CO882-(3-4) — Page 172

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O.

882

3

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

66

116

Sir W. Jervois for having gone beyond his instructions, and there is very much to object to in the unseemly tone of his despatches, but he has received hard and unequal measure, for the despatch addressed to him on the 10th December last would have been an admirable despatch if it had been dated March 1874, and addressed to Sir A. Clarke; and there is another person besides Sir A. Clarke upon whom the noble Earl should lay blame, and that is upon himself, for not having more closely watched the proceedings of the Straits officials, for not having earlier checked departures from instructions and from what he now states were his intentions; and the noble Earl has proved that he himself is conscious of this by his not having recalled Sir W. Jervois. Now in proof of this it will only be necessary to place before your Lordships the outlines of certain proceedings, along with the dates of the reception at the Colonial Office of reports upon them. The report of Captain Speedy was received at the Colonial Office on the 10th May 1875; from this report it is clear that Captain Speedy was the chief, it may be said the sole administrator. Mr. Skinner in his report says: Flogging is a more frequent punishment (under Captain Speedy) than in our courts. The Secretary of State replied on the 25th May 1875, that he had read Captain Speedy's report with interest, and that it was desirable to obtain if prac- ticable the abatement of debt slavery. This being a Malay custom was one of the matters the Residents were precluded from interfering with by the Pangkor Treaty. Sir A. Clarke had anticipated Sir Wm. Jervois in giving the title of Commissioner instead of Resident to the British official sent to Sunghie Ujong. Captain Dun- lop's report of his proceedings in that country was received by the Colonial Office on the 30th January 1875, and on the 4th of March the Secretary of State approved of these proceedings. The Datu Klana of Sunghie Ujong applied to the Governor Sir A. Clarke for an officer, and also for a British flag, "BO as to be under the pro- tection of the great Governor." This Sir A. Clarke granted him, describing the flag merely as a compliment to the British Government. The Datu Bandar, however, a ruler with powers nearly co-ordinate with those of the Datu Klana, objected to this hoisting of the flag, and a quarrel ensued between the two chiefs. The Straits autho- rities intervened with an armed force in December 1874. Sir A. Clarke informed the Datu Bandar, on the 3rd October 1874, that if he makes war against his chief the Datu Klana, he would in truth being making war upon the Queen. Captain Dunlop relates in his report that he seized three Chinese head men who were suspected of having assisted the Bandar with money; he first pronounced them traitors and rebels who had incurred the punishment of death and confiscation. But relenting from this view, he imposed a fine of $3,000 on each, and as one of them was not ready with his money next morning he had him flogged. There is no word of disapprobation in the Blue Book of such proceedings, and granting that the Klana assented to it, it is not fitting that a British officer should inflict such punishments on behalf of one Malay ruler on the adherents of another. Captain Dunlop then settled the ways and means of Sunghie Ujong; leased the opium, spirits, and pawnbrokers' nonopolies, and established a gambling farm; and the Blue Book does not contain a syllable of protest against a British officer sanctioning the establishment of gambling houses, as one of the civilizing elements of the Residential system. In replying, on the 4th March 1874, to the Governor's Despatch, forwarding Captain Dunlop's report, the Secretary of State merely regrets that the Governor had found himself so soon called upon to resume hostile operations against any of the Malay Chiefs." It is impossible to account for this absolute acquiescence in a course so diametrically opposed to the professed policy of the Colonial Office, and I can find no other answer than either that the Secretary of State never read the papers, or that he had no other policy than that which his sub- ordinates chose to adopt. It is unnecessary to trouble your Lordships with further instances to prove that from their first apppointment the Residents did not confine them- selves to advice, but undertook the administration of the country, and it is only for the sake of the dates that I have referred to them, because the noble Earl has since admitted in his Despatch of 1st June last to Sir W. Jervois, that "it is indeed clear that "the Residents have executed the function of counsellors which they were intended "to discharge." To turn to another matter, the want of attention, or of due diligence on the part of the Colonial Department, has been strikingly shown in the selection of the Residents. The noble Earl was as fully conscious body else of the importance of this selection when he wrote to Sir A. Clarke as every- on the 4th September 1874, that it "was essential that these very responsible posts should be filled by officers of the highest ability, and on whose conduct complete reliance may be placed. Now, first, with regard to Captain Speedy. He has done very well according to his lights, and left, as he was, without

