CO882-(3-4) — Page 311

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:→→

C.O. 882

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

28

No. 46.

GOVERNOR SIR W. F. D. JERVÕIS, K.C.M.G., C.B., to the EARL OF

(No. 430.) MY LORD,

CARNARVON,

(Received January 13, 1877.)

Government House, Singapore, December 14, 1876. In my despatch to your Lordship, No. 129, of 21st March last, I stated (para- graph 8) that I had appointed a Commission to inquire into the complicity of the Perak chiefs in the outrages which were committed in that State towards the end of last

year.

2. The Commission consisted of Mr. Justice Phillippo, the Honourable C.B. Plunket, formerly Acting Lieutenant-Governor, subsequently Magistrate at Malacca (since appointed Registrar at Hong Kong), and Mr. Paul, who was formerly in the service of the Rajah of Sarawak, and is now Acting Assistant Resident in Perak.

These officers were selected by me in concert with my Executive Council, on account of their special qualifications, and of their not having been previously connected with the affairs which formed the subject of inquiry.

3. I have now the honour to lay before your Lordship a statement of the proceedings that have taken place since the appointment of that Commission.

On the 25th March I issued to the Commissioners the instructions of which I forwarded to your Lordship a copy on the 6th July last (see my Despatch No. 251 of that date). I herewith append another copy

for easy reference.

It will be observed, that whilst the instructions specially directed inquiry into the complicity of ex-Sultan Ismail, the Maharajah Lela, the Datu Sagor, and the Datu Nara, a large discretion was left to the Commissioners, to extend their investigation to the question of the participation of any other persons in the perpetration or instigation of the outrages in Perak.

4. The inquiry was first commenced at Bandar Bahru by Mr. Plunket and Mr. Paul. Mr. Phillippo was at that time performing the whole of the judicial duty in Penang, and was consequently unable to proceed to Perak at the commencement of the inquiry."

5. Evidence taken at this carly stage implicated Sultan Abdullah and some of his chiefs; so much so, that Mr. Plunket and Mr. Paul recommended, as reported in my despatch to your Lordship, just quoted, that "the Sultan and his principal advisers should be removed to Singapore on suspicion of complicity." For reasons which I have already stated to your Lordship in my Despatch No. 251 of the 6th July, I did not at that time consider it desirable to act on this recommendation.

6. Subsequently a great deal of additional evidence was obtained before Mr. Phillippo was able to leave Penang. I at length found it necessary to appoint the Solicitor General to act temporarily in the Summary Court at Penang, in order to enable Mr. Phillippo to proceed to Perak.

7. During his stay there for upwards of a month, assisted by Messrs. Plunket and Paul, he re-examined all the witnesses whose attendance could be procured. From this re-examination, together with the statements of other witnesses whose evidence had been previously obtained, Mr. Phillippo arrived at the conclusion that a strong prima facie case had been made against most of the chiefs in Perak (including both Sultan Abdullah and ex-Sultan Ismail) of complicity in the outrages, and that it was undesirable to continue the inquiry on the basis on which it had been originally planned.

8. Mr. Phillippo then came here, reported his opinion to me, and recommended that steps should be taken to summon Abdullah and his principal chiefs to Singapore. My Executive Council, with whom I discussed the question in the early part of August, concurred in this recommendation, and 1 accordingly adopted it, as reported to your Lordship by telegram on 5th August, and in paragraph 4 of my Despatch No. 297 of 19th August. I enclose copy of the letter, dated 10th August, which I addressed on that occasion to Sultan Abdullah, as also copies of the instructions which I issued with a view of ensuring that the summons should be complied with. (It should be observed, with respect to the phraseology of the letter to Abdullah, that the term "our friend" in Malay does not imply any thing more than the pronoun "you" in English.)

9. I should here state that great difficulty had been experienced in proceeding with the inquiry by a regularly constituted Commission. As I have before remarked, I had to take away Mr. Phillippo from his regular duties, and that at a time when the judicia! work in the Colony was unusually severe, owing to the paucity of judges. I found that Mr. Paul could not both attend to his own duties as Assistant Resident and at the same

† No. 50, of " Eastern No. 20.”

