Further Correspondence respecting the Administration of the Independent State of the Congo.

[In continuation of “Africa No. 1 (1904)”.]

No. 1. Sir C. Phipps to the Marquess of Lansdowne.—(Received March 14).

My Lord,

Brussels, March 13, 1904.

I HAVE the honour to inclose the rejoinder on the part of the Congo Government to the Report of His Majesty’s Consul at Boma on the condition of the Congo.

In handing these “Notes” to me this afternoon M. de Cuvelier was instructed to call my attention to the passage where his Government expresses a desire to be placed in possession of the full Report, including names, dates, and places referred to. The “Notes” will be communicated to-morrow to the Representatives of the other Powers.

I have, &c. (Signed) CONSTANTINE PHIPPS.

Inclosure in No. 1.

Notes on the Report of Mr. Casement, Consul of His Britannic Majesty, of the 11th December, 1903.

A LA séance de la Chambre des Communes du 11 Mars, 1903, Lord Cranborne avait dit:—

“We have no reason to think that slavery is recognized by the authorities of the Congo Free State, but reports of acts of cruelty and oppression have reached us. Such reports have been received from our Consular officers.”

Le Gouvernement de l’État du Congo demanda, par lettre du 14 Mars, 1903, à son Excellence Sir C. Phipps, de bien vouloir lui communiquer les faits qui avaient été l’objet de rapports de la part des Consuls Britanniques.

Cette demande ne reçut pas de suite.

La dépêche de Lord Lansdowne du 8 Août, 1903, portait:—

“Representations to this effect (alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and existence of trade monopolies) are to be found ... in despatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.”

L’impression était ainsi créée qu’à cette date le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté se trouvait en possession de renseignements Consulaires concluants: la nécessité d’un voyage de M. le Consul Casement dans le Haut-Congo n’en a pas moins paru évidente. La réflexion s’ensuit que les conclusions de la note du 8 Août étaient au moins prématurées; il s’en déduit également que, contrairement à l’appréciation de cette note, il a été loisible au Consul Britannique d’entreprendre dans les régions intérieures tel voyage qui lui convenait. Il est à noter en tout cas que le “White Paper” (Africa, No. 1, 1904), qui vient d’être présenté au Parlement, ne contient pas, nonobstant le désir qu’en a réitéré l’État du Congo, ces rapports Consulaires antérieurs, qui, cependant, offraient d’autant plus d’intérêt qu’ils dataient d’un temps où la campagne présente n’était pas née.

Le Rapport actuel signale qu’en certains points visités par le Consul, la population se trouve en décroissance. M. Casement n’indique pas les bases de ses recensements comparatifs en 1887 et en 1903. Il est à se demander comment pour cette dernière année le Consul a pu établir ses chiffres au cours de visites rapides et hâtives. Sur quels éléments certains s’appuye-t-il, par exemple, pour dire que la population des localités riveraines du Lac Mantumba semble avoir diminué dans les dix dernières années de 60 à 70 pour cent? En un point désigné F*, il déclare que l’ensemble des villages ne compte pas aujourd’hui plus ne 500 âmes; quelques lignes plus loin, ces mêmes villages ne comportent plus que 240 habitants en tout. Ce ne sont là que des détails, mais ils caractérisent immédiatement le défaut de précision de certaines appréciations du Consul. Au reste, il n’est malheureusement que trop exact que la diminution de la population a été constatée; elle est due à d’autres causes qu’à un régime excessif ou oppressif exercé par l’Administration sur les populations indigènes. C’est en premier lieu la maladie du sommeil, qui décime partout les populations en Afrique équatoriale. Le Rapport remarque lui-même que: “a prominent place must be assigned to this malady,”[26] et que cette maladie est “probably one of the principal factors,” de la diminution de la population.[27] Il suffit de lire la lettre du Révérend John Whitehead (Annexe II du Rapport), citée par le Consul, pour se rendre compte des ravages de la maladie, à laquelle ce missionnaire attribue la moitié des décès dans la région riveraine du district. Dans une interview récente, Mgr. Van Ronslé, Vicaire Apostolique du Congo Belge, avec l’autorité qui s’attache à une grande expérience des choses d’Afrique et à des séjours prolongés en de multiples résidences au Congo, a montré l’évolution du fléau, le dépérissement fatal des populations qui en sont frappées, quelles que soient d’ailleurs les conditions de leur état social, citant entre autres les pertes effrayantes de vies dues à ce mal dans l’Uganda. Que si l’on ajoute à cette cause fondamentale de la dépopulation au Congo, les épidémies de petite vérole, l’impossibilité actuelle pour les tribus de maintenir leur chiffre par des achats d’esclaves, la facilité de déplacement des indigènes, il s’explique que le Consul et les missionnaires aient relevé la diminution du nombre d’habitants de certaines agglomérations, sans que nécessairement ce soit le résultat d’un système d’oppression. L’Annexe No. I reproduit les déclarations sur ce point de Mgr. Van Ronslé. Ce qu’il dit des conséquences, sur le chiffre numérique de la population, de la suppression de l’esclavage, se trouve reproduit ailleurs:—

“The people (slave) are for the most part originally prisoners of war. Since the Decree of Emancipation they have simply returned to their own distant homes, knowing their owners have no power to recapture them. This is one reason why some think the population is decreasing, and another is the vast exodus up and down river.”[28]—“So long as the Slave Trade flourished, the Bobangi flourished, but with its abolition they are tending to disappear, for their towns were replenished by slaves.”[29]

Le Consul cite des cas, dont du reste les raisons lui sont inconnues, d’exode d’indigènes du Congo sur la rive Française. On ne voit pas à quel titre il en ferait grief à l’État, si l’on en juge d’après les motifs qui ont déterminé certains d’entre eux, à preuve les exemples de ces émigrations, donnés et expliqués par un missionnaire Anglais, le Révérend Père W. H. Bentley. L’un est relatif à la station de Lukolela:—

“The main difficulty has been the shifting of the population. It appears that the population, when the station was founded in 1865, was between 5,000 and 6,000 in the riverine Colonies. About two years later, the Chief, Mpuki, did not agree with his neighbours or they with him. When the tension became acute, Mpuki crossed over with his people to the opposite (French) side of the river. This exodus took away a large number of people. In 1890 or 1891, a Chief from one of the lower towns was compelled by the majority of his people to leave the State side, and several went with him. About 1893, the rest of the people at the lower towns either went across to the same place as the deposed Chief, or took up their residence inland. Towards the end of 1894, a soldier who had been sent to cut firewood for the State steamers on an island off the towns, left his work to make an evil request in one of the towns. He shot the man who refused him. The rascal of a soldier was properly dealt with by the State officer in charge; but this outrage combined, with other smaller difficulties, to produce a panic, and nearly all the people left for the French side, or hid away inland. So the fine township has broken up.”[30]

L’autre cas a trait à la station de Bolobo:—

“It is rare indeed for Bolobo, with its 30,000 or 40,000 people, divided into some dozen clans, to be at peace for any length of time together. The loss of life from these petty wars, the number of those killed for witchcraft, and of those who are buried alive with the dead, involve, even within our narrow limits here at Bolobo, an almost daily drain upon the vitality of the country, and an incalculable amount of sorrow and suffering.... The Government was not indifferent to these murderous ways.... In 1890 the District Commissioner called the people together, and warned them against the burying of slaves alive in the graves of free people, and the reckless killing of slaves which then obtained. The natives did not like the rising power of the State.... Our own settlement among them was not unattended with difficulty.... There was a feeling against white men generally, and especially so against the State. The people became insolent and haughty.... Just at this time ... as a force of soldiers steamed past the Moye towns, the steamers were fired upon. The soldiers landed, and burnt and looted the towns. The natives ran away into the grass, and great numbers crossed to the French side of the river. They awoke to the fact that Bula Matadi, the State, was not the helpless thing they had so long thought. This happened early in 1891.”[31]

Ces exemples donnent, comme on le voit, à l’émigration des indigènes, des causes n’ayant aucun rapport avec—

The methods employed to obtain labour from them by local officials and the exactions levied on them.[32]

Le Rapport s’étend longuement sur l’existence des impôts indigènes. Il constate que les indigènes sont astreints à des prestations de travail de diverses sortes, ici sous forme de fournitures de “chikwangues” ou de vivres frais pour les postes Gouvernementaux, là sous forme de participation à des travaux d’utilité publique, tels que la construction d’une jetée à Bololo, ou l’entretien de la ligne télégraphique à F——; ailleurs sous la forme de la récolte des produits domaniaux. Nous maintenons la légitimité de ces impôts sur les populations natives, d’accord en cela avec le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté, qui, dans le Mémorandum du 11 Février, 1904, déclare que l’industrie et le développement des Colonies et Protectorats Britanniques en Afrique montrent que le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté a toujours admis la nécessité de faire contribuer les natifs aux charges publiques et de les amener au travail. Nous sommes d’accord également avec le Gouvernement de Sa Majesté que si en cette matière des abus se commettent, comme, il est vrai, il s’en est produit en toutes Colonies, ces abus appellent des réformes, et qu’il est du devoir de l’autorité supérieure d’y mettre fin et de concilier, dans une juste mesure, les nécessités Gouvernementales avec les intérêts bien entendus des indigènes.

Mais l’État du Congo entend à cet égard se mouvoir librement dans l’exercice de sa souveraineté—comme, par exemple, le Gouvernement Britannique explique dans son dernier Mémorandum l’avoir fait à Sierra-Leone—en dehors de toute pression extérieure on de toute ingérence étrangère, qui seraient attentatoires à ses droits essentiels.

Le Rapport du Consul vise manifestement à créer l’impression que la perception de l’impôt, au Congo, est violente, inhumaine et couelle, et nous voulons, avant tout, rencontrer l’accusation si souvent dirigée contre l’État, que cette perception donnerait lieu à d’odieux actes de mutilation. A cet égard, la lecture superficielle du Rapport est de nature à impressionner, par l’accumulation complaisante, non pas de faits nets, précis, vérifiés, mais de déclarations et d’affirmations des indigènes.

Une remarque préliminaire s’impose sur les conditions dans lesquelles le voyage du Consul s’est effectué.

Qu’il l’ait voulu ou non, M. le Consul Britannique a apparu aux populations comme le redresseur des griefs, réels ou imaginaires, des indigènes, et sa présence à La Lulonga, coïncidant avec la campagne menée contre l’État du Congo, en une région où s’exerce depuis longtemps l’influence des missionnaires Protestants, devait fatalement avoir pour les indigènes une signification qui ne leur à pas échappé. C’est en dehors des agents de l’État, en dehors de toute action ou de tout concours de l’autorité régulière que le Consul a fait ses investigations; c’est assisté par des missionnaires Protestants Anglais qu’il a procédé; c’est sur un vapeur d’une Mission Protestante qu’il a fait son inspection; c’est dans les Missions Protestantes qu’il a généralement reçu l’hospitalité; dans ces conditions, il a dû inévitablement être considéré par l’indigène comme l’antagoniste de l’autorité établie.

