[
    {
        "id": 215776,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-2002",
        "page_number": 75,
        "title": "RAS-2002",
        "content_text": "The EIC and relations with the Malay states\n\nIn the merchants' own words, 'The Supreme Government of India had uniformly discouraged the local Government at Singapore from interfering with matters beyond the limits of the Island. The cultivation of friendly relations with Native States and Chiefs has been neglected.'44 In this section, I will examine the merchants' reasons for this complaint, and also assess the accuracy of their claim. Rupert Emerson, a historian, calls the period during the Indian government's administration of the Straits Settlements 'a half-century of inactivity.' This is arguably the truth but not the whole truth, because DGE Hall, another historian, tends to disagree with Emerson's assertion. He says that 'one only has to glance through the many volumes of records relating to the period to realise that even if there was little or no spectacular achievement there was plenty of activity.' 'Even if by inactivity is meant the pursuit of non-intervention policy in native affairs, the term is misleading.\n\nPage 48\n\nThe Calcutta administration, wherever possible, adhered to a policy of strict non-intervention in the affairs of the Malay States. This policy had its roots in Pitt's India Act of 1784,49 which stipulated that the EIC's aim was peace, not interference in local politics or extension of the company's territories.50 The main reason for this policy was to avoid any form of entanglement in the internal troubles or wars of the Peninsula which could incur unnecessary expenses for the EIC,51 As it was, the EIC had lost its monopoly over the China trade in 1833 and, with this, the Straits Settlements ceased to be a source of direct profits, and were maintained at an annual loss.52\n\nPage 51\n\nYet despite the law on non-intervention, there was evidence that in some cases concerning threats to British interests, whether commercial, political or involving prestige, local administrators often found it necessary to intervene. In such cases, the actions were often condoned by the Supreme Government. Thus, there was a violation of Pitt's India Act (which eventually did lead to the change in British policy of non-intervention to intervention in 1874),54\n\nPage 53\n\nThio summarises the politico-legal scenario thus:\n\n...when responsibility for the Straits was transferred from the Government of India to the Colonial Office in 1867, the British were already bound by treaties with four of the five states south of Kedah, two of whom they\n\nPage 75\n\nPage 76",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215784,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-2002",
        "page_number": 83,
        "title": "RAS-2002",
        "content_text": "16\n\nXIX, Belgian Treaty Art. XLIV; Spanish Treaty Art. XVI; Italian Treaty Art. XIX, quoted from Fox, British Admirals and Chinese Pirates 1832-1869\n\n4 Turnbull, supra, p 255\n\n4 Buckley, An Anecdotal History of Old Times in Singapore pg 756; The Straits Times and Singapore Journal of Commerce, 13 Oct 1857\n\n\"Emerson Rupert, Malaysia - A Study in Direct and Indirect Rule, Chap 2. p 91\n\n46 Hall DGE, A History of South East Asia, p 511\n\n47 Ibid, p 511\n\n* Mills LA, British Malaya 1824 – 1867\n\n49 Act 24th George III Cap 25;\n\n174\n\nNB: This act was retained until 1858, when England assumed full control of India. However, the policy of non-intervention in the Malay States still continued until 1874.\n\n50 Philips, The East India Company 1784 - 1834, Chap 2, p 32\n\nsi Purcell, Malaya, Outline of a Colony, Chap 6 p 70; Jones, Public Administration in Malaya, Chap I p 8\n\n52 Mills, supra, p 174\n\nTan DE, A Portrait of Malaysia and Singapore, Chap 9 p 119\n\n54 However, it should be made clear that in the pre-1874 era, the nature of intervention was limited. Though there were cases of British intervention in the Malay States, their actions were “inactive” or passive. The governors were often reminded of the official non-intervention policy, and this policy remained unchanged until 1874, when a new law (the Pangkor Engagement) was observed.\n\nCases of non-intervention\n\nThe EIC's non-intervention policy started from the earliest years of British rule",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 215794,
        "series_id": 26,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-rashkb-journal-engine",
        "series_title": "RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "RAS-2002",
        "page_number": 93,
        "title": "RAS-2002",
        "content_text": "26\n\nElias, TO, 1962, British Colonial Law, Stevens & Sons, London\n\nElton, Lord, 1945, Imperial Commonwealth, Collins, London\n\nEmerson, Rupert, (1937) 1966 Malaysia, A Study of Direct and Indirect Rule. University of Kuala Lumpur Press, Kuala Lumpur\n\nFox, Grace, 1940, British Admirals and Chinese Pirates 1832 - 1869, Kegan Paul, Trench Trubner & Co Ltd, London\n\nFreedman, Maurice, 1950, 'Colonial Law and Chinese Society' in Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 80\n\nFriedman, Lawrence M, 1964, 'Law and its Language', George Washington Law Review 33\n\nFurnival, JS, 1956, Colonial Policy and Practice, New York University Press, New York\n\nGinsburg, N, and Robers, C F, 1958, Malaya, University of Washington Press, Seattle\n\nGreenburg, Michael, 1951, British Trade and the Opening of China 1800 to 1842, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge\n\nGullick, JM, 1964, Malaya, (2nd edition), Ernest Benn Ltd, London\n\nHall, D G E, 1975, A History of South East Asia, (3rd edition), Macmillan Press Ltd\n\nHall, 1937, The Colonial Office, a History, London\n\nHickling, R H, 1992, Essays in Singapore Law, Pelanduk Publications (M) Sdn Bhd, Malaysia\n\nHooker, MB, 1976, The Personal Laws of Malaysia. An Introduction. Oxford University Press\n\nHooker, MB, 1969, \"The Relationship between Chinese Law and Common Law in Malaysia, Singapore and Hong Kong', Journal of Asian Studies 28",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/dfo323lmgvd/RAS-2002.txt",
        "external_url": "https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/mp4901278",
        "rank": 0
    }
]