01 Mar 1939 Clay (2)
MR.CLAY'S STATEMENT TO THE COMMISSION
lst MARCH, 1939.
ON BEHALF OF THE BAROTSE
There is a great deal of evidence in African 733 to the effect that the Balovale paid tribute to the Paramount Chief of the Barotse. It has been pointed out that the evidence is to some extent unreliable because those educing it were trying to prove that the Balovale country was part of Lewanika's kingdom. I shall, as far as possible, confine myself to quoting those gentlemen whose bone I must preface my quotations from their writings by reminding you that they were in most cases depositions or oath, often by Missionaries to whom such an oath may be presumed to have been particularly solemn. If such statements by gentlemen whose characters are above reproach, made on oath at or near the actual times of which they are speaking, cannot be regarded as true, then I cannot conceive that evidence brought before the Commission can be considered valuable.
Mr.Fritz Schindler was a German Swiss Missionary. He says that he was told - 149 - by Bihean headmen that all Lovale paid tribute through Kekengi to Lewanika. These headmen would not be subjects of Lewanika's, but as travellers through his Kingdom they would be in an unrivalled position to know such matters. Mr.Schindler says that, "These facts were elicited because we sought to get some knowledge of the history of the people we were going to stay amongst. When obtaining this information therefore his motives were entirely pure and unbiassed. lie also says that - 149/150 - the war of 1892 was fought because Lewanika wanted Kakengi appointed so as to set tribute through him. "This statement I have heard repeatedly made by the Balovale." He goes on to say that Chinyama was installed as Kakengi at the instance and with the approval of Lewanika. On page 151 Mr. Schindler says, "There is every reason to believe that Nyakatoro and the other Lovale chiefs paid tribute to Lewanika through Kakengi previous to 1891, a statement which I have repeatedly (heard made by different natives at different times, although they sometime refer to it as an exchange of presents, Lewanika giving them cattle in
-2-
exchange. But the fact that Lewanika has withdrawn such cattle from Kakengi goes to prove that these cattle were only held in his name at what is called cattle posts. The native here is a man whose evidence is not altogether trustworthy, as he is easily influenced one way or another...." Having regard to this last remark, I think Schindler's statements are more valuable than these of men who were taking evidence from natives and even then the evidence of the natives themselves so taken. Schindler's evidence gives what he has heard from natives not in the way of evidence but as a missionary obtaining information about the tribe he was working with, and without any pro-English bias. The fact that he notes that some natives referred to an exchange of presents is also of great interest because it shows that he was fully aware of the difference in the native language between presents and tribute, and that he was personally alive to the distinction. On page 153, he says that he often heard natives talk of the cattle which were at Kakenge’s and were taken back by Lewanika after the war of 1892, because there was no Kakengi and no tribute was paid. Schindler's statement must carry great weight because it was a sworn statement made by a German Swiss missionary.
Mr. Bricker was an American, and he also made a sworn statement. He also says that Nyakatoro, who frequently came to his store, had consistently paid tribute to Lewanika through Kakengi, who was appointed by Lewanika to receive tribute in the Balovale district, he also says he saw at Nyakatoro cattle which came from Lewanika some years ago. When he went to Lealui from Nyakatoro he says that tribute was sent by the same carriers who carried my loads, or rather at the same time." He also says that 'Repeatedly when travelling the people who carried my loads spoke of Lewanika as Paramount Chief of the Balovale. I was in the Balovale district for nine months. (p.159).
Mr.D.T.Smith in a letter to Colonel Harding quotes a song sung by the Lovale about the Marozi which ends with the words, "We shall be punished for we have not paid the tribute we owe to our chief." Mr.Smith also says that in conversation with the oldest and most influential of the Lovale they said that "We as a people or tribe
-3-
originally belonged to the Kakenge district and were tributary to Lealui. (p.161).
Mr. Arnot, a missionary, writing in 1893 about his journey made in 1891, says (p.221), "When we arrived at Kangombe's capital in the Lovale country I learnt that an embassy had been up from the Barotse, and on seeking enquiries I found that the Lovale people from Kangombe's to Nana's considered themselves tributary to the Barotse through the Paramount Lovale capital of Kakenge. This statement of Arnot's is extremely important because he also was an unbiassed observer, and he collected the information in the normal course of his work as a missionary. Being written in 1893, it is above suspicion of having been influenced by the collection of evidence in the dispute between the British and the Portuguese. On p.147 Mr. Arnot in a letter to Major Gibbons written in 1903, states that Kangombe, the fighting chief of the Balovale, carried the raid far into the Lunda country that year (1887) and carried off many thousands of the Balunda. I cannot speak of dates earlier than 1882 and 1883 when I met the representatives of Kakenge at Lewanika's capital. They brought tribute to him then, and discussed with Lewanika the appointment of certain chiefs over districts. There is also in the same letter the incident when Arnot was prevented from shooting a hippo in Lake Dilolo on the grounds that if he did so Kangombe, the Lovale chief, would get into trouble with the Barotse. This incident speaks for itself.
