THE CONGO FREE STATE.

HL Deb 24 February 1908 vol 184 cc1270-306

*THE EARL OF MAYO

My Lords, I rise, in accordance with the Notice standing in my name, to draw attention to the affairs of the Congo Free State and to move for Papers. The Papers which I ask His Majesty's Government to produce are the same as I asked for last session, namely, copies of the title deeds granted to the monopolists and any information thereon as to their power to force the natives on the Congo to labour. The events that have lately taken place at Brussels compel those pledged to reform on the Congo to bring before this House and His Majesty's Ministers and before the country the affairs of that State.

Misrule on the Congo has been the theme of many essays, many letters and articles in the Press, and many debates in both Houses of Parliament, and hundreds of meetings have been held throughout the United Kingdom on the subject. Those meetings culminated in a huge assembly at Queen's Hall on Friday night last, over which the Lord Mayor of London presided. No one could have been present at that great meeting without having been immensely impressed with the enthusiasm of the audience, whose feelings were adequately expressed in the concluding words of the Lord Mayor's address, which ran as follows— All that they asked was that the Congo territory should be administered in accordance with explicit promises given and according to treaty rights and obligations. I will not dwell upon the misrule on the Congo, nor in any way dilate on the treatment of the natives, nor on the monopolist system affecting trade in those regions. The whole government of the Congo State is an absolute evasion of the Berlin Act, 1884–1885, and also of the Convention made between Her Majesty's Government in 1884 and the International Association of the Congo. Those are admitted facts; they have been admitted in every debate that has taken place in Parliament during the last five years, and they have been admitted when in opposition by Ministers who are now in office, and by Members of the Opposition when they held office.

I pass from the debates and treaties dealing with Darkest Africa, and take your Lordships to Brussels, where a game is now being played between King Leopold and his Ministers, the stakes on the table being the Congo and its natives. To understand the power of the King in this game we must examine Belgian opinion on the Congo question. Owing to the pressure of public opinion in England our Government have invited Belgium to annex the Congo, and to put an end to the abuses in King Leopold's African Colony. It must be remembered that this is the first time since Belgium obtained her independence that her Parliament has been called upon to decide a question of international importance. It must be remembered also that Belgium has no colonies, and has never had a colonial policy. Her Parliament is faced with this question—a Belgian colony and a colonial policy, and under circumstances absolutely abnormal.

If we imagine that the state of public opinion in Belgium on the Congo question is anything approaching the public opinion in this country we are deceiving ourselves most grossly. The Belgian Press has for years been saying that England's wish to interfere in this matter is not for the sake of the natives, but because she wants the Congo for herself. Belgians, as a rule, have looked at this question in the very light in which the British Government did not wish them to look at it, namely, as an unfriendly interference in the domestic affairs of Belgium. It is unnecessary for me to say that we do not want the Congo or any part of it. We do not want anything to do with Belgium's domestic affairs. This is not a question of Belgium's domestic affairs; it is an international question, and the Act of Berlin is a complete negation of those ideas. The Belgian people know nothing whatever about the Congo, and I do not think they care to know.

When the Commission appointed by King Leopold went to the Congo and confirmed by their Report the abuses which we all knew so well in England, scarcely any notice was taken of that Report in Belgium, and it created no emotion whatever in the minds of the Belgian people. The truth is, the Belgians have always considered the Congo as King Leopold's private enterprise, and that he was paramount Sovereign of those regions. In fact, according to the expression of M. Beernaert, the late Prime Minister of Belgium, the King was— As absolute a Sovereign as Louis XIV. was of France, and Belgians to this day know nothing about the ill-treatment of the natives on the Congo. But they are aware of this, that annexation of the Congo may cost the Belgian taxpayer money.

There is another thing to remember. This question has never been before the electors at any general election in Belgium, and at no election has any Deputy referred on the platform to the Congo or to any colonial policy whatever. Notwithstanding all this, a certain number of politicians in Belgium in a better position to know what was going on than the mass of the people, and also men of business whose interests had suffered by the action of the monopolist companies in the Congo State, came to the conclusion that the only way to put an end to the colonial autocracy of King Leopold was for Belgium to annex the Congo. Belgium, as your Lordships know, had the right to annex the Congo in 1901, under a Convention passed by M. Beernaert with the Independent Congo State in 1890; but when it was brought before the King he indignantly protested, and the matter was shelved. The Commission appointed to look into the matter took five years to get constituted, and it held only one sitting. Meanwhile protests in England became more and more bitter, and Belgian Ministers had to face the situation and produce some sort of scheme of annexation.

Now, my Lords, this brings us to what our Foreign Office has labelled "the Belgian Solution;" and may I add, in passing, that as at present compounded it is exceedingly distasteful. Let us examine the so-called Belgian solution. It takes the form of a Treaty of Cession, the contracting parties being King Leopold, the Congo State represented by the three principal secretaries of the Brussels executive staff in the Congo Administration, and Belgium represented by the Ministers of that State acting under reserve of the Legislature's approval. To put it shortly, if the Belgian Parliament agrees, the Congo Free State is to belong to Belgium. If your Lordships will allow me, I should like to read Article I. of the treaty— His Majesty the Sovereign King declares that he transfers to Belgium the sovereignty of the territories composing the Congo Free State, with all the rights and obligations attached thereto. The Belgian State declares that it accepts this transfer, will take over and assume responsibility for the obligations of the Congo State such as they are set forth in Annex A, and undertakes to respect the foundations existing in the Congo, as also the acquired rights legally recognised, of third parties natives and non-natives. We may put aside the rights of the natives altogether; they have no rights except on the Lower Congo. The last words of this Article— respect the foundations existing on the Congo, as also the acquired rights, legally recognised, of third parties— reveal the subtle arrangement of this treaty. Belgium agree, under the proposed treaty to maintain the Crown Domain monopoly, and all the other company monopolies that have been granted by King Leopold on the Congo, and the territory covered by these monopolies is where all these terrible horrors and this enforced labour has taken place. In other words, the fundamental nature of the Congo system is to be perpetuated under the treaty. Throughout this enormous area legitimate commercial intercourse with the natives of the country, guaranteed by the Berlin Act, is prohibited by agreements whose beneficiaries have become the owners of the natural produce of the soil, in violation of the terms of the Berlin Act.

There was a debate on the subject in the Belgian Chamber, and the words of M. Schollaert, the present Prime Minister of Belgium, are most interesting. M. Schollaert said— Finally, it is our duty to state, and we do so with perfect openness, that the tenour of the treaty has provoked certain apprehensions in many minds, even among citizens devoted to a colonial policy and admirers of the work of the Sovereign of the Free State. The attentive study of the question will show to what extent the objections which have been raised are well founded, and whether they cannot be satisfied by some new means. The French expression was, par certaines modalites nouvelles. M. Schollaert continued— You do not expect us to improvise a solution at this moment. For it must not be forgotten that the object of the discussion is an agreement which requires the consent of two contracting parties. The treaty was fully criticised, the result of the debate being that no decision was arrived at.

