the Independent State of the Congo on the other, as well as all
the benefits, rights and advantages attached to that sovereignty.”
In July 1890 Belgium acquired, by the terms of a loan to the
Congo State which was granted free of interest, the option of
annexing the state on the expiry of a period of ten years and six
months. Notwithstanding this loan the state became involved
in further financial difficulties,[1] and on the 9th of January 1895
the Belgian government entered into a treaty with King Leopold
to take over the Free State with all its possessions, claims and
obligations, as from the 1st of January of that year. In anticipation
of the consent of the Belgian parliament to this treaty, a
Franco-Belgian convention was signed on the 5th of February
1895, by which the Belgian government recognized “the right
of preference possessed by France over its Congolese possessions
in case of their compulsory alienation, wholly or in part.” But
after long delays and a violent press campaign the ministry fell,
the bill providing for annexation was withdrawn, and the
chambers voted a further loan to the Free State to enable it to
tide over its immediate difficulties. In 1901, on the expiry of the
term of years fixed in the loan convention of 1890, the question
of the annexation of the Congo State by Belgium again formed
the subject of prolonged discussion. A bill was brought forward
in favour of annexation, but this time it was opposed by the
Belgian government, which proposed simply to let the loan run
on without interest. King Leopold likewise declared himself
to be opposed to immediate annexation, and the bill was withdrawn.
Under the terms of the government measure, which
finally passed through the Belgian parliament in August 1901,
Belgium retained her right of option, though not the right to
exercise it at a fixed date. Moreover, in anticipation of the time
when the Congo State would become a Belgian colony, there
was issued under date of 7th of August 1901 the terms of a proposed
loi organique, regulating the government of any colonial
possessions which Belgium might acquire.
The discussions which from time to time took place in the Belgian parliament on the affairs of the Congo State were greatly embittered by the charges brought against the state administration. The administration of the state had indeed undergone a complete change since the early years of its existence. A decree of the 1st of July 1885 had, it is true, declared all “vacant lands” the property of the state (Domaine privé de l’état), but it was not for some time that this decree was so interpreted as to confine the lands of the natives to those they lived upon or “effectively” cultivated. Their rights in the forest were not at first disputed, and the trade of the natives and of Europeans was not interfered with. But in 1891—when the wealth in rubber and ivory of vast regions had been demonstrated—a secret decree was issued (Sept. 21) reserving to the state the monopoly of ivory and rubber in the “vacant lands” constituted by the decree of 1885, and circulars were issued making the monopoly effective in the Aruwimi-Welle, Equator and Ubangi districts. The agents of the state were enjoined to supervise their collection, and in future natives were to be obliged to sell their produce to the state. By other decrees and circulars (October 30 and December 5, 1892, and August 9, 1893) the rights of the natives and of white traders were further restricted. No definition had been given by the decree of 1885 as to what constituted the “vacant lands” which became the property of the state, but the effect of the later decrees was to assign to the government an absolute proprietary right over nearly the whole country; a native could not even leave his village without The state becomes a monopolist trading concern. a special permit.[2] The oppressive nature of these measures drew forth a weighty remonstrance from the leading officials, and Monsieur C. Janssen, the governor, resigned. Vigorous protests by the private trading companies were also made against this violation of the freedom of trade secured by the Berlin Act, and eventually an arrangement was made by which certain areas were reserved to the state and certain areas to private traders, but the restrictions imposed on the natives were maintained. Large areas of the state domain were leased to companies invested with very extensive powers, including the exclusive right to exploit the produce of the soil.[3] In other cases, e.g. in the district of Katanga, the state entered into partnership with private companies for the exploitation of the resources of the regions concerned. The “concession” companies were first formed in 1891 under Belgian law; in 1898 some of them were reconstituted under Congo law. In all of them the state had a financial interest either as shareholder or as entitled to part profits.[4]
This system of exploitation of the country was fruitful of
evil, and was mainly responsible for the bad treatment of the
natives. Only in the lower Congo and a narrow strip
of land on either side of the river above Stanley Pool
was there any freedom of trade. The situation was
aggravated by the creation in 1896, by a secret decree,
Charges of maladmini-
stration.
of the Domaine de la couronne, a vast territory between the
Kasai and Ruki rivers, covering about 112,000 sq m. To administer
this domain, carved out of the state lands and treated
as the private property of Leopold II., a Fondation was organized
and given a civil personality. It was not until 1902 that the
existence of the Domaine de la couronne was officially acknowledged.
The Fondation controlled the most valuable rubber
region in the Congo, and in that region the natives appeared to
be treated with the utmost severity. In the closing years of the
19th century and the early years of the 20th the charges brought
against the state assumed a more and more definite character.
As indicated, they fell under two main heads. In the first place
the native policy of the Congo government was denounced as at
variance with the humanitarian spirit which had been regarded
by the powers as one of the chief motives inspiring the foundation
of the Congo State. In the second place it was contended that
the method of exploitation of the state lands and the concessions
system nullified the free trade provisions of the Berlin Act.
Reports which gave colour to these charges steadily accumulated,
and gave rise to a strong agitation against the Congo State
system of government. This agitation was particularly vigorous
in Great Britain, and the movement entered on a new era when
on the 20th of May 1903 the House of Commons agreed without
a division to the following motion:—
“That the government of the Congo Free State having, at its inception, guaranteed to the powers that its native subjects should be governed with humanity, and that no trading monopoly or privilege should be permitted within its dominions, this House request His Majesty’s Government to confer with the other powers, signatories of the Berlin General Act, by virtue of which the Congo Free State exists, in order that measures may be adopted to abate the evils prevalent in that state.”
In accordance with this request the 5th marquess of Lansdowne, then secretary of state for foreign affairs, issued a despatch on the 8th of August 1903 to the British representatives at the courts of the powers which signed the Berlin Act, drawing attention to the alleged cases of ill-treatment of natives and to the existence of trade monopolies in the Congo Free State, and in conclusion stating that His Majesty’s government would
- ↑ For an account of the loans and liabilities of the state see II. The Belgian Congo, § Finance.
- ↑ The British parliamentary paper Africa No. 1, 1909, contains a memorandum on the land laws in the Congo State, showing the extent to which trade was monopolized throughout its territories by the government.
- ↑ This concession was asserted by traders who had previously dealt direct with the natives, and by traders who hoped so to do, to contravene the provision of the Act of Berlin prohibiting any commercial monopoly in the Congo basin. The state maintained, however, that the proprietor who exploits and sells the produce of his land is not engaging in commerce.
- ↑ The best known of these companies are the Abir (Anglo-Belgian India-rubber and Exploration Co.) and the Société anversoise du commerce au Congo. In Katanga the companies holding concessions and the state are jointly represented by the Comité spécial du Katanga. In 1906 four new companies were formed in which British, American and French capital was largely invested. Of these companies the Union minière du Haut Katanga had for object the development of the mineral wealth of the district named, while the Chemin de fer du Bas Congo undertook to build a railway from Leopoldville to Katanga. The American Congo Company was granted a rubber concession in the Kasai basin. The fourth company, the Société internationale forestière et minière du Congo, combined mining operations with the exploitation of forest produce.