• No. 61 of "Eastern 17A.”

No. 71, of "Eastern No. 20."

29

time give proper attention to the heavy work entailed upon him as an inquiry Com- missioner; and, not to mention the disadvantage of appointing new members, supposing I could have found such, for carrying on an inquiry which had been in a great measure completed, it was impossible to select as commissioners other qualified gentlemen whose ordinary work would enable them to give sufficient time and attention to the business. I therefore arranged, after discussing the matter with Mr. Justice Phillippo, that the further inquiry should be conducted by some one person who could devote his whole time to it; and as Mr. Plunket, pending his departure to take up his new appointment at Hong Kong, was disengaged, and had been the principal member employed in collecting evidence, I determined to entrust the further inquiry to him, and to lay the whole case before the Executive Council, as already reported to your Lordship.

10. From the clues obtained in the previous examination, Mr. Plunket, assisted by Mr. Jeremiah, an exceedingly able ex-inspector of police, whom I employed for the purpose, procured the attendance of several important witnesses and took further vidence. I forward for your Lordship's information copies of the whole of the evidence taken, both by the Commission and by Mr. Plunket acting individually. I also enclose a précis of the evidence prepared by Mr. Plunket. The evidence being extremely voluminous, I desired Lieutenant McCallum, my private secretary, to prepare an abridg- ment of it, arranged under the several heads in order of sequence of events, and noting in the margin the witnesses by whom the several statements are corroborated. This abridgment was originally only intended for my own information, but the great assist- ance I derived from it led me to have it printed and circulated to the members of Council. This

paper has been approved by Mr. Plunket, and I transmit copy of it for your Lordship's information.

11. After some little delay, the Sultan, the Laxamana, the Shahbandar, Orang Kaya, Mat Arshad, and Rajah Mahkota, obeyed my summons to come to Singapore, and on the 4th September they arrived here in the "Pluto," in charge of Mr. Davidson. Rajah Driss, whom I had not specially summoned, and a number of followers, also accompanied the Sultan.

12. I should mention that, although there is a strong case against the Muntri, I did not summon him with Abdullah and his chiefs, because at the time there was not much evidence against him; moreover, considering his scheming character, I thought it desir- able to keep him separate from them, at all events until a more advanced stage of the proceedings.

13. In reply to my telegrams of 5th and 6th September,* your Lordship, by telegram dated 19th September,t received by me on 26th September, approved of my proposal to bring the case of Abdullah before the Executive Council, to be dealt with as a political one, and directed me to report and await further instructions.

14. On the 16th September the accompanying letter was addressed to the Sultan, informing him of the charges against him. Counsel was at the same time employed to advise him. The reply of the Sultan, dated 6th October, is herewith enclosed. I append some remarks upon the several points in his reply, showing that his defence tends to his incrimination.

14A. At this stage, when anxiously discussing the matter with my Executive Council, the question arose as to the further mode of procedure in the case. It had to be con- sidered whether, after having summoned Abdullah to Singapore, in order that he might give an explanation of the charges against him; after having furnished him with a written statement of charges; after retaining counsel for him, and after receiving from him his reply, the inquiry should be conducted before the Council as before a legal tribunal, viz., to allow Abdullah to appear before that body by counsel; to take the evidence before him afresh; to allow him to cross-examine the evidence produced against him; to call and examine witnesses for his defence, and then decide whether he should be retained or dismissed from the Sultanship, upon the question whether the charges against him were, or were not, susceptible of legal proof.

15. The objection to this course appeared indisputable. The object of the investiga- tion was, not to ascertain by legal procedure whether or not Sultan Abdullah was guilty of a criminal offence, but by careful inquiry to satisfy Her Majesty's Government whether he had or had not disqualified himself for being retained in the high position to which he had been advanced by the Straits Government, by instigating or conniving at the con- spiracy against Mr. Birch, or by such other treacherous conduct as would make it inexpedient to retain him as Sultan.

16. It was argued that although his statements as to not being confronted with his accusers might be of great importance if he were being tried before a quasi-judicial

• Nos. 66 and 67, of “Easteru No. 20."

† No, 68, of “Eastern No. 20.”

D 3