Now we hear that there is to be a compromise between King Leopold and his Ministers. It must be remembered that King Leopold has lately been spending a very large sum of money—Congo money derived from the Crown Domain—on palaces and public buildings in Brussels and elsewhere in Belgium, and this has, no doubt, appealed to the Belgian people. Now it is suggested, by the compromise, that these funds, instead of being dealt with by the King, should be administered by a Committee, mostly of members of the Belgian Parliament and other nominees of King Leopold. There is to be no alteration as to the manner in which the revenues are procured, the only change being in the personnel of those administering them. I ask this House in all seriousness, Does it matter to the wretched natives of the Congo forests how the revenues derived from the Crown Domain are spent; or who spends them? Is their lot likely to be any better? Indeed, this whole Treaty of Cession and the compromise cannot be taken as a serious effort on the part of the Belgian Ministry to annex the Congo, and we most strongly protest against it. And in what I say I speak for those who are greatly interested in this matter, the Congo Reform Association, and many Others in England.

There was a message in The Times of to-day from that paper's own correspondent at Brussels, which rather shows what is going on between the Ministers and the King. The Times correspondent telegraphed the following statement published in the Etoile Belge— It is certainly the case that the exchanges of views which have taken place during the last few days have not led to any result, and an agreement has not been reached regarding the list of public works to be carried out with the revenues of the 'special fund' which is to be derived from the Crown Domain. What becomes of the reform on the Congo that we have looked for? Why, the King and his Ministers are actually fighting on the question whether or not certain public buildings in Belgium are to be erected. There is no question of reform on the Congo. I ask His Majesty's Government, Is this the Belgian solution for which we have been waiting for so many years? I cannot believe it. I still have in my mind our King's most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament at the opening of the present session, in which occurred these words— My Government are fully aware of the gr at anxiety felt with regard to the of the native population in the Congo State Their sole desire is to see the government of that State humanely administered in accordance with the spirit of the Berlin Act, and I trust that the negotiations now proceeding between the Sovereign of the Congo State and the Belgian Government will secure this object. That, I take it, is the policy of our Government, and I also take it that that policy will be carried out; for this is not by any means a party question, as, I think, was pretty clearly demonstrated at the huge meeting at Queen's Hall the other night. I feel, however, that the dilatory tactics promoted by King Leopold will still be carried on. We have had an instance of this in the proposed "Compromise"—I should like to call it by an uglier name.

I trust I do not offend the feelings of our Foreign Office when I say that England's efforts should not be in the direction of diplomatic foil play at Brussels, but in direct action on the Congo. Our Government cannot, I believe, be always waiting and watching for a policy of perfection in that part of Africa. I have a suggestion to make, and it is this. By one of the Articles in the Convention of 1884 between our Government and the International Association of the Congo, we have the right to place consuls in those regions. At present in all that immense territory, as large as Europe (leaving out Russia), we have only three consuls and two of them are vice-consuls. I feel sure that if consuls were appointed there—and this does not prevent other Powers appointing consuls—the natives would not be so badly treated. To bear out what I say, let me quote from Hansard the words of the noble Marquess, Lord Lansdowne, in your Lordships' House on 3rd July, 1906. The noble Marquess then said— I agree with my noble friend that this was a very important reservation: and all I can say-is that I hope, if these abuses continue, we shall claim our right to appoint consuls in the Congo. I do not care in the least whether there are British subjects to look after or not: but what I do feel is that the presence of half a dozen Englishmen located in the centres of trade within the Congo will be worth more than a whole row of inspectors or officiate belonging to the Administration of the Congo Free State. To that I say, Amen. But the abuses still go on, and the warehouses at Antwerp are at this moment full up with Congorubber. There was a quotation in The Times to-day from a letter of the Rev. S. Gilchrist, of the Congo Balolo Mission, and his letter shows that there has been very little alteration in the modes of procuring rubber on the Congo.

We ask His Majesty's Government to declare to Belgium first, that annexation under present terms is totally unacceptable; and, secondly, that the rights of the natives to the soil and its produce be insisted upon. And in this matter, I think the honour of this country is affected. England suppressed the slave trade. I believe it took nineteen years to do that. I can hardly think it will take nineteen years to bring about reform on the Congo. But how, I ask, can England remain inactive when a condition worse than slavery exists next door to her own African Possessions?

Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty for further correspondence respecting the Independent State of the Congo, and other Papers, if any, bearing on the grants and title deeds of companies in the Free State."—(The Earl of Mayo.)

EARL CROMER

My Lords, like the noble Earl to whom we have just listened, I do not think it is necessary to dwell at any length on the manner in which the ruler of the Congo State has abused the high and responsible trust conferred on him by Europe. The indictment against the Congo Administration, though at first received in this country with a certain amount of incredulity, turns out, when the facts are well known, to be absolutely crushing. 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 heard of anything at all comparable to the abuses that have grown up in the Congo State. There has been a cynical disregard of the rights of the native races, coupled with a shameless exploitation of the resources of the country in the interest of foreigners for which I believe a parallel cannot be found in the history of modern times.

I do not base this severe condemnation of the Congo Administration on any special acts of cruelty and oppression of the natives, though on this charge an unanswerable indictment might be made; I base it in addition on the disregard of three principles in administration, and I say that unless a radical change is made in the system of administration no serious improvement can be anticipated. In all countries similar to the Congo territory three essential principles must be accepted as preliminary to the establishment of anything like good administration, and all these principles have been flagrantly violated in the case of the Congo.

The first principle is that the duties of administration and the commercial development of the country should not be vested in the same individuals. The counter-principle of associating the two functions we tried ourselves years ago with the old East India Company, and though we had at the head of it many men who were not only merchants, but statesmen, the system of government, if not a failure, was at the best but a very modified success. But in the Congo the officials employed have been commercial agents rather than administrators, and it cannot be doubted that they have been judged for their services by the standard of the amount of money they, by any means, justifiable or the reverse, have poured into the Congo treasury. The first principle has thus been flagrantly violated.

The second principle is that by the establishment of a Civil List the amount placed at the personal disposal of the ruler of the State should be a fixed amount and that the remainder of the revenue from the country should be applied by properly qualified and responsible authorities to objects in which the subjects of the State as distinct from the ruler have a direct personal interest. A despotic ruler always demurs to this. I remember some years ago—I think it was in 1879—there was a question of appointing an Englishman to supervise the financial affairs of Turkey, and the Sultan did me the honour to consider my name in connection with the appointment. When it was referred to me I asked if His Imperial Majesty would be prepared to accept the settlement of a Civil List, and then, as I had anticipated, further discussion of the subject was allowed to drop. Wall, in the Congo there is no Civil List, and the whole of the revenue of the country is at the absolute disposal of the ruler; and a large portion of it has been applied to the construction of palaces and to other objects in which the natives have not the remotest personal interest. The second principle then is violated.