Nous n’en voulons d’autre preuve que le fait caractéristique d’indigènes, pendant le séjour du Consul à Bonginda, s’attroupant à la rive, au passage en pirogue d’agents de la Société “La Lulonga” et s’écriant:—

“Votre violence est finie, elle s’en va; les Anglais seuls restent; mourez vous autres!”

Et cet aveu significatif d’un missionnaire Protestant qui, à propos de ce fait, explique:—

“The Consul was here at the time, and the people were much excited, and evidently thought themselves on top.... The people have got this idea (that the rubber work was finished) into their heads of themselves, consequent, I suppose, upon the Consul’s visit.”

Dans ces circonstances, en raison de l’état d’esprit qu’elles révèlent chez les indigènes, en raison de leur caractère impressionnable et de leur désir naturel de se soustraire à la charge de l’impôt, il n’était pas douteux que les conclusions auxquelles arriverait le Consul ne seraient pas autres que celles de son Rapport.

Il suffira, pour mettre ce point en évidence et pour caractériser le manque de valeur de ses investigations, de s’arrêter à un seul cas, celui sur lequel s’est porté tout l’effort de Mr. Casement, nous voulons parler de l’affaire Epondo. C’est celle de l’enfant II dont le Rapport parle aux pages 56, 58, et 78.

Il est indispensable d’entrer un peu longuement dans les détails de cette affaire, qui sont significatifs.

Le Consul se trouvait, à la date du 4 Septembre, 1903, à la Mission de la “Congo Bololo Mission,” à Bonginda, de retour d’un voyage dans la Rivière Lopori, au cours duquel il n’avait constaté aucun de ces actes de mutilation qu’il est d’usage de mettre à la charge des agents au Congo.

A Bonginda, des indigènes d’un village voisin (Bossunguma) viennent le trouver et lui signalent entre autres qu’une “sentinelle” de la Compagnie “La Lulonga,” nommée Kelengo, avait, à Bossunguma, coupé la main d’un indigène du nom d’Epondo, dont les blessures étaient à peine guéries. Le Consul se transporte à Bossunguma; il est accompagné des deux Révérends W. D. Armstrong et D. J. Danielson et se fait présenter l’indigène estropié, lequel, “en réponse à la question du Consul, accuse de ce méfait une sentinelle nommée Kelengo (placée dans cet endroit par l’agent local de la Société ‘La Lulonga’ pour vérifier si les indigènes récoltaient du caoutchouc).” Ce sont les termes du Consul: il s’agissait en effet d’établir un rapport de cause à effet entre la récolte du caoutchouc et ce cas prétendu de cruauté.

Le Consul procède à l’interrogatoire du Chef et de quelques indigènes du village. Ils répondent en accusant Kelengo; la plupart déclarent avoir été témoins oculaires du fait. Le Consul fait demander par ses interprètes s’il se trouve là d’autres témoins qui ont vu le crime et en accusent Kelengo: “presque tous les individus présents, au nombre environ de quarante, s’écrient d’une seule voix que c’est Kelengo le coupable.”

Il faut lire toute cette enquête telle qu’elle a été libellée par le Consul lui-même, en des sortes de procès-verbaux des 7, 8, et 9 Septembre (Annexe 2), pour se rendre compte de l’acharnement avec lequel les indigènes accablent Kelengo, et des dénégations de l’accusé se heurtant à l’unanimité de tous ceux qui le chargent. De partout surgissent les dénonciateurs et de la foule surexcitée jaillissent les accusations les plus diverses: il a coupé la main d’Epondo, enchaîné des femmes, volé des canards et un chien! L’attention du Consul ne veut pas s’éveiller en présence du caractère passionné des dépositions; sans autre garantie de leur sincérité, sans autre contrôle de leur véracité, il considère son enquête comme concluante, et, de même qu’il s’était substitué au Parquet pour l’instruction de l’affaire, de même il préjuge la décision de l’autorité compétente en déclarant à la population assemblée que “Kelengo deserved severe punishment for his illegal and cruel acts.” Dramatisant l’incident, il emmène avec lui la prétendue victime, l’exhibe le 10 Septembre devant le Chef de Poste de Coquilhatville, auquel il remet la copie de son enquête, et le 12 Septembre, il adresse au Gouverneur-Général une lettre qu’il qualifie de “personal and private,” dans laquelle il prend texte entre autres de l’incident pour accuser “the system of general exploitation of an entire population which can only be rendered successful by the employment of arbitrary and illegal force.” Cette enquête terminée, il reprenait aussitôt la route du Bas-Congo.

Les circonstances de fait eussent-elles été exactes, encore serait-on frappé de la disproportion des conclusions que le Consul en déduit, en généralisant avec emphase son système de critiques contre l’État du Congo. Mais le fait même, tel qu’il l’a présenté, est inexact.

En effet, dès la dénonciation du Consul connue du Parquet, celui-ci se rendit sur les lieux en la personne du Substitut du Procureur d’État, M. Gennaro Bosco, et procéda à une enquête judiciaire dans les conditions normales en dehors de toute influence étrangère. Cette enquête démontra que M. le Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique avait été l’objet d’une machination ourdie par les indigènes, qui, dans l’espoir de n’avoir plus à travailler, avaient comploté de représenter Epondo comme la victime de procédés inhumains d’un capita d’une Société commerciale. En réalité, Epondo avait été victime d’un accident de chasse et mordu à la main par un sanglier; la blessure s’était gangrenée et avait occasionné la perte du membre, ce qui avait été habilement exploité par les indigènes vis-à-vis du Consul. Nous joignons (Annexe 3) les extraits de l’enquête faite par le Substitut relatifs à cette affaire Epondo. Les dépositions sont typiques, uniformes et concordantes. Elles ne laissent aucun doute sur la cause de l’accident, attestent que les indigènes ont menti au Consul, et révèlent le mobile auquel ils ont obéi, dans l’espoir que l’intervention du Consul les déchargerait de l’obligation de l’impôt. L’enquête montre Epondo, enfin acculé, rétractant ses premières affirmations au Consul, et avouant avoir été influencé par les gens de son village. Il est interrogé:—

“D. Persistez-vous à accuser Kelengo de vous avoir coupé la main gauche?

“R. Non; j’ai menti.

“D. Racontez alors comment et quand vous avez perdu la main.

“R. J’étais esclave de Monkekola, à Malele, dans le district des Bangala. Un jour, j’allai avec lui à la chasse au sanglier. Il en blessa un avec une lance, et alors la bête, devenue furieuse, m’attaqua. Je tâchai de me sauver avec la suite, mais je tombai; le sanglier fut bientôt sur moi, m’arrachant la main gauche, au ventre et à la hanche gauche. Le comparant montre les cicatrices aux endroits désignés, et spontanément se met par terre pour faire voir dans quelle position il se trouvait lorsqu’il fut attaqué et blessé par le sanglier.

“D. Depuis combien de temps cet accident vous est-il arrivé?

“R. Je ne me rappelle pas. C’est depuis longtemps.

“D. Pourquoi alors aviez-vous accusé Kalengo?

“R. Parce que Momaketa, un des Chefs de Bossunguma, me l’a dit, et après tous les habitants de mon village me l’ont répété.

* * * * * * * *

“D. Les Anglais vous ont-ils photographié?

“R. Oui, à Bonginda et à Lulanga. Ils m’ont dit de mettre bien en évidence le moignon. Il y avait Nenele, Mongongolo, Torongo, et autres blancs, dont je ne connais pas les noms. Ils étaient les blancs de Lulanga. Mongongolo a porté avec lui six photographies.”[33]

Epondo a réitéré ses déclarations et rétractations spontanément à un missionnaire Protestant, M. Faris, résidant à Bolengi. Ce Révérend a remis au Commissaire-Général de Coquilhatville la déclaration écrite suivante:—

“Je soussigné E.-E. Faris, missionnaire, résidant à Bolengi, Haut-Congo, déclare que j’ai interrogé l’enfant Epondo, du village de Bosongoma, qui a été chez moi le 10 Septembre, 1903, avec Mr. Casement, le Consul d’Angleterre, et que j’ai mené à la Mission de Bolengi, le 16 Octobre, 1903, selon la requête de M. le Commandant Stevens, de Coquilhatville, et que le dit enfant m’a dit aujourd’hui, le 17 Octobre, 1903, qu’il a perdu sa main par la morsure d’an sanglier.

“Il m’a dit également qu’il a informé Mr. Casement que sa main a été coupé par un soldat, ou bien d’un des travailleurs de blancs, qui ont fait la guerre dans son village pour faire apporter le caoutchouc, mais il affirme que cette dernière histoire qu’il m’a dite aujourd’hui est la vérité.

“E.-E. Faris.

“A Bolengi, le 17 Octobre, 1903.”

L’enquête aboutit à une ordonnance de non-lieu ainsi motivée en ce qui concerne le cas Epondo:—

“Nous, Substitut du Procureur d’État près le Tribunal de Coquilhatville;

“Vu les notes rédigées par le Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique, à l’occasion de sa visite aux villages d’Ikandja et Bossunguma, dans la région des Ngombe, d’où résulte que le nommé Kelengo, garde forestier au service de la Société ‘La Lulonga,’ aurait—

“(a.) Coupé ..., la main gauche au nommé Epondo.

“(b.)....

“(c.)....

“Vu l’enquête faite par M. le Lieutenant Braeckman, confirmant en partie l’enquête faite par le Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique, mais le contredisant en partie, et ajoutant aux accusations précédemment faites à Kelengo, celle d’avoir tué un indigène nommé Baluwa;

“Vu les conclusions posées par cet officier de police judiciaire tendant à faire naître des soupçons assez graves sur la vérité de toutes ces accusations;

“Attendu que tous les indigènes qui ont accusé Kelengo, soit au Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique, soit au Lieutenant Braeckman, convoqués par nous, Substitut, ont pris la fuite, et tout les efforts faits pour les retrouver n’ont abouti à aucun résultat; que cette fuite discrédite évidemment leurs affirmations;

“Que tous les témoins interrogés dans notre enquête attestent ... qu’Epondo a perdu la main gauche parce qu’un sanglier la lui a arrachée ...;

“Qu’Epondo confirme ces attestations, avouant qu’il a menti par suggestion des indigènes de Bossunguma et Ikondja, qui espéraient de se soustraire à la récolte du caoutchouc moyennant l’intervention du Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique, qu’ils jugeaient très puissant;

“Que les témoins, presque tous indigènes des villages accusateurs, confirment que tel fut le but de leur mensonge;

“Que cette version, indépendamment de l’unanimité des affirmations des témoins et des parties lésées, se présente aussi comme la plus plausible, parce que personne n’ignore, soit la répugnance des indigènes pour le travail en général et la récolte du caoutchouc, soit leur facilité à mentir et à porter de fausses accusations;

“Qu’elle est confirmée par l’opinion, nettement formulée, du missionnaire Anglais Armstrong, qui retient les indigènes ‘capables de tout complot pour éviter de travailler, et surtout de faire le caoutchouc’;

“Que l’innocence de Kelengo étant complètement prouvée, il n’y a pas lieu à le poursuivre;

“Par ces motifs:

“Nous, Substitut, déclarons non-lieu à poursuivre le nommé Kelengo, garde forestier au service de la Société ‘La Lulonga,’ pour les crimes prévus par les Articles 2, 5, 11, 19 du Code Pénal.

