CO882-(3-4) — Page 452

Eastern, No. 35.

Printed for the use of the Colonial Office,

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:+

LICO. 882

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

| ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

MEMORANDUM showing the System under which British Residents have been appointed, and act, in the MalayTM States.

1. The appointment of British Residents in the Malay States originated in the dis- turbances which were rife in Perak in 1873. There were two rival Sultang in that State, viz., Ismail, who was the de facto ruler, and Abdullah who was the legitimate sovereign. The Chinese miners were also divided into two hostile camps. The party of each Sultan allied itself with one of the Chinese parties. Both the Chinese factions had relations with the Chinese immigrants in the British settlements, the relations of which settlements with the Malay States, and their internal peace, were thus placed a critical situation.

2. In these circumstances the Secretary of State (the Earl of Kimberley) desired the Governor of the Straits Settlements (Sir Andrew Clarke) to consider the advisability of appointing British officers who, with the consent of the Native rulers, should reside in the Malay States, and act as their advisers in important matters of Government. It was intimated that the expenses connected with such appointments would have to be defrayed by the Colonial Government.

3. In the meantime, Sir Andrew Clarke received an invitation from Abdullah to appoint such an officer to reside in Perak, and Sir Andrew seized the opportunity to conclude with the Chiefs of Perak the engagement, dated 20th January 1874, known as the Pangkor Treaty. That arrangement settled the claims of the rival Sultans, by the acknowledgment of Abdallah as supreme Chief, and by the assignment of a pension and of a limited territory to Ismail. It also provided for the appointment of a British Resi- dent, and of an Assistant Resident at Laroot. The functions of the Residents were defined by Clauses 6 and 10, and by Clause 7 their cost and that of their establishments was made a first charge on the revenue of Perak. Sir Andrew Clarke's proceedings were generally approved by the Secretary of State (the Earl of Carnarvon). A copy of the treaty is appended to this Memorandum.

4. The engagement was not loyally kept by Abdullah. Advice was given by the Residents but was not taken by the Sultan. This was no greater difficulty than might have been expected at first, or than time would probably have cured, but the Residents very soon began to exceed their functions, and, instead of confining themselves to advice, to deal with grave questions on their sole responsibility. Sir Andrew Clarke's successor, Sir William Jervois, was of opinion that they were placed in a false position, which might sooner or later compromise the British Government. He therefore issued proclamation announcing that the government of Perak would thereafter be administered by British officers, assisted by a Malay Council, in the name of the Sultan. It is true that he first obtained Abdullah's consent, but it is equally clear that Abdullah gave it only under compulsion. It was in a disturbance created by the posting of this procla mation that Mr. Birch, the British Resident in Perak, was killed. Mr. Birch's murder was the immediate cause of the hostilities which followed. It is not very easy to form an opinion how far it was accidental, how far it was premeditated, how far it was the sign of a general resentment against British interference, or how far it was evidence only of the hostility of a party. The disturbance in which Mr. Birch lost his life had in itself very much the appearance of an accidental melée, but rumours were soon afloat of a conspiracy that had been formed to drive the British out of the country. The fact that Abdullah took no part in the war might have pointed to the conclusion that he had no share in the murder, but his subsequent implication in the murder argues that it was the result of a general feeling against the policy with which the Residents were associated, if not against Mr. Birch personally. Sir William Jervois was forced to acknowledge the disclosure of a degree of hostility towards the changes which the Residents endeavoured to introduce for which he had not been at all prepared, and, although he declined to admit it, it is only reasonable to infer that this hostility was intensified by the high-handed acts of the Residents and by his own proclamation, which

M 285.