PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:
C.O. 882
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH--NOT TO
30
tribunal, yet that it is not always desirable or expedient, in a political point of view, to have such an investigation in the case of a person in the position of a Sultan of an in- dependent State; and that it is sufficient, in order to deal with such a case politically, that the parties dealing with it should be able to justify themselves in their own con- sciences, and if necessary to the world at large, on the ground that the evidence was so strong and so supported by documentary testimony that it appeared conclusively, that whether a conviction could or could not be obtained from a judicial tribunal, yet that abundant evidence would remain to justify the Government in removing the Sultan from Perak, and in taking such other steps as might be necessary to prevent his being an obstacle to the peace of that State.
17. If we were dealing with an ordinary offender we should, as a matter of course, be bound to stand by the charges, and to prove them to the satisfaction of the tribunal before which they were brought, and in case of doubt to give the benefit of the doubt in favour of the accused. But it is obvious that in a case like that now under discussion a verdict similar to the Scottish one of "not proven" would result in a conviction rather than in an acquittal. Even supposing the extreme case that the witnesses whose evidence has been taken were, in consequence of terror inspired in them by being examined in presence of the Sultan, to deny the statements already voluntarily made by them and corroborated by evidence on which we place complete reliance (such as entries in Mr. Birch's diary, reports made to police constables previous to the murder of Mr. Birch, and original letters from Abdullah to the late Bandahara, all of which the witnesses were in complete ignorance of when they gave their testimony) the Govern- ment would not, it is submitted, be justified in allowing Abdullah to return to Perak. In the course we are pursuing in that State, we require to have full confidence in the ruler of the country, and we could not station & Resident there to advise Abdullah, if we were morally convinced that he had been at least one of the instigators of the murder of Mr. Birch.
18. The same remarks apply to those chiefs who, though not participators in the actual murder, are known to have been especially connected with Abdullah in the plot against the British Resident. It is true that a court might be constituted to try their case, but, in other respects the same objections exist to a judicial inquiry as render it inexpedient with regard to the Sultan. There is, moreover, no reason why they should not be dealt with suminarily as well as the Sultan. It may indeed be justly argued that, by being immediately associated with the Sultan, they obtain the advantage of not being tried before a duly constituted tribunal, which might lead to their being sentenced to death.
19. Looking then to the considerations I have enumerated, looking moreover to the result of the Baroda inquiry, where a legal investigation was attempted under somewhat parallel circumstances, with a singularly unsatisfactory result, there seemed to be no object in bringing Abdullah and his chiefs before the Council, or in providing them with the evidence against them. It appeared inexpedient, if not impossible, to act otherwise in the present case than to weigh anxiously the reliability of the evidence taken; to examine how far the the testimony of one witness corroborated that of another; how far any statements of the witnesses were confirmed by journals, letters, and other documentary matter in the possession of Government, both before and after the inquiry was instituted; and thus by patient and impartial investigation, to arrive at a conclusion whether the Sultan and any of his chiefs had, beyond any moral doubt, instigated or connived at the plot for the murder of Mr. Birch, or had in other ways behaved with treachery towards the Resident or this Government. And if such conclusion were arrived at, then to consider what steps should be taken with respect to Abdullah and his advisers, with a view of preventing their being an obstacle to the peace of Perak, and of affording security to British officers in the Malay States generally against similar outrages.
20. On the 2nd November I addressed a telegram to your Lordship, briefly recom- mending that this course should be adopted, and by telegram dated 7th ultimo your Lordship signified your approval.
21. After allowing time for the members fully to consider the evidence, and after having at several meetings of the Council discussed that evidence with them, on the 1st instant I laid before them a memorandum, of which I inclose a copy, requesting their opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Abdullah, and in the event of his being considered guilty, what course they would recommend should be adopted with him. I also requested their opinion as to the course which should be adopted with respect to other chiets, not actual participators in the murder of Mr. Birch, but whoin the Council may consider to have been compromised in that murder, and in proceedings connected
31
therewith. I inclose a copy of the minute of the Executive Council in reply to my questions.