<

11

暗备

raise

117

guidance; but it does not follow that, because he has done pretty well in Larut, he should do weli in Perak, since in Larut he had hardly any people but Chinese to deal with. But what was known of him on his appointment? All that was known of him in the Straits was that he arrived there after the Abyssinian War, in which he took some part, and that he was appointed police superintendent at Penang; but shortly after he threw up his appointment, and actually entered the service of the Mantri of Larut, who was asserting his independence of the Sultan of the country, and went to India to

for his new master. sepoys

At that time he caused some flutter in India and Indian circles about this matter, and some legal questions as to whether it did not fall under the Indian Penal Code, or some Act of Parliament. It was in the service of the Mantri that Sir A. Clarke found him, and it was a singular appointment to recommend, and one over which the Secretary of State might well hesitate. Next, with regard to Mr. Davidson, he was a Scotch lawyer in good practice at Singapore; he was unconnected with the public service, and if he had been appointed to any other place but Salangore I should not have called his appointment in question. But on the 10th of May, 1874 I wrote to the noble Earl telling him there was a report that Mr. Davidson would be appointed to Salangore, and asking him to ascertain something about his relations and pecuniary interests in that country, and that I hoped to hear from him before I gave notice of a question on the subject in the House. To the best of my recollection (and subject to the noble Earl's correction if I am wrong), be informed me that he did not believe there was any such intention. I also stated to your lordships on the 19th May 1874, that Mr. Davidson had lent money to Tunku Kudin, but I did not then mention his name, because this appointment was not certain. It might have been expected, however, that the noble Earl would have cautioned Sir A. Clarke not to make such an appointment. Now these were the pecuniary interests of Mr. Davidson, who since has administered Salangore as Resident. Tunku Kudin, brother of the Sultan of Keddah, came to Salangore and married a daughter of the Sultan; after pressure and interference by the Straits authorities, be was established as Viceroy of Salangore under his father-in-law. Meantime he had visited Singapore and made friends with the merchants and officials, and borrowed largely from Mr. Davidson. Before Mr. Davidson was made Resident he had obtained in March 1873 a concession of a monopoly of tin mines in Salangore for 10 years, and he and his friends tried to get up a company in England. From an advertisement in a London paper of July 6, 1874, the London and China Telegraph, which I presume is taken in at the Colonial Office, it appears that the nominal capital of this company was 200,000, and 100,000l. was to be paid to Count Gelois and Mr. Davidson, the concessionaires or vendors of the concession. Was a man with private interests of this kind in the country a suitable person to appoint as Resident there? Even Sir Andrew Clarke, who proposed the appointment, felt the incongruity, and so it was arranged that Mr. Davidson, before entering on his office, should transfer his pecuniary rights to some other person; but his letter announcing that this transfer would be made shows that it was a mere formality. We then find that Mr. Davidson asked for the intervention of the Government to get the Sultan of Salangore to confirm the concession of the tin monopoly, and Sir A. Clarke objected to do so unless the exclusive character of the concession was removed, and the concessionary was limited to one year for marking out the places where he desired to dig and two years to begin work. This was consented to, but the Sultan's deed of confirmation contains a remarkable stipulation; it is that though the tax on other people's tin may be raised, the tax on the tin of the concessionary may not. Was this the stipulation of the concessionary, or of the Resident? It matters not, they were the same person. What did the noble Earl say of this? He simply "feels an interest in it as a promising attempt to extend British enterprise.” I would here observe that no revenue balance-sheet has yet been published for Salangore or Perak. I come next to Mr. Birch and Mr. Braddell, formerly Attorney-General at Singapore. Of the unfortunate Mr. Birch, for obvious reasons, I desire to say as little as possible. Mr. Braddell, though residing in Singapore, has taken part in all the proceedings in the Malay Peninsula as Secretary for Native States, and with regard to these two gentlemen I shall confine myself to reminding the noble Earl that in August 1874 he received letters of Mr. Atchison, which, to say the least, showed that the pecuniary relations of these gentlemen with Malay rulers and others, made them unfit for the duties which they subsequently have had to perform. On the 20th November 1874, the Governor and Council of Inquiry into Mr. Atchison's statements reported upon them. That report was so palpably unsatisfactory, that it should have been sufficient to prompt the noble Earl, without my communication of 2nd March 1875, to provide better man for a public service, the exigencies of which he was fully aware of. If the noble Earl disputes this view, I must ask him to lay before your Lordshire