The Press. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1896. THE CONGO FREE STATE.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9594, 8 December 1896, Page 4

The Press. TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 1896. THE CONGO FREE STATE.

Public opinion has by no means settled down in Europe on the subject of the civilisation of Africa. The Congo State, being under the direct control of King Leopold, might be supposed to strike the average Belgian imagination as a terrestrial paradise. Oα the contrary, Belgian generals are more outspoken than even English papers in their criticism of the Conge administration. Some time since we quoted Richabd Burton's opinion that if Africa could get rid of the white man and get slavery back ahe would

gain considerably by the exchange. This may have been mfeanfc for a paradox, bat a good y many people seem inclined to lake it seriously. A oer&ain Captain Samjsbury, at Metinie, in the employ of the Congo Government, has spent a great deal of energy lately in explaining through the papers how and why the condition of the Congo is unsatisfactory. He has had eager and attentive readers, for the case of Stokes roused a sense of national indignity in England, that has not extended to our own remote shores. We need not enter into details of the brutality and cruelty charged against the Belgian officials generally. Enough seems to have been admitted by the authorities to justify the British public in listening to what Captain Salusbuky had to say. He has certainly not been contradicted in Belgium, where, says a leading Belgian journal, " no one now believes the lies issued by the Congo authorities." When these Belgian atrocities wore forced upon the consideration' of the House of Commons, Mr. Chambkrlain had to admit that " it was perfectly true that hundreds of coloured British subjects had been forced to serve as soldiers, cruelly flogged, otherwise ' ill-treated, and in many cases murdered by Belgian officers." Lord Salisbury, Lord Kimberley aud Sir Charles Dilke combined to assert that the charges against the rulers of the Congo had been proved beyond the chance of i error. At this crisis, there appeared to champion the Belgian rulers of Central Africa no less a personage than Mr. H. M. Stanley. The name of Stanley adds weight to any utterance on African affairs. But it does not seem that in this ease the Congo administrators can congratulate themselves much upon their champion's success. In the first place, it must be remembered that, till 1900, Mr. Stanley receives £1000 per annum from the Belgian Government, on consideration for doing what King Leopold may want done about African affairs in Europe, and on condition that " he shall not by speech or writing publish aught concerning Congo affairs, save only.with the King's consent." Mr. Stanley can thus be hardly regarded as an impartial witness. Nor does he claim to be precisely a witness at all. In fact, the assertion of a man, however honest, that he has not seen certain things happen, is not worth much logically, against the word of a creditable eye witness. However, Mr. Stanley advised his readers to suspend judgment, to believe that King Leopold is too much of a gentleman to employ barbarous or disreputable officials, and to wait for other witnesses—notably for one Mr. Parminter. It happened that Mr. Parminter was, without Stanley's knowledge, already in and to the disgust of the great explorer, Mr. Parminter promptly "said ditto" to Captain Salusbury. Mr. Stanley seems to have tried to retrieve his lost ground by indulging in the invective for which he is notorious, and the discussion looks as if it might "fizzle out" in a personal quarrel. This would be a serious misfortune to the cause'of civilisation and humanity. It is evident that English interests require protection in the Congo not less than in other quarters of Africa.