The third principle is that the Crown Domains should be settled and administered by responsible qualified authorities in the general interest of the community. In the Congo State almost the whole country has been handed over to speculators, and the chief of the State is the principal speculator among them. These speculators have ruthlessly exploited the resources of the country in their own interest. A very similar state of things existed in Egypt some thirty years ago. Ismail Pasha had managed, by arbitrary and illicit means under a thin, transparent veil of legality, to accumulate in the hands of himself and family a million acres of the best land in Egypt. When the Powers of Europe came to deal with the subject of finance they considered it an abuse of power to acquire this as private property for the ruler, and the whole was confiscated and converted into property to be administered by proper authorities for the good of the country, and it was eventually sold, mostly in small lots, to native proprietors. I am quite sure no satisfactory solution is possible in the Congo unless a similar course is followed and one class of interests sacrificed. There are three interests involved—the interest of the Congolese, the interest of the Belgian taxpayers, and the interest of the concessionnaires. I estimate the interests of the Congolese and of the Belgian taxpayers very highly, but I place the interest of concessionnaires in the third rank, and, I should add, rather low in that rank. If there is a sacrifice to be made they should make it; and I hope the Belgian Parliament, to whom we must first look, will not deal too tenderly with the rights of concessionnaires.

Turning to another point, let me say I would be the last to advocate any excessive interference with the domestic affairs of a foreign country. More than this, I sometimes think the British public in the exercise of their unquestioned right to say anything they please sometimes go to rather indiscreet lengths in the direction of advising foreign nations how they should manage their own affairs. In this case we need not be deterred by any scruples of this nature. The Berlin Act is perfectly plain. It lays down that there is to be freedom of trade, and it condemns the creation of monopolies. The Act of 1884, which. was passed by agreement between the British Government and the Congo Association, is also perfectly clear. Moreover, the declarations of M. Beernaert in 1885 when he was Prime Minister of Belgium, and of Baron Lambermont, who was the Belgian representative at the Berlin Conference, were also perfectly explicit.

I will read what was said by the noble Marquess behind me (Lord Lansdowne) in 1900. I do so because the statement has been challenged, and, although I have no doubt he could give a much better answer himself, I will, if he will permit me, give a rejoinder for him. He said— Quite irrespective of any right we enjoy-under the letter of these Acts, we have a moral right to interfere, which comes to us in consequence of the false pretenees—I cannot use a gentler word—under which the Congo State has acquired its privileged position in that part of Africa. The Belgian Commissioners contested this right, and on page 151 of their Be-port stated the alleged rights of the Congo State—in other words, those of King Leopold—in the following very plain language— The Congo State can dispose itself solely of all the products of the soil, prosecute as a thief any one who takes from that land the least of its fruits, or as a receiver of stolen goods any one who receives such fruits. It is necessary to deal with this point a little, not only because I think Mr. Morel is perfectly right in thinking that this question of freedom of trade lies at the bottom of the whole business, but also because it is essential to establish our right to make our voice heard, not merely on grounds of public morality, but of indisputable treaty rights.

On what grounds are these rights contested? Apparently on the grounds that freedom of trade exists, and that no monopolies have been created. M. Woeste, a distinguished member of the Belgian Parliament, made the following statement:— Lord Lansdowne declared, in the British House of Lords, that the Congo was covered with monopolies of an abusive character; he committed an astonishing confusion of thought; he mixed up monopolies with the legitimate and rational development of private property belonging to specified landlords. Therefore it appears that the argument and the application of the argument are something of this kind. In the first place, it is held that the natives of the Congo have no proprietary rights in the soil of their country or its products, and that the whole of these rights are vested in the ruler of the Congo State. In the next place, the ruler hands over the whole of these rights to certain "specified landlords," he himself being the first specified landlord; and with the help of armed forces which could not be at the disposal of private individuals there is introduced a barbarous system of collecting the revenue, which necessarily leads to the enslavement of the greater part of the population. The third link in the chain of this reasoning is that anyone, not being a "specified landlord," who buys from the natives of the country the only product they have to sell—rubber—is to be treated as a thief and a receiver of stolen goods. Under this system it is stated that free trade exists and there are no monopolies. This is the system which was described by Baron Lambermont at the Berlin Congress as one which gave everybody unlimited right to buy and sell. If this is free trade I give the tariff reformers full permission to write me down a protectionist or anything else they like except a free trader. But in point of fact the united authority of lawyers in Belgium and all Europe will not convince me that a system of this sort is sanctioned by any law, human or Divine, or that it can be made to harmonise with the treaty right of other Powers, including that of Great Britain.

The view the Government take of this important question was stated in August, 1903, in a Circular addressed by the Foreign Office to the Powers, containing these words— His Majesty's Government maintain that until unoccupied land is reduced to individual occupation, and so long as the produce can only be collected by the native, the native should te free to dispose of the produce as he pleases. This principle, which I hold to be perfectly sound, is one which I have no doubt was asserted after taking qualified legal advice; and I trust this principle will be stoutly maintained in spite of any quibble by which it may be attacked. The right of the British nation to make its voice heard is perfectly clear, and the only questions for discussion are as to the desirability of exercising that right and the time and method of exercising it.

Both the Belgian Government and the Belgian people are in a position of great difficulty, and I should much regret that any language used either by me or by any one else in this House should add to their embarrassment. It cannot be doubted that a strong feeling of indignation has been excited in this country by the manner in which the Congo has been administered; and, moreover, that is accompanied by a feeling of shame that as one of the signatories to the Berlin Act, Great Britain should have been in any way contributory to the establishment of such a system as now exists in the Congo. The Congo Reform Association is naturally impatient at the slowness with which the international mill grinds, and I can fully sympathise with this feeling. I have had a prolonged and somewhat bitter experience of that mill; and I know how heart-breaking it is to look on while some flagrant abuse calls for reform, and yet it is impossible to apply any prompt and effective remedy. The Congo Reform Association appear to contemplate that in certain contingencies some decided action even more drastic than that to which the noble Earl alluded should at some time or another be taken by His Majesty's Government.

I think it would be premature to discuss this matter at present. It has to be remembered, undoubtedly, that in a matter of international concern any step which separates this country from the international concert is one of a very serious nature. It is well to remember that under the Act of 1884 His Majesty's Government has the right not only to appoint Consuls, but to establish Consular Courts. I hope that, should the occasion arise, that right will be exercised. I cannot help thinking that if Consuls were appointed and at the same time means of locomotion were provided to enable them to move freely up and down the river, and consular courts were established, and if at the same time we insisted on the unquestionable right of British subjects to trade throughout the Congo, some effective pressure would be exerted on the Congo Administration and a considerable step in advance would be made.