Le Substitut, (Signé) Bosco.

“Mampoko, le 9 Octobre, 1903.”

Si nous avons insisté sur les détails de cette affaire, c’est qu’elle est considérée par le Consul lui-même comme d’une importance capitale et qu’il se base sur ce seul cas pour conclure à l’exactitude de toutes les autres déclarations d’indigènes qu’il a recueillies.

“Dans le seul cas sur lequel j’ai pu enquêter personnellement, dit-il[34]—celui de l’enfant II—j’ai trouvé cette accusation établie sur les lieux, sans apparemment une ombre de doute quant à la culpabilité de la sentinelle accusée.”

Et plus loin:—

“Dans le village de R*, j’ai eu seulement le temps de faire enquête sur l’accusation faite par II.”[35]

Et ailleurs:—

“Il était évidemment impossible que je puisse ... vérifier sur place, comme dans le cas de l’enfant, les déclarations que me firent les indigènes. Dans ce seul cas, la vérité des accusations fut amplement démontrée.”[36]

C’est aussi à propos de cette affaire que, dans sa lettre du 12 Septembre, 1903, au Gouverneur-Général, il disait:—

“When speaking to M. le Commandant Stevens at Coquilhatville on the 10th instant, when the mutilated boy Epondo stood before us as evidence of the deplorable state of affairs I reprobated, I said: ‘I do not accuse an individual, I accuse a system.’ ”

La réflexion s’impose que si les autres informations du Rapport du Consul ont toutes la même valeur que celles qui lui ont été fournies dans cette seule espèce, elles ne peuvent, à aucun degré, être considérées comme probantes. Et il saute aux yeux que dans les autres cas où le Consul, de sa propre déclaration, ne s’est livré à aucune vérification des affirmations des indigènes, ces affirmations ont moins de poids encore, si possible.

Il faut reconnaître, sans doute, que le Consul s’exposait délibérément à d’inévitables mécomptes, de par sa manière d’interroger les indigènes,—ce qu’il faisait, en effet, à l’aide de deux interprètes: “par l’intermédiaire de Vinda, parlant en Bobangi, et de Bateko, répétant ses paroles dans le dialecte local,”[37] de sorte que le Consul était à la merci non seulement de la sincérité de l’indigène interrogé, mais encore de la fidélité de traduction de deux autres indigènes, dont l’un, d’ailleurs, était un de ses serviteurs, et dont l’autre, semble-t-il, était l’interprète des missionnaires.[38] Quiconque s’est trouvé en contact avec l’indigène sait cependant son habitude du mensonge: le Révérend C. H. Harvey constatait:[39]—

“Les natifs du Congo qui nous entouraient étaient méprisables, perfides, et cruels, impudemment menteurs, malhonnêtes et vils.”

Et le fait n’est pas non plus sans importance,—si l’on veut exactement se rendre compte de la valeur des témoignages,—de la présence aux côtés de Mr. Casement, qui interrogeait les indigènes, de deux missionnaires Protestants Anglais de la région, présence qui, à elle seule, a dû nécessairement orienter les dépositions.[40]

Nous dépasserions nous-mêmes la mesure si, de ce qui précède, nous concluions au rejet en bloc de toutes les informations indigènes enregistrées par le Consul. Mais il en ressort à l’évidence qu’une telle documentation est insuffisante pour asseoir un jugement fondé, et que ces informations obligent à une vérification minutieuse et impartiale.

Que si l’on dégage du volumineux Rapport du Consul, les autres cas qu’il a vus et qu’il enregistre comme des cas de mutilation, on constate qu’il en cite deux comme s’étant produits au Lac Matumba[41] “il y a plusieurs années.”[42] Il en cite quelques autres—sur le nombre desquels les renseignements du Rapport ne semblent pas être concordants[43]—qu’il renseigne comme ayant été commis dans les environs de Bonginda,[44] précisément en cette région où s’est placée l’enquête Epondo et où, comme on l’a vu, les esprits étaient montés et influencés. Ce sont ces affaires que, dit-il, il n’a pas eu le temps d’approfondir,[45] et qui, au dire des indigènes, étaient imputables aux agents de la Société “La Lulanga.” Étaient-ce là des victimes de la pratique de coutumes indigènes, que les natifs se seraient bien gardés d’avouer? Les blessures constatées par le Consul étaient-elles dues à l’une ou l’autre lutte intestine entre villages ou tribus? Ou bien était-ce réellement le fait de sous-ordres noirs de la Société? On ne saurait se prononcer à la lecture du Rapport, les indigènes, ici comme toujours, étant la seule source d’informations du Consul et celui-ci s’étant borné à prendre rapidement note de leurs multiples affirmations en quelques heures de la matinée du 5 Septembre, pressé qu’il était par le temps “to reach K* (Bossunguma) at a reasonable hour.”[46]

Nonobstant la considération qu’il attache à “l’air de franchise” et “à l’air de conviction et de sincérité”[47] des indigènes, l’expérience faite par lui-même commande incontestablement la prudence et rend téméraire son appréciation: “qu’il était clair que ces hommes déclaraient soit ce qu’ils avaient réellement vu de leurs yeux, soit ce qu’ils pensaient fermement dans leurs cœurs.”[48]

Toutefois, il suffit que soient signalés ces quelques faits, actes de cruauté ou non, auxquels se réduisent en définitive ceux constatés personnellement par le Consul, sans qu’il puisse à suffisance de preuve en établir les causes réelles, pour que l’autorité doive y porter son attention et pour que des enquêtes soient ordonnées à leur sujet. A cet égard, le regret doit être exprimé de ce que l’exemplaire du Rapport, communiqué au Gouvernement de l’État Indépendant du Congo, ait systématiquement omis toute indication de date, de lieu, de noms. Il n’est pas à méconnaître que ces suppressions rendront excessivement malaisée la tâche des Magistrats Instructeurs, et, dans l’intérêt de la manifestation de la vérité, le Gouvernement du Congo formule le vœu d’être mis en possession du texte complet du Rapport du Consul.

On ne s’étonnera pas si le Gouvernement de l’État du Congo s’élève, en cette occasion, contre le procédé de ses détracteurs, mettant dans le domaine public la reproduction de photographies d’indigènes mutilés, et créant cette odieuse légende de mains coupées à la connaissance ou même à l’instigation des Belges en Afrique. C’est ainsi que la photographie d’Epondo, estropié dans les conditions que l’on sait, et qui “a été deux fois photographié,” est probablement une de celles circulant dans les pamphlets Anglais comme preuve de l’exécrable administration des Belges en Afrique. On a vu une revue Anglaise reproduisant la photographie d’un “cannibale entouré des crânes de ses victimes,” et la légende portait: “In the original photograph, the cannibal was naked. The artist has made him decent by ... covering his breast with the star of the Congo State. It is now a suggestive emblem of the Christian veneered cannibalism on the Congo.”[49] A ce compte, il suffirait, pour jeter le discrédit sur l’Administration de l’Uganda, de mettre dans la circulation des clichés reproduisant les mutilations dont le Dr. Castellani dit, dans une lettre datée d’Uganda, du 16 Décembre, 1902, avoir constaté l’existence aux environs mêmes d’Entebbe: “Il n’est pas difficile d’y rencontrer des indigènes sans nez, sans oreilles, &c.”[50]

C’est dire que dans l’Uganda comme au Congo, les indigènes sacrifient encore à leurs instincts sauvages. Mr. Casement a prévu l’objection en affirmant:—

“It was not a native custom prior to the coming of the white man; it was not the outcome of the primitive instincts of savages in their fights between village and village; it was the deliberate act of soldiers of a European Administration, and these men themselves never made any concealment that in committing these acts they were but obeying the positive orders of their superiors.”[51]

L’articulation d’une aussi grave accusation, sans qu’elle soit en même temps étayée sur des preuves irréfragables, semble donner raison à ceux qui pensent que les emplois antérieurs de Mr. Casement ne l’avaient pas préparé entièrement aux fonctions Consulaires. Mr. Casement est resté dix-sept jours au Lac Mantumba, un lac, dit de 25 à 30 milles de long et de 12 ou 15 milles de large, entouré d’épaisses forêts.[52] Il ne s’est guère éloigné de la rive. On ne voit pas dès lors quelles investigations utiles il a pu faire sur les mœurs d’autrefois et les habitudes anciennes des populations. La constatation que ces tribus sont encore très sauvages et adonnées au cannibalisme[53] permet de croire, au contraire, qu’elles n’étaient pas exemptes de la pratique de ces actes cruels qui, d’une manière générale en Afrique, étaient le cortège habituel de la barbarie des mœurs et de l’anthropophagie. Dans une partie des régions que le Consul a visitées, les témoignages des missionnaires Anglais ne sont à cet égard que trop instructifs. Le Révérend McKittrick, parlant des luttes meurtrières entre indigènes, dit ses efforts d’autrefois auprès des Chefs pour pacifier la contrée: “ ...Nous leur dîmes qu’à l’avenir nous ne laisserions plus passer par notre station aucun homme armé de lance ou de couteau. Notre Dieu était un Dieu de paix, et nous, ses enfants, nous ne pouvions supporter de voir nos frères noirs se couper et se blesser l’un l’autre (cutting and stabbing each other).”[54] “Lorsque j’allais çà et là dans la rivière, dit un autre missionnaire, on me montrait les endroits de la rive d’où avaient coutume de partir les guerriers pour capturer les canots et les hommes. Il était affligeant d’entendre décrire les terribles massacres qui avaient lieu d’habitude à la mort d’un grand Chef. Un trou profond était creusé en terre, où des vingtaines d’esclaves jetés après que leurs têtes avaient été coupées (after having their heads cut off), et sur cette horrible pile, on plaçait le cadavre du Chef couronnant ce carnage humain indescriptible.”[55] Et les missionnaires constatent combien encore en ces jours actuels les indigènes reviennent aisément à leurs anciennes coutumes. Il apparaît aussi que cette autre affirmation du Rapport[56] qu’à la différence d’aujourd’hui, les indigènes autrefois ne s’enfuyaient pas à l’approche d’un steamer, n’est pas d’accord avec les récits des voyageurs et explorateurs.

Il est, en tout cas, à remarquer que le Consul n’a constaté dans le territoire où s’exerce l’activité de la Société A.B.I.R. aucun de ces faits de cruauté qui eût pu être représenté comme imputable aux agents commerciaux. La coïncidence est à relever, puisque la Société A.B.I.R. est précisément une Compagnie à Concession et qu’on ne cesse d’attribuer au régime des Concessions les conséquences les plus désastreuses pour les indigènes.