22. Your Lordship will observe that the Council have expressed an opinion that provocation was given by Mr. Birch in his dealings with the Sultan and his chiefs, and no doubt to some extent this was the case. It must, however, be borne in mind, that this provocation was to a great extent caused by his zeal in carrying out proposed reforms, and by his feelings of humanity in the protection of slave-women. And, on the other hand, he also was greatly provoked by the impracticability of the Sultan; he was constantly thwarted by Abdullah and his chiefs, and was thus placed in a position of considerable difficulty from the commencement.
23. There is a difference of opinion in the Council with respect to the treatment of Sultan Abdullah. Whilst the Council are unanimous in recommending that he should be deposed, three members (the Auditor General, Treasurer, and Attorney General) consider that he may be allowed to remain in Singapore, whilst the majority of the Council (viz., the Colonial Secretary, the Acting Judge of Penang, the officer com- manding the troops, and myself), are of opinion that he should be deported to Labuan.
24. I have given this matter my most serious consideration, and I have come to the deliberate conclusion that it would be far better to remove him at once to Labuan, than to allow him to live in Singapore subject to the proviso that he will be deported if he does not behave properly.
25. It may be true that, after deposition, his influence for good or evil will be as slight as is considered by the minority of the Council, but this, I think, is very questionable, and it is better not to run the risk. I think it most likely that he would be subject in Singapore to all sorts of intriguing influences and designing persons.
It would be easy
for him to countenance and give his support to any malcontents there might be in Perak, and such support would of course be given as far as possible without the knowledge of Government. If he encouraged intrigues, it would be exceedingly difficult for the Government to prove the fact, and if, in the improbable event of its being believed that he had become loyal to us, it would be no easy matter to determine whether his name were used with or without his authority.
26. It has been urged that if Abdullah were warned that any misconduct on his part would at once result in bis being sent to Labuan or elsewhere, it would be open to the Government at any time hereafter to deport him. I consider, however, that it is better to deal with the case at once, now that in the opinion of the Executive Council, upon the evidence before them, he is clearly guilty of the serious charges brought against him, rather than leave to the Government at a future time the difficult task of dealing with hím, and sending him away on suspicion of intrigue, or of the infraction of some minor regulation made for his guidance.
27. I cannot agree with the proposition that because there has been no regular trial, therefore his treatment ought to be as little punitive as possible. It has probably been a great advantage to Abdullah that there is no tribunal which could conclusively pro- nounce a legal judgment npon his guilt or innocence. Of those who have taken part in the murder of Mr. Birch, Seputum has been hanged, Se Gondah and Ngah Ahmat have had their sentences of death commuted to imprisonment for life; the Maharajah Lela and other actual participators are now under trial for their lives; it is recommended to deport the Laxamana, the Muntri, and the Shahbandar; and I can see no reason for treating Abdullah with greater leniency simply because it is considered by some that his influence for good or evil will be slight, or because it is impolitic or impossible to bring him for trial before a competent tribunal.
28. Further, I think it would be highly impolitic, having regard to the safety of our Residents in the Native States, that it should be known amongst the Malay, chiefs that one of their number might instigate the murder of British officers with comparative impunity.
29. The Council are unanimously of opinion that if Abdullah be deported, he and the Shahbandar may safely be sent to Labuan. It would not, however, be safe to send the Muntri and the Laxamana to that colony. The Muntri has connexions outside Perak, being a Sumatra man. He and the Laxamana are especially intriguing characters and
are great friends, and their deportation to a place so near as Labuan is to Borneo and the Malay Peninsula would be attended with undesirable risk. I consider, therefore, that they should be sent to the Seychelles or some other suitable place.
I should observe that the case against the Laxamana and the Shahbandar is almost identical with that against Abdullah. The case, however, against the Muntri, as deduced from the evidence, is different. I enclose a separate memorandum thereon.
D 4
32