In spite of what the noble Earl has said, I still cling to the hope that the Belgian solution may be possible. I do not go nearly so far as to say that we are under any obligation to accept anything which may be settled in Brussels. Far from it. Our right to make our voice heard is perfectly clear, and I venture to think that no solution will be satisfactory unless it gives to the Belgian Parliament full and complete Parliamentary control over the whole of the Congo Administration. It must be borne, in mind that, although we know something of the discussion going on in Belgium, the Belgian proposals in their final form are not yet before the world. When they are known I hope that the noble Lord the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs will be able to assure the House that the Government will not acquiesce in any arrangement which does not give the full Parliamentary control of which I speak. If that Parliamentary control is once assured, there will then be some solid guarantee that the Act of Berlin will be respected, and the administration of affairs improved. If once a real and effective control is secured, I should not, for my own part be inclined to scrutinise too closely the other details of the Belgian arrangements; but that control must be fully secured. In the meantime we can no doubt do a great deal to enlighten Belgian public opinion. It cannot be too clearly understood that we do not wish any territorial advantage. I conceive that it would not be at all in the interests of this country to add to our world-wide responsibilities by assuming the direct administration of any portion of the Congo State. All we want is that the Congo should be governed on such principles as commend themselves to the civilised world. It must be borne in mind that the Belgian people and Parliament are labouring under great difficulties. Not only is the issue complicated by the introduction of other matters connected with the internal affairs of Belgium, with which we are not concerned; but the greater portion of the Belgian Press has up to the present time been under the control of the Congo Administration, with the natural result that the Belgians themselves are ill-informed of the facts.

It has been suggested that he noble Marquess behind me, in the speech from which I have already quoted, said something which was tantamount to alleging that the people of this country had been duped. So also have the Belgians. They have been entirely deceived as to the true facts of the case. So far as I can understand, a considerable section of the Belgian public are reluctant to take the great responsibility of governing the Congo, more especially in view of the financial responsibilities; and I am not at all surprised, for if the country is to be properly administered, the revenue, which depends largely on the yield of rubber, is certain to fall off. On the other hand large reductions may be made in the expenditure. Why is the present large military force maintained in the Congo if not to aid in the present iniquitous system of collecting taxes?

I have myself seen on the Congo police stations in the Upper Nile garrisons far larger than in Uganda and Assuan. I believe these garrisons might be largely reduced with great advantage. The financial difficulties, though very great, may not be found insuperable if the question is tackled in a proper spirit; and the proper spirit in which to tackle it is to look to the interests of the Congolese with real regard to the necessities of the various taxpayers rather than to the interests of the concessionnaires. Keep the river open and have a due police force on the river bank. The main portion of the territory will then require little administration at all. The main thing is that we should destroy the present system, and that we should not pause in that work of destruction merely because it would not be possible to place immediately anything very satisfactory in its place.

Let me add that I know something of the difficulty of substituting free for forced labour. We had to deal with it in Egypt, and a difficult and thorny problem it was; but it was solved in the face of obstacles which, I think, were greater than those that now exist in the Congo. A solution will never be obtained in the Congo if the first object of the Congo Association is to pay large dividends. Up to the present the question, as it affects the Congo, has been considered from a point of view wholly different from that from which we viewed it in Egypt. In a paper issued by the Congo Association I read a statement to the effect that the triumph of law was to make the black man work. In Egypt we thought that whilst giving every inducement to the Egyptian to work, the triumph of the law consisted in preventing him being flogged for voluntarily choosing to remain idle. It is for the Belgians to say which is more in harmony with the practices of the civilisation under which we live.

I feel confident that His Majesty's Government will receive the full support of Parliament and public opinion in endeavouring to find some satisfactory solution of a question which so nearly touches the honour and interest of this country. We sympathise with the Belgians in their difficulty; but we await their solution. It will be time to consider what further steps should be taken if that solution is considered unsatisfactory. The alternative to the Belgian solution is said to be some form of international Government. An appeal has been made by us to other nations; and the result has not been altogether encouraging. I think the only potentate in Europe who evinced any desire to cooperate in the reform of the Congo was the Sultan of Turkey. It must, moreover, be remembered that international administration—though sometimes it has been made use of in default of anything better, is, at best, a cumbersome and inefficient machine. Further, in view of the state of affairs in Macedonia, the moment is hardly propitious for inviting the Powers to an international concert about another matter. Therefore, when the Belgian solution is better known it will be examined in a friendly spirit and will not be rejected unless for paramount reasons. But it must be a reasonably satisfactory solution. If it be a mere sham, if it be but a mere cloak under which the present system in the Congo is to be continued, I hope His Majesty's Government will have no hesitation in resolutely rejecting it.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

My Lords, I am sure the House and the country are grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Mayo, for bringing this subject forward to-night, and for the manner in which he did it. We thank him not less for having elicited the speech to which we have just listened. It is no disparagement, I hope, to the statesmen and diplomatists who have addressed the House on this subject year by year, to say that we have listened to-night with a quite exceptional interest and respect to one whose administrative record in Asia and in Africa has given him in the history of this country an enduring place as a past-master in the difficult science which treats of the relations to one another of men of different race, religion, and colour.

The noble Earl's speech has reminded us, if a reminder were necessary, that this is not an isolated question concerning the Congo alone. Attention has been called in this House before now to a notable utterance by another great African administrator, Sir Harry Johnston, who has written the following memorable warning— Unless some stop can be put to the misgovernment of the Congo regions, I venture to warn those who are interested in African politics that a movement is already begun, and is spreading fast, which will unite the negroes against the white race, a movement which will prematurely stamp out the beginnings of the new civilisation we are trying to implant, and against which movement, except so far as the actual coast line is concerned, the resources of men and money which Europe can put into the field will be powerless. It is in part that fact, or that peril, thus foreshadowed, which brings upon the stage in this matter those of us who, for the most part, are accustomed to stand outside the difficult and delicate questions of diplomatic controversy and international polity.

It cannot be too often recalled that the creation of the Congo State was, in part at least, the handiwork of men whose interests lie mainly in philanthropic and religious work. It would be untrue, of course, to say that the commercial element was wholly absent. But the creation of the Congo was not due to a desire for national aggrandisement on the part of Belgium, or of England, or of any other State. It was not a result following upon a war. It was in a large measure, at least, an honest desire for the civilisation and the betterment of a great tract of Africa, the character of which had been made known almost suddenly to the people of Europe. That was the reason why the Lord Mayor presided at the great meeting in the Queen's Hall last week, not as the head of the commercial life of the city, but as the central figure in England's philanthropic and benevolent work.

The citizens, generally, feel that responsibility for the state of things in the Congo rests heavily upon them. We turn to the Foreign Office representatives, not for the facts in the Congo—for those, unhappily, we know too well—but for information as to the forces and powers behind those dark deeds, the record of which has been brought before us by those who have earned the thanks, not of England only, but of the world for the way in which they have brought these facts to light. We ask, What can you tell us about the forces that are behind? We are necessarily in ignorance upon that, and we look to those who can speak officially on the matter for information. It is unquestionably true that negro slavery has been resuscitated in, perhaps, its darkest or reddest form in the Congo. It is true that for that England is in part responsible. Is the only answer we are to get but this—"We must wait and hope for the best"? Two things the country wants. First, a consecutive statement from the Foreign Office of the steps which led up to the announcement on the subject in the King's Speech, and of what exactly that announcement amounts to. Secondly, what grounds the Government have for the opinion—if it be their opinion—that it will be easier to get redress for the black men's wrongs after the Congo is annexed by Belgium than before.