Ce qui domine les innombrables questions touchées par le Consul et la multiplicité des menus faits qu’il a recueillis, c’est de savoir si vraiment cette sorte de tableau d’une existence misérable, qui serait celle des indigènes, répond à la réalité des choses. Nous prendrons pour exemple la région de la Lulanga et du Lopori, parce que là se trouvent, depuis des années, des centres de Missions de la “Congo Balobo Mission.” Ces missionnaires y sont établis en des endroits les plus distants et les plus intérieurs: à Lulonga, Bonginda, Ikau, Bougandanga, et Baringa, tous points situés dans la région où opèrent la Société “La Lulonga” et la Société A.B.I.R. Ils sont en contact suivi avec les populations indigènes, et une revue spéciale mensuelle, “Regions Beyond,” publie régulièrement leurs lettres, notes, et rapports. Que l’on parcoure la collection de ce recueil; nulle part, à aucun moment avant Avril 1903—à cette dernière date, la motion de Mr. Herbert Samuel était, il est vrai, annoncée au Parlement—on ne trouve trace d’une appréciation quelconque signalant ou révélant que la situation générale des populations indigènes dût être dénoncée au monde civilisé. Les missionnaires s’y félicitent de la sympathie active des agents, officiels, et commerciaux à leur égard,[57] des progrès de leur œuvre d’évangélisation,[58] des facilités que leur apporte la création de routes,[59] de la pacification des mœurs, “dû à la fois aux missionnaires et aux commerçants,”[60] de la disparition de l’esclavage,[61] de la densité de la population,[62] du nombre grandissant de leurs élèves, “grâce à l’État, qui a donné des ordres pour que les enfants fussent menés à l’école,”[63] de la disparition graduelle des pratiques indigènes primitives,[64] du contraste enfin entre le présent et le passé.[65] Admettra-t-on que ces missionnaires Chrétiens et Anglais, qui, au cours de leurs itinéraires, visitaient les postes de factorerie et étaient témoins des marchés de caoutchouc, se seraient rendus complices par leur silence d’un régime inhumain ou tortionnaire? Un des Rapports annuels de la “Congo Bolobo Mission” dit dans ses conclusions: “Dans l’ensemble, le coup d’œil rétrospectif est encourageant. S’il n’y a pas eu une avance considérable, il n’y a pas eu de triste déception, et il n’est aucune opposition définitive à l’œuvre.... Il y a eu de la disette et des maladies parmi les natifs, notamment à Bonginda.... A part cela, il n’y a pas eu de sérieux empêchements au progrès....”[66] Et, parlant incidemment des effets bienfaisants du travail sur l’état social des indigènes, un missionnaire écrit: “The greatest obstacle to conversion is polygamy. Many evils have been put down, e.g., idleness, thanks to the State having compelled the men to work; and fighting, through their not having time enough to fight.”[67] Ces appréciations des missionnaires nous paraissent plus précises que les données d’un Rapport à chaque page duquel, pour ainsi dire, on lit: “I was told;” “it was said;” “I was informed;” “I was assured;” “They said;” “it was alleged;” “I had no means of verifying;” “It was impossible to me to verify;” “I have no means of ascertaining,” &c. En dix lignes, par exemple, on rencontre quatre fois l’expression: “appears;” “would seem;” “would seem;” “do not seem.”[68]

Le Consul ne semble pas s’être rendu compte que c’est le travail qui constitue l’impôt indigène au Congo, et que cette forme d’impôt se justifie autant par son caractère moralisateur que par l’impossibilité de taxer autrement l’indigène, en raison même du fait, constaté par le Consul, que l’indigène n’a pas de numéraire. Cette dernière considération fait, pour en donner un autre exemple, que sur 56,700 huttes imposées dans la North-Eastern Rhodesia, 19,653 payent la taxe “in labour” et 4,938 la payent “in produce.”[69] Que ce travail soit fourni directement à l’État ou à telle ou telle entreprise privée, qu’il soit adapté, selon les possibilités locales, à telles prestations ou à telles autres, sa justification a toujours l’une de ses bases dans ce que le Mémorandum du 11 Février dernier reconnaît être la “necessity of the natives being induced to work.” Le Consul s’inquiète surtout de la qualification à donner à la fourniture du travail; il s’étonne, si c’est là un impôt de ce que cet impôt soit payé et recouvrable parfois par des agents commerciaux. Dans la rigueur des principes, il est à reconnaître, en effet, que la rémunération d’un impôt heurte les notions fiscales ordinaires; elle s’explique cependant en fait si l’on songe qu’il s’est agi de faire contracter l’habitude de travail à des indigènes qui y ont été réfractaires de tout temps. Et si cette idée du travail peut être plus aisément inculquée aux natifs sous la forme de transactions commerciales entre eux et des particuliers, faut-il nécessairement condamner ce mode d’action, notamment dans des régions dont l’organisation administrative n’est pas complétée? Mais il s’impose que, dans leurs rapports de cet ordre avec les indigènes, les agents commerciaux, comme d’ailleurs les agents de l’État eux-mêmes, s’inspirent de pratiques bienveillantes et humaines. A cet égard, les éléments que fournit le Rapport du Consul seront l’objet d’une étude approfondie, et si le résultat de cet examen révélait des abus réels ou commandait des réformes, l’Administration supérieure agirait comme l’exigeraient les circonstances.

Nul n’a jamais pensé, d’ailleurs, que le régime fiscal au Congo eût atteint d’emblée la perfection, notamment au point de vue de l’assiette de l’impôt et des moyens de recouvrement. Le système des “chefferies,” bon en soi en ce qu’il place entre l’autorité et l’indigène l’intermédiaire de son chef naturel, procédait d’une idée mise en pratique ailleurs:—

“The more important Chiefs who helped the Administration have been paid a certain percentage of the taxes collected in their districts, and I think that if this policy is adhered to each year, the results will continue to be satisfactory and will encourage the Chiefs to work in harmony with the Administration.”[70]

Le Décret sur les chefferies[71] établissait le principe de l’impôt, et sa perception selon “un tableau des prestations annuelles à fournir, par chaque village, en produits, en corvées, travailleurs ou soldats.” L’application de ce Décret a été formulée en des actes d’investiture, des tableaux statistiques et des états de prestation, dont les modèles sont reproduits à l’Annexe IV. Contrairement à ce que pense le Rapport, ce Décret a reçu l’exécution compatible avec l’état d’avancement social des tribus; de nombreux actes d’investiture ont été dressés et des efforts ont été faits pour établir des états de répartition équitable des prestations. Le Consul eût pu s’en assurer dans les bureaux des Commissariats, notamment des districts du Stanley-Pool et de l’Équateur qu’il a traversés; mais il a généralement négligé les sources d’informations officielles. Sans doute, l’application fut et devait être limitée dans les débuts, et il a pu en résulter que les demandes d’impôts ont atteint, pendant quelque temps, les seuls villages dans un certain périmètre autour des stations; mais cette situation s’est améliorée progressivement au fur et à mesure que, les régions plus distantes se trouvant englobées dans la zone d’influence des postes gouvernementaux, le nombre des villages astreints à l’impôt s’est accru successivement et que les taxes ont pu être réparties sur un chiffre plus grand de contribuables. Le Gouvernement vise à ce que le progrès soit constant dans cette voie, c’est-à-dire à ce que l’impôt soit le plus équitablement réparti et soit, autant que possible, personnel; le Décret du 18 Novembre, 1903, tend à ce but en prescrivant l’établissement de “rôles des prestations indigènes” de manière que les obligations de chacun des natifs soient nettement précisées.

“Chaque année, dit l’Article 28 de ce Décret, les Commissaires de District dresseront dans les limites de l’Article 2 du présent Règlement (c’est-à-dire dans la limite de quarante heures de travail par mois par indigène), les rôles des prestations à fournir, en espèce et en durée de travail par chacun des indigènes résidant dans les territoires de leur district respectif.” Et l’Article 55 punit “quiconque, chargé de la perception des prestations, aura exigé des indigènes, soit comme impôt en nature soit comme heures de travail, des prestations d’une valeur supérieure à celles prévues dans les rôles d’impositions.”

Nul n’ignore que le recouvrement de l’impôt se heurte parfois au mauvais vouloir, et même au refus de payer. La démonstration qu’en fait le Rapport du Consul pour le Congo est corroborée par l’expérience faite, par exemple, dans la Rhodésia.

“The Ba-Unga (Awemba district), inhabitants of the swamps in the Chambezi delta, gave some trouble on being summoned to pay taxes.”[72]—“Although in many cases whole villages retired into the swamps on being called upon for the hut tax, the general result was satisfactory for the first year (Luapula district).”[73]—“Milala’s people have succeeded in evading taxes.”[74]—“A few natives bordering on the Portuguese territory, who, owing to the great distance they reside from the Native Commissioners’ stations, are not under the direct supervision of the Native Commissioners, have so far evaded paying hut tax, and refused to submit themselves to the authority of the Government. The rebel Chief, Mapondera, has upon three occasions successfully eluded punitive expeditions sent against him.... Captain Gilson, of the British South Africa Police, was successful in coming upon him and a large following of natives, and inflicting heavy losses upon them.... His kraal and all his crops were destroyed. He is now reported to be in Portuguese territory.... Siji M’Kota, another powerful Chief, living in the northern parts of the M’toko district, bordering on Portuguese territory, has also been successful in evading the payment of hut tax, and generally pursuing the adoption of an attitude which is not acceptable to the Government. I am pleased to report that a patrol is at present on its way to these parts to deal with this Chief, and to endeavour to obtain his submission. It will be noted that the above remarks relate solely to those natives who reside along the borders of our territories, and whose defiant attitude is materially assisted by reason of this proximity to the Portuguese border, across which they are well able to proceed whenever they consider that any meeting or contact with the Native Commissioner will interfere in any way with their indolent and lazy life. They possess no movable property which might be attached with a view to the recovery of hut tax unpaid for many years, and travel backwards and forwards with considerable freedom, always placing themselves totally beyond the reach of the Native Commissioner.”[75]

C’est là un exemple de ces “punitive expeditions” auxquelles l’autorité se voit obligée de recourir parfois, et aussi de ce procédé des natifs, non spécial aux indigènes Congolais, de se déplacer en territoire voisin pour se soustraire à l’exécution de la loi.—Que si, au Congo, dans le recouvrement des prestations indigènes, des cas, parmi ceux cités par le Consul, ont réellement dépassé les limites d’une rigueur juste et pondérée, ce sont là des circonstances de faits que des investigations sur les lieux pourront seules élucider, et des instructions seront, à cet effet, données à l’administration de Boma.

