Login
Get your free website from Spanglefish

27 Feb 1939 Suckling (contd)

MR. SUCKLING'S STATEMENT GIVEN TO THE COMMISSION

ON 27TH FEBRUARY, 1939

ON BEHALF OF THE LUNDA & LOVALE

(continued)

 

CLAIM TO ORIGINAL POSSESSION.

The credibility or otherwise of the witnesses in this case is one of the major questions. The nature of the claims made, the suport forthcoming for those claims and the amount of agreement or disagreement between the witnesses making such claims are surely the only means we have of testing their credibility. For this reason, the claim that the l.u.d. was originally occupied by Mwambwa and/or her daughter, cannot be dismissed as simply unproveable either way.

We have seen that no such claim was made when the utmost effort was being made to find evidence to prove that the land belonged to the Barotse nation. When the history of the nation came to be written a few years later by the one who had been instrumental in securing the district for the Barotse no reference was made to such occupation. On the contrary, Mwambwa and her daughter are both spoken of as living in the "Valley", from which the latter emigrated to Lunda and to which she returned. Moreover, it is distinctly stated that neither of these enjoyed any chieftainship and that the first chief of the Barotse was the grandson of Mwambwa, Mboo. Even if the first ancestors of the chieftainship stayed temporarily here and there in the l.u.d. on their way south from the Congo, as was suggested by Mwanamuke (8/12/6), or even if the old mounds to which constant reference has been made could be proved to have bean occupied by Mwambwa and her daughter (which is of course impossible) there remains the fact that the Barotse chieftainship, according to themselves, originated in the Valley and not in Mwambwa nor Mbuya, but in Mboo, whom no witness has referred to as living in the l.u.d.

In what is apparently the first statement of the Barotse claim (Bal. File 16 A; 27/4/36) it was not claimed that the land had been occupied by either Mwambwa or Mbuya, but by Mankoya under the Mulozi chief Soke, who had his capital on the Manyinga and ruled east and west, while Mubika ruled the country west of the Zambesi. It is stated that these chiefs (now-a-days it is admitted Mubika was not a chief but a visiting induna) had administrative powers and owned the land and produce and the fishing rights, and that the Lunda and Lovale immigrants did not conquer the former inhabitants submitted themselves under the rule of the Paramount chief for hundreds of years. In spite of this bold claim, it is stated that Barotse rule had to be re-established in that district by Imasiku and Imbua during the Makololo invasion. If submission had been effective for hundreds of years, why was it necessary to re-establish Barotse rule? This claim, however unsupported itself by actual evidence, is surely proof that up to 1936 nothing was known of occupation of the l.u.d. by Mwambwa or Mbuya.

But this is what was claimed in the statement put in as evidence before the Commissioner ("Traditions: Ownership of Land", p.1) and this claim was maintained very fully by Mwanamuke, Wata,  Imasiku Imasiku , Suu, and others and was agreed to by the Ngambela, Kalonga Wina and others, while yet others say that Soke was the first Barotse chief in the l.u.d.

The Statement called "Traditions" is a serious production written by educated people, who regularly correspond with the the Government in English. It was put in as a statement of the Barotse claim, under the authority of the Paramount Chief, by the Ngambela, Suu and Mwanamuke, especially and presumably with the approval of the kuta as a whole. They might have produced for the Commission Mr. Jalla's History of the Barotse Nation, which was written in 1909 and revised twice. Its information was provided by Lewanika and the most responsible people of the time and the book was read to and approved by the whole kuta. That this careful and authentic history was only produced by the other parties to the case, must raise a question as to the good faith of the Barotse. It fails to give support to several present-day claims of the Barotse and so was not produced and responsible people like the Ngambela (26/1/4) declared that he would trust the statements of young men rather than that given to Mr. Jalla by Lewanika and Noyoo, because they were able to get information from their fathers. Counsel for the Barotse suggests that it is not unreasonable to trust the tradition of the Noyoo family, even where it disagrees with the Jalla "History".

But is it likely that the Noyoo of the present day can speak more authoritatively than when he was 30 years younger and was helping Mr, Jalla and the Paramount Chief to write the history of their people?

Attention must be drawn to the inconclusive and unsatisfactory answers given by the Ngambela and Suu to questions about the History (Ngam. 25/1/4 & 5; 26/1/3 & 4; 15/2/1 & 2; and Suu 25/1/5 and 26/1/7). Such excuses as men of the south not knowing what happened in the north (when we are told that Noyoo was the one who made most visits to the north) and that Mr. Jalla was only told what he wanted; simply show how utterly inadequate are the reasons for not producing the history and force the conclusion that it was witheld because it did not support the Barotse case.

Can "Traditions" be treated as authentic history? If the present generation is in a better position to know the history of the past, we should expect this statement to be precise and accurate and to find its statements upheld in detail by the people of the present day brought forward as witnesses. Actually, it is neither precise nor accurate, nor is it in agreement with the statements of the young men the Ngambela is able to trust.

It is not precise.

On the first page, in order to prove that the l.u.d. was originally owned    and inhabited by the Barotse, a list of hereditary rulers is given. The Ngambela rightly says (26/l/4) that amongst the Barotse as with all other tribes, the chieftainship is reserved to the royal family and the appointment of indunas to indunas. But in this list of hereditary rulers Mwambwa is followed by Mubika, an induna, and Sooke is followed by Imasiku, though over a hundred years must have separated them. On page 2, the list is amplified so that the reader can trace the ancestry of the Barotse rulers. There is the obvious intention to give the  appearance of continuity from the earliest time to the present day but most of the names given are not of rulers at all, so how can any ancestry be traced? Of course, if we had not got the Jalla history, it would be impossible to prove that Mwambwa and Mbuya and the others did not live in the l.u.d., but having the history, we claim that it is much more worthy of credence than this much later and confused effort. And the History makes it clear that neither Mwambwa nor Mbuya lived in the l.u.d.

It is also inaccurate.

We claim that it is inaccurate wherever it clashes with the sober and earlier history. includes Imasiku as one of the .Barotse rulers who "moved down to the Valley" and says that three of them were left in the l.u.d. but then speaks of Soke as being south of the Kabompo and driven across by Mwanambinyi, who is. spoken of as his brother, though in the History neither Simuyi, Nabiana, Soke nor Nolea are found in the list of the brothers and sisters of Mboo. Mwanamuke (25/11/1) undertook to give the list of brothers and sisters and included the name of Mbwoanjikana as one of the former, though we all know she was a sister. Other inaccuracies will be noticed under other headings, but it may be pointed out that on page three it states that the Shindi's Lunda were under the dual authority of Nyakatolo and the Barotse, so what becomes of the claim that Nyakatolo herself was under the Barotse? Then, on page 5, that it was when Nyakatolo "killed the Lunda chief' that the Lunda submitted themselves under Mulambwa. Nyakatolo's war against the chief in the North (not of course Shindi himself) was about 1885, whereas we know Mulambwa died before 1830. This is the record we are asked to believe is more trustworthy than Mr. Jalla's History.
The statement is inaccurate. Do the living witnesses support a consistent story? It is said there are landmarks which show the 1.u.d. belonged to the Barotse. These were explained to be mounds which Mwanamuke (18/10/1) said were only "made for the chiefs" but which Mr. Heggs affirms were frequently made by commoners ("The Artificial Mounds" par. 2). But Mwanamuke (8/12/4 & 5) said he would not agree that any particular site had been occupied by an individual chief unless he found someone living who had actually seen the chief there and he admitted that it is not possible to distinguish the built up mound from the original soil in the case of ancient mounds, Moreover, after saying he knew the country better than the local people born there, spoke of one such site ('Isima', thereby diverging from "Traditions" which spoke of Kasima and Neete) as having been
occupied by Mwambwa and as being 1½ days' journey from the mouth of the Makondu, though actually the place is a natural hill "Chisenga" at least four days' journey and within what is now Portuguese Territory. Of what value can such statements be in proving that the land belonged to the Barotse and what trust can be placed in those who makethem?

Much was made of these mounds as real evidence in the beginning of the case, and Kapukali (18/10/1) and Kamandisa (19/10/l) and others rushed to assure the Commissioner, before any reference had been made to mounds, that they knew all about them. (Mr. Worthington had advised that witnesses should be got to swear to such sites). Ex-Head-Messenger Subai, however, knew nothing of such mounds on the Makondo (24/11/8).

The references to Mwambwa and Mbuya's having ever lived in the l.u.d. are equally conflicting. Suu (23/1/1), speaking on behalf of the Paramount Chief, stated that the l.u.d. was claimed by Lewanika because it had been occupied by his ancestors, and this must imply that such occupation included the right of chieftainship or no claim would lie, but such rights would contradict the History.
In passing, it must be noticed that Suu says (25/1/1)that Lewanika at the time of the Arbitration made no claim to the land of the aboriginal Lunda and Lovale but only to the land of his ancestors, and as regards the West Bank, to the land referred to in Lewanika's letter of 18th Oct. 1900. This was claimed, not because of ancestral occupation (Nabiana) as is now maintained, out because of tribal occupation - the tribes being Mambumi, Liuwa, Makoma and Nyengo. This is an unfortunate admission and in conflict with "Traditions" and his earlier statement (19/1/1). Suu's statement seem to suggest that the British representatives claimed a good deal more than Lewanika.

