§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL (Kirkcaldy)asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any precedent for treating a British Company, administering territory under a Charter from the Crown, as "an independent State," as in case of the British North Borneo Company; whether the East India Company, or any other chartered Company, was ever recognized as "an independent State;" whether Article II. of the Agreement between the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of Her Majesty, and the British North Borneo Company, limiting the right of Her Majesty's Government to interfere with the internal administrations of the North Borneo State, places any obstacle in the way of any interference which Parliament may at any time see fit to exercise; whether, in view of the protection afforded to the North Borneo State by Her Majesty's Military and Naval Forces, the Company is to pay anything; whether it is true that the Company lately enlisted 120 Sikhs or other Asiatic subjects of Her Majesty at Singapore in order to carry on hostilities against the Pangaran Shabandu; and, if so, whether such recruiting is subject 261 to any regulations either in India or in the Straits Settlements; and, whether the territory in which these hostilities are carried on, and which is now in the possession of a native chief, is among the territories recognized as belonging to the Company by Article I. of the Agreement?
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir JAMES FERGUSSON,) Manchester, N.E.As regards the first two paragraphs of the Question, the hon. Member will find the precise status of the British North Borneo Company explained in the Parliamentary Paper, Spain No. 1 (1882), Borneo and Sulu, p. 202. The Company is not recognized as an "independent State," but as administering the Government of the independent State of Sabah, under powers and authorities derived from the Sultan of Sulu and the Sultan of Brunei, in consideration of an annual tribute. The Charter of the Company merely confers the ordinary incidents of incorporation, in return for which the Company have submitted to the control of Her Majesty's Government, in the exercise of the powers of government conferred on them by the Sultans. As regards the third paragraph, there is nothing in the Charter, or in the Agreement, between Her Majesty's Government and the Company there referred to which can interfere with any action which Parliament may see fit to take. As regards the fourth paragraph, the protection afforded to the Company does not differ in character from that which is extended to British life and property in all parts of the world, and the Company is not called upon to make any payment in respect of it. As regards the fifth paragraph, Her Majesty's Government have no information as to the enlistment of Sikhs and other Asiatic subjects of Her Majesty at Singapore, but recruiting is subject to regulations in India and in the Straits Settlements. As regards the sixth paragraph, the hostilities carried on by the Company against the Pangaran Shabandu are believed to have taken place on the border of the territory administered by them on the South West Coast (called Padas Damit), and to have arisen in consequence of raids, murders, and other acts of violence committed by the Pangeran in that territory.
§ SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLAm I to understand that any papers have been presented to Parliament since the North Borneo Company were made an independent State?
§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONThe hon. Member will find in the papers an explanation of the status of the Company.