Il ne peut être davantage accepté, jusqu’à plus ample informé, les considérations du Rapport sur l’action des gardes forestiers au service de la Société A.B.I.R. et de “La Lulonga.” Ces sous-ordres sont représentés par le Consul comme exclusivement préposés à “obliger par force la récolte du caoutchouc ou les approvisionnements dont chaque factorerie a besoin.”[76] Une autre explication a cependant été donnée, mais elle n’émane pas d’un indigène, à savoir que ces gardes forestiers ont pour mission de veiller à ce que la récolte du caoutchouc se fasse rationnellement et d’empêcher notamment que les indigènes ne coupent les lianes.[77] On sait, en effet, que la loi a prescrit des mesures rigoureuses pour assurer la conservation des zones caoutchoutières, a réglementé leur exploitation et a imposé des plantations et replantations, en vue d’éviter l’épuisement complet du caoutchouc, comme on l’a vu par exemple dans la “North-Eastern and Western Rhodesia.”[78] Les Sociétés et particuliers exploitants ont de ce chef une lourde responsabilité et ont incontestablement une surveillance minutieuse à exercer sur les modes et procédés de récoltes. La raison d’être de ces gardes forestiers peut donc, en réalité, être tout autre que celle dite par le Consul; en tout cas, les plaintes formulées à ce sujet formeront l’un des points de l’enquête au Congo, de même que cette autre remarque du Rapport que l’armement de ces gardes forestiers serait excessif et abusif. Il faut dès à présent remarquer que dans ses évaluations du nombre des gardes armés, le Consul procède par déductions hypothétiques[79] et qu’il dit lui-même: “I have no means of ascertaining the number of this class of armed men employed by the A.B.I.R. Company.”[80] Il donne le détail que le fusil d’un de ces hommes était marqué sur la crosse: “Dépôt 2,210.” Or, il est évident qu’une telle indication ne peut avoir la signification que voudrait lui donner le Consul que pour autant qu’il soit établi qu’elle se rapporte à un numérotage des armes utilisées dans la Concession, et tel n’est pas le cas, car cette marque: Dépôt ... n’est employée ni par les Agents de l’État ni par la Société, et il est à supposer qu’elle constitue une ancienne marque, soit de fabrication, soit de magasin. Quant à l’armement des capitas, le Consul ne doit pas ignorer que ce point—qui n’est pas sans difficulté, puisqu’il faut à la fois tenir compte de la nécessité de la défense personnelle du capita et de l’écueil d’un usage abusif de l’arme qui lui est confiée—n’a cessé d’être l’objet de l’attention de l’autorité supérieure. Il n’y a pas que la seule Circulaire du 20 Octobre, 1900, reproduite par le Consul, qui ait traité la question; il en est tout un ensemble, datant notamment des 12 Mars, 1897, 31 Mai et 28 Novembre, 1900, et 30 Avril, 1901. Nous les reproduisons en Annexes, comme témoignant de l’absolue volonté du pouvoir de faire appliquer strictement les dispositions légales en la matière (Annexe V). Nonobstant les précautions incessantes, le Consul a constaté que plusieurs capitas n’étaient pas porteurs de permis—ces permis ne se trouvait-ils pas au siège de la Direction?—et que deux d’entre eux étaient armés d’armes de précision.[81] Ces quelques infractions ne suffiraient évidemment pas pour conclure à une sorte de vaste organisation armée, destinée à terroriser les indigènes. Cette autre Circulaire du 7 Septembre, 1903, reproduite à l’Annexe VII du Rapport du Consul, montre, au contraire, le soin que met le Gouvernement à ce que les soldats noirs réguliers eux-mêmes soient en tout temps sous le contrôle des officiers Européens.[82]

Telles sont les premières remarques que suggère le Rapport de M. Casement, et nous nous réservons de le raconter plus en détail, lorsque seront en possession du Gouvernement les résultats de l’enquête à laquelle les autorités locales vont procéder. Il sera remarqué que le Gouvernement, ne voulant pas paraître faire dévier le débat, n’a pas soulevé la question préjudicielle au sujet des formes, à coup sûr insolites, en lesquelles le Consul de Sa Majesté Britannique a agi en territoire étranger. Il n’échappera pas combien le rôle que s’est attribué le Consul en instituant des sortes d’enquêtes, en faisant comparaître des indigènes, en les interrogeant comme par voie d’autorité, en émettant même des espèces de jugements sur la culpabilité d’accusés, est en dehors des limites des attributions d’un Consul. Les réserves qu’appelle ce mode de procéder doivent être d’autant plus formelles que le Consul intervenait de la sorte en des affaires où n’étaient intéressés que des ressortissants de l’État du Congo et relevant exclusivement de l’autorité territoriale. M. Casement s’est chargé de se désavouer lui-même lorsque, le 4 Septembre, 1903, il écrivait au Gouverneur-Général: “I have no right of representation to your Excellency save where the persons or interests of British subjects dwelling in this country are affected.” Il était donc conscient de ce qu’il outrepassait les devoirs de sa charge, lorsqu’il investiguait sur des faits d’administration purement intérieure et empiétait ainsi sur les attributions des autorités territoriales, à l’encontre des règles du droit Consulaire.

“The grievances of the natives have been made known in this country by ..., who brought over a Petition addressed to the King, praying for relief from the excessive taxation and oppressive legislation of which they complain.”

Ces lignes sont extraites du “Report for 1903 de la British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society,” et les natifs dont il est question sont les indigènes des Iles Fiji. Ce Rapport continue:—

“The case has been brought before the House of Commons. The grievances include forced labour on the roads, and restrictions which practically amount to slavery; natives have been flogged without trial by Magistrate’s orders and are constantly subject to imprisonment for frivolous causes. Petitions lodged with the local Colonial Secretary have been disregarded. Mr. Chamberlain, in reply to the questions asked in Parliament, threw doubt upon the information received, but stated that the recently appointed Governor is conducting an inquiry into the whole situation in the Fiji Islands, in the course of which the matter will be fully investigated.”

Ces conclusions sont les nôtres au sujet du Rapport de M. Casement.

Bruxelles, le 12 Mars, 1904.

(Translation.)

During the sitting of the House of Commons of the 11th March, 1903, Lord Cranborne observed:—

“We have no reason to think that slavery is recognized by the authorities of the Congo Free State, but reports of acts of cruelty and oppression have reached us. Such reports have been received from our Consular Officers.”

The Government of the Congo State addressed a letter on the 14th March, 1903, to Sir C. Phipps, requesting him to be good enough to communicate the facts which had formed the subject of any reports from British Consuls.

No reply was received to this application.

Lord Lansdowne’s despatch of the 8th August, 1903, contained the following passage:—

“Representations to this effect (alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and existence of trade monopolies) are to be found ... in despatches from His Majesty’s Consuls.”

The impression was thus created that at that date His Majesty’s Government were in possession of conclusive evidence furnished by their Consuls: but none the less it seemed clearly necessary that Consul Casement should undertake a journey in the Upper Congo. It would appear, therefore, as if the conclusions contained in the note of the 8th August were at least premature; it equally follows that, contrary to what was said in that note, the British Consul was at liberty to undertake any journey in the interior that he thought fit. In any case, it is to be observed that, in spite of the repeated applications of the Congo State, the White Paper (“Africa No. 1 (1904)”) recently presented to Parliament does not contain any of these former Consular Reports, which nevertheless would have been the more interesting as dating from a time when the present campaign had not yet been initiated.

The present Report draws attention to the fact that in certain places visited by the Consul the population is decreasing. Mr. Casement does not give the facts on which he bases his comparative figures for 1887 and 1903. The question arises how, during the course of his rapid and hasty visits, he was able to get his figures for this latter year. On what facts, for instance, does he found his assertion that the riverain population of Lake Mantumba seems to have diminished from 60 to 70 per cent. in the course of the last ten years. He states that at a certain place designated as F* the population of all the villages together does not at present amount to more than 500 souls; a few lines further on these same villages are spoken of as only containing 240 inhabitants altogether. These are only details, but they show at once what a lack of precision there is in certain of the deductions made by the Consul. It is, no doubt, unfortunately only too true that the population has diminished; but the diminution is due to other causes than to the exercise on the native population of a too exacting or oppressive Administration. It is owing chiefly to the sleeping-sickness, which is decimating the population throughout Equatorial Africa. The Report itself observes that “a prominent place must be assigned to this malady,”[83] and that this malady is “probably one of the principal factors” in the diminution of the population.[84] It is only necessary to read the Rev. John Whitehead’s letter, quoted by the Consul (Annex II to the Report) to obtain an idea of the ravages of the malady, to which this missionary attributes half of the deaths which take place in the riverain parts of the district. In a recent interview Mgr. Van Ronslé, Vicar Apostolic of the Belgian Congo, who speaks with the authority of one who has had a large experience of African matters, and has resided for long periods in many different localities in the Congo, explained the development of this scourge and the inevitable decay of the populations it attacks, whatever the conditions of their social existence; mentioning among other cases the terrible loss of life caused by this disease in Uganda. If to this principal cause of the depopulation of the Congo are added small-pox epidemics, the inability of the tribes at the present moment to keep up their numbers by the purchase of slaves, and the ease with which the natives can migrate, it can be explained how the Consul and the missionaries may have been struck with the diminution of the number of inhabitants in certain centres without that diminution necessarily being the result of a system of oppression. Annex I contains the declarations on the subject made by Mgr. Van Ronslé. His remarks as to the effect of the suppression of slavery on the numbers of the population are printed elsewhere:—

“The people (slave) are for the most part originally prisoners of war. Since the Decree of emancipation they have simply returned to their own distant homes, knowing their owners have no power to recapture them. This is one reason why some think the population is decreasing, and another reason is the vast exodus up and down river.”[85]

“So long as the Slave Trade flourished the Bobangi flourished, but with its abolition they are tending to disappear, for their towns were replenished by slaves.”[86]

The Consul mentions cases, the causes of which, however, are unknown to him, of an exodus of natives of the Congo to the French bank. It is not quite clear on what grounds he attaches blame to the State on their account, to judge at least from the motives by which some of them have been determined—for instance, the examples of such emigration which are given and explained by the Rev. W. H. Bentley, an English missionary. One relates to the station at Lukolela:—

“The main difficulty has been the shifting of the population. It appears that the population, when the station was founded in 1886, was between 5,000 and 6,000 in the riverain Colonies. About two years later the Chief Mpuki did not agree with his neighbours or they with him. When the tension became acute, Mpuki crossed over with his people to the opposite (French) side of the river. This exodus took away a large number of people. In 1890 or 1891 a Chief from one of the lower towns was compelled by the majority of his people to leave the State side, and several went with him. About 1893 the rest of the people at the lower towns either went across to the same place as the deposed Chief or took up their residence inland. Towards the end of 1894 a soldier, who had been sent to cut firewood for the State steamers on an island off the towns, left his work to make an evil request in one of the towns. He shot the man who refused him. The rascal of a soldier was properly dealt with by the State officer in charge; but this outrage combined with other smaller difficulties to produce a panic, and nearly all the people left for the French side, or hid away inland. So the fine township has broken up.”[87]