I submit that the cumulative weight of the evidence given above is such that there can be no possible doubt that the Lovale paid tribute to Lewanika through Kakenge both before and after 1892. I now wish to quote certain of the Lovale sworn statements. On p.186 Kalema refers to early tribute collectors, including Imowana 187. Kalema, Ngambela to Kakenge Chinyama, said that he saw Ololo leave for Barotseland with his own eyes: 'The tribute at that time consisted of skins, clay pots, baskets, food, calico, and I make oath and say that the same was real payment and not presents to the Barotse chief. Here again there is direct evidence that a distinction be made between presents and tribute. On p.188, Samihamba, husband of
-4-
Nyakatoro, stated, 'I have now come to Barotseland with the usual tribute from Nyakatoro, with Kakenge’s Prime Minister Kalema." It is important to notice that such outstanding Lovale as Kakenge's Ngambela and the husband of Nyakatoro should have come down to Lealui, and I submit that it shows that in fact tribute was being brought down and not presents. In a second statement (p.189) Samikamba states that "Linyoke, Chimoanga and Molenga-sikuto came to Kakenge for tribute when Lewanika began to reign." On p.183 Nyakaumba and Swanajamba state that after the death of Chiteta there was some trouble on account of the Balunda complaining of oppression and raiding by the Balovale, then the war resulted, in which Chiazangombe was killed. On p.194, Samativi and nine others: “The war was brought about by complaints of the Balunda, who at that time were being raided and also because on the death of Kakenge (1890) no responsible successor had been appointed.” These last quotations show that the 1892 war had two causes. It is natural that the tribute cause should have been stressed in the dispute with the Portuguese, and that the supporting the Lunda cause should have been stressed before the present Commission.
On p.196, Musungwandungu states that "after the war, I went myself with many people to Lewanika to make peace." This is exactly a statement of the Marozi contention, that Ndungu went down to Lealui after the war with Kucheka and Chinyama for this reason. On p.198 de Abella states, "I myself had taken tribute direct to Imboa at Lukwakwa."
In Lewanika's statement on p.176 he mentions that Imboa conquered the Balovale. He also says that Imboa collected tribute from Balovale and Imasiku from Lunda. It should be noted that Lewanika himself was born and spent his early years at the Nyengo, so he would be in a good position to have personal knowledge on that point. On p.178 he says that the Lunda tribute collectors in 1891 and prior to that were Imenda and his son Sionda. He also mentions Simuchinga. He states that Linyoka brought tribute from the Lovale and that all Lovale gave tribute and received small presents in return. This is of considerable importance, and it is submitted that one difference between tribute and presents is the size and value of the thing given. p.179
-5--
Lewanika gives a list of the tribute collectors from Lovale prior to 1891 and since that date, and among them we find many familiar names.
Mr. Adolf Jalla on p.164 states that the Balunda were tributary to the Barotse long before 1890 and he had seen some of the Lunda chiefs at Lealui. He says it was a tradition of the Marozi that Mboo conquered the Lovale and that Mulambwa also conquered them. This was written in 1903 before his history of the Marozi, and it supports statements made by the Marozi to the present case for which no evidence could be found in the Barotse history. Mr.Jalla also mentions names of Lovale headmen bringing tribute before 1891.
I would now note very briefly one or two statements
Colonel Harding's and Goold-Adams.
p.166 Harding states, "Lewanika assured me that no escort was needed as the Balovale were as much his people as the Barotse themselves." He says he saw Noyoo and Mulenga Sikuto and actually saw tribute that was sent to them from the Balovale and was to be forwarded to Lewanika. We also saw Musungwandungu's messenger going to Lealui with tribute to Lewanika. He says, "I actually saw tribute given by Kakenge to the Barotse indunas for transmission to Lealui. He also saw tribute of Kalipa at Lealui (p.167). On p.168 he says that Dr.Fisher confirmed that Kalipa admitted Lewanika as his chief.
