We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 April 2011
Tun Abdul Razak, the prime minister of Malaysia, has recently announced that his Government cannot consider the claim to the Limbang River made by the Sultan of Brunei. This dispute has its origins in the 1880's when North Borneo and Sarawak were intriguing against each other to gain possession of the remains of the once powerful Sultanate. Since that time the problem of the Limbang has smouldered continually, every now and then breaking into a fitful glow. The problem is a complex one and has not hitherto received detailed scholarly analysis.
1 For a detailed account of early British interest in northern Borneo see Irwin, G., Nineteenth-Century Borneo (Singapore, 1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Wright, Leigh, The Origins of British Borneo (Hong Kong, 1970).Google Scholar
2 These were local fiscal rights. See Treacher, W.H., “Sketches of Brunei, Sarawak, Labuan and North Borneo”, JRASSB, XX (1889), 13–74.Google Scholar
3 Treacher to Dent 31 August and 2 September 1881, 4 April 1882 CO874/102, Dent to Read 4 and 11 August 1882 CO874/113.
4 See Sarawak Gazette, 1 December 1888, p. 147.Google Scholar
5 Leys to F.O. 15 April 1882 FO12/57, 23 October 1883 FO12/60, Dent to Read 4 and 11 August 1882 op. cit.
6 Treacher to Alcock 27 & 28 April 1883 CO874/234.
7 Alcock to Dent 6 April 1883 CO874/116, Alcock to CO. 8 May 1883 FO12/59. It does not seem that Everett was in fact acting on behalf of the Rajah since he subsequently offered to sub-lease any rights he acquired to the Company or to withdraw altogether on payment of his expenses and a bonus. See Leys to FO 11 June 1883 FO12/60.
8 Wei Lui Gwan to Treacher 25 June 1883 CO874/234, Lau Kim Swee to Treacher 4 July 1883, Treacher to Alcock 30 July 1883 CO874/235, Alcock to Treacher 4 July 1884 CO874/119.
9 CO to FO 1 Nov. 1883 FO 12/59.
10 Treacher to Alcock 29 Oct. 1884 CO874/237.
11 Treacher to Alcock 7 March 1884 CO874/236.
12 Treacher to Alcock 4 August 1884 CO874/237. The Tumonggong was the principal minister of state in the Sultanate. The Bandahara and the DiGadong were the other two leading wazirs. Together they formed the Sultan's advisory council. See Treacher, JRASSB op. cit.
13 Sir Robert Meade, assistant under-secretary at the Colonial Office, was a friend of Rajah and Ranee Brooke. He was in sympathy with the Rajah's aims and was his staunch supporter until his retirement in 1897.
14 For details of the growing interest in colonialism see Taylor, A.J.P., The Struggle for Mastery in Europe (Oxford, 1965)Google Scholar, Cady, J.F., The Roots of French Imperialism in Eastern Asia (New York, 1954)Google Scholar, Dawson, W.H., “Imperial Policy in the Old and New World”, Cambridge History of British Foreign Policy, (Cambridge, 1923) III 193–219Google ScholarHinsley, F.H., “International Rivalry in the Colonial Sphere 1869–1885” Cambridge History of the British Empire (Cambridge, 1959)Google Scholar, ed. E.A. Benians et al, III, 255–291, & Leigh Wright op. cit.
15 Treacher to Alcock 8 October 1884 CO874/237.
16 Treacher to F.O. 28 October and 15 November 1884 (No. 20) FO 12/61, 15 Nov. 1884 (No. 21) FO 12/67, Treacher to Alcock 20 Nov. 1884 CO874/237.
17 The three main types of land rights were crown rights which could not be alienated as they were vested in the Sultanate, rights held by the principal ministers by virtue of their office, and tulin rights which were held by private individuals as their personal property. See Treacher, op. cit.
18 Treacher to Alcock 20 Nov. 1884 op. cit., 20 Dec. 1884 CO874/237, Treacher to FO 15 Nov. 1884 (No. 20) op. cit.
19 Treacher to Alcock 24 Nov. and 20 Dec. 1884 CO874/237. The Sultan himself was quite senile by this time. See North Borneo Herald 1 Nov. 1884.
20 Treacher to Alcock 22 Dec. 1884 CO874/237.
21 Notes for A.H. Everett 1 Nov. 1884 2nd Rajah's Letters.
22 Brooke to Granville 4 Jan. and 8 Mar. 1885 2nd Rajah's Letters.
23 FO to Treacher 9 May 1885 FO 12/62, minute by Lister 15 April 1885, CO to FO 23 Apr. 1885, FO to CO 9 May 1885 FO12/66.
24 See Gould, S. Baring and Bampfylde, C.A., A History of Sarawak (London 1909), pp. 346–7.Google Scholar It was generally believed that the Tumonggong was not really the son of Sultan Omar Ali, the predecessor of Sultan Mumin. The Bandahara and the DiGadong particularly resented the fact that he was Sultan Mumin's heir.
25 Brooke to Treacher 5 May 1885 2nd Rajah's Letters.
40 Memo by Pauncefote 20 April 1887, Leys to FO 30 April 1887, FO to Leys 14 June 1887 FO 12/74, memos by Robertson 20 Feb. and 21 March 1887 FO 12/76.