The other refers to the station at Bolobo:—

“It is rare indeed for Bolobo, with its 30,000 or 40,000 people, divided into some dozen clans, to be at peace for any length of time together. The loss of life from these petty wars, the number of those killed for witchcraft, and of those who are buried alive with the dead, involve, even within our narrow limits here at Bolobo, an almost daily drain upon the vitality of the country, and an incalculable amount of sorrow and suffering.... The Government was not indifferent to these murderous ways.... In 1890, the District Commissioner called the people together, and warned them against the burying of slaves alive in the graves of free people, and the reckless killing of slaves which then obtained. The natives did not like the rising power of the State.... Our own settlement among them was not unattended with difficulty.... There was a feeling against white men generally, and especially so against the State. The people became insolent and haughty.... Just at this time ... as a force of soldiers steamed past the Moye towns, the steamers were fired upon. The soldiers landed and burnt and looted the towns. The natives ran away into the grass, and great numbers crossed to the French side of the river. They awoke to the fact that Bula Matadi, the State, was not the helpless thing they had so long thought. This happened early in 1891.”[88]

It will be seen that these examples do not attribute the emigration of the natives to any such causes as:—

“The methods employed to obtain labour from them by local officials and the exactions levied on them.”[89]

The Report dwells at length on the existence of native taxes. It shows how the natives are subject to forced labour of various kinds, in one district having to furnish the Government posts with “chikwangues,” or fresh provisions, in another being obliged to assist in works of public utility, such as the construction of a jetty at Bololo, or the up-keep of the telegraph line at F*; elsewhere being obliged to collect the produce of the domain lands. We maintain that such imposts on the natives are legitimate, in agreement on this point with His Majesty’s Government, who, in the Memorandum of the 11th February last, declare that the industry and development of the British Colonies and Protectorates in Africa show that His Majesty’s Government have always admitted the necessity of making the natives contribute to the public charges and of inducing them to work. We also agree with His Majesty’s Government that, if abuses occur in this connection—and undoubtedly some have occurred in all Colonies—such abuses call for reform, and that it is the duty of the authorities to put an end to them, and to reconcile as far as may be the requirements of the Government with the real interests of the natives.

But in this matter the Congo State intends to exercise freely its rights of sovereignty—as, for instance, His Majesty’s Government explain in their last Memorandum that they themselves did at Sierra Leone—without regard to external pressure or foreign interference, which would be an encroachment upon its essential rights.

The Consul, in his Report, obviously endeavours to create the impression that taxes in the Congo are collected in a violent, inhuman, and cruel manner, and we are anxious before all to rebut the accusation which has so often been brought against the State that such collection gives rise to odious acts of mutilation. On this point a superficial perusal of the Report is calculated to impress by its easy accumulation not of facts, simple, precise, and verified, but of the declarations and affirmations of natives.

There is a preliminary remark to be made in regard to the conditions in which the Consul made his journey.

Whether such was his intention or not, the British Consul appeared to the inhabitants as the redresser of the wrongs, real or imaginary, of the natives, and his presence at La Lulonga, coinciding with the campaign which was being directed against the Congo State, in a region where the influence of the Protestant missionaries has long been exercised, necessarily had for the natives a significance which did not escape them. The Consul made his investigations quite independently of the Government officials, quite independently of any action and of any co-operation on the part of the regular authorities; he was assisted in his proceedings by English Protestant missionaries; he made his inspection on a steamer belonging to a Protestant Mission; he was entertained for the most part in the Protestant Missions; and, in these circumstances, it was inevitable that he should be considered by the native as the antagonist of the established authorities.

Other proof is not required than the characteristic fact that while the Consul was at Bonginda, the natives crowded down to the bank, as some agents of the La Lulonga Company were going by in a canoe, and cried out: “Your violence is over, it is passing away; only the English remain; may you others die!” There is also this significant admission on the part of a Protestant missionary, who, in alluding to this incident, remarked:—

“The Consul was here at the time, and the people were much excited and evidently thought themselves on top.... The people have got this idea (that the rubber work was finished) into their heads of themselves, consequent, I suppose, upon the Consul’s visit.”

In these circumstances, in view of the state of mind which they show to exist among the natives, in view of their impressionable character and of their natural desire to escape taxation, it could not be doubted but that the conclusions at which the Consul would arrive would not be other than those set forth in his Report.

To bring out this point, and to show how little value is to be attached to his investigations, it will be sufficient to examine one case, that on which Mr. Casement principally relies; we allude to the Epondo case. It is that of the child I I, mentioned on pp. 56, 58, and 78 of the Report.

It is indispensable to enter somewhat at length into the details of this case, which are significant.

On the 4th September, 1903, the Consul was at the Bonginda station of the Congo Bololo Mission, having returned from a journey on the Lopori, during the course of which he had not come across any of those acts of mutilation which it is the custom to attribute to officials in the Congo.

At Bonginda, the natives of a neighbouring village (Bossunguma) came to him and informed him, amongst other things, that a “sentry” of the La Lulonga Company, named Kelengo,[90] had, at Bossunguma, cut off the hand of a native called Epondo, whose wounds were still scarcely healed. The Consul proceeded to Bossunguma, accompanied by the Rev. W. D. Armstrong and the Rev. D. J. Danielson, and had the mutilated native brought before him, who, “in answer to Consul’s question, charges a sentry named ‘Kelengo’ (placed in the town by the local agent of the La Lulonga Society to see that the people work rubber)” with having done it. Such are the Consul’s own words: it was necessary to establish a relation of cause and effect between the collection of india-rubber and this alleged case of cruelty.

The Consul proceeded to question the Chief and some of the natives of the village. They replied by accusing Kelengo; most of them asserted that they were eye-witnesses of the deed. The Consul inquired through his interpreters if there were other witnesses who saw the crime committed, and accused Kelengo of it. “Nearly all those present, about forty persons, shouted out with one voice that it was ‘Kelengo’ who did it.”

In order to understand the violence with which the natives accused Kelengo, and the unanimous manner in which the denials of the accused were rejected by his accusers, it is necessary to read the whole of the report of this inquiry, as drawn up by the Consul himself in a kind of procès-verbaux, dated the 7th, 8th, and 9th September (Annex II). From all quarters accusers appeared, and the excited crowd gave vent to all sorts of accusations: he had cut off Epondo’s hand, chained up women, stolen ducks and a dog! The Consul did not allow his suspicions to be aroused by the passionate character of these accusations; without any further guarantee of their sincerity or further examination into their truth, he looked upon his inquiry as conclusive, and as he had taken upon himself the duties of the Public Prosecutor in making preliminary inquiries into the matter, so he anticipated the decision of the responsible authorities by declaring to the assembled people that “Kelengo deserved severe punishment for his illegal and cruel acts.” He proceeded to dramatize the incident by carrying off the pretended victim, and exhibiting him on the 10th September to the official in command of the station at Coquilhatville, to whom he handed a copy of the record of his inquiry, and on the 12th September he addressed a letter to the Governor-General which he marked as “personal and private,” and in which he makes the incident in question among others a text for an attack on “the system of general exploitation of an entire population which can only be rendered successful by the employment of arbitrary and illegal force.” His inquiry terminated, he immediately started on his return journey to the Lower Congo.

Even if the circumstances had been correctly reported, the disproportion would still have been striking between them and the conclusions which the Consul draws when emphasizing his general criticisms of the Congo State. But the facts themselves are incorrectly represented.

As a matter of fact, no sooner did the Consul’s denunciation reach the Public Prosecutor’s Department than M. Gennaro Bosco, Acting Public Prosecutor, proceeded to the spot and held a judicial inquiry under the usual conditions free from all outside influences. This inquiry showed that His Britannic Majesty’s Consul had been the object of a plot contrived by the natives, who, in the hope of no longer being obliged to work, had agreed among themselves to represent Epondo as the victim of the inhuman conduct of one of the capitas of a commercial Company. In reality, Epondo had been the victim of an accident while out hunting, and had been bitten in the hand by a wild boar; gangrene had set in and caused the loss of the member, and this fact had been cleverly turned to account by the natives when before the Consul. We annex (Annex No. 3) extracts from the inquiry conducted by the Acting Public Prosecutor into the Epondo case. The evidence is typical, uniform, and without discrepancies. It leaves no doubt as to the cause of the accident, makes it clear that the natives lied to the Consul, and reveals the object which actuated them, namely, the hope that the Consul’s intervention would relieve them from the necessity of paying taxes. The inquiry shows how Epondo, at last brought to account, retracted what he had in the first instance said to the Consul, and confessed that he had been influenced by the people of his village. He was questioned as follows:—

Q. Do you persist in accusing Kelengo of having cut off your left hand?

A. No. I told a lie.

Q. State, then, how and when you lost your hand.

A. I was a slave of Monkekola’s at Malele, in the Bangala district. One day I went out boar-hunting with him. He wounded one with a spear, and thereupon the animal, enraged, turned on me. I tried to run off with the others, but falling down, the boar was on me in a moment and tore off my left hand and (wounded me) in the stomach and left thigh.

The witness exhibits the scars he carries at the places mentioned, and lying down of his own accord shows the position he was in when the boar attacked and wounded him.

Q. How long ago did this accident happen?

A. I don’t remember. It was a long time ago.

Q. Why did you accuse Kelengo?

A. Because Momaketa, one of the Bossunguma Chiefs, told me to, and afterwards all the inhabitants of my village did so too.

* * * * * * * *

Q. Did the English photograph you?

A. Yes, at Bonginda and Lulanga. They told me to put the stump well forward. There were Nenele, Mongongolo, Torongo, and other whites whose names I don’t know. They were whites from Lulanga. Mongongolo took away six photographs.[91]

Epondo of his own accord repeated his declarations and retractations to a Protestant missionary, Mr. Faris, who lives at Bolengi. This gentleman has sent the Commissary-General at Coquilhatville the following written declaration:—

“I, E. E. Faris, missionary, residing at Bolengi, Upper Congo, declare that I questioned the boy Epondo, of the village of Bosongoma, who was at my house on the 10th September, 1903, with Mr. Casement, the British Consul, and whom, in accordance with the request made to me by Commandant Stevens, of Coquilhatville, I took to the mission station at Bolengi on the 16th October, 1903; and that the said boy has this day, the 17th October, 1903, told me that he lost his hand through the bite of a wild boar.

“He told me at the same time that he informed Mr. Casement that his hand was cut off either by a soldier or, perhaps, by one of those working for the white men (“travailleurs de blanc”), who have been making war in his village with a view to the collection of rubber, but he asserts that the account which he has given me to-day is the truth.”

(Signed) “E. E. Faris.”

“Bolengi, October 17, 1903.”