To some of us, amateurs in these matters, it would seem that if this country were acquiescent in an annexation which carried on, though in other hands, the old regime of ownership by Belgians of these black men's property and, indeed, their lives, it would be harder and not easier to make protest against it when the arrangement had been adopted by Belgium. I may be mistaken in that view, but it is one of those things upon which we should like to have fuller information and guidance than we have at present. After the momentous and responsible utterance in the King's Speech I feel that this is an occasion which far transcends any mere question of contemporary politics. It is surely true to say that we are here face to face with the big principles of right and wrong. The moral law, as we have constantly been reminded by great teachers, was not written for men alone in their individual capacity, but also for nations. If the English people, on whom responsibility indisputably rests, reject by their indifference or inaction the application of the moral law, some penalty, on whomsoever it falls, must follow. We have experience, we know what the past has cost us, we have suffered, and suffered rightly, for the neglect or the wrong-doing of other days. We want to be sure that we are not incurring afresh by our inaction a like answer-ableness for new wrong-doings to-day. It is upon that that we await in eager anxiety the reply which the Government will give.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

My Lords, the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, who has spoken with such authority, has told your Lordships that we have every right to interfere in this Treaty of Cession, or whatever the arrangement come to by the Belgian people may be. I should like, if your Lordships will give mc your indulgence for a few minutes, to urge the point that not only have we the right, but that it is the duty of His Majesty's Government and of this country, to interfere to the best of our ability. I have never been one of those who have attributed to the founders of the Congo State, or even to its administrators, any undue proportion of original sin. I have always regarded them as mortals with, the ordinary instincts of humanity.

I wish to argue to-night that, inadvertently and ignorantly, we ourselves are almost as much responsible for what is going on in the Congo to-day as any of the parties concerned. When the Congo State was formed we, for diplomatic reasons at the time, and, perhaps, not clearly seeing what would be the result, were delighted that the King of the Belgians had taken up the question and placed himself at the head of that State, and we acquiesced in that arrangement in the interest of humanity and civilisation. The Belgian people felt pleased that their King should occupy that position, that Belgian subjects should have the work of developing and civilising this great territory, and that Belgium should have an enlarged opening for her enterprise and commerce, and the King himself was proud to be regarded as the leader of a great philanthropic movement. Many hard things have since been said about the King of the Belgians, but I for one honestly believe that King Leopold has been actuated by the ideals with which he set out on this venture, and with which he was at first credited.

But there was one vital blot on the whole scheme, which we, of all nations in the world, ought to have discerned. Perhaps some of us did suspect it, but the temptation was to disregard it and to hope for the best. We knew perfectly well that a Government of a civilised nature set up in a savage country could not for some time be financed out of the taxes raised from that country, and therefore it is very questionable whether we were justified in entrusting the government of that country to anybody except a European Power prepared to take upon itself, not only the credit, but the duties and responsibility of government. The first thing which happened, of course, was that to meet the purposes of administration the King had to call in financial assistance from others. His own country were, and always had been, apathetic on the question of Congo rule. They have always said that they were unwilling to undertake the responsibility and expense of governing the Congo, and they say it now. One-half the difficulty of a settlement is that there is no Party in Belgium in favour of burdening the resources of the country by this financial responsibility. That is the greatest difficulty which lies at our door.

We are making a very large demand upon everybody concerned. We are asking the Government to do their best to induce Belgium to undertake the full responsibility of the government of the country. We are asking the King, and the bodies of financiers he has called in, to make very large sacrifices. The curse of forced labour was introduced because there was no other means of raising revenue, and we know that when forced labour is once introduced it is used for the development of a country. We are asking them to give up all this, and we know how difficult the task is. While it is not for me or for anyone in this House to suggest definitely to His Majesty's Government the diect steps they should take, we do claim that we have a responsibility for what has occurred; and, in virtue of that responsibility, we ask the Government to do whatever lies in their power to induce the Belgian Government to take over the absolute control of the finances and government of the Congo-State.

*THE UNDER - SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Lord FITZMAUEICE)

My Lords, the debate which has taken place every year in your Lordships' House on the subject of the misgovernment in the Congo may possibly to some persons appear, from its very repetition, to be a sign that the evils with which all of us, irrespective of Party, are contending, are enveloped in such a jungle of difficulty that little can be done; and the debate might almost to some appear to be running the risk of taking that place in our discussions denoted in another place by the term "a hardy annual." I hope that no such idea will be entertained by any Member of your Lordships House, for I am convinced that these debates are not open to any such imputation.

On the contrary, I believe that, slow as the progress may appear to some, perhaps, impatient spirits, nevertheless the debates which have taken place year by year show an advance on each occasion. I myself, as representing the Foreign Office, have twice before, at intervals of about exactly a year, had the honour of addressing your Lordships on this subject since the Government took office. On the first occasion there was really very little to say, except to lament and accentuate the terrible tale of mis-government, and also, which was more painful, to record that the efforts made to interest the other Powers of Europe, signatories to the Berlin Act, and those who in 1884–5 had signed separate treaties with the Congo State, had unfortunately not received that support which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had a right to expect and which we had all hoped they would receive.

When I spoke last year I was at least able to say that there was on the edge of the horizon, though not much above it, a chance of a solution. That solution has been frequently alluded to to-night, and Is known as the Belgian solution. I then ventured to express to your Lordships the hope that when I had again to speak on the subject I should be able to announce some further progress. I agree with every word that has been said by Lord Cromer and the most rev. Primate as to the disappointment which we may, perhaps, justly feel that things have not gone further than they have; and I can heartily endorse the view of Lord Cromer that, bearing in mind the difficulties of the situation, both international and in Belgium, and in this country, we must not be unduly impatient. Further, bearing in mind that barely a year and a half having elapsed since the important Resolution of the 14th December, 1906, known in Belgium as the ordre du jour patriotique, which practically decided in principle that the question of annexation was to be taken up, it is something that we are now watching the crisis of the negotiations, and that the points of difference have been reduced to a shape which everybody can grasp, and are now greatly reduced in number and extent. I consider, therefore, that it would be an exaggeration to say that no progress had been made since last year, and a still greater exaggeration to say that no progress had been made during the last two years. In justice to Belgium it ought also to be borne in mind that the Congo is not the only difficult question with which it has to deal, and that the task which it is invited to assume is no light one. Its Parliament has, like ours, to deal with many great domestic and social questions, and these react on the course of Belgian policy, not only at home but abroad. Twice during the very short period already alluded to Ministries have resigned or been reconstituted, but each of these changes has, I think, marked a stage forward and an advance in the direction of the ideas and hopes which we entertain.

We are now at a period when, as I said a moment ago, the points of difference in Belgium between the reforming Party, and the Party who wish to keep matters more or less as they are have reached a final stage; and if it is imprudent at any time for a Minister or a representative of a Minister in one country to appear to be giving an opinion on what is going on in another country, it is certainly imprudent at a moment such as the present. Words spoken here on behalf of the Foreign Office might, however unjustly, be liable to misrepre entation, and might produce exactly opposite effects to those which the speaker himself desires.

