PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TFITICO. 882
4 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
Enclosure
1876.
56
Singapore I reported in my despatch No. 130, of 21st Match, and Se Tuah, whose capture I reported in my despatch No. 171 of 19th April.* At first there was some little uncertainty as to the identity of Se Tuah, but upon his being brought to Bandar Bahru, where he remained in confinement until his trial, he was at once recognised by Se Gondah (a prisoner who had been convicted of participation in the murders com- mitted, but had been reprieved, as stated in my despatch No. 137 of 23rd March),† and by other witnesses. Pending trial, the prisoners were treated with every consideration consistent with safety.
3. As the proceedings of the inquiry into the complicity of Abdullah and the other Perak chiefs occupied a much longer time than I had anticipated, I determined to request the Rajah Bandahara (who, as I reported to your Lordship in my despatch No. 341 of 22nd September, had been appointed by Sultan Abdullah Regent of Perak), to appoint judges to try the case. It was a matter of some difficulty, however, to nominate judges qualified for this duty, for the inquiry had by this time proved that nearly every chief in Perak had been more or less implicated in the conspiracy for the murder of the British Resident. Eventually, the Rajah Bandahara nominated the Rajah Muda Yusuf, Rajah Allang Hoosein, and Rajah Driss as judges, any or all of whom had power to sit as such. As it subsequently appeared that Rajah Driss was himself implicated in the general conspiracy, it was determined to try the case with the two first-named chiefs as judges.
4. I selected Mr. Davidson, Resident of Perak, and Mr. W. E. Maxwell, acting Assistant Resident in Larut, as assessors, to watch the case on behalf of the British Government, and to see that the trial took place with every formality and fairness. Mr. Davidson, as your Lordship is aware, is a barrister of high standing in the profession here, whilst Mr. Maxwell possesses considerable legal knowledge and experience, and both these gentlemen are proficient in the Malay language. Moreover, neither of them had had any connexion with Perak affairs until after the crimes with which the prisoners stood charged had been committed.
I engaged the services of Mr. J. D. Vaughan for the defence of the prisoners. Mr Vaughan is a gentleman who was formerly in the Colonial Service, is a member of the bar in large practice, and was for some little time Acting Puisne Judge in this colony. He speaks Malay with fluency, and in every respect was especially well qualified to
act as counsel for the accused.
3. All matters bearing on the case, including the depositions of the witnesses on the previous trial of Seputum and others at Bandar Bahru, and the statements made by witnesses whose evidence had been taken during the course of the inquiry into the complicity of the Perak Chiefs, were placed in Mr. Vaughan's hands. Your Lordship will observe, therefore, that Mr. Vaughan had unusual advantages for the defence of the prisoners. No efforts were spared to procure the witnesses whom the prisoners wished to call in their defence, and these efforts were so successful that, except one man who had died, they were all present at the trial,
6. I enclose a copy of the letter which I caused to be addressed to Mr. Davidson 5th December respecting the appointment of himself and Mr. Maxwell as assessors, and with reference to the general conduct of the trial. Your Lordship will observe that I had at first intended that Mr. Swettenham, assistant-secretary for Native States, should act as prosecutor, but I subsequently considered it advisable to appoint Major Dunlop, inspector general of police, as such, with Mr. Swettenham to assist him in the prosecution.
7. In determining in what part of Perak the trial should take place, I selected Martang in the district of Larut, as being in every respect the most convenient place. By the Larut river, there is communication for steamers within a mile or two of Martang, and the Larut jail, which is situated here, was convenient for the safe custody of the prisoners during the trial.
In the immediate vicinity of the jail is a large disused house convenient for a Court, as well as for a barrack for a company of infantry, which I had drawn from Qualla Kangsa and stationed at Martang, whilst the prisoners were in Larut.
8. The appointment of judges, assessors, prosecutor, and counsel for the defence, as well as the place where the trial should take place, and other details of arrangements having been settled, the prisoners were sent from Singapore, in charge of a detach- ment of the 80th Regiment, in the Colonial Steam Ship" Phito," on the 9th ultimo.