Suu claimed that both Mwambwa and Mbuya lived in the l.u.d. When asked for proof (25/1/6) he could only refer to mounds, to what Mambowa now say and to what Noyoo and Mwanamuke told him. He said that Simuyi became chief and ruled over the Mambowe, but that Simuyi was succeeded by Induna Mubika, which contradicts Tradition where it is stated that when Simuyi & Nabiana died the duties of these chiefs were entrusted to indunas Imenda and Kakulunda. Note looseness of such terms as duties of chiefs entrusted to Indunas. See unsatisfactory replies on this point (25/1/5-15). In original statement (27/4/36) Mubika on the West.

The Ngambela claimed that Mwambwa lived in the l.u.d. but that his knowledge was based on what he had read in the statements of others. When asked to say whereabouts she lived, he said that the

-23-
question should be referred to others. So the chief representative of the Barotse, in the concluding stages of the inquiry, still was quite ignorant as to where Mwambwa lived, although their claim to the country is based on her occupation of it. Yet he could claim that the land had from the beginning belonged to the Barotse (17/1/5) and had always been theirs (17/1/2).
The elder Noyoo said nothing about Mwambwa, but his son Mwanamuke claims to have got his information from him. Mwanamuke speaks (18/10/2) of Mwambwa as being already Paramount Chief when living north of the Kabompo and of his being succeeded by Mbuya, that in those early days the Lunda were paying tribute to Mwambwa and that there were Barotse Resident Indunas among them. This he contradicted in cross-examination (13/2/5 p.m.). He claims Simuyi and Nabiana as his own ancestors (is not that the real explanation; they never were ancestors of the Barotse chieftainship?), and he says that Simuyi was succeeded by Imenda.

So these, the leading representatives, omit any reference to Mubika in the suceession of the early days, detailed in "Traditions".

Mwanamuke alone suggests that Mboo took over the chieftainship from his mother Mbuya before they came to the valley, thereby contradicting everybody else. He speaks of Simuyi being left behind, but the site he mentions (25/11/1),"Kambai" is actually south of Lukulu.

Of the other witnesses, the present Imasiku (12/12/3) informed the Commission that Soke was the first Barotse chief in the l.u.d., and was the son of Mwambwa (not Mbuya). Questioned, he said Mbuya was the first but that Mwambwa was Paramount Chief in the time of Mbuya. Questioned again (p.5), he said Mbuya was not Paramount Chief of the Marozi but only of the Balovale district and Mwambwa of the Barotse. Incidentally, he also said that Imasiku went there when Mulambwa was Paramount Chief of the Barotse, and admitted he did not know the successsor of Mubukwanu. Kalonga Wina (14 12/2) said that the only Barotse Chiefs to live north of the Kabompo were Mwambwa and "his son Soke who went to live at the Manyinga", and that Mwambwa was succeeded by Mboo, not Mbuya. Kamandisa (19/10/1) said that Mwambwa lived in the l.u.d. on the sites Kasimba and Nalote. 'Traditions" gives Kasimba as Mbuya's site and Nalote as that of Mubika (& Mwanambinyi,,according to Kamandisa) which suggests this site also was south of Lukulu. Imenda (18/10/1), after saying that he was head of the Mambowe living south of the Kabompo but his people were living on the north, which is not true, said that the Barotse came to the Balovale district and found the Mambowe in position (sic) and that the Barotse settled near the Kabompo. He speaks of the Paramount Chief living on the north side of the Kabompo, while the Mambowe had villages from the present Boma to Chavuma. He says nothing of mounds and old sites, but places the Barotse much further south than the mounds and old sites referred to by the others. Can anyone read his statement (page one) and believe that Imenda looked upon the Mambowe as the same people as the Barotse? Incidentally, he claims the land as belonging to the Mambowe and not the Barotse. Kakulunda (30/12/1), a Mambowe on his mother's side, claimed that both Mambowe and Mambumi are actually Barotse but that they had villages from the Kapaku and Chavuma south only since the time of Nabiana, not that the Barotse found them there. Kufuna (21/10) said that where the Lunda now live belonged to the Mankoya, who settled there in the time of Mbuya. Kapukali (18/10/1) speaks of Mbuya having mounds but says nothing of Mwambwa. Sinkemba (18/10/l) spoke of himself as belonging to the Mambowe tribe, but when asked who was their Chief, said that Imenda was just an induna and that he was a Marozi. After saying that his father and mother belonged to the Balovale district, he admitted, when questioned, that his father was a Mutoka (p.4), and claimed that the Ngembela was a Mambowe. Situmbeku said (24/12/1.) that his predecessor was the first Induna known as Situmbeku in the time of Nabiana when Mbuya was Paramount Chief of the Barotse. It is clear Mbuya never was Paramount Chief, and Situmbeku found himself in difficulties when he tried to explain how there could be only six (at first he had said three) Situmbekus from the time of Mbuya.


It is hoped the Commissioner's time has not been wasted in detailing these inaccuracies and contradictions, and that they will prove how utterly undependable are the statements of these

-25-
Mambowe and others on whose verbal statements alone the Barotse case for the original occupation of the land is based.

When we turn to the occupation of Soke and Imasiku the contradictions are even greater. In the History it is stated that when Mbuya returned to the plain, Soke separated and went to Lukulu and Mwito (on the Luena) (p.4). It records how Mwanambinyi fought Soke in order to steal his cattle, but was unsuccessful and fled (p.8) In the "Traditions" it is stated that Soke was driven from his seat at Lukena by a revolution made by Mwanambinyi and then crossed the Kabompo with his Mankoya followers to the Lukwakwa. This is definitely described, however, as being in the present Mwinilunga district, as are the rivers mentioned. It is claimed that Soke was the brother of Mwanambinyi and therefore the son of Mbuya, but there is nothing to suggest this in the History. We have seen that two of the present day witnesses spoke of him as the son of Mwambwa. Wata (of the Manyinga Kuta) (8/12/1) spoke of Soke as the first man (possibly meaning the first Marozi) to go into the Balovale district. Questioned (15/12/1), he said Soke's mother, Mbuya, was in the Balovale district but went to the Valley with him and then went to the Manyinga. Asked where Mbuya lived, he said he did not know but it was somewhere on the Zambesi and that he was ignorant as to where Mwamba lived. But he said that when Imasiku went there he found no successor of Soke, as the latter's relatives had returned to Lealui, leaving no chieftainship behind but becoming the source of the Lealui chieftainship. Noyoo the elder (22/1U/4) said that Imasiku crossed the Kabompo in order to succeed Soke. Counsel was anxious to establish that Imasiku was not driven there by the Makololo but went in order to inherit a definite chieftainship, and Noyoo said that Imasiku crossed in order to inherit what was left by Soke. We have seen that Wata said there was nothing to inherit, and this is borne out by Siengele's statement also (15/12/5). It is interesting however to note that Noyoo says that Soke went to the Kaonde at the head-waters of the Dongwe and that there were no other tribes at that time in the Balovale district except Shinde's people on the Lufize and (when questioned) Mambowe on the banks of the Kabompo river.

-26-
Mwanamuke gave the story of Soke much as it is in "Traditions" (and therefore very different from the History). We have already noticed also some of his mistakes. He states however that Soke went to the other side of the Lunga (well in the Mwinilunga District) and says that Soke ruled over the Mankoya who lived on the land known as the Lukwakwa and explains this as between the Manyinga and the Lunga. He says that Simuyi was ruling on this side of the Manyinga to the Kabompo and up to Chavuma, where Imenda had his vilage. The Ngambela said that Soke was chief of both Mankoya and Mambunda (15/2/7). When asked if he meant that when Soke went there there were Mabunda on the Lukwakwa (which we know historicaliy was not the case), he said he was "not clear on that". Questioned as to who succeeded Soke, he said he did not know. Asked what it was that Imasiku went to Soke to inherit, he said the question should be put to those who made the statement, overlooking the fact that he was one of them. Pressed, he still refused to answer the question, but when asked if the present Imasiku went to inherit the chieftainship of the original Imasiku, he said he did, but found himself in difficulties when it was pointed out that Imasiku's chieftainship was that of Paramount Chief of the Barotse. Attention is called to the unsatisfactory replies given (pp.8,9) to questions, surely legitimate enough in the circumstances, about the succession from Soke, and the Ngambela's refusal to accept responsibility for answering. Yet the Ngambela claimed, "The Lukwakwa has always been ours." (19/1/1).

Suu was equally unhelpful. In his claim, on behalf of the Paramount Chief, he states that the l.u.d. was historically Barotse as the Lukwakwa was originally occupied by the hereditary chiefs, Soke, Imasiku and their successors. Please notice his replies to questions on this subject (25/1/3-5) and to the matter of succession (25/1/11).

In view of all this confusion and contradiction, is it not much more likely that the Lunda claim is true which says (as Siengele admitted - 15/12/5) that Soke was a Mankoya and that he was the founder of the Mankoya chieftainship and quite distinct from the Barotse? It is thus quite a mistake to imagine there was a subsidiary

-27-
chieftainship of the Barotse in existence in the l.u.d. before the Makololo invasion which Imasiku was able to inherit.