If your Lordships will pardon me, I will tell you an anecdote to illustrate what I mean. The other day I was to address a public meeting, and I found that there was an impression abroad that I was going to speak about the Congo and about Macedonia; but, believing as I did that the particular audience to which I was going to speak desired me to deal with domestic questions, and as it was not, in the opinion of the Foreign Office, desirable that anything should be said at that moment, I simply announced, at the beginning of my speech, that I was not going to say anything about the Congo or Macedonia, and I passed immediately to the other subjects with which I in ended to deal. Those observations of mine, which I think you will agree, judged by even the severest standard of Foreign Office prudence, were harmless, were, however, telegraphed abroad, and I was immediately the object of an attack in certain Belgian newspapers for having compared the King of the Belgians to the Sultan of Turkey, simply because I had stated that I did not intend to say anything about the Congo or Macedonia. It was believed that under these simple words there lurked a subtle intention on my part compare King Leopold to the Sultan of Turkey. If such a perfectly innocent observation could do harm, how cautious it is necessary that I should be this evening in saying anything which, by any means whatever, could be regarded in Belgium as showing a desire to apply undue pressure, or as containing some subtle imputation either upon Belgian statesmen or Belgian Parties.

At the same time, I feel that absolute silence might be misunderstood. I must, therefore, say a few words in regard to the position of His Majesty's Government, but they will be little more than an amplification of whit may be found in the Speech from the Throne. Before I do that, however, I would like to tell my noble friend who has introduced the subject, of which he has such a complete and thorough knowledge, that Papers will be in your Lordships' hands immediately, and that I hope they will shortly be followed by another Paper containing further Reports which arrived only a few days ago. In that Paper, or some other, I trust it may be possible to insert something about the concessions and the legal effect of certain clauses in them, which is, I think, the specific point to which my noble friend alluded. We have not lost sight of that question, but I do not conceal from my noble friend that we have found very great difficulty in obtaining the information we desired.

Some suggestions have been made in the course of this debate—not for the first time—as to what this country can do without asking the leave of the Powers or anybody else. I stated last year and the year before that we had not overlooked the possibility of our having to exercise the right of setting up Consular Courts; but until we know whether the Belgian solution is going to be a reality or not, it would be premature to make-any pronouncement on that question one way or the other. I may, however, say, with regard to the number of Consuls mentioned this evening, that the number has been increased. There are now not only a consul at Boma and two Vice-Consuls, but a third Vice-Consul has-been appointed.

THE EARL OF MAYO

Where?

LORD FITZMAURICE

His exact sphere has not yet been determined and, together with the spheres of the other vice-consuls is at present receiving the attention of the Secretary of State. His-Majesty's Consul at Boma has been provided with a steam launch, and the question of supplying the Vice-Consuls at two other places with similar launches is now being considered. I hope that in this matter the Foreign Office may look for the favourable support of the Treasury Those, however, are no doubt palliatives only.

There is another measure which has not been mentioned this evening, and which may have still larger results. The Berlin Act of 1884 contemplated the appointment of an International River Commission. Sir H. Johnston, whose name is always quoted with such respect in these debates, has often told me that the establishment of a Commission, including representatives of all the great Powers, would, in his opinion, be by far the most valuable thing that could be done to bring the breath of public opinion upon these regions. But we cannot set up such a Commission by ourselves. The consent of the Powers would be required, and those who are acquainted with the history of the Danube Commission will know that that is a matter which cannot easily be arranged.

I make no complaint that the most, rev. Primate has alluded to the aspect of the question which is summed up in the words, "The appeal to humanity. I am convinced that in this matter we have not only treaty rights, but also a duty, and it is that aspect of the question, I think, which has struck the public mind. I am glad to say that the feelings which 'animate this country have also appealed to the people of the United States of America. That is of great importance, not merely because of the influence and power of the United States, but because the United States is absolutely free from, and cannot in any conceivable circumstances be charged with, what we, whatever we may say or do, are unfortunately still charged with by our critics abroad, and especially in certain papers which represent what may be called the interest of the Congo State as it is—namely, that we are animated in this matter by purely selfish motives—by territorial and commercial ambitions. No one can make that charge against the people of the United States. They were amongst the very first, if not actually the first, to recognise the International Association of the Congo, and, therefore, if they come forward and cooperate with us, as they are now doing, it is a fact of first-rate importance. We have been in consultation with the Government of the United States, our Minister and theirs have been in communication with each other in Brussels, and nothing could be more valuable to the cause of Congo reform or more agreeable to His Majesty's Government than that that co-operation should continue and extend.

There is one matter in which the people of the United States and the people of this country are particularly interested, and that is the refusal of the Congo State to carry out its treaty obligations with regard to the granting of sites for churches, schools, and missions. I had hoped to be able to say something satisfactory on that question, but I am sorry to say that during the last few hours I have received information from Brussels which shows the attitude of the Congo State to be more unsatisfactory on this question than it was a year ago. I can only promise that the Foreign Office will not lose sight of the question, and will continue to press it. I am glad to say with regard to the charge sometimes made, that the whole Congo reform movement was nothing but an agitation got up by the Protestant missionaries, and that the Boman Catholics took no interest in it, that such 'an idea only remains now in the minds of a few individual fanatics here and there. Many of the most prominent leaders of the movement in Belgium are leading Roman Catholics. No man has played a more honourable part in this prolonged struggle than M. Beernaert, the leader of the old Catholic Party. It was M. Beernaert who years ago, being Prime Minister at the time, and speaking with perfect sincerity, said of the Congo Free State that it was to be a great humanitarian and philanthropic enterprise. He said— The State of which our King will be the Sovereign will be a sort of international colony. There will be no monopolies, no privileges, absolute freedom of barter, property, commerce, and navigation. Now, every one of the undertakings which the Sovereign of the Congo State allowed to be made has in practice been reduced to an absolute nullity by influences and powers entirely outside the Belgian Government, the Belgian Parliament, or the Belgian people and against these influences M. Beernaert has continuously struggled but in vain. The result has been, perhaps, as great a negation of international treaty rights as great a defiance of public law, and as great a sacrifice of the interests of humanity as anything the modern world has heard of. Another of the severest or tics of the Congo Administration, has been Father Vermesel a Jesuit priest whose name I mentioned last year.

I cannot ask your Lordships to look forward with pleasure to reading the White Paper which I hope will be in your hands to-day or to-morrow. It is a melancholy record. It comes from men on the spot, but in it will also be found the first outward and visible sign of the co-operation between the United States and ourselves to which I have alluded, in the shape of a very interesting report from the United States Consul. Anxious as I am to avoid saying anything which may tend to complicate matters, I am obliged to say that the Government view the present situation with anxiety. Art is long, but time is fleeting. These debates cannot go on for ever and no result be achieved. I speak with a full consciousness of the enormous difficulty of the task before us. Lord Cromer has done two things to-night. He has brought his unrivalled experience to confirm the view that this maladministration in the Congo State is no figment of a feverish and disordered imagination; and, secondly, he has told, not only your Lordships, but, what is more important, our ardent friends and supporters outside that he realises how enormously difficult our task is. We look to your Lordships, to the other House, and to the people of the country to be with us in that task, and we also believe that the Belgian people will thoroughly understand that no comment has been made or suggested here upon them.