The inquiry resulted in the discharge of the prisoner, which, so far as it concerned the Epondo question, was in the following terms:—

We, Acting Public Prosecutor of the Court of Coquilhatville:

Having regard to the notes made by His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, on the occasion of his visit to the villages of Ikandja and Bossunguma in the territory of the Ngombe, from which it would appear that a certain Kelengo, a forest guard in the service of the La Lulonga Company—

(a.) Cut off the left hand of a certain Epondo;

(b.) ...;

(c.) ...;

Having regard to the inquiry instituted by Lieutenant Braeckman, which partly confirms the result of the inquiry instituted by His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, but also partly contradicts it, and to the charges already brought against Kelengo adds that of having killed a native of the name of Baluwa;

Having regard to the conclusions arrived at by the police employé in question, which tend to raise grave doubts as to the truth of all these charges;

In view of the fact that all the natives who brought these charges against Kelengo, whether before His Britannic Majesty’s Consul or Lieutenant Braeckman, on being summoned by us, the Acting Public Prosecutor, took to flight, and all efforts to find them have been fruitless; that this flight obviously throws doubt on the truth of their allegations;

That all the witnesses whom we have questioned during the course of our inquiry declare ... that Epondo lost his left hand from the bite of a wild boar;

That Epondo confirms these statements, and admits that he told a lie at the instigation of the natives of Bossunguma and Ikondja, who hoped to escape collecting rubber through the intervention of His Britannic Majesty’s Consul, whom they considered to be very powerful;

That the witnesses, almost all inhabitants of the accusing villages, admit that such was the object of their lie;

That this version, apart from the unanimous declarations of the witnesses and the injured parties, is also the most plausible, seeing that every one knows that the natives dislike work in general and having to collect rubber, and are, moreover, ready to lie and accuse people falsely;

That it is confirmed by the clearly stated opinion of the English missionary Armstrong, who considers the natives to be “capable of any plot to escape work and especially the labour of collecting rubber”;

That the innocence of Kelengo having been thoroughly established, there is no reason for proceeding against him;

On the above-mentioned grounds, we, the Acting Public Prosecutor, declare that there are no grounds for proceeding against Kelengo, a forest guard in the service of the La Lulonga Company, for the offences mentioned in Articles 2, 5, 11, and 19 of the Penal Code.

(Signed) Bosco, Acting Public Prosecutor.

Mampoko, October 9, 1903.

We have dealt at length with the above case because it is considered by the Consul himself as being one of the utmost importance, and because he relies upon this single case for accepting as accurate all the other declarations made to him by natives.

“In the one case I could alone personally investigate,” he says,[92] “that of the boy I I, I found this accusation proved on the spot without seemingly a shadow of doubt existing as to the guilt of the accused sentry.”

And further on:—

“I had not time to do more than visit the one village of R**, and in that village I had only time to investigate the charge brought by I I.”[93]

And elsewhere:—

“It was obviously impossible that I should ... verify on the spot, as in the case of the boy, the statements they made. In that one case the truth of the charges preferred was amply demonstrated.”[94]

It is also to this case that he alludes in his letter of the 12th September, 1903, to the Governor-General, where he says:—

“When speaking to M. le Commandant Stevens at Colquilhatville on the 10th instant, when the mutilated boy Epondo stood before us as evidence of the deplorable state of affairs I reprobated, I said, ‘I do not accuse an individual, I accuse a system.’ ”

It is only natural to conclude that if the rest of the evidence in the Consul’s Report is of the same value as that furnished to him in this particular case, it cannot possibly be regarded as conclusive. And it is obvious that in those cases in which the Consul, as he himself admits, did not attempt to verify the assertions of the natives, these assertions are worth, if possible, still less.

It is doubtless true that the Consul deliberately incurred the certain risk of being misled owing to the manner in which he interrogated the natives, which he did, as a matter of fact, through two interpreters—“through Vinda, speaking in Bobangi, and Bateko, repeating his utterances ... in the local dialect;[95] so that the Consul was at the mercy not only of the truthfulness of the native who was being questioned, but depended also on the correctness of the translations of two other natives, one of whom was a servant of his own, and the other apparently the missionaries’ interpreter.[96] But any one who has ever been in contact with the native knows how much he is given to lying; the Rev. C. H. Harvey[97] states that—

“The natives of the Congo who surrounded us were contemptible, perfidious and cruel, impudent liars, dishonest, and vile.”

It is also important, if one wishes to get a correct idea of the value of this evidence, to note that while Mr. Casement was questioning the natives, he was accompanied by two local Protestant English missionaries, whose presence must alone have necessarily affected the evidence.[98]

We should ourselves be going too far if from all this we were to conclude that the whole of the native statements reported by the Consul ought to be rejected. But it is clearly shown that his proofs are insufficient as a basis for a deliberate judgment, and that the particulars in question require to be carefully and impartially tested.

On examining the Consul’s voluminous Report for other cases which he has seen, and which he sets down as cases of mutilation, it will be observed that he mentions two as having occurred on Lake Mantumba[99] “some years ago.”[100] He mentions several others, in regard to the number of which the particulars given in the Report do not seem to agree,[101] as having taken place in the neighbourhood of Bonginda,[102] precisely in the country of the Epondo inquiry, where, as has been seen, the general feeling was excited and prejudiced. It is these cases which, he says, he had not time to inquire into fully,[103] and which, according to the natives, were due to agents of the La Lulanga Company. Were these instances of victims of the practice of native customs which the natives would have been careful not to admit? Were the injuries which the Consul saw due to some conflict between neighbouring villages or tribes? Or were they really due to the black subordinates of the Company? This cannot be determined by a perusal of the Report, as the natives in this instance, as in every other, were the sole source of the Consul’s information, and he, for his part, confined himself to taking rapid notes of their numerous statements for a few hours in the morning of the 5th September, being pressed for time, in order to reach K* (Bossunguma) at a reasonable hour.[104]

Notwithstanding the weight which he attaches to the “air of frankness” and the “air of conviction and sincerity”[105] on the part of the natives, his own experience shows clearly the necessity for caution, and renders rash his assertion “that it was clear that these men were stating either what they had actually seen with their eyes or firmly believed in their hearts.”[106]

Now, however, that the Consul has drawn attention to these few cases—whether cases of cruelty or not, and they are all that, as a matter of fact, he has inquired into personally, and even so without being able to prove sufficiently their real cause—the authorities will of course look into the matter and cause inquiries to be made. It is to be regretted that, this being so, all mention of date, place, and name has been systematically omitted in the copy of the Report communicated to the Government of the Independent State of the Congo. It is impossible not to see that these suppressions will place great difficulties in the way of the Magistrates who will have to inquire into the facts, and the Government of the Congo trust that, in the interests of truth, they may be placed in possession of the complete text of the Consul’s Report.

It is not to be wondered at if the Government of the Congo State take this opportunity of protesting against the proceedings of their detractors, who have thought fit to submit to the public reproductions of photographs of mutilated natives, and have started the odious story of hands being cut off with the knowledge and even at the instigation of Belgians in Africa. The photograph of Epondo, for instance, mutilated in the manner known, and who has “twice been photographed,” is probably one of those which the English pamphlets are circulating as proof of the execrable administration of the Belgians in Africa. One English review reproduced the photograph of a “cannibal surrounded with the skulls of his victims,” and underneath was written: “In the original photograph the cannibal was naked. The artist has made him decent by ... covering his breast with the star of the Congo State. It is now a suggestive emblem of the Christian-veneered cannibalism on the Congo.”[107] At this rate it would suffice to throw discredit on the Uganda Administration if the plates were published illustrating the mutilations which, in a letter dated Uganda, 16th December, 1902, Dr. Castellani says he saw in the neighbourhood of Entebbe itself: “It is not difficult to find there natives without noses or ears, &c.”[108]

The truth is, that in Uganda, as in the Congo, the natives still give way to their savage instincts. This objection has been anticipated by Mr. Casement, who remarks:—

“It was not a native custom prior to the coming of the white man; it was not the outcome of the primitive instincts of savages in their fights between village and village; it was the deliberate act of the soldiers of a European Administration, and these men themselves never made any concealment that in committing these acts they were but obeying the positive orders of their superiors.”[109]

That Mr. Casement should formulate so serious a charge without at the same time supporting it by absolute proof would seem to justify those who consider that his previous employment has not altogether been such as to qualify him for the duties of a Consul. Mr. Casement remained seventeen days on Lake Mantumba, a lake said to be 25 to 30 miles long and 12 to 15 broad, surrounded by dense forest.[110] He scarcely left its shores at all. In these circumstances it is difficult to see how he could have made any useful researches into the former habits and customs of the inhabitants. On the contrary, from the fact that the tribes in question are still very savage, and addicted to cannibalism,[111] it would seem that they have not abandoned the practice of those cruelties which throughout Africa were the usual accompaniments of barbarous habits and anthropophagy. In one portion of the districts which the Consul visited, the evidence of the English missionaries on this point is most instructive. The Rev. McKittrick, in describing the sanguinary contests between the natives, mentions the efforts to pacify the country which he formerly made through the Chiefs:—“.... We told them that for the future we should not let any man carrying spears or knives pass through our station. Our God was a God of peace, and we, His children, could not bear to see our black brothers cutting and stabbing each other.”[112] “While I was going up and down the river,” says another missionary, “they pointed out to me the King’s beaches, whence they used to dispatch their fighting men to capture canoes and men. It was heartrending to hear them describe the awful massacres that used to take place at a great Chief’s death. A deep hole was dug in the ground, into which scores of slaves were thrown after having their heads cut off; and upon that horrible pile they laid the Chief’s dead body to crown the indescribable human carnage.”[113] And the missionaries speak of the facility with which even nowadays the natives return to their old customs. It would seem, too, that the statement made in the Report,[114] that the natives now fly on the approach of a steamer as they never used to do, is hardly in accordance with the reports of travellers and explorers.

Be this how it may, it is to be observed that nowhere in the territory which is the scene of the operations of the A.B.I.R. Company did the Consul discover any evidence of acts of cruelty for which the commercial agents might have been considered responsible. The coincidence is remarkable, since it so happens that the A.B.I.R. Company is a concessionary Company, and that it is the system of concessions to which are constantly attributed the most disastrous consequences for the natives.

