THE FUTURE OF THE CONGO STATE. T HIS week the affairs
of the Congo Free State have been debated in both Houses of Parliament ; and the unprecedented vigour and earnestness with which the Congo Administration was condemned can leave no one in doubt that the period of reluctant patience which the British people have imposed upon themselves is nearly at an end, and that if within the next few months a satisfactory rule is not substituted for the present Leopoldian regime the British Government will take definite action. Great Britain is in duty bound to do this by Treaty, and Sir Edward Grey's clear and firm speech proves that the Government will not shirk the duty if unhappily circumstances thrust it upon them. Sir Edward Grey's statement was, in fact, the strongest that has ever been made on this question by a Minister for Foreign Affairs. But in its uncompromising terms it did no more than respond to the mood of the country, which is shocked by the unceasing wrongs of the unhappy Congo natives, and shamed by a sense of the responsibility it accepted in the Anglo-Congolese Convention of 1884 and the Berlin Act of 1885. The debates in Parliament are only one expression of popular feeling. There has also been recently the remarkable Queen's Hall meeting, where the spokesmen of a generous and spontaneous indignation all over the country were gathered together. If only the Belgians could understand the workings of the British mind, they would know that such phenomena as these do not mean a desire to lay hands on new territory, or improperly to interfere with other people's affairs, but simply a disinterested intention to see a great wrong righted. As Lord Cromer said in his admirable speech in the House of Lords on Monday, the British people are often indiscreet in offering advice to other countries, which prefer to manage their business in their own way, and have every right to do so ; but this is not a case of im- pertinent interference at all. We hold in our hands a, strictly worded Treaty to which we have set our signature, and this Treaty has been persistently disregarded. For five years we have been debating the matter in Parliament, and hoping against hope for reforms in the Congo ; but we have seen one ostensible reform after another announced, applied, and rendered utterly sterile, and the time is rapidly coming when dying hope must, if necessary, be translated into action. Sir Edward Grey most properly said, however, that we should not trust the Belgian people in vain if they were really put in possession of the truth about the Congo. The difficulties of establishing a humane rule without great financial loss would be enormous, but we do not believe for a moment that so highly civilised a nation would shirk the attempt if the alternative between humanity and inhumanity were fairly placed before them. We have not, as we said, long to wait before we shall know whether the annexation scheme which is still the subject of dispute between King Leopold and the Belgian Cabinet will secure the absolute reversal of the economic system under which the Congo natives are so cruelly oppressed. If it does not provide for such a reversal, we cannot possibly assent to it as a satisfactory means of clearing our conscience. We earnestly hope that it will be all that we require. But if it is not, it is certain, after what Sir Edward Grey said, that the British Government will not hesitate to take some one of the many feasible steps to set themselves right in the matter ; and they will do so by preference in co- operation with other Powers, but if other Powers are unwilling, then they will do so alone.
it may still be thought by some persons in Great Britain that the cruelties of forced labour in the Congo have been exaggerated. The recent White-book forbids us to think so. Under the "Decrees," which were said to be the charter of a new era for the Congo, forced labour was to be abolished, but Mr. Mitchell reported that it had not even been modified. The forced labour of the natives in payment of the Rubber-tax was to be limited to forty ' hours a month, but Mr. Armstrong reported that the average month's labour was not less than twenty days. As the natives have to make long and dangerous journeys to collect the rubber, virtually the whole month is occupied in earning " wages " upon which they starve. And they are punished if they do not provide themselves with the means to starve. The natives, overworked and underfed, are being continually more preyed upon by disease ; they are dwindling in numbers and are broken in spirit ; their land is Wino'° pillaged to provide the enormous sums which are yearly taken out of it to assuage the rapacity of King Leopold. What is the comment of British statesmanship on those facts ? It is impossible for us to analyse all the debates, but we may take the speeches of Lord Cromer and Sir Edward Grey,—the one as an expression of high abstract principle in the control of subject races, the other as an example of practical but suave dealing with another Power. Lord Cromer said :—" I have seen something, and I have heard more, of maladministration in backward States in the hands of despotic, irresponsible rulers, but I assert without hesitation that never in my experience have I seen or have I heard of misrule comparable