If I had to sum up the position I would say that the present state of things is contrary both to the dictates of humanity and to treaty obligation; and, while not desiring to enter into too great detail as to matters regarding which we trust entirely and absolutely to the wisdom and patriotism of the Belgian people and Parliament, we could not regard as satisfactory any arrangement which did not vindicate or secure the vindication of both treaty obligation and the claims of humanity. That, my Lords, is substantially what is contained in the Congo paragraph of the King's Speech. I think the state of things disclosed in Mr. Thesiger's despatch, included in the Papers presented to Parliament, shows that the state of the Congo is such as has been described by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, and we consider it to be in accordance with the treaty obligations, on which the Congo State was founded, that the need for reform should be recognised in whatever arrangement is made, and that assurances should be given that reform will be carried out, not only in theory but in practice, by the Belgian or any other authority assuming responsibility for administration. I trust these words will adequately convey to Parliament and the people of this country that we look to the people of Belgium, and believe that a body elected by that people, conscious of the existence of an educated public opinion in their own country and in Europe, may well be trusted to remember the high historical traditions connected with the liberties and freedom of their own country, and extend the rights they themselves enjoy, so far as that is possible, to the unfortunate and long-oppressed natives of the Congo State.

THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTH-WARK

My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has spoken under the strain—the almost painful strain—of official responsibility which I am quite sure we all recognise, and the House, if I am not mistaken, has listened to his words with that peculiar attention which shows a sense of the importance of what might fall from his lips at this time. It might seem presumptuous for a mere amateur like myself to follow the noble Lord; but as amateurs in great numbers have discussed the matter outside the House I think it is just as well that one should speak inside, and as the facts are fully known, outsiders have some justification for speaking.

The noble Lord has told us what weight his lightest words sometimes have when transmitted across the wires to the other side of the Channel. I cannot help hoping that some of his words not light, but weighty, to-night, will have considerable effect there, not less because of the great and honourable caution which he showed in uttering them. I am quite certain that the most ardent outsider will be at one with the noble Lord in what he said at the end of his speech as to the relations between this country and the free country of Belgium—a country for which, I think, Englishmen have always had a special regard, born partly of a constitutional kinship and partly, perhaps, of that kindly feeling which a protector—shall I say?—has over one whose interests he is allowed to cherish and protect.

Two or three things which the noble Lord said gave us some encouragement. To the appointment of a third Vice-Consul I do not attach much importance as a remedy, but I do attach a good deal of value to the use of a steam launch; the swift movements of the official within his district will certainly enable him to be more useful than if he were merely stationed there. Nor, again, am I very much interested for the moment, if I may say so, in what the noble Lord said about the missionaries and the chapels; I, for my part, would rather desire that we should leave all questions of religion out of account until we have settled the very much more elementary matters which this question contains. I am grateful, however, to the noble Lord, and many besides myself will be very grateful to him, for having to-night destroyed and pulverised one of the arguments used against this agitation—namely, that it was a matter of Protestant against Catholic, and that the Catholics had no sympathy with it at all. That, I think, can hardly now be maintained. What the noble Lord has said as to the granting of sites and so on, is one proof the more that what the Congo administration really dread is the truth being known, one proof the more that the Congo rulers desire to keep out of the country everybody who can see, hear, and report. Missionaries at great peril, and certainly at the cost of enormous labour, have gathered the facts and have been faithful reporters.

A significant phrase was dropped by the noble Lord; he said the Government had still to see whether the scheme of anexation was a reality or not. That is precisely where outside opinion is most sensitive and most disturbed. May I say what we should regard as the greatest danger at this time? It would be something of this kind, that the Government feeling the enormous pressure of the international difficulty, would be too much inclined to see whether, after all, it would not be enough and indeed better to say, "We know this scheme of annexation is really quite unsatisfactory, it gives no security for radical change, but it does this, it does bring Congo administration into some kind of relation, imperfect though it may be, with the Belgian Chamber and its debates, and such is our faith in Parliamentary discussion that we think this must bring about amelioration." I cannot help feeling that there is very real danger in that, I would almost call it a temptation, to which His Majesty's Government or any Government dealing with this question must be exposed.

In the first place, this is mainly an administrative question, and the administration would remain entirely in the hands in which it has hitherto been, and if you get Parliamentary discussion upon it it will be discussion carried on by those who have not the money to carry out changes, for we know that any real change would mean a demand upon Belgian finance which it could hardly bear. Belgium has not the knowledge and experience to deal familiarly with colonial affairs, and the Belgian Chamber is not accustomed to interest itself with matters outside its own land. If they have not the money, and if they have not-the knowledge and experience necessary neither is there power to enforce improvement. I do not think that what is to be looked for there is a very imperfect advantage. But what is lost if that course is taken? It seems to me that there will be lost to this country the great opportunity of taking a really firm, frank, consistent line about it. We shall be in danger of giving away the strength which would come to us by a clear declaration that with such an annexation as that which leaves the system untouched we will have nothing to do. We should come away with a consistent moral position.

What we are thinking of most are the moral principles involved. The moral feeling of the country, of which the noble Lord the Under-Secretary has spoken, is one of its most precious assets. If you always oppose to it this wall of international difficulty it will get, as it were, accustomed to beat at the door in that wall in vain, and the feeling will spread, as I think I see it already spreading, that it is no good appealing to principles of justice in these matters, because they are always met with the interminable international difficulty. Here we have a case in connection with which there is no dispute about the facts. That is a great advantage. Another point is that there is no dispute whatever about the treaty rights to which we appeal. The case is clear. It is also heartrending, it goes without saying. It is not near our most delicate international interests, and, if those interests are involved, they are not involved in the same acuteness as in a question like that of Macedonia. Therefore I feel that in in this case England cannot live up to her old traditions as a protector of freedom and an emancipator of slaves, the effect on the future of that most precious asset—its own moral force—may be more serious than perhaps we think.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

My Lords, I desire to add one or two words only to the discussion to which we have just listened. I rise mainly because if one or two words were not spoken from this bench the impression might be created that there was a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House upon this important subject—a difference of opinion in the existence of which I for one do not in the least believe. I have on several occasions addressed your Lordships on this subject, using, I think, stronger language than that which I am generally in the habit of using in this House; but of what I have said on former occasions I am not disposed to retract one single syllable. For another reason I may, perhaps, excuse myself for saying much. My noble friend (Lord Cromer) on the Cross Benches was good enough to single out from speeches of mine one or two of the most emphatic statements which I have ventured to make, and to justify me with a weight of authority to which I cannot pretend. I hope it may not be the last time on which my noble friend will give me the support of his great authority.