• No. 81 of " Eastern, No. 17A.” † No. 64 of "Eastera, No. 17A.” ‡ No. 117 of “ Eastern, No. 20,”
57
9. The court opened on the 14th ultimo, and the trial lasted till the 22nd ultimo, when the judges brought in a verdict of guilty against the prisoners, all of whom they sentenced to be hanged. The trial was in all respects conducted in the same manner as in our own courts, except that it was carried on in Malay, and that the examination and cross-examination by the counsel for the defence was made by him through the court. I enclose a copy of the proceedings of the trial, together with reports from Major Dunlop Enclosure 3. and Mr. Davidson.*
Enclosure 7.
25th Dec. 1876. Enclosure 4.
1 Sub-enclosure
10. It will be observed that on the meeting of the court, Mr. Vaughan handed to Mr. Davidson a letter, (1) objecting to the constitution of the court; (2) alleging that 34th Dec. 1876. the prisoners were promised by the messengers of the Maharajah of Johore when they surrendered that they should not be prosecuted nor their lives endangered in any way; (3) urging that the offence, if any, was a political one, and that they should not be subjected to be tried as murderers; (4) stating that under the Malayan Government the penalty for murder was a fine.
Mr. Davidson explained to Mr.Vaughan, as he has also done in his report, that Mr. Vaughan was in error respecting the constitution of the court, and disposes of that I shall objection, a point I may add which had already been fully considered by me. hereafter refer to the second statement in Mr. Vaughan's letter. The third and fourth points do not appear to require special notice. The case against Sultan Abdullah is necessarily being treated as a political one, because no jurisdiction exists to try him criminally, but this does not apply to the case of persons amenable to the authorities of Perak. As regards the punishment for murder, it is according to Malay custom, whatever sentence the court awards.
11. The case for the prosecution is remarkably strong, as might be expected, considering that the crime was committed in broad daylight in the presence of a large number of people.
The witnesses for the prosecution include men not only of Perak but of different nations, languages, and religions, and whose sympathy and testimony would scarcely have been expected to have been so much in accord.
The witnesses do not all agree, but this is rather a proof of the reliability of their statements. Each speaks to the main facts, though they do not all give exactly the same details of the event. This is easily explained by the fact that the commission
of the crime did not last for more than three or four minutes, and that the large number of the assailants and the situation of the witnesses at the time of the mêlée would of course lead to some discrepancies of detail. The evidence which they have given is for native witnesses most clear and satisfactory.
12. I will briefly review the commission of the deed, as deduced from the evidence. We find that on at least two occasions, some days previous to the murder, the Maharajah Lela and Datu Sagor expressed their intention of resisting Mr. Birch "should he attempt to put his foot on Passir Sala ground.” Mr. Birch's intention of posting proclamations with Sultan Abdullah's authority was made known to them without in any way changing their resolve.
We next find the Maharajah Lela a day or two before the murder, surrounded by all the prisoners, addressing the people of his village and neighbourhood, summoned for the purpose, and telling them plainly what he intended to do on Mr. Birch's arrival. On this occasion he called on the assembly to regard Pandak Indut as his representative, and invested him with his own sword. The people declared their obedience, and the design was carried into effect on the 2nd of November, The evidence of the two Chinese, the boatmen Aboo, Deen Merwah, Allang Nhor, and Le Gondah clearly proves the guilt of actual participation in the case of each of the prisoners, whilst Pandak Indut, agreeable to his appointed rôle of leader, is distinguished as making himself very conspicuous.
13. Then follows the approval of the Maharajah Lela for the accomplished deed; eager acknowledgment of the absolute participators in the murder, who alone were to have a share in the spoil; and the removal of Mr. Birch's effects to the Maharajah Lela's own house. The sending of the news to the Ulu and Ilir chiefs, and the expedition to attack Bandar Bahru, though not actually part of the murder, must be considered in reference to it and the defence.
the
The Maharajah Lela's previous and subsequent preparations for the defence of his house and village also bear upon the case.
14. The defence set up against this accumulation of evidence amounted to this :--that the Maharajah Lela was on the best terms with Mr. Birch; that Mr. Birch was murdered by Seputum under orders from Abdullah, and that none of the prisoners were present,
49009.
• The report of this trial is deposited in MB. in the library of the House of Commons.
H