The story of Imasiku is also contradictory. In the History (p.18) it is stated that Barotse; & Mambunda fled to Lukulu and built there a lukwakwa. Mubukwanu, defeated by the Makololo and refused by many of his own people, travelling by night, was actually brought there, only to be poisoned shortly after by Mwene-Siengele, who not long before had murdered Mubukwanu's predecessor, Silumeluna. Even before his death, Imbua had been made chief by his supporters and went to the Nyengo. When Mubukwanu died, his son Imasiku was put in his place. Five years later Sebituane laid siege to Lukulu but was unable to take it. The Barotse however suffered so much from starvation that they were reduced to eating their dogs. Imasiku, forced by starvation, made a sortie at night time and, crossing the Kabompo, went and built at Lukwakwa (country is not mentioned in original). There is no mention of his going to inherit a chieftainship, and even before his father's death another chief of the Barotse had been appointed. Livingstone bears out the story of Imasiku's flight, tells of his being well received by Shinde but says nothing of his going to any previously occupied area to inherit. Imasiku, who had been strong enough to resist Sebituane for some time and had fled with "many followers", and as the grandson of Mulambwa and chief of one remnant of the Barotse was doubtless treated as a man of consequence, but there is nothing to show that he attempted to subdue any country. He must have been there over 15 years when Livingstone found him seeking the help of Shinde against his brother Imbua. The history speaks of Imbua's agreeing with the Mambunda at Lukwakwa to leave Nyengo and to try to oust Imasiku, but the Mambunda turned round and, without their support, he had to return to Nyengo. It says nothing of his making any other effort at Lukwakwa, but simply says he had returned there (p.31). Thence he set out with his brother Namiluko to try to drive out Sipopa, but their Makwangwa allies having been defeated, they were themselves killed. Their sons returned to Lukwakwa. Sipopa sent an army (p.32) against them to Lukwakwa and destroyed the village (there is no reference in original p.68) to "Sikufele's capital").


-28-
Tatila Akufuna, son of Imbua, was also called from Lukwakwa by conspirators against Lewanika to be made chief. There is nothing to suggest he was a chief at Lukwakwa (p.37). Akufuna failed, and later on (p.44) the conspirators picked on Sikufele as a suitable rival of Lewanika. Very reluctantly, and with little hope of success, he joined the conspiracy. It failed and Sikufele lost his life. He had left his son as chief at Lukwakwa, and it was this son who was found in possession when the Government entered the country. He was not found in the l.u. d. but on the other side of the Manyinga.

The l.u.d. is claimed by the Barotse on the grounds of original possession. This is based on occupation by Mwambwa and Mbuya but no formal claim on these grounds were made before 1938. We have found no consistent tradition to support such claim now made. We have seen that what little records exist are against the further claim that Soke ever lived in the l.u.d.. Verbal tradition has been found as uncertain about Soke as about Mwambwa and Mbuya, in this respect, and what there is would point to Soke having lived outside the area under dispute. Has any witness ever suggested that he lived within it or has any evidence been forthcoming to show any chieftainship held by Soke which continued in existence until the time of Imasiku, who therefore could not have gone to the Lukwakwa to inherit from Soke.

Imasiku's chieftainship is known to have been one in exile. Like our own kings in exile, he doubtless did his best to maintain as much as possible the appearance of "royalty", but another chief was in power even amongst the Barotse. It appears to nave been a better position than the one at Nyengo, but the chief aim of those who held it was to make good their claim to the Barotse chieftainship. When the latter was finally established in the person of Lewanika, the Lukwakwa was not looked upon as a subsidiary chieftainship under the authority of Lealui, nor even a friendly offshoot, nor the country of a related chief but, as we have seen, "a stockaded nest of rebels". On the arrival of the Government, help was sought not to maintain a favoured progeny of the mother-country but to control and render harmless a rival to the chieftainship. And again emphasis must be laid on the fact that whatever authority the Lukwakwa people ever had,

-29-
it was centred outside the l.u.d. and was exercised over the Mankoya people. This agrees with the early entry in the Balovale District N.B. (p.20) that Sikufele had come from Lukwakwa (yet another indication that Lukwakwa was outside the l.u.d.) and had with him a few villages of mixed Barotse, Mambunda and Mankoya, which incidentally is the description of the Ba-Lukwakwa given also by Suu.
What then can be thought of the claim constantly repeated that the present Balovale District is historically Barotse country because of the Lukwakwa occupation?

Verbal evidence has been produced to show that the Lukwakwa people also exercised chieftainship over certain rivers within the l.u.d., but it is hoped that sufficient has been written (without critically traversing these statements) to show that no chieftainship existed when the Government came, which had administrative powers and enjoyed the ownership of all the land and the fishing rights, to which (as was claimed in 27/4/36) Daniel Kufuna and his Kuta were entitled by right of succession. But these 'hereditary powers" are definitely stated to have been the basis of the claim in the boundary dispute of 1905. Apparently realising the inadequacy of the claim through Soke and others, a further claim has now been developed, namely that the l.u.d. was occupied by Mankoya, (2) Mambowe, (3) Mambumi, (4) Ma-liuwa, and that all these tribes are in reality Barotse and therefore the land they occupied was a part of Barotseland.
First the ethnological argument. We all know that the Barotse people are now very mixed and have assimilated elements from many different tribes. It has been claimed that just as the English are made up from many different sources but still speak of themselves as English, so the Barotse can do the same. But though there has been so much intermarriage, when we speak of having Scottish or Welsh or Irish blood, we recognise an original distinct entity by such terms. Similarly, although we speak in general of the Barotse, if we want to be precise we know there is a difference between Barotse proper and, say, Masubia or Matoka. It is clear, in spite of denials on the part of Suu and others, even the Ngambela, such distinction exists as regards the Mambowe, Mankoya, Mambumi and Maliuwa. Their names appear

-30-
in the lists of subject tribes. Mboo is said to have fought and conquered Maliuwa along with the Maupangoma and the Mamuenyi.As the names appear in proximity, it is reasonable to suppose that they lived in more or less the same neighbourhood - which is the Luanginga and south of the Lungwevunguu. It is specifically stated that Mboo conquered the Mambowe and deposed their chief. We are not told that the Masubia and the Matoka are the same tribes as the Barotse, but they have been assimilated as much as the Mambowe and a good deal more than the Mankoya. This is a very recent claim, and it is very obviously made in order to make out through them that the land under dispute belonged to the Barotse. We have seen that the Ngambela and Suu contradicted each other, the former (26/1/3) saying that the Mankoya were not the same tribe as the Barotse and the latter (26/1/7) claiming they are. We have seen that Imenda, descendant of the Mambowe chief deposed by Nboo, spoke of his people as quite distinct from the Barotse. Their name, like that of the Mankoya, appears in all lists of subject tribes of the Barotse. Livingstone (p.490) & Coillard (pp.599/602) speak of them as a separate people. Venning, like Livingstone & Coillard, found them between the Lungwevungu & the Kabompo. Sharrattt Horne was told by Noyoo the elder (Indaba with Noyoo, 12/7/27 - loose corr. from Hazell) that Imenda was the Mambowe chief, & in a letter from Balovale to Mongu, 11 & 14/10/28, the position is still more clearly defined. Apparently the Kuta agreed to the term aboriginal territorial chief for both Imenda & Kakulunde. It will be noted how very few names are given of the villages the Mambowe possessed in the l.u.d. & nearly all of them are present-day villages in the most Southerly fork of the Kabompo-Zambesi confluence. We cannot prove that no Mambowe had villages before Livingstone's time further north than at present, but it can be said they have never been heard of before and no reference made to them by any early travellers.

Much the same must be said for the contention that the Mambumi had villages right up to Kapako. It is easy to make such assertions, but no proof is produced except that the river Lukolwe, a well-known tributary of the Zambesi some miles south of Kapako, was once called the Mbumi pool & that from that the people got their name. Kakulunda in making this novel assertion (30/12/10) had to admit there was another pool, which he said was west of the mouth of the Kabompo, but which is much further south, also called Mbumi, from which his people came.

-31-
Barotse Contact with Lunda 
We have seen it is claimed in "Traditions" that the Barotse chieftainess Nyakatolo the control of the Lunda in the time of Mulambwa. As this involves an obvious anachronism, we may ignore it especially as it would give the lie to all that Livingstone wrote about the Lunda. Perhaps we may equally ignore the claim that "revenue officers" visited the Lunda during that time and collected tribute. It is a baseless assertion without any supporting evidence. But these revenue officers are said to have given such a good account of Barotse rule that nine Lunda broke from the hands of their enemies (unspecified) and took refuge in the land under dispute. One of the names is Livingstone's friend Manenko (Manenga). Another (Singungu) told the Commission that he was born on the Chilengi river (near the Boma) in the days of Kaumbu. Some names are unknown. It is significant that Mwanamuke (25/11/6) omitted Chingungu's name (the only one alive and therefore the only one who could deny the statement) when he gave a similar list of refugees at Balovale. Silembe's descendant (a Barotse witness) speaks of the land under dispute as the land south of the Kabompo (17/10/1), says nothing of his grandfather seeking protection, but says he was living on the Mayima Plain (12 miles south of Chavuma - not the site mentioned in Traditions" as given to Silembe) and came south of the Kabompo on the invitation of Sipopa to attend him medically.

The refugee story is but another illustration of discrepancy and contradiction, and when one remembers that the period in question was the bloodiest and most unsettled in all Barotse history, can it be believed that any folk would readily put themselves under such rule?

There appears to be more substance in the story of th re-installation of the Lunda chief Kanoka. It leaves unexplained how the Lunda, who are claimed to have been under the control of the Barotse, dared to remove their chief, and how it was that the revenue officers, constantly coming and going, knew nothing about the matter, so that the deposed chief was only found in hiding on the Makondo by some elephant hunters (Noyoo Mukumbuta 17/10/1). Incidentally this

-32-
Noyoo is the only Marozi who gave us this story in evidence. It does not appear in Jalla's history nor in Mwanamuke's detailed account of those times, nor in the account of the pro-Barotse witness, Shima, who was the grandson of Kanoka, nor in the Lunda history of Vaughan-Jones. Is Noyoo sufficiently trustworthy for this unsupported story of his to be believed? He said that the Lunda inhabited the land from the Makondo to the Lufize and that the country was in wild disorder, but also said that for 5 days' journey north from the present Boma the country was entirely uninhabited. Inhabited by Lunda, entirely uninhabited! It is unfortunate that those who are said to have accompanied Noyoo on this trip are all dead and so cannot be called.

