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.
Foreign Office, August 8, 1903. Sir,
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.