What it is important to discover from the immense number of questions touched on by the Consul, and the multiplicity of minor facts which he has collected, is whether the sort of picture he has drawn of the wretched existence led by the natives corresponds to the actual state of affairs. We will take, for instance, the district of the Lulanga and the Lopori, as the head-stations of the missions of the “Congo Balolo Mission” have been established there for years past. These missionaries are established in the most distant places in the interior, at Lulonga, Bonginda, Ikau, Bongandanga, and Baringa, all of which are situated in the scene of operations of the La Lulonga and A.B.I.R. Companies. They are in constant communication with the native populations, and a special monthly review, called “Regions Beyond,” regularly publishes their letters, notes, and reports. An examination of a set of these publications reveals no trace, at any time previous to April 1903—by that date, it is true, Mr. Herbert Samuel’s motion had been brought before Parliament—of anything either to point out or to reveal that the general situation of the native populations was such as ought to be denounced to the civilized world. The missionaries congratulate themselves on the active sympathy shown them by the various official and commercial agents,[115] on the progress of their work of evangelization,[116] on the facilities afforded them by the construction of roads,[117] on the manner in which the natives are becoming civilized, “owing to the mere presence of white men in their midst, both missionaries and traders,”[118] on the disappearance of slavery,[119] on the density of the population,[120] on the growing number of their pupils, “especially since the State has issued orders for all children within reach to attend the mission schools,”[121] on the gradual disappearance of the primitive customs of the natives,[122] and lastly, on the contrast between the present and the past.[123] Will it be admitted that these Christian English missionaries, who, during their journeys, visited the various factories, and witnessed markets of rubber being held, would, by keeping silence, make themselves the accomplices of an inhuman or wrongful system of government? Among the conclusions of one of the Annual Reports of the Congo Balolo Mission is to be found the following: “On the whole, the retrospect is encouraging. If there has been no great advance, there has been no heavy falling off, and no definite opposition to the work.... There has been much famine and sickness among the natives, especially at Bonginda.... Apart from this, there has been no serious hindrance to progress....”[124] And speaking incidentally of the beneficial effect produced by work on the social condition of the natives, a missionary writes: “The greatest obstacle to conversion is polygamy. Many evils have been put down, e.g., idleness, thanks to the State having compelled the men to work; and fighting, through their not having time enough to fight.”[125] These opinions of missionaries appear to us to be more precise than those expressed in a Report on every page of which it may be said one finds such expressions as: “I was told,” “it was said,” “I was informed,” “I was assured,” “they said,” “it was alleged,” “I had no means of verifying,” “it was impossible for me to verify,” “I have no means of ascertaining,” &c. Within a space of ten lines, indeed, occur four times the expressions, “appears,” “would seem,” “would seem,” “do not seem.”[126]

The Consul does not appear to have realized that native taxes in the Congo are levied in the shape of labour, and that this form of tax is justified as much by the moral effect which it produces, as by the impossibility of taxing the native in any other way, seeing that, as the Consul admits, the native has no money. It is to this consideration that is due the fact, to give another example, that out of 56,700 huts which are taxed in North-Eastern Rhodesia 19,653 pay that tax “in labour,” while 4,938 pay it “in produce.”[127] Whether such labour is furnished direct to the State or to some private undertaking, and whether it is given in aid of this or that work as local necessities may dictate, one ground of justification is always to be found in what the Memorandum of the 11th February last recognizes is the “necessity of the natives being induced to work.” The Consul shows much anxiety as to how this forced labour should be described; he is surprised that if it be a tax it is sometimes paid and recovered by commercial agents. Strictly speaking, of course, it cannot be denied that the idea of remunerating a person for paying his taxes is contrary to ordinary notions of finance; but the difficulty disappears if it is considered that the object in view has been to get the natives to acquire the habit of labour, from which they have always shown a great aversion. And if this notion of work can more easily be inculcated on the natives under the form of commercial transactions between them and private persons, is it necessary to condemn such a mode of procedure, especially in those parts where the organization of the Administration is not yet complete? But it is essential that in the relations of this nature which they have with the natives, commercial agents, no less than those of the State, should be kind and humane. In so far as it bears on this point the Consul’s Report will receive the most careful consideration, and if the result of investigation be to show that there are real abuses and that reforms are called for, the heads of the Administration will act as the circumstances may require.

But no one has ever imagined that the fiscal system in the Congo attained perfection at once, especially in regard to such matters as the assessment of taxes and the means for recovering them. The system of “Chieftaincies,” which is recommended by the fact that it enables the authorities and the native to communicate through the latter’s natural Chief, was based on an idea carried into practice elsewhere:—

“The more important Chiefs who helped the Administration have been paid a certain percentage of the taxes collected in their districts, and I think that if this policy is adhered to each year, the results will continue to be satisfactory and will encourage the Chiefs to work in harmony with the Administration.”[128]

The Decree on the subject of these Chieftaincies[129] laid down the principle of a tax, and its levy in accordance with “a table of contributions to be made every year by each village in produce, forced labour, labourers, or soldiers.” The application of this Decree has been provided for by deeds of investiture, tables of statistics, and particulars of contributions, forms of which will be found in Annex IV. In spite of what is stated in the Report, this Decree has been carried out so far as has been found compatible with the social condition of the various tribes; numerous deeds of investiture have been drawn up, and efforts have been made to draw up an equitable assessment of the contributions. The Consul might have found this out at the Commissioners’ offices, especially in the Stanley Pool and Equator districts, which he passed through; but he neglected as a rule all official sources of information. No doubt the application of the Decree was at first necessarily limited, and it is possible that the result has been that for a certain time only such villages as were within a short distance from stations have been required to pay taxes; but this state of things has little by little altered for the better in proportion as the more distant regions have become included in the areas of influence of the Government posts, the number of villages subject to taxation has gradually increased, and it has been found possible to levy taxes on a greater number of persons. The Government aim at making progress in this direction continuous, that is to say, that taxation should be more equitably distributed, and should as much as possible be personal; it was with this object that the Decree of the 18th November, 1903, provided for drawing up “lists of native contributions” in such a way that the obligations of every native should be strictly defined.

“Article 28 of this Decree lays down that within the limits of Article 2 of the present regulations (that is to say, within the limit of forty hours’ work per month per native) the District Commissioners shall draw up annual lists of the taxes to be paid, in land or duration of labour, by each of the natives resident in the territories of their respective districts. And Article 55 punishes ‘whoever, being charged with the levy of taxes, shall have required of the natives, whether in kind or labour, contributions which shall exceed in value those prescribed in the tables of taxes.’ ”

It in matter of common notoriety that the collection of taxes is occasionally met by opposition, and even refusal to pay. The proofs of this, which are to be found in the Report of the Consul for the Congo, are borne out by what has happened, for instance, in Rhodesia:—

“The Ba-Unga (Awemba district), inhabitants of the swamps in the Zambezi delta, gave some trouble on being summoned to pay taxes.”[130]

“Although in many cases whole villages retired into the swamps on being called upon for the hut-tax, the general result was satisfactory for the first year (Luapula district).”[131]

“Milala’s people have succeeded in evading taxes.”[132]

“A few natives bordering on the Portuguese territory, who, owing to the great distance they reside from the Native Commissioners’ Stations, are not under the direct supervision of the Native Commissioners, have so far evaded paying hut tax, and refused to submit themselves to the authority of the Government. The rebel Chief, Mapondera, has upon three occasions successfully eluded punitive expeditions sent against him. Captain Gilson, of the British South Africa Police, was successful in coming upon him and a large following of natives, and inflicting heavy losses upon them. His kraal and all his crops were destroyed. He is now reported to be in Portuguese territory. Siji M’Kota, another powerful Chief, living in the northern parts of the M’toko district, bordering on Portuguese territory, has also been successful in evading the payment of hut tax, and generally pursuing the adoption of an attitude which is not acceptable to the Government. I am pleased to report that a patrol is at present on its way to these parts to deal with this Chief, and to endeavour to obtain his submission. It will be noted that the above remarks relate solely to those natives who reside along the borders of our territories, and whose defiant attitude is materially assisted by reason of this proximity to the Portuguese border, across which they are well able to proceed whenever they consider that any meeting or contact with the Native Commissioner will interfere in any way with their indolent and lazy life. They possess no movable property which might be attached with a view of the recovery of hut tax unpaid for many years, and travel backwards and forwards with considerable freedom, always placing themselves totally beyond the reach of the Native Commissioner.”[133]

The above is an instance of those “punitive expeditions” to which the authorities are occasionally obliged to resort, as also of the native custom, which is not peculiar to the natives of the Congo, of moving into a neighbouring territory when they are seeking to evade the operation of the law. Whether in the process of collecting native taxes there have been cases in the Congo, amongst those mentioned by the Consul, in which the limits of a just and reasonable severity have been overstepped is a question of fact which investigation on the spot can alone ascertain, and instructions to this effect will be given to the authorities at Boma.

We are also unable to accept, on the information at present before us, the conclusions of the Report in regard to the conduct of the forest guards in the employ of the A.B.I.R. and La Lulonga Companies. These subordinate officers are represented by the Consul as being exclusively employed in “compelling by force the collection of india-rubber or the supplies which each factory needed.”[134] It is true that another explanation has been given—though not, indeed, by a native—according to which the business of these same forest guards is to see that the india-rubber is harvested after a reasonable fashion, and especially to prevent the natives from cutting the plants.[135] It is, indeed, well known that the law has made rigorous provision for preserving the rubber zones, has regulated the manner in which they are to be worked, and has made planting and replanting obligatory, with a view to avoiding the complete exhaustion of the rubber plant which has occurred, for instance, in North-eastern and Western Rhodesia.[136] A heavy responsibility in this direction lies on the Companies and private persons engaged in developing the country, and it is obvious that they are bound to exercise the most careful superintendence over the way in which the harvest is collected. The object for which these forest guards are employed, therefore, may well be quite different from that alleged by the Consul; in any case, the complaints which have been made on this head will form a subject for inquiry in the Congo, as also the other remark of the Report that the manner in which these forest guards are armed is excessive, and liable to abuse. It is to be here observed that in calculating the number of these forest guards the Consul is obliged to rely on hypothesis,[137] and that he himself admits: “I have no means of ascertaining the number of this class of armed men employed by the A.B.I.R. Company.”[138] He mentions that the gun of one of these men was marked on the butt “Depôt 2210.” But it is evident that such a mark can only have the significance which the Consul would like to see in it, in so far as it can be proved that it refers to the numbering of the arms used in the Concession, and such is not the case, since this particular mark “Depôt” is not used either by the officials of the State or those of the Company, and it would seem that it is an old manufactory or store mark. In regard to the manner of arming the capitas, the Consul can hardly be ignorant that the higher authorities have always given great attention to the matter, which is, indeed, one surrounded with difficulties, seeing that while on the one hand it is necessary to consider the question of the personal protection of the capita, on the other the possibility of the arms in question being used for improper purposes must not be lost sight of. It is not only in the Circular of the 20th October, 1900, which the Consul has reprinted, that this question is dealt with; there is a whole collection of Circulars on the subject, among which may be mentioned those of the 12th March, 1897, 31st May and 28th November, 1900, and 30th April, 1901. Copies of them are annexed as proof of the fixed determination of the Government to see that the law relating to this question is strictly enforced (Annex V). Yet, in spite of all these precautions, the Consul has ascertained that several capitas were not provided with permits (perhaps they might have been found at the head office), and that two of them were furnished with arms of precision.[139] But these few infractions of the rule are obviously not enough to prove the existence of a sort of vast armed organization destined to strike terror into the natives. On the contrary, the Circular of the 7th September, 1903, printed in Annex VII of the Consul’s Report, is a proof of the care taken by the Government that the regular black troops should always be under the control of European officers.[140]