It is admitted that the period following the death of Kaumbu was one of unsettlement and strife, but the Lunda chiefs seem to have quarrelled amongst themselves without involving many of their people. The Lunda story is as follows:-

On the death of Kaumbu his nephew Isaki seized the chieftainship, but, not being the rightful successor, was opposed and killed by Kanoka, one of Kaumbu's sons. It is said that Kanoka was uneasy about having killed his cousin and himself asked Kangombe, grandfather of the present Shindi, to take the chieftainship, he himself retiring to Kanongesha's country. Kangombe had a long and peaceful reign, but on his death his younger brother Kanoka returned and resumed the chieftainship. Once more he had to fight, and though successful he did not long enjoy the chieftainship but took ill and died. Chitenda, the son of Kaumbu's brother Muyembi (an earlier Shindi) claimed the succession but was opposed by Mushetampidi, a younger brother of Kangombe. The Lovale say that Mushetampidi asked help from Kakenge at this time, though this is generally denied amongst the Lunda. In any case, his trouble was with Chitenda not Chikalakanyovo. The story of the dog, as told by the Lovale, quite likely led to fighting further north, but the Lovale who caused the death of Mushetampidi were under the great Lovale warrior chief, Kangombe, who led a great raid remembered to this day as the "Njita ya Wulamba". This war passed through Lunda country and the Lukwakwa,

-33-
where the Barotse chieftainess Akotwa was captured and Liatitima forced to return to the valley. The raid went on through Kaonde-land but no settlements were made. It was a slave raid on a large scale. Mushetampidi did not actually fight the Lovale. The Lunda never appear to have developed organised fighting, not having followed the predatory habits of thAir neighbours to the south. Their skill with bow and arrow and in the chase made them splendid hunters but individualistic. The dense forests in which they lived did not encourage fighting on a large scale. when a war party of such magnitude entered the country, the wisest course was to fade into the forest and stay there till the danger was passed. It was not heroic, but it was sound military strategy. The Lovale were between them and the coast, whence came guns and gunpowder, and the Lunda never seem to have used guns much. Mushetampidi sought safety in flight but was drowned when the fish-dam on which he was crossing the Lufize gave way. Kangombe's party had passed and Chikalakanyovo, brother of Mushetampidi, succeeded him. The following year or thereabouts, however, the alarm was again raised. Kangombe's war party was on its way back to Lovale- land, and Chikalakanyovo decided to seek Lewanika's help. Hence arose the 1892 war.
The Barotse story differs slightly from this. In "Traditions" it is said that Chikalakanyovo sought the help of Kakenge in killing Mushetampidi, that the latter was killed and that Chikalakanyovo became Shindi in 1885, but that the Lovale continued harrassing the Lunda for several years until "one Chikalakanyovo" (did they overlook that in the previous paragraph they had said he became Shindi?) "who had escaped towards the south which is now
Balovale District appealed to Lewanika."    This is the official story,
and it is interesting to note that it agrees with the Lunda claim that Chikalakanyovo had become Shindi some years before seeking Lewanika's help. This agrees with Mr. Jalla's statement that "up to the day he fled before the Lovale warriors, Shindi lived on the Lufwiji" (the Lunda say it was the Lundaji, and how was Mr. Jalla in a position to know? but the fact remains he agrees he had "already become Shindi").

-33-
where the Barotse chieftainess Akotwa was captured and Liatitima forced to return to the valley. The raid went on through Kaonde-land but no settlements were made. It was a slave raid on a large scale. Mushetampidi did not actually fight the Lovale. The Lunda never appear to have developed organised fighting, not having followed the predatory habits of thAir neighbours to the south. Their skill with bow and arrow and in the chase made them splendid hunters but individualistic. The dense forests in which they lived did not encourage fighting on a large scale. when a war party of such magnitude entered the country, the wisest course was to fade into the forest and stay there till the danger was passed. It was not heroic, but it was sound military strategy. The Lovale were between them and the coast, whence came guns and gunpowder, and the Lunda never seem to have used guns much. Mushetampidi sought safety in flight but was drowned when the fish-dam on which he was crossing the Lufize gave way. Kangombe's party had passed and Chikalakanyovo, brother of Mushetampidi, succeeded him. The following year or thereabouts, however, the alarm was again raised. Kangombe's war party was on its way back to Lovale-land, and Chikalakanyovo decided to seek Lewanika's help. Hence arose the 1892 war.
The Barotse story differs slightly from this. In "Traditions" it is said that Chikalakanyovo sought the help of Kakenge in killing Mushetampidi, that the latter was killed and that Chikalakanyovo became Shindi in 1885, but that the Lovale continued harrassing the Lunda for several years until "one Chikalakanyovo" (did they overlook that in the previous paragraph they had said he became Shindi?) "who had escaped towards the south which is now
Balovale District appealed to Lewanika."    This is the official story,
and it is interesting to note that it agrees with the Lunda claim that Chikalakanyovo had become Shindi some years before seeking Lewanika's help. This agrees with Mr. Jalle's statement that "up to the day he fled before the Lovale warriors, Shindi lived on the Lufwiji" (the Lunda say it was the Lundaji, and how was Mr. Jalla in a position to know? but the fact remains he agrees he had "already become Shindi").

-34-
The story given by Kapota to Mr.Jalla still speaks of the Shindi, and says he escaped into Lewanika's country. (Chikala-kanyovo'a own village, the Lunde say, before he succeeded was on the Chibombo, 20 miles south of Chavuma). Apparently "Lewanika's country" means south of the Kabompo, for he was "found" at Silembe's village & was escorted to Lealui by Saomba. But this does not suggest that Chikalakanyovo was Shindi by the grace of Lewanika nor by his appoint-ment. Jalla's history says it was the Chief of the Lunda who came to ask for the war party. Yet we have several witnesses, including the pro-Barotse Shima, telling the story of Chikalakanyovo fleeing before he could succeed his brother and arriving at Lealui with only his wife and child, and according to some wearing only a couple of cat skins. As this contradicts the official Barotse story, need time be wasted showing how many contradictions there are in the telling of this concocted story'? Is it likely that Lewanika would have paid any attention to an empty-handed fugitive who was not even a chief? The Lunda claim that though Chikalakanyovo had to seek Lewanika's help, his country, with its chieftainship and many sub-chieftaincies, was intact. Many witnesses 'including the pro-Barotse witness Kachize Mukumbi) claimed that Chikalakanyovo and a large party of Lunda went with the Barotse against the Lovale. They were not organised fighters and alone were no latch for the trained warriors of Kangombe, but they were, as Jr. Jails admitted, "allies of Lewanika". It is noteworthy that the
ro se had not to dispel the invaders from Lunda country but fought the Lovale on their own land.

It Chikalakanyovo had gone to Lewanika in 1891 in the way suggested, without a kingdom and without followers, and had had to be given a much smaller area and to be appointed to a chieftainship by Lewanika, is it credible tc,at four years later, when the fighting and smallpox had cost the Barotse scores of lives, Chikalakanyovo would have been received by Lewanika with anything like the pomp and ceremony recorded by Coillard?    It is now said that one or two other
chiefs are allowed to come to the Kuta with their drums, but we have to deal with the situation as it then was. Mr. Coillard's words are:

-35-
"He alone of all the chiefs I have seen at Lealui was permitted to enter Lealui almost as an equal of Lewanika. Mr.Jalla (28/12/12) says that Shindi (apparently Chikalakanyovo) was treated as a more honoured guest and given a chair to sit on in the Kuta. Mataa (ex-Ngambela) assured the Commission (19/10/7) that in those days neither Shindi nor Indunas sat on chairs and that Shindi sat on a blanket. Mwanamuke said the same (18/10 16). It is noticeable to the Commission how unsatisfactorily important witnesses replied to questions om this subject.

The fact that the Jalla History specially refers to Musongo-wa-Ndungu as the one against whom the attack was planned bears out the Lovale suggestion that in acceding to Chikalakanyovo's request Lewanika was also satisfying a private grudge. There is nothing in "Traditions" nor in Mr. Jalla's story nor in all the evidence produced before the Commission to suggest that the fighting was with the purpose of forcing the continuance of tribute from the Lovale, but it is quite likely that Lewanika gave some such reason as an excuse to Mr. Coillard when reproached for breaking the peace.

Visual proof cannot be produced that in 1891 the l.u.d was in actual occupation by the Lunda. Several witnesses have said there were no Lunda till after the war. Even Mr. Jalla spoke of a few groups of refugees after the war of 1692. But the stubborn fact remains that Livingstone found them established there in 1854. Whatever the Lovale did in the way of raiding, they did not occupy the country, and three years after the war Coillard found the country well inhabited by Lunda with plenty of food.

