Lords Sitting of 1 February 1819

DUTCH COLONIES—CESSION OF JAVA.
The Marquis of Lansdowne rose,pursuant to the notice he had given, to move an address to the Prince Regent, for copies of the instructions transmitted by his majesty's. secretary of state to the governor of Java? for the surrender of that island to the commissioners appointed by the

157
Dutch government to receive it and also for a copy of the protest of sir Thomas Raffles against the proceedings of the Dutch authorities in the Malayan Archipelago, dated the 12th of August, 1818. In bringing forward this motion it was far from his intention now to call in question the principles On which the cession of the Dutch colonies to the government of the Netherlands had been made. Whatever doubts some might entertain of the propriety of that measure, at a time when the Dutch were receiving a great accession of territory in Europe—however much some of them might be disposed to condemn the policy of again restoring the Dutch colonies, that question must now be assumed to be completely precluded. The subject to which be had now to call their lordships attention, was not the principles on which the treaty had been concluded, but the manner of its execution, in which he considered the honour, the policy, and the interests of the country to have been involved. The circumstance which induced him to submit the present motion to their lordships had its origin in our occupation of the island of Java. It would be recollected, that in the year 1811, lord Minto, then governor-general of India, despatched an expedition to Java, which took possession of that settlement. Whatever degree of merit belonged to that eminent statesman, for the exertions he made to reduce Java, and place it under the British dominion, still greater merit must be ascribed to the same distinguished person, for establishing in that island a government capable of drawing forth all its resources, and converting the possession into a source of wealth and prosperity for this country. What importance was attached to this conquest, and what advantages were anticipated from it, would be seen by reference to the Speech from the throne in 1812, and by the votes of parliament. Their lordships were doubtless aware, that all the anticipations of advantages from this operation had been more than fulfilled by Java being raised, in a short space of time, to a greater degree of prosperity than any other colony in the Indian seas. To what was this prosperity to be ascribed? Unquestionably to the measures of lord Minto, and to the care and ability of sir Thomas Raffles, to whom his lordship intntsted the government of the colony. That gentleman established wise regulations by which industry and com-
[158
merce were protected, and full security given to the natives. As soon as the government was settled, it was discovered that there was a population in the interior, of a magnitude and importance either far greater than the Dutch knew of, or than their policy permitted to be known to others. It was found that the inhabitants of the interior amounted to between four and five millions. Some of the princes near the coast had submitted to the Dutch, but others were perfectly independent. With these princes the British government formed treaties of a beneficial nature to this country, while they were at the same time highly advantageous to the other parties. It was not necessary that he should enter into the details of these treaties, or describe the beneficial effects of all of them: it would be sufficient if, by way of illustration, he confined himself to one; the unfortunate result of which had been the principal motive for his bringing forward the present motion. Soon after the establishment of the British government in Java, it was discovered that great advantages might be derived from the occupation of the island of Banca, which was most favourably situated for carrying on commerce with China. The British governor did not attempt to take forcible possession of the island, but finding it under the dominion of the sultan of Palembang, proceeded to negotiate a treaty with that sovereign, by which the island was formally ceded to Great Britain. In return for this cession, the other dominions of the sultan were guaranteed to him. But their lordships would mark what soon ensued. In the course of a few years it was agreed to restore to the Dutch the colonies which had been taken from them in the Indian seas. It was stipulated, that they should have all the colonies which were in their possession in the year 1803. Now, this island of Banca had never been in their possession, and therefore was not included in the terms of the stipulation. A separate article was, however, agreed to, by which Banca was also Surrendered to the king of the Netherlands. This cession was made to the Dutch for a valuable consideration, namely, for Cochin; but while we thus obtained the advantage of the possession of Banca, no care was taken to secure the interests of the sultan of Palembang, who consequently claimed that production to which he Was entitled by the treaty. The British governor, who

159
had received orders merely far the surrender the colony, had no power to insist on any conditions in favour of the sultan, He was, therefore, under the necessity of confining himself to making a protest against the infringement of the rights secured to that sovereign by treaty; but this protest was no sooner made than the Dutch commissioners turned round On him, and asked, whether he had any instructions on the subject of that protest from Europe, As it appeared to them that he had; received no instructions from his government, they referred him to the letter of the-treaty concluded with the king of the Netherlands, and insisted on its strict execution. In this state of things sir Thomas Raffles found himself obliged to agree to the unconditional surrender of the island. The Dutch having thus obtained possession, soon proceeded to make encroachments on the rights of the sultan of Palembang, subverted his authority, and paid no respect whatever to the treaty by which the British government had guaranteed to him the full sovereignty of his dominions. Sir Thomas Raffles had again endeavoured to obtain justice for this unfortunate sovereign, by making another fruitless protest from Fort Marlborough, the seat of his present government, and that protest was one of the papers which he wished to be submitted to the consideration of their lordships.—Upon the consideration of all he had stated, he would now ask their lordships, whether this was not a case which affected the honour and character of the country? It surely would not be said, that the difference between the form of the governments of-the East and our own was a reason for not beeping, faith with them. If such an argument were set up, he would ask, upon what ground any treaties were negotiated there? When their lordships considered