RAJA JAMES BROOKE AND SARAWAK
35
recognition. But Clarendon would not agree. He consulted the Law Officers and concluded that while it was legally possible for the Queen to permit one of her subjects to assume the sovereignty of a foreign state and to so recognize him, it is to be done only in exceptional circumstances. Brooke could not be recognized. Lord Clarendon wrote to St. John on this occasion,
Her Majesty's Government entirely agree with you in thinking that British interests in Borneo are so closely interwoven with the prosperity of Sarawak that whatever injuriously affects the latter must also be injurious to the former. Therefore Her Majesty's Government hardly believe that Sir James Brooke will place himself in direct antagonism to Her Majesty's Government by refusing to allow you to act within the territory which is subject to his rule, and thereby compel Her Majesty's Government to make known to the natives that no British subject can exercise sovereign authority without the permission of his sovereign, which permission has not been obtained by him, and that consequently he is acting against the law of England; whereas if he avoids insisting upon a recognition of his independent sovereignty which is inconsistent with his position as a British subject, his supreme authority at Sarawak upon whatever basis it may rest, whether upon the grant of the Sultan or the choice of the people, will remain undisturbed and unquestioned.
Although on this occasion Lord Clarendon had his way, it is interesting to note that the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston did not agree. He wrote later,
9
The question seems to be rather between the sultan of Borneo and the raja of Sarawak than between the latter and the sovereign of England. But so far as we are concerned there does not seem to be any strong reason why we should not deal with Sarawak as an independent state, and if it is so, we might ask for an exequatur from the powers that be.
III.
This then posed the question that bothered ministers and under-secretaries for more than three decades in their dealings with
& Clarendon to St. John, 9 April 1856, FO12/23.
Palmerston memo., 6 August 1856, FO12/23,
RAJA JAMES BROOKE AND SARAWAK
35
recognition. But Clarendon would not agree. He consulted the Law Officers and concluded that while it was legally possible for the Queen to permit one of her subjects to assume the sovereignty of a foreign state and to so recognize him, it is to be done only in excep- tional circumstances. Brooke could not be recognized. Lord Clarendon wrote to St. John on this occasion, B
Her Majesty's Government entirely agree with you in think- ing that British interests in Borneo are so closely interwoven with the prosperity of Sarawak that whatever injuriously affects the latter must also be injurious to the former. There- fore Her Majesty's Government hardly believe that Sir James Brooke will place himself in direct antagonism to Her Ma- jesty's Government by refusing to allow you to act within the territory which is subject to his rule, and thereby compel Her Majesty's Government to make known to the natives. that no British subject can exercise sovereign authority with- out the permission of his sovereign, which permission has not been obtained by him, and that consequently he is acting against the law of England; whereas if he avoids insisting upon a recognition of his independent sovereignty which is inconsistent with his position as a British subject, his supreme authority at Sarawak upon whatever basis it may rest, whether upon the grant of the Sultan or the choice of the people, will remain undisturbed and unquestioned.
Although on this occasion Lord Clarendon had his way, it is interesting to note that the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston did not agree. He wrote later,
9
The question seems to be rather between the sultan of Borneo and the raja of Sarawak than between the latter and the sovereign of England. But so far as we are concerned there does not seem to be any strong reason why we should not deal with Sarawak as an independent state, and if it is so, we might ask for an exequatur from the powers that be.
III.
This then posed the question that bothered ministers and under- secretaries for more than three decades in their dealings with
& Clarendon to St. John, 9 April 1856, FO 12/23. 9 Palmerston memo., 6 August 1856, FO 12/23,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.