It was noticed that much was said by Barotse witnesses as to the helpless condition of Chikalakanyovo, but there is nothing like agreement in the story they tell. It is feared that the Commission would be wearied by a recapitulation of all the discrepancies, so only some are quoted. An inspection of the whole evidence on the subject is invited. Kufuna (21/10/1) says Chikalakanyovo was the first Lunda chief to seek theprotection of Lewanika, but Mwenesiengeli (3/1/4) says that Kangwanda was the first to come, in Sipopa's reign (which he says was in the time of Kaumbu). Kufuna says that it was

-36-
before the war that the Lunde people came into the country and that the country belonged to Mankoya (though he can refer to only one site Kamandisa (19/10/1 & 3) says that the Lunda who had been living on the Lufize came into the country after Chikalakanyovo and that the country belonged to the Mambowe, but he gives the names of only three villages. Mwenesiengele says that in the time of Sipopa both Kangwanda and Nyakulenga had been "allowed" to live on the Makondo. Silembe (17/10/3) says that Shindi occupied the country of his predecessors. it can be seen too that there are similar contradictions as to the people with Chikalakanyovo when he came, Munembo (30/12/10) admitting that the present Shindi came with him, and also as to the people who took him to Lealui and the people who took him back. But these are witnesses called to prove that before the war the land belonged to th Barotse and that the Lunde came into it only as refugee* immigrants after the 1892 war. It may be recalled that Njekwa (Balovale File 18 E, Jan.'24) said that the 1892 war was caused by the Lovale invading the Lunda country in the Kalombo. Though he was possibly in erro about this, it is clear he was convinced the Lunda people lived there before the war. When it is remembered that at the time of the arbitration the whole contention was that the land was part of Barotse country because the Lunde people (no mention of Mambowe or Mankoya) were under Barotse control, cannot these self-contradictory claims be dismissed and the sober fact acknowledged that north of the Kabompo and east of the Zambesi the country belonged to the Lunde? Those who claim otherwise have never suggested where the dividing line was between the Lunda and their southern neighbours. The Kabompo forme a natural boundary and still serves to mark in a way obvious to any traveller the limits of Barotseland.

Although to the Governor, both the Paramount Chief and the Ngambela claimed that the Lunda had always been ruled by them the Ngambela stated (23/1'9) that they would agree that on the Lufize the Lunda were living on their own land but that they came to live on the land that had always belonged to the Barotse because the Mambowe and Mambumi (!) were the original occupants of the land. He said further (p.12) that everything on the Lufize was to be asked from

-37-
Shindi. If the Lunda were the acknowledged owners of the Lufize area and Shindi the sole authority, how can the Ngambela justify his claim that the Lunde had always seen under their control and the official Barotse claim that they had been for hundreds of years? (Bal-File 28 No.16A). Notice that the most responsible Barotse  witness speaks of the Mambumi as having been original inhabitants of the east bank to which the "Lunda only came" (23/X/10).

Moreover, with the Ngambela admitting that the Lufize area belonged to the Lunde and Awenesiengele saying that there were Lunda cub-chiefs on the Makondo in Sipopa's time, how can it be said that the Lunda in the l.u.d. are only post-war immigrants? It is an acknowledged fact that the administration found Shindi on the Lufize, which the Ngambela says belonged to them. When the Boma was put up the Lunda were one people from the Kabompo to the Lufize, and tax was collected right up on the Lufize. No suggestion was made to the Government at the time that the Lufize area was distinct from any other part of the district. Actually of course the Lunda country extended far north of the Lufize as it does today, and it was this fact that made it necessary for the Portuguese Government to arrange for the appointment of another Shindi within their boundaries. Had it not been for the unnatural division of the country by the purely geographical line of Lat.13°, the Lunda country would stretch from the Kabompo to the distant  Luzovu, with Shindi in the centre of his country on the Lufize.

Before turning to the war of 1892 and the subsequent period, notice must be taken of the position on the west bank of the Zambesi. Briefly, the Lovale contention is that Kayombo-ka-Kutemba was installed by an earlier Kakenge about the beginning of the 19th century. On the death of his uncle, Kayombo returned north to become Kakenge but left his own relatives in effective occupation - one being his own sister, Nyachikeka, who became the grandmother of two Kakenge and of the great Nyakatolo, the great-grandmother of two more Kakenge and the great-great-grandmother of the present Kakenge and the presen Nyakatolo. This Nyachikeka was left by Kayombo-ka-Kutembe on the Lukolwe river, well within the present  area of Balovale.

-38-
The Litapi chieftainship derives through the first Chinyama Kauvi from Nyachikeka's mother, Mutemba Mulombwe, who of course was also the mother of Kayombo-ka-Kutemba and so belongs to an elder branch of the family tree. Kauvi would be called the younger brother of Kayombo-ka-Kutemba (actually his cousin), and was appoints to the northern Kashiji while Kalombo was on the southern. Then Kauvi's nephew (Chinyemba) succeeded him, he moved to the Litapi. Both Kucheka & Ndungu derive from Nyachikeka. Much has been said of the fact that Ndungu (like Nguvu, Sakavungu and others) was born outside the arbitrary geographical boundary of the present Balovale district. It has not been suggested that Lewanika's birth outside the confines of Barotseland precluded his succession, and of course it is not a matter of personalities at all but of hereditary chieftainships. Kucheka, nephew of Kayombo-ka-Kutemba, succeeded to the chieftainship left by his uncle on the Kashiji. His brother, Lingoji Chinyama, had his own chieftainship on the Chando (on the Kapako river), and he was succeeded by Kalokoto. Then he died, he was succeeded by Musongo-wa-Ndungu. Though born outside the present Balovale district, he entered upon an established hereditary chieftainship within its borders, as did also his niece, Nyamulombwe, the present Ndungu. This story of succession is given in detail in the Lovale statement presented to the Commission. Can it be said that they succeeded in seriously undermining the claim? The attack was directed against the account of blood-friendship. It may be said that this was not definitely proved, though it cannot be claimed that witnesses cross-examined on the subject were shown to be contradictory in their statements. But while the blood-friendship is fully maintained by the Lovale, even if it could be definitely disproved, which it has not been, this would not affect the real claim of the Lovale, which is that they were in possession of the l.u.d., not by right of blood-friendship but of actual occupation by definite chieftainships. This is borne out by Livingstone (pp. 222, 275/6, 486) and by the Jalla history in an indirect way. When the Matabele had succeeded in forcing their way as far as the Luena and there had to turn back, they were either killed or enslaved in large numbers by the Lovale and

-39-
finally finished off by the Barotse in the Nyengo area, There is no suggestion of any other tribe in effective occupation between the Luena and the Nyengo. The war party of Kayombo-ka-Kutemba (referred to in the Lovale statement) is mentioned in the History. It is discounted by the Barotse nowadays as a mere raid at night time, but this carries its own confutation. Nobody suggests that the Lovale were living near enough to "Nawinda" (the Ngambela's village which was burned down) to be able to come and go in a single night. The statement is but another example of Barotse mendacity.

As in the Lunda case, it is admitted there were Lovale people (before 1892) living close to the present border. This frontier was not in existence in 1892, nor till 20 years later. The fact that the witnesses who tried to claim occupation of the land by the Mambumi and the Maliuwa invariably speak of their country being bounded by this imaginary line makes the whole claim suspect. It has been shown too that this present claim with regard to these two tribes has been made only with reference to the present inquiry. It was not made at the time of the Arbitration. It is contrary to all the information given to officials hitherto. It is clear that, in the Portuguese boundary dispute, the whole country from the Lungwevungu to the Congo-Zambesi watershed was claimed because it is the country of Kakenge and Kakenge was claimed to have been conquered by the Barotse. No suggestion was made that the country south of Kapako was on a different footing. Nor indeed was it, for it was all the one Lovale country which, as stated in the Jalla History, was cut in two by the Boundary Award.

Claims were made that the Lovale were conquered in war before 1892, but in this, as we have seen in practically every point raised, the Barotse witnesses do not agree. Mr.Jalla says decisively (28/12/17) that they were not conquered before 1892. Perhaps the Ngambela's can be quoted as an illustration of the kind of evidence on which the Commission is asked to disbelieve Mr. Jalla on this point. Asked if the Lovale had been conquered before the 1892 war (27/1/2), he said they had been in a previous war which took place in their land. Asked where, he said he did not know. Asked

-40-
with whom the war was fought, he said he had only heard about the war but was not clear as to with whom it was fought. Questioned about the Mulambwa war, he said it was not a war but that people came at night and burnt a village. Asked where they came from, he said he did not know. (The History says distinctly they were Lovale). Reminded of what was written in the History, he said he did not quite remember these things. Asked if he did not think the Lovale had told the true story of the affair, he said, 'Yes admit the village was burnt and many of the Barotse called it a war (p.3). Attention is invited to Mwanamuke's account of the same incident (25/11/12 & 13) and the historic account in Jalla's History.

Apart from Livingstone's testimony, we have however no European evidence that the country was occupied by Lovale prior to 1892, though Coillard, visiting in 1895, wrote of the crowds of Lovale who lilted the banks of the river as he passed. "The country is inhabited by the Balubale on the right bank of the Zambesi.  To judge by the troops of men and women who run up everywhere along the banks to see the Moruti....these regions ought to be fairly thickly populated." (p.603). He had previously found the Mambowe. which tribe he speaks of as coming between the Barotse (obviously he did not look upon the Mambowe as being the same people as the Barotse and the Lunda & Lovale. He says nothing of Mambuml or Maliuwa, and in fact his words preclude the possibility of their being there at all. If the Mambuml & Maliuwa had been in possession of the country before 1892, is it conceivable that there would be no trace of them in 1895? There is not a scintilla of evidence in nupport of their claim, except the bare statements of interested parties at the present time. Comment has already been made on the unreliability of their testimony.