to the abuses that have grown up in the Congo State. There has been a cynical disregard of the native races and a merciless exploitation of the country in the interests of foreigners for which I believe a parallel cannot be found in the history of modern times." We need not labour the point that a terrible state of affairs Could alone have drawn that condemnation from a man so studiously moderate in his language as Lord Cromer habitually is. What principles have been set at naught in reaching this nightmare of misrule Lord Cromer mentions three, and we fancy that they com- prehend all others of which we might think. The first principle is that the same persons should not be responsible for ruling the country and. developing it com- mercially. Britain has tried several forms of chartered companies since the East India Company,--never with success, but sometimes disastrously. The second principle is that the revenue put at the personal disposal of the ruler of the State should be a fixed. amount. King Leopold draws as much as he can, and purchases the sympathy of not very far-seeing Belgians by giving them works of art and triumphal arches. These things may stand for ever as moriuments to the violation of Lord Cromer's third principle, which is that a country must be governed in the interests of all those -who live in it, not in the interests of outsiders or a few favoured speculators. Lord Cromer showed, further, that the freedom of trade which is guaranteed by the Berlin Act simply does not exist in the Congo. -Unless you are a "specified. landlord" you are regarded as a thief, or receiver of stolen goods, if you try to buy from the .natives the only thing they have to sell,—rubber. The economic difficulty of establishing freedom of trade, and giving the natives freedom to sell their labour when, where, and how they please, will be tremendous, we are well aware, for Belgium would probably • have to face a considerable deficit in the Congo instead of enjoying a great income from it as King Leopold does ; .1-put it is encouraging to read the words of Lord Cromer, who did. replace forced labour by free labour in Egypt, that the difficulties in the Congo are not greater than those which were overcome in Egypt.
Sir Edward Grey's speech contained the logical con- clusion of applying Lord Cromer's principles. The transfer of the Congo from its present rulers to the Belgian Government must be a real transfer ; the control of the present authorities must not continue under an alias. The Belgian Cabinet appears to be resolute to resist the latest of the King's demands—it is said to be the cash payment to him of £6,000,000—and Britain only wishes to encourage it in making the proposed. form of annexation an instrument of complete Parliamentary responsibility. If the Belgian Parliament accepts that instrument, then we can examine it and decide whether it satisfies our Treaty obligations. If it does not, we must ask to have it altered. If that request be refuted, or if annexation be not undertaken at all, then we must act definitely on our own account. Sir Edward. Grey has always spoken so temperately that his declared readiness to enter upon an exceptional course of conduct may be safely interpreted as a promise. It would be better for us, of course, if the necessity arises, to co-operate with other Powers. We should hope, for instance, to be quite sure of the sanction or help of Germany and. France. The United. States is already known to be with us. We should not hesitate to give every reasonable guarantee that could possibly be required. of us that our motives are absolutely unselfish. If Germany or France would. herself propose a plan for ending the iniquities ,in the Congo, we should. welcome it most heartily. Meanwhile we have yet to wait till the Annexation Convention has taken its final shape. In the short time that remains let us not make any show of " hustling " the Belgian people. We must remember the sensitiveness of smaller nations in their dealings with larger nations. An instance of that sensitiveness is to be found in some remarks by the Incle:pendance Beige, pub- lished in the Times of Wednesday :—" The Congo cannot be an international colony administered by Belgium; it must be nothing more nor less than a Belgian colony, for *hose administration and. profitable working (miss en valeur) Belgium alone shall be responsible We would rather see Belgium renounce the fruits of the long and mighty effort of her King than see her accept the Congo 'With the admission of the principle of English interference." It is very important to note this frame of mind. It is precisely what we have to take into account, and to meet so far as we honourably can. The ambition of the Independence Beige is quite right so far at it goeia, and we have nothing to say against it. But there is a vast difference between interference before and after the act of transfer. Surely Belgium does not pretend to be free from aU the obligations of Treaties which bind us and all other countries ? All that we ask is that the transfer be made on conditions which satisfy us,—which satisfy our existing Treaty rights. If those are properly complied with and properly observed, we have no kind of wish to play the policeman to Belgium in the Congo subsequently.
Previous page
