replied in the negative, adding that the nearest Bari village was situated at some distance in the interior. The Italian officer at Lado, in reply to the same question, stated that the nearest native village was seven hours distant.
The reason of all this is obvious enough. The Belgians are disliked. The people fly from them, and it is no wonder they should do so, for I am informed that the soldiers are allowed full liberty to plunder, and that payments are rarely made for supplies. The British officers wander, practically alone, over most parts of the country, either on tours of inspection or on shooting expeditions. I understand that no Belgian officer can move outside the settlements without a strong guard.
It appears to me that the facts which I have stated above afford amply sufficient evidence of the spirit which animates the Belgian Administration, if, indeed, Administration it can be called. The Government, so far as I could judge, is conducted almost exclusively on commercial principles, and, even judged by that standard, it would appear that those principles are somewhat short-sighted.
No, 2.
Sir C. Phipps to the Marquess of Lansdowne.—(Received September 21.)
Brussels, September 19, 1803. My Lord,
I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith copy of a note, together with its inclosures, which has been addressed by the Congo Government to the Representatives at Brussels of the Powers parties to the Act of Berlin to which your Lordship’s Circular despatch of the 8th August respecting the affairs of the Independent State of the Congo had been communicated.[1]
M. de Cuvelier, in handing me these documents, stated that he had been instructed to follow the same procedure as that adopted by His Majesty’s Government.
Inclosure in No. 2.
LE Gouvernement de l’État Indépendant du Congo, ayant eu connaissance de la dépêche du Foreign Office, datée du 8 Août dernier, remise aux Puissances Signataires de l’Acte de Berlin, constate qu’il est d’accord avec le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté sur deux points fondamentaux, à savoir, que les indigènes doivent être traités avec humanité et menés graduellement dans les voies de la civilisation, et que la liberté de commerce, dans le bassin conventionnel dn Congo, doit être entiere et complète.
Mais il nie que la manière dont est administré l’État entraînerait un regime systématique “de cruauté ou d’oppression” et que le principe de la liberté commerciale apporterait des modifications au droit de propriété tel qu’il est universellement compris, alors qu’il n’est pas un mot à cet effet dans l'Acte de Berlin. L’État du Congo note qu’il ne se trouve dans cet Acte aucune disposition qui consacrerait des restrictions quelconques à l’exercice du droit de propriété ou qui reconnaitrait aux Puissances Signataires un droit d’intervention dans les affaires d’administration intérieure les unes des autres. Il tient à se montrer fidèle observateur de l’Acte de Berlin, de ce grand Acte International qui lie toutes les Puissances Signataires ou adhérentes, en ce que dit le sens grammatical si clair de son texte, que nul n’a pouvoir de diminuer ou d’amplifier.
La note Anglaise remarque que c’est en ces dernières années qu’a pris consistance la campagne menée en Angleterre contre l’État du Congo, sous le double prétexte de mauvais traitements des natifs et de l’existence de monopoles commerciaux.
- ↑ See Africa No. 14 (1903).