The facts of the 1892 war are well established. Attention has already been called to the serious inaccuracies with regard to it in the statements of those Europeans (even Mr.  Schindler) who put forward the Barotse claim at the time of the Arbitration. Mr.Jalla stated categorically (20/10/10) that though he thought that

-41-
just before the war the Lovale had refused to pay tribute and that may have been one of the causes of the war, the true cause was the appeal of Shindi. What difference did the war (if one battle can be described as such) make in the countries comprising the l.u.d.

The work of Mr. Vaughan-Jones in compiling a history of the Balovale tribes is beyond praise and should prove of great assistance at the present time. No an is infallible however, and it is suggested that, lacking many of the facts of the case which have been brought to light since, he erred in looking upon Lewanika's intervention in 1892 as entirely altering the position. es suggests that the Lunda then became subjects of Lewanika (but not a subject tribe), and that what is now known as the Lovale country became Lewanika's by conquest. He doubtless did not know that the country now in the Balovale district was outside the scene of operations, nor that the terms of the Arbitration limited* or should have limited the discussion to what took place before 1891.

It is said that Ndungu & Kucheka made submission after the war, and that they were given back their relatives. Mr. Coillard says that Ndungu was the principal chief against whom the Barotse waged their disastrous war. "He had made his submission since then, and in accordance with the orders of lewanika, his suzerain, he had recently come to establish himself where he now is.    If the Lovale story can be believed, Mr. Coillard's is only a variation of it, coloured by the source of his information. Ndungu had been to Lealui and, through the mediation of Kucheka and Chinyama, had come to terms with Lewanika. It was a personal affair of Ndungu's and did not involve the submission of the inhabitants of a district that had not been at war with Lewanika. Jalla's history says nothing of submission bet in evidence Mr. Jalla said that both Ndungu and Kucheka (Nyakameji (20/10/4) made submission, were reinstated and given back their relatives. (Kucheka of course had not been involved and not removed, so how could she have been reinstated?). With all due respect to Mr.Jalla, it has to be pointed out that he imagined the fighting had taken place south of the present border and when told of the Lovale claim that it was to the north, he said (20/10/12), "I don't believe

-42-
that."    It is significant that Nyakameji was with Ndungu when Colliard
met him, but he says nothing about her having made submission. In the Aitken papers there is a sworn statement by Ndungu which speaks of his submission, but he includes also Nyakatolo, which savours strongly of the other statements made about the same time to the same people. This statement was interpreted by a man of Whom we know nothing and Kucheka is said to have sworn to the truth of all Ndungu had said. This she may have done, but who can tell whether the English version coincided with Ndungu's statement It is very unfortunate that so any ex parte statements have been introduced into the case, the authority of which cannot be questioned. We can see for ourselves, however, that Nyakatolo's own statement was entire: different from that credited to Ndungu.
It must be admitted that it would be an almost unique occurrence in native history for tae man who had been, according to many, the chief object of Lewanika's anger, to come down directly after the war with his life in his hands and not be killed or punished in any way but be given back his wives and relatives. Bed he come to make submission, surely he must have come with heavy compensation, but nothing is said of this. It is claimed that it is more reasonable to believe the Lovale version. Kucheka told the story, and though a very old woman, her testimony could not be shaken.

However, does not the presence of the Barotse representatives prove that the country was brought under Barotse rule? Then are two versions concerning their going. The Lovale version says they were accepted as Lewanika's representatives to maintain contact and intercourse, that they exercised no rule but were under the authority of the chiefs to whom they were sent. The Barotse claim is that a number of Indunas were sent up to form a court and to rule the country on behalf of Lewanika (see Ngembela 23/1/7 etc.j, Mwanamuke 25/11/12 & 13, and others). Which story is to be believed - that of witnesses who were consistent throughout in their story and were not in this connection found to contradict one another on a single point, or those whose story is throughout full of contradictions and admissions of ignorance? The Ngambela said that the Indunas were sent up after the

-43-
war of 1892, not merely to collect tribute etc. but to rule the people, the people already living on the land (26/1/8). He could not say to what chiefs the court was sent, nor was he sure whether there were any on the l.u.d. before the war or not. He had heard Kucheka had 'submitted" before the war but did not %now where nhe lived. He said the court was on the Ntowe and for Kakenge as well as others. He said all the people lived together in one village and that the court was for the Lunda as well as the Lovale. When pressed, he could not account for the fact that neither Sionda nor Simuchinga lived there, nor could he say whether or not they were members of the court (15/2/2). Having said on the 14th Feb. (p.15) that the head of every Kuta sent out from Lealui must be of royal blood, he hedged when the following day he was asked how it was there was no member of the royal family as head of the Kuta said to have been sent by Lewanika. Mwanamuke started by saying (25/11/10) that there were no Lovale on the west side before the war but that afterwards they submitted themselves and the first chief to come into the l.u.d. was Chinyama and then Kucheka (p.11). On the same day he stated that the first to come was Litondo and that he came in the time of Sipopa (pro-Barotse Litondo claimed teat it was in the time of Mulambwa, which agrees with the Lovale statement). He goes on to say that it was before the war that Litondo, Chinyama & Kucheka "showed their loyalty to Lewanika and were allowed to live on the Chinono & the Litapi.' Can confusion be worse confounded than this He goes on to give (pp.12/3) a list of the representatives sent at that time and the chiefs to whom they were sent and includes the name of Chinyama
Lingoji (referred to in the geneological references on page    ),
and an impartial reading of his statement makes it clear that be considered the representatives were sent to resident chiefs. In the main, what he says is in agreement with the Lovale statement, but he adds two unknown names and contradicts "Traditions" by saying that Chimwanga was sent to Ndungu whereas it was Mulongabikuto, who, incidentally in "Traditions" is spoken of as "Chief of the land under dispute." He attempted to explain away the obvious fact that Njekwa

-44-

did not go to Kakenge by saying that he could not do so because on the definition of the border Kakenge fell under the Portuguese power, ignoring the fact that the award was not made until more than ten years later & that three years later when Coillard visited Kakenge the Portuguese had not arrived. Mwanamuke speaks (26/11/8) of these representatives building where Nawinda now is (on the east bank) and adds the name of Mukwita to the list. The day before he had spoken of them as building at Ntowe on the west bank. He gives as his explanation of the sending of the representatives that the people on the west side were disloyal and that after three wars they still did not behave themselves, and adds, "This was one of the wars I referred to when the Lovale came to settle there and did not submit themselves to Sipopa. This was the reason the Kuta was sent there" - an admission that the Lovale were in occupation in Sipopa's time and a suggestion that the Kuta was sent up then. He says that the authority of this exiguous Kuta broke down because of jealousy amongst the representatives and confirms the Lovale statement that Njekwa was accused of causing the death of Chiwanga by witchcraft. He says it was then the representatives scattered.

The Ngambela and Mwanamuke would have the Commission believe that these unimportant indunas with a very small following were sent into that district which is said to have given constant trouble and from one small village to rule the whole of Lovale-land including the country of Kakenge (and by presumption that of the warrior chief Kangombe and the powerful Nyakatolo, as it was claimed their tribute had been sent through Kakenge). The fact that this handful of unruly people did not govern the vast domain said to have been put under their authority is explained by their jealousy and slackness, but no reason is given why the visiting Indunas, Noyoo & others, of whom we have heard so much, did not report their complete dereliction of duty & ask the chief to appoint more worthy representatives to carry on such important work. The Ngambela would have us believe that Lewanika did not realise the indunas were going to "drop his powers", but that when the position was realised then they sent up Daniel Kufuna (50 years later:). He too ignores the authority that

-45-
Noyoo was supposed to have been exercising all this time, and of course did not know that representations were made to Lewanika about the slackness of his Indunas and that he was "merely amused" as Mr. Venning says. Throughout, no serious claim is made that either Sionda or Simuchinga attempted, on the east side, to exercise any governing authority.

It is claimed that the Lovale account of this Barotse representation in their country in far more consiatent A credible. 'There was no real attempt at control of the l.u.d. until the arrival of the British Government.

The Barotse statements about making appointments to chieftainships & selecting sites for chiefs is not maintained with regard to what took place before the Boma was built. The Lunda statement presented in 1936 gave a list of sub-chieftainships in the district before 1892: this was not challenged by the Barotse & is borne out by the statements of Shima. The latter says (1/12/3) that when Chikalakanyovo died there was a dispute between Kasalemusamba & Nyachipopa & that they went to Lealui about the matter. He says that Kasalemusamba was told to succeed his father Kaumba, & that Sionda was told to return with him to the Lufize, but says that Kasalemusamba went to the Makondo, which he adds (p.5) was where his fathers had been. He speaks of his being on the Makondo for some time before going back to the Lufize, but that Mr. Venning suggested he should return to the Makondo k that he did so but later returned to Lufize, where he died. Ex-Messenger Subai said (23/11/11 & 12) that Kasalemusamba had 2 villages, one on the Lufize & one on the Makondo, & added, "Being a chief, he could build. where he liked.- Shima suggestsed that the chieftainship was divided between Kasalemusamba & Nyachipopa & the latter as Shima quite independent of Shindi. Munembu's version of the story (30/12/1) is that Shindi Kasalemusamba lived on the Lufize (where he admits going with Mr. Venning to collect tax) but tha there was only one Lunda. chief in the Balovale district, & that was Shima! Mwenesiengele says quite definitely (3/1/7) that Kasalemusamba was made senior to Nyachipopa & as Shindi went to live on the Makondo Mwanamuke (18/10/5) also states that in 1906 Shindi was living on the

-46-
Makondo. He says (p.6, that Shindi asked for a war party against Shima but was told it was not necessary as he had been appointed head of the Lunda & Shima a petty chief under him. After having himself said that he found Shindi on the Makondo, he goes on to say that he would like to ask Shindi which of his predecessors ever lived between the Kabompo & Sapuma! Later he admits (25/11/9) that the Lunda were told to choose a successor to Chikalakanyovo & that they sent word they had decided to appont Kasalamusamba, & that when Nyachipopa went down to Lealui to claim the position, he was told he was too late. In this he agrees with the Lunda version, which is that Kasalamusamba was already installed as chief & only went to Lealui when he heard that Nyachipppa had gone there.