41 FO to Weld March 1887 FO 12/76.
42 See Thio, E. “The British Forward Movement 1880–1889”, Papers on Malayan History, ed. Tregonning, K. (Singapore 1962).Google Scholar
43 Robeck to Meade 8 Nov. 1886 CO 144/62.
44 Weld to Sir P. Currie 21 June 1887 FO 12/77. Weld did not think that the. Company's rule in North Borneo would be successful and was concerned about the fate of Sarawak after the death of the Rajah. See Fraser, A., Life of Sir Frederick Weld (London, 1914), pp. 400–402.Google Scholar
45 Weld to Sir H. Holland 30 Dec. 1887 FO 12/77, Fraser pp. 400–401.
46 Crocker to Alcock 29 May 1887 CO 874/243. Previous accounts of this incident state that it was the Sultan who proposed a residency but Crocker's version is more credible. See Fraser pp. 400–401 for the account taken from Weld's diary which confirms by implication that the proposal came from Weld. Treacher and Leys both stated that the Sultan feared the imposition of a residency. Treacher to Alcock 25 August 1886 CO 874/242, Leys to FO 15 Oct. 1887 FO 12/74.
47 Weld to Holland 20 June 1887, op. cit.
48 See R.E. Robinson “Imperial Problems in British Politics”, Cambridge History of the British Empire, op. cit., III, 127–179.
49 Leys to FO 15 October 1887, FO to Leys 20 Oct. 1887 FO 12/74, Pauncefote to Salisbury 31 Oct. 1887, CO to FO 14 Oct. 1887 FO 12/75.
50 This was proposed to him by W.C. Cowie. See Davies to Crocker 17 Oct. 1887, Crocker to Alcock 26 Oct. 1887 CO 874/244.
51 Memos by Pauncefote and Herbert 30 December 1887, minute by Hervey 11 Dec. 1888 FO 12/78, FO memo 6 March 1888 FO 572/21.
52 Memo by Salisbury, undated, FO 12/78.
53 Grenville, J.A.S., Lord Salisbury and Foreign Policy, (London, 1964), pp. 19–21.Google Scholar
54 Tregonning, K.G., A History of Modern Sabah (Singapore, 1965), pp. 84–88Google Scholar, Straits Times 7 November 1888 and 22 May 1889.
55 Alcock to Creagh 1 Nov. 1889 CO 874/300, 24 Jan. and 18 April 1890 CO 874/301, Creagh to Alcock 18 Sept. 1889 CO 874/248, 3 Feb. and 6 March 1890 CO 874/249, Central Borneo Co. to FO 22 April 1890 FO 12/84.
56 Brooke to Ricketts April 1890 2nd Rajah's Letters, Brooke to Creagh 22 May 1890 CO 874/249.
57 Proclamation 17 March 1890, 2nd Rajah's Letters. According to Ward, A.B., Rajah's Servant (Cornell, 1966), pp. 67–68 the Rajah sailed up the Limbang and hoisted the Sarawak flag himself.Google Scholar
58 Instructions to Ricketts 1 April 1890 2nd Rajah's Letters.
59 Memo by Brooke 8 April 1890 2nd Rajah's Letters.
60 Johnson to Meade 12 Dec. 1889 CO 144/60, Hamilton to FO 29 Oct 1889, Meade to F. O. 31 Dec, 1889 FO 12/80.
61 Treacher to Dickson 23 April 1890, enclosure in CO to FO 27 May 1890, memos by Hervey 16 June and 11 Nov. 1890 FO 12/84, CO to FO 26 Nov. 1890 FO 572/25.
62 Trevenen to FO 23 April and 1 May 1891, Smith to FO 9 May 1891 FO 12/87.
63 Minute by Lucas 20 June 1891 CO 144/69.
64 Minute by Meade 22 June 1891 CO 144/69, FO to Smith 9 July 1891 FO 12/88.
65 Trevenen to FO 11 May 1891, Brooke to Smith 30 Jan. 1891 FO 12/87, CO to FO 30 Jan. 1891 FO 12/88. A point which is not clear is the exact nature of the Sultan's rights on the Limbang. He possessed the ill-defined sovereign rights but seems to have had little or no tulin rights. However the office of Tumonggong had attached to it rights on the Limbang and as the Sultan had not appointed a new Tumonggong on his accession then the benefits of these rights should have gone to the Sultan.
66 Smith to FO 11 December 1891 FO 12/88, memo by Trevenen 28 Feb. 1892 FO 12/92.
67 CO. to F.O. 27 May 1890 op. cit.
68 Minute by Fairneld 7 March 1890 CO 144/69.
69 Ibid., minute by Meade.
70 Thornton, A.P., The Imperial Idea and its Enemies (London 1959) pp. 81–82.Google Scholar
71 Memo by Currie 16 August 1892 FO 12/93.
72 Brooke to FO 12 Jan. 1893, CO to FO 25 Jan. 1893, Mitchell to FO 22 October 1894 FO 572/29, Mitchell to FO 23 March 1894 FO 572/30,. memo by Anderson 11 February 1895, FO to Mitchell 13 July 1895 FO 12/95.
73 After Meade's resignation in 1897 the prevailing opinion in the Colonial Office was that the Rajah's paternalistic form of government was an anachronism.
74 Tregonning p. 38.
