PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
3
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
(No. 336.)
178
No. 102.
GOVERNOR SIR W, JERVOIS, K.C.M.G., C.B., to the EARL OF CARNARVON. (Received January 3rd.)
MY LORD,
Penang, December 3, 1875. In my Despatch to your Lordship, No. 306, dated the 4th November, I expressed an opinion that the reported Salangore disturbances were entirely unconnected with Perak affairs, and that they were either fermented by Rajah Mahdie under the influence of his old desire to possess Klang, or by robber chiefs in the hopes of plunder.
I subsequently received so many reports to the effect that the unsettled state of affairs in Salangore was due to the machinations of Rajah Mahdie and his emissaries, that as Rajah Mahdi was then living at Padang on the River Muar in the territory of the Maharajah of Johore, I communicated with the Maharajah on the subject and requested him to procure his arrest.
The Maharaja sent a small gun-vessel which he possesses to Padang, when Mahdi voluntarily went on board, and came to Johore Bahru, the residence of the Maharajah, where, when I left Singnapore on the 19th November he was living, apparently quiet and peaceful.
I subsequently received a request from Mr. Davidson, Resident of Salangore that Mahdi might be arrested, and he enclosed a requisition from Tunku Kudin, Viceroy of the Sultan of Salangore, to the same effect.
I have since been informed, by telegrams from the Acting Colonial Secretary, that Rajah Mahdi left Johore Bahru unknown to the Maharajah, who found him quite im- practicable; that he came to Rochore which is in the vicinity of Singapore; that a warrant was issued against him; that he has been arrested and lodged in the Civil Prison at Singapore.
I have given directions that he shall be treated with every consideration during his captivity.
I have, &c. (Signed)
The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,
Colonial Office.
(No. 341.)
No. 103.
WM. F. DRUMMOND JERVOIS.
GOVERNOR SIR W. JERVOIS, K.C.M.G., C.B., to the EARL OF CARNARVON. (Received Jan. 3, 1876.)
MY LORD,
Government House, Penang, December 3, 1875.
WITH reference to your Lordship's Despatch No. 163 of the 28th September,† I have the honour to state that on receipt of the telegram therein referred to, a copy of it was transmitted to the Maharaja of Johore, and I have since been informed by His Highness that the warning conveyed by it was communicated by him to Raja Mahdie.
The Maharaja has promised me to watch and report Raja Mahdie's movements, but observed that it will be impossible for him to ascertain what Raja Mahdie may be doing through his agents.
I have, &c. (Signed) W. F. DRUMMOND JERVOIS.
The Right Hon. the Earl of Carnarvon,
&c.
&c. Colonial Office.
• No. 64.
&c.
↑ No. 11.
179
No. 104.
Substance of Telegram from GOVERNOR SIR W. F. D. JERVOIS, K.C.M.G., to the EARL OF CARNARVON. (Received at the Colonial Office, January 3, 2.15 p.m.) Referring to my last telegram of 1st January, it is desirable that the force of 1,000
January 3, 1876. infantry should be thus composed-one wing European, 450 native regiment, 100 engineers; so that force of engineers and Ghoorkas now here might be allowed to
remain.
No. 105. Memorandum by MAJOR-GENERAL SIR HARRY ORD, C.B., on the
CONDITION of AFFAIRS in PERAK,
present
London, January 3, 1876.
It may be assumed that the disturbances in the. Malay States, which had their origin in Mr. Birch's murder, have been practically put an end to by the last operation in Sunghey Ujong.
2. The people of Larut have never taken part in them, and in Perak apparently only the followers of Lels were engaged against us. Abdullah, with whose cause Lela originally identified himself, having abstained from all recognition of an act which the perpetrator may well have thought would not be altogether unacceptable to him, retains the claim upon us which Sir A. Clarke allowed when be induced the people to accept him as their ruler. Ismail, on the contrary, although it seems unlikely that he could have been an accomplice in Lela's crime, and might, by an immediate repudiation of it, have retained the position (such as it was) which, with the concurrence of the majority of the people, he held in the country, has, by his recent conduct, so far identified himself with Lela as to spare us the necessity of showing any consideration to his claim. 3. It is far from unlikely that his ultimate adoption of Lela's cause was not so much due to a belief that advantage would result to him from the crime, as to a conviction that he had nothing to hope for from us, and that on the arrival of the troops their first act would be to compel his renunciation of the throne. This appears sufficient in itself to account for his flight, which was necessarily in the same direction as that taken by Lela- the nearest friendly Malay State.
4. Be this as it may, we have now the country of Perak on our hands, and the question, what is to be our future policy towards it, and indeed towards the whole independent part of the Peninsula, calls for immediate attention.
5. If our only object were to guard against the recurrence of outbreaks on the part of the natives, such as that we are now engaged in suppressing, there can be no doubt but that the readiest node of effecting this would be to withdraw from all interference in their affairs, contenting ourselves with impressing upon them that all we required was that they should keep the peace towards us, and that if they failed in this, we had the means of punishing them, which we should not hesitate to employ.
But something more than this seems to be expected by the public.
6. In a recent article in the " Times," it is stated that the late campaign on the Perak River establishes the right of England, if she chooses, and if she thinks it worthwhile, to claim formal dominion over the greater part of the Malay Peninsula, and it adds that if we are prepared to carry out logically the policy initiated in 1874 by the Pangkore Treaty, we must be prepared to annex, not only Perak, but also Salangore and the neighbouring States. Bearing in mind that when we insisted on Abdullah being recognised as Sultan, we were aware that a large portion of the people were opposed to his rule, it can hardly be said that his inability to prevent the murder of a British officer, and the subsequent resistance of the murderers to our troops, give us a right to annex his country. At the same time it must be admitted that, if compelled to do so, what has occurred will, to a great extent, justify the step.
7. Of course, if Perak were annexed, Larut, having been declared by the late Governor to be an integral part of that State, must follow its fate, though a perusal of the deeds by which former Sultans gave it to the Muntri, throws considerable doubt on the propriety
of the decision.
8. For the annexation of the independent kingdom of Salangore no legal warranty can be found; our necessities must be our justification, if: Dy be required.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference -
TILL CO. 882
wwwimmi
3 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
• No. 98.
Z 2