Is there one claim of the Barotse which has not been contradicted by their own witnesses or gravely shaken by cross-examination?

In 1907 the Boma was started & European officials began to exercise authority in the district. How unfortunate it is that the introduction of these people to British Government was through representatives (however worthy in themselves) of a commercial company attempting to enforce in a district where there was no local demand for labour or produce a 10/- personal tax (with additional taxes for additional wives), and at the same time to bolster up Lewanika's ephemeral authority to such an extent that the officials, according to Mr. Palmer, were looked upon as Lewanika's men. This effectively hindered trust & goodwill and created instead fear & unfriendliness.

Mr. Venning's first letter has to be read in conjunction with his second. Mr. Palmer's reference to tribute involves either that he was conniving at the collection of tribute (which he knew to be illegal) so long as the collection was carried out in a proper manner, or that he is referring to the 12 days' labour. Palmer included tribute as one of the irregularities which the Lealui Kuta would have to answer for if the judge were sent up (6/9/21).

Barotse counsel has described an ideal witness and

-47-
felt that Messrs. Arnot & Schindler were such. There is one flaw, however; neither witness could be questioned. The writer meets the conditions laid down by counsel, with the additional advantage that he can be cross-examined  & questioned & faced with anything that appears to conflict with his evidence, as one moreover who has lived in the district many years. It is therefore hoped that equal weight will be given to the statement that the writer was frequently assured there was no 12 days' labour in the district & that he saw no sign of it all those years except south of the Kabompo & the Lungwevungu. There were Lunda & Lovale south of these rivers, & probably these gave such labour, but it was not enforced in the territorial areas of the indigenous chiefs, except in the immediate vicinity of a Barotse Induna. He was told times without number that neither the Lunda nor the Lovale were tributary to the Barotse & that anything sent to Lealui was done willingly on the part of are chiefs for a definite quid pro quo. It was when Lealui tried to enforce the 12 days' labour in Balovale that the iniquities of this concession were brought to light & a stop put to it throughout Barotseland. The pity is that it was ever conceded. If public labour were required, it should have been in lieu of tax & under the supervision of the Government, not left to Indunas all over the country to get as much out of it for personal gain as they could.

The Commission has seen from the files unfortunately most incomplete) a little of the maladministration & inefficiency displayed by Lealui. Drunkenness & disorder in tee vicinity of Mongu were brought to the notice of the Kuta in 1921. The Kuta, only 7 miles away, professed to be surprised at the allegation but promised to deal with the matter. From all accounts, 18 years later the scandal is but little diminished. In 1924 reference is made to 445 people working permanently for the Paramount Chief who were not paid a monthly wage but given "presents" of cloth or blankets or tax. In 1923 the Kuta is reproached for a glaring example of how little they considers the wishes of the local chiefs, and in 1926 of the Kuta's over-rlding Ndungu's wishes in an important matter & the Government helpless to interfere. In 1928 attention is called to "another instance of 

-48-
unnecessary muddling" over Imenda & the Mambowe. In 1927 the Kuta is reminded that the Government had often complained of Lealui decisions & of how very little the Kuta knew of affairs in the Balovale District & how very little trouble the Kuta took to find out the truth when they did interfere. "The Kuta had been misled by Noyoo." "Much trouble & injustice caused by the carelessness of Kuta. Negligent & inproper way to settle disputes - not for lack of warning in the past. In 1926 Lealui insisted on re-opening a case 8 years old that had been heard already by Liatitima & the N.C.. There are frequent references to interference with regard to removals & of the unsatisfactory hearing of cases, with Mr. Simey writing in 1931, "Lealui hears cases badly." The delay involved in the hearing of cases was prodigous. Nawinda complained about the delay of Shindi in sending witnesses, but such delays were as nothing compared with the delays of Lealui. The case of Kucheka is one in point, carried on for nearly a year with the parties having to go to & fro to wait the convenience of Lealui (B.F. 18B, 5/10/27 - 22/8/8). Well might the R.M. write, "If the Kuta is unable to look after the affairs of such distant places, let it say so & ask the A.M. to deal with them." No wonder he decided there would be no advantage in strengthening Barotse influence in Balovele.

Unfortunately this is exactly what was attempted. In May 1931, Imbwae, the son of Noyoo, was appointed ”supervisor" for Balovale. He is described in official correspondence as having "no will of his own & being constantly at loggerheads with his own headmen." His appointment seems to have amounted to very little for nothing is heard of his activities. His brother, Mwanamuke, however, paid an official visit to the district to hear cases, & incidentally to collect fines, but his visit caused nothing but trouble & dissatisfaction. The following year the Nawinda proposal was discussed & the Paramount Chief visited the district. This visit permitted a great display of Barotse wealth & greatness, but all this only on the surface. We are told that the Paramount Chief's finances were in a very bad way & this Paramount Chief of the great Barotse nation was not above receiving collections of tickies, sixpences & shillings from

-49-
the Balovale natives. But all the display must have greatly impressed the rank & file & have made many feel how insignificant was the position of their own chiefs in comparison. This & the obvious support of the Government behind the Barotse, undoubtedly helped to influence some in the later stages to support the Barotse against their own people.

There can be no doubt that when the Paramount Chief spoke about Nawinda he spoke only of a Court of Appeal & gave assurances that there would be no interference with the rights of the local chiefs. This is attested by many witnesses, including Ngambela, who said, "The only expression I heard the Paramount Chief use was that he was going to send hls son with a Court of Appeal."

It is clear that this was not a frank explanation of the intention of the Barotse & it might be said to be a dece3ption. The purpose was to enforce Barotse rule in the 3alovale district under the aegis of the British Government. Thea terns of the appointment included much of which nothing was said when the Paramount Chiefs secured the censent of the local people to the setting up of Nawinda. Wheather or not the Government can be held responsible for the misrepresentation, it is clear that the agreement to Nawinda was obtained under false presences & it cannot cause surprise to find that those who were thus bricked  are now anxious to be rid of it. But if the terms of the appointment'
had been adhered to (only tusks were claimed, not eland or hippo meat), it is just passible the scheme might have carried through, though even then non-interference with the Wrights of indigences chiefs, when those rights could be determined by Lealui, clearly left open on oopportunity for much misunderstandings. Troubles soon Larose. These are fairly well known A it Bis net proposed to go into them in.

Counsel for the Barotse has not dealt with the statement of the writer as to what happened in that year to involve the missionaries in the question. It was made clear that there was serious unrest about what was happening at Nawinda before the missionaries at Chitokoloki knew anything about it. How then can it be suggested that the trouble was fomented as Chitokoloki? When Shindi hesitated to agree to the Parament Chief's proposal to send his son

-50-
no-ene from Chitokoloki was present. When he delayed going to welcome Kufuna & was rude on arrival at Nawinda (if the allegation was true) nobody from Chitokoloki was with him. When Shindi in 1926 reluctantly agreed to acknowledge the Paramount Chief, it was not the people from Chitokoloki who influenced him against this agreement, but the repudiations of all his people assembled outside the office. The  troubles at Nawinda were not caused by the plottings of the Chitokoloki preachers & school-boys but by the illegalities of the Nawinda people themselves. What Shindi has said since has been termed seditious, & he & his supporters have been threatened with dire penalties, but Shindi's power is constitutional authority too, for he is recognised by Government as a chief, so interference with his rights & jurisdiction was illegal.

When it was desired to support Lewanika's colossal & ill-founded claims, no-one thought it wrong for missionaries, Government officials, military officers & others to do their utmost - at great expense - to support those claims. When Shindi is anxious to defend the rights he & his predecessors have enjoyed, Bit is thought presumptuous interference on the part of a missionary, & obviously a move to secure cheap popularity, to assist him. Thanks to the spending of scores of thousands of pounds in Barotseland for 26 years before the Government spent a penny on education in Balovale, there are a number of educated people in Barotseland. In Balovale the comparatively few who are educated have either gone to seek work in the towns or have stayed on at the Mission, except for those on the Boma or in stores. Nobody objects to the educated people of Barotse-land assisting in the presentation of their, case. Why should exception be taken to the few educated folk who assisted Shindi & the Lovale chiefs? Those who have been ridiculed by counsel proved their worth by giving consistent statements which the other side could not shake, in a manly straightforward manner, in contrast with the confused & contradictory stateeents made by the educated people on the other side. Thomas Chinyama was not an obscure stranger when he came to Balovale but a nephew of Musokantanda & cousin of the present Musokantanda in the Solwezi distract. For over 25 years he has 

-51-
served in the district, teaching hundreds of natives to read & write in the diferent outschools he has carried on. He has been in good repute all these years, the only charge that could be brought against him being that he is not a good businesman & gives away more than he can afford. He has succoured many a one in distress & is personally responsible for the maintenance of severa1 orphans. If counsel had known these men better & their proved worth, he would not have mis-judged them. It was only to be expected that the, unfortunately, uneducated chiefs of the Balovale should turn to the few educated people available in the district to articulate their complaints. It should be a matter of thankfulneas that there were men of character & goodstanding to whom they could turn. Counsel was not in court when Kucheka & Ndungu gave their statements. Had he been, he would have seen, which must have been evident to the Commissioner, how completely they identified themeelves with the case. The files show that Ndungu had cases of her own with Nawinda (notably those of Muwema & Ngoma), and Kucheka hers (e.g. Litondo & Chikenge, the latter with Lealui), & they did not need Shindi to urge them to oppose. It is significant in this connection to notice that in the statement of claims & complaints prepared by Mr. Vaughan-Jones there are near1y a dozen more made by the Lovale than by the Lunda.

Of course, for those who wish to practice injustice & oppreseion, it is objectionable to find their intended victims have anyone to whom they can turn for help. Can anyone, looking back on what took place in Lealui in 1934, maintain that the Barotse Kuta gave a fair hearing to Shindi? There were gathered the wiesest & most experienced people of Barotseland. It was obvious that the terms of their own appointements of Nawinda had been seriounly infringed. There was an oportunity to deal justly & to heal the breach. It was not taken. Even on their own showing, several of Shindi's complaints were found to be true. They sent one statement to the P.C. admitting these & making excuses about others. But to the D.C., Balovale, they wrote that the Kuta had decided that Shindi's complaints were unfounded & that they had threatened him with expulsion from the country if he did not submit to their wishes. No wonder the D.C.

-52-
wrote to the D.C. saying that the letter he had received was "a very one-sided affair & hardly compatible with your notes - certified by Yeta." Several of the most important members of the Kuta failed to give a straightforward answer to questions by the Commissioner on this subject, & the Ngambela himself, with what .Mr. Vaughan-Jones has aptly called the Barotse habit of "wilfully confusing the issue" told the Commissioner that the real point at issue was the "seditious letter" written by Shindi to Kanongesha, whereas this was not referred to at all in their own minutes of the case, & he himself had written to call in the Nawinde people & Shindi, not because of the letter (which was sent to them later in view of the pending dispute) but because of the complaints against Nawinda.
It was because of the statements brought back by the people they had sent to support Nawinda that Ndungu & Chinyama sew their mistake, & when they also found that the Nawinda promises were rot to be kept, it needed no effort on the part of Shindi to make them see there would be no peace & no safety while Nawinda continued its activities. They are blamed for agreeing to accept a bribe. The Paramount Chief & the Ngambela make out now that they only agreed to the proposals made to them by the Governor because they thought that only so would they be able to go to England. What is that but a bribe?

The statement might be prolonged by a recapitulation of the wrongdoings of Nawinda, but several of these are on record on the files & can be safely left to the consideration of the Commissioner. After all, the men who had to deal with them daily are the men who must be listened to, and it is felt that nothing need be added to what Messrs. Hazell & Vaughan-Jones have written. They proved faithful & courteous friends of the Nawinda folk. Even after the disturbance on the Makondo, Mr. Hazell showed -Kufuna & the Barotse the utmost consideration. He is said to have become prejudiced against the Barotse by residence in Kasempa, but he is an official of long experience in the administration, and if he feels strongly on the subject it is doubtless due to what he has seen with his own eyes. Nor, in view of what Mr. Addis wrote about  the position

-53-
the south of Lovale country (affected though we now know his views to have been by the Barotse influence referred to by Kambondo) can he be said to have been unduly bbiassed. A word must be added about Shima. He is certainly not trusted by the Chitokoloki Mission, nor would he be by counsel for the Barotse if he knew his habits & record. No official with any sense of responsibility for the welfare of the district could ever recommend or approve him for appointment to the chieftainship of Shindi. This has nothing to to with his support of the Barotse case. From his own evidence it can be shown that, while professing support for his senior chief, he was intriguing with the Barotse, so counsel is quite mistaken in laying the onus of the quarrel upon Shindi. No-one knows who will be thought most suitable to succeed Shindi. To suggest he is plotting to secure the succession of Peter Dawson is just a descent to personalities and has no foundation in fact. Happily however Peter Dawson is a tee-totaler and married to one wife. He has since his return from Bulwayo strongly supported his father's case, as anyone else would have done in the circumstances, but he has an excellent character in the district.

As regards the assault case, emphasis has been laid. on minor inaccuraccies with regard to an incident full of excitement & confusion. Not one of the inaccuracies pointed out was of anything like the importance of the statement made by Kufuna which he had to ask leave to correct. The outstanding fact is that in the sworn statements made at the time, which have never again been seen by Shindi & his son, there is substantially the full story of the incident as told to the Commission.
But to return to the main issue of the case. The true history of the Barotse may one day be written. It it suggested that an excellent title for the book would be "The Giant Masquerade". The present case is not one of incidents that have occurred since the Government entered the field. No-one would deny that a de facto recognition of the Paramount Chief has been made during this time. Denials are no contradiction because they have dealt with what is cleimed to be the de jure position.

Before anything can be settled about the future, is

-54-
it not necessary to decide whether or not the Barotse claims have been maintained? It is submitted. that the Barotse have completely failed to substantiate them.

(1) Counsel admits it cannot be proved that the ancestors of the present chiefs ever lived in the l.u.d., & no evidence has been produced.

(2) We cannot be sure of all the movements & activities of Soeke, but no evidence has been forthcoming to show a connecting link between any chieftainship he enjoyed & the fugitive Imasiku.

(3) When Government took over they were not asked to maintain a subordinate & friendly chieftainship in the Luwakwa area but to curb & control a powerful rival.

(4) Ownership of the land by original possession of small tribes which are now said to have been merely Barotse under another name has been claimed only in very recent years. It is contrary to all that was said at the time of the Arbitration & to all that was told both missionaries & officials in earlier years.

(5) There is also the claim of conquest. At the time of the Arbitration, Lewanika stated that the Lovale & the Lunda had been conquered in the time of Mboo. If he believed they had been conquered in Mulambwa's time or in Sipopa's, why did he not say so? It was a claim that he knew could not be investigated & is contrary to all that we know from Livingstone of subsequent conditions. Even if there is a Barotse tradition about this, it is certain the conquest lapsed in the time of the Makololo.

(6) Whatever may be thought of the statements about earlier wars, the fact remains that no occupatian of the country was attempted until after the 1892 war (the only one of which there is Authentic record). The "occupation" even then was of a very small part of the huge countries said to have been conquered &, it is submitted, was of so insignificant a character that it could never have been looked upon at the time as laying claim to the land.

(7) The concurrence of the British Government does not give the Barotse a claim now to what was never really theirs, though it may give good grounds for compensating them if it is restored to its rightful owners.

-55-
It is now prayed the British Government to make this act of restitution & in so definite a way that there may be no opportunity for misunderstanding or intrigue in the future. The Lunda & Lovale countries were cut in half by the Arbitration Award. Owing to the very inferior position to which they have been relegated, the chiefs have not been able to exercise the authority or to win the respect which might have been looked for. If they are permitted to have real control over their lands, under the direct supervision and control of the Boma (where it is hoped the officals .in charge will be left long enough to become thoroughly at home with the laguage & customs of the people) there is every reason to believe that. good order & happiness will result. This will encourage the Lunda & Lovale still in Angola to settle in the country. It might help if one of the Lovale chiefs could be given a recognised supremecy.

A complete settlement would involve the removal of the Manyinge Kuta. Though in recent years the work there has given greater satisfaction to the Boma, its past record, according to the files (extracts are appended) shows how liable such an institution is to create oppression & abuses. It is a clear case of alien domination. If it is found that the people of the Kasempa salient would welcome Barotse rule, perhaps the Kuta could transfer its activities there, or to the former residence of Sikufele on the Dongwe.

It is agreed that the Luchaze cannot be forced under the control of the Londa. In other parts of Barotseland where they have come as immigrants, they have however no tribal status. Would it be possible to grant this in the Balovale District & permit all the Luchaze to select the hereditary chief to whom they would give allegiance? In return, could the dangerous enclave north of the Makondo be removed, giving reasonable compensation, & the Luchase area be definitely recognised on the Katuba, the Kansalya & the Chikonkwelu rivers, including the Kabompo & the .Manyinga from the mouth of the Chikonkwelu to where the Balovale-Kasempa motor road crosses the Kabompo? Both Imasiku & Sikufele have claims by birth on the Barotse Native Treasury, so the loss of position would not do much harm, as both arc too old now to do effective work.

-56-
If it is proved that Situmbeku is chief of the Maliuwa, some arrangement would need to be made, but the majority of his people lived south of the Lungwavungu, so it would be no great hardship if no was encouraged to move there too, the Governnent bearing the expense of such removal.

Under such a settlement, the Barotse would certainly lose prestige, but a surgical operation often leads to the greater health & well-being of the patient. A good opportunity is now offered of correcting the mistakes & uncertainties of the past & of putting the Barotse government on a new footing which will no longer mean the enrichment of the few & the neglect of the vast majority, but the advancement & prosperity of the whole country.

It ought, however, to be said that, in the humble opinion of the writer, the agreement suggested by His Fxcellency the Acting Governor in 1937 was extremely generous. If concession must be made to Barotse paramountcy as recognised in the past, the suggestions then made are the most likely to secure acceptance. 

On behalf of those he represents, the writer offers his warmest thanks to the Government for the patience & consideration shown in this matter, and especially to the Commissioner for so patient a hearing and so wise a handling of the case.

 




Click for Map Ships and Harbours Image Library