I believe that in all parts of the House there is an agreement that the present situation in the Congo is intolerable; and that feeling will certainly not have been diminished by the statement of my noble friend who represents the Foreign Office from which we gathered that the attitude of the Congo Government at this moment was, if possible, more uncompromising than before. That is a very serious announcement. Now we are. I believe, most of us in favour of what has been described this evening as the Belgian solution, by which I mean that the jurisdiction and privileges now possessed by the Sovereign of the Congo State should be transferred to the Belgian Government. In our view that transfer must be a real and complete transfer. It would not be a transfer which any of us could regard with acquiescence if there were any reservation of rights, any conditions made which might have the effect of impairing the full and complete control of the Belgian Government over the whole of the territories without exception now administered by the Government of the Congo State.

We are not, however, yet able to say with any degree of certainty whether the settlement which is likely to be within the reach of the Belgian Government will or will not fulfil these conditions. There is a colonial law which has been before a Belgian Parliamentary Committee and there is a draft Treaty of Cession. These documents, so far as I am aware of their contents, certainly seem to contain many conditions of a very disquieting character. But the matter is still—so I understand it—before the Belgian Parliament; and it does not seem to me that we are yet in a position to pass judgment finally upon the settlement which is likely to be effected. What I venture to put to your Lordships very strongly is this—that we should in these circumstances hesitate before we do anything which might embarrass the Belgian Government in dealing with the very intricate problem which now awaits solution at their hands.

Let us not forget that all the circumstances of the case are of a kind which entitle the Belgian Government to the utmost consideration at our hands. This is not an enterprise of their seeking. They would probably be very glad, if they could, to escape altogether the heavy obligations which the transfer of the Congo State will impose upon them. Their task will be one of tremendous magnitude. It will be nothing less than the complete transformation of the whole system under which the government of this miserably oppressed country has been conducted. Let us not also forget this—that this work of colonial administration is not work of which the Belgian Government has had any experience or to which it is at all accustomed. We are therefore going to ask the Belgian Government to undertake a task of very great difficulty, and one which, no doubt, will involve it in great expense. Because, as has been truly said during the course of this discussion, if the Congo Free 'State is to be administered with ordinary regard to the dictates of humanity, the ill-gotten profits of recent years are bound to disappear; and it is by no means improbable that these profits will be replaced at first by considerable loss.

I therefore trust that we shall give the Belgian Government such a chance as ordinary fair play suggests; and it seems to me altogether premature that we should at this moment talk, as some people have talked, not in this House, of sending ultimatums to the Belgian Government, of withdrawing the exequaturs of Belgian consuls, or even of sending gunboats—there is always a gunboat at the bottom of these suggestions—to the Congo River. There are remedies and remedies: and I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Mayo speak in terms of approval of a particular remedy which has always seemed to me to be an appropriate one, I mean an increase in the number of British consuls; and if these consuls are to be given, as Lord Cromer proposed, consular courts, and if British traders are to be freely admitted to the country, I should look forward to excellent results following the introduction of such a change. It also seems to me that the appointment of a river commission to which my noble friend referred was a very hopeful proposal. Public opinion in this country has been more moved over this question than by almost any question of the kind which I can remember; and I hope that we are not wrong in believing that public opinion in Belgium also has at last been moved by the terrible accounts which have reached us as to what has been going on in the Congo. I trust that the effect of this discussion, which will no doubt be carefully followed in Belgium, will be to satisfy the people and the Government of that country that the people and the Government of Great Britain are earnestly bent upon the complete reversal of the whole policy under which the Congo Free State has lately been administered, and that they are determined that an end shall be put to a condition of things which they have long regarded with feelings of abhorrence and shame.

*THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (The EARL of CREWE)

My Lords, I agree with the noble Marquess who has just sat down that this debate has revealed a singular unanimity of opinion in all parts of the House. That, indeed, is not surprising, because that unanimity of opinion, I believe, exists all over the country. The feeling of the people of this country is that the record of the Congo Free State has been one of maladministration and of the exploiting of the country and the natives for private ends. They have read the accounts of that system of forced labour, which is not only not to be distinguished from slavery, but is infinitely harsher than some of the forms of slavery which exist on the African Continent. "When your Lordships come to read the consular reports, of which my noble friend behind me spoke, the truth of that statement will be made evident.

I am very glad to know that the policy of the Government in somewhat increasing the consular establishments in the Congo State meets with the approval of the House. I think it is perfectly evident that it must have good results, and it is obvious that if the country is willing to find the money for the purpose it might be further extended. I think there can be no question that almost all the records of ill-doing in Africa, whether by individuals or companies, show that it has been very largely caused or aided by the absence of publicity. It is not necessary in this House to say, but I will say it again, that this feeling, both in the House here and throughout the country, is an absolutely disinterested feeling. I think it was Mr. Leeky who said in one of his books that perhaps the only instance of a really pure and disinterested agitation to be found in the whole course of history was the great agitation against the slave trade in the earlier part of the nineteenth century. I believe the public feeling in regard to the Congo is equally pure and equally disinterested.

My noble friend on the Cross Benches, Lord Cromer, did not mince matters in speaking of the Congo State. There was no reason, so far as its administration was concerned, why he should. But he did, I was glad to note, recognise to the full the position of difficulty with which the Belgian people are at this moment confronted. That point was also pressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and I was particularly glad to hear the noble Marquess on the Front Bench, opposite lay still further stress upon it. It is one of very great importance. When we are speaking of this matter we must not forget that what the Belgian people are asked to do is, without previous colonial experience, to take over liabilities of an entirely unknown character. I think it is beyond all dispute that anything like the sweeping away of the present system on the Congo must be attended by considerable cost. Negotiations with a view to transfer are now proceeding between the Sovereign of the Congo State and the Belgian people.

The right rev. Prelate who spoke just now expressed some fear that if a transfer were to take place it might not be of a genuine character, and that there would be a strong temptation on the part of the Government of this country to accept it as though it were genuine. Upon that I can only repeat that if the proposed transfer is a genuine one, and holds out the promise of an improved administration of the country, we shall heartily welcome it. But if it can be shown that it has elements of unreality—that is to say, if it is going to leave the power where it is—then we certainly could not regard it as a proper solution. We should then have to look at the matter afresh, bearing in mind the two grounds upon which we have a right to express an opinion—first, our right under treaty; and, secondly those general rights of humanity which we share with every civilised nation. Meanwhile, like the noble Marquess, we do not desire in any way to prejudice the conduct of these negotiations, or to throw any kind of difficulty in their way.

It must be remembered that those 'gentlemen in Belgium who most desire to see the administration of the Congo State reformed may be themselves placed in a position of considerable difficulty if there appears to be anything like an attitude of dictation from this side of the Channel. That is a point on which I was glad to note that the noble Marquess dwelt, and it is one on which we feel very strongly. We will await, therefore, the result of these negotiations with full confidence in the sound instincts of the Belgian people, and in the hope that by these means a satisfactory solution of this most difficult problem may in due course be found.

On Question, Motion agreed to.