If all these goods which the Barotse called tribute were in fact presents, why is it that there is no evidence of their still being given after the .Portuguese boundary was fixed? If they were tribute and an international boundary was made between the Paramount and tributary peoples, there is a very good reason for the cessation of tribute paying, but such an international boundary would not prevent any exchange of presents. It is also interesting to speculate why Barotse suzerainty was admitted to these Englishmen by the Balovale when Portuguese forts were already in the country. On p.117 Col. Harding refers to the blood-relationship of Nyakatoro, Kali Kakenge and Musungwandungu to Lewanika. I submit that the Balovale having a tradition of descent from a common stock, as that relationship is now extremely distant, have preferred to explain their close connection with the Barotse by inventing stories of blood--friendship, when what they really mean is blood-relationship.
Goold-Adams on p. 99 says that he saw Shinde at his own town and talked to him through Goold-Adams’s interpreter. Shinde most distinctly stated that he and his natives were subjects of Lewanika, that he and his predecessors had paid tribute to the Barotse; and that they did not wish to be separated from them. It is ridiculous for the Lunda and Lovale in the present dispute to say that they were never consulted when the concessions were signed between the Barotse and the B.S.A.Co.. They had already been asked whether they were under the Barotse or not, they had stated that they were subject of Lewanika's, and Shinde had said that they did not wish to be separated from the Barotse. As subjects of Lewanika, why should they be consulted. by Lewanika before concessions were given by him to the B.S.A.Co?
p.15, in an unratified convention, the sphere of influence between British and Portuguese was to follow the channel of the Zambesi up to the Kabompo and then the channel of the Kabompo, and this became the modus vivendi, This is the explanation why the 1900 concession does not include country north of the Kabompo.
p.64. I now wish to refer to the proposal made by the Portuguese at the second sitting at the Foreign Office, 11/6/03. The Counsel for the Lunda and Lovale has regretted that we have not got before us the memoranda submitted by the Portuguese to the King of Italy. I submit that it is very lucky for his clients that we have not got these memoranda, and that the proposal made by the Portuguese at the Foreign Office in 1903 shows that the Portuguese made no claim to the lend at present under dispute. In that proposal, which the British Government refused to accept, the Portuguese boundary was to be north of the present boundary on the east bank, and in much the same place on the west bank, and I submit that this is definite proof that the Portuguese considered that the land at present in dispute was indubitably part of the Barotse kingdom.
King Of Italy's Award.
The King of Italy's Award given in 1905 must first be discussed because it is a decision given respecting the western boundaries of the Barotse Kingdom, as they were on 11th June, 1891. The King of Italy found that at that date the Balovale, although they had paid tribute, were in a state of independence, having a Paramount ruler who appointed subordinate chiefs, and that they were only subjugated in 1892. He goes on however to state that Lewanika exercised some rights of lordship over the zone which, bordering his real dominions, lies between the Zambesi and the ??? and is inhabited by the Balovale, so that, in view of such rights of lord¬ship, it may be admitted that this zone formed an integral part of the Barotse kingdom. This appears to mean that in the King of Italy' opinion there were no Lovale Chiefs appointed by Kakengi in this region, and in fact his statement agrees very closely indeed with the Malozi claim. At that date Ndungu and Nguvu were not on the land in dispute at all, Chinyama was on or near the Ntowe very close to the border, & Kucheka on the Kapako also very close to the border. The country was, I suggest, very sparsely inhabited, and the inhabitants were Lovale, Liuwa and Mbumi. The only Lovale chief indisputably we into the land under discussion was the Litondo who is pro-Malozi & he come under protection of the Malozi long before.
The King of Italy's comment on the east side of the district was that "so far as the region of the Balunda is concerned, a part was inhabited by the Balukwakwa, who are ethnologically Barotse and whereas the southern zone had been more directly under the influence of the King of the Barotse, until its actual subjection, so that the territory comprised between the lower course of the Kabompo, the Zambesi and the 13th parallel, must be considered as an integral part of the Barotse kingdom. There are several comments to make here.
By the "southern zone is obviously meant the southern part of the whole Lunda area, or in other words the whole of the east bank up to the 13th parallel, and not, as may appear superficially, only the southern half of that area. There is an apparent non-sequitur in the passage, but this is not substantial, I submit, when carefully
-8-
considered. "A part was inhabited by the Balukwakwa". This must be admitted. The words "until its actual subjection" with regard to the whole area must mean until the later submission of the Lunde to Lewanika when Chikalakanyovo asked for help against the Lovale. I suggest that the only possible reading of the whole passage is that the southern zone of the Lunda area was more influenced and controlled by the Barotse to the east in the Lukwakwa and to the south on the Kabompo than by the Lunda on the Lufize. According to Lunda history there were many Lunda living on this land, yet they did not go to the aid of Chikalakanyovo until Lewanika sent a war party to his aid.
----------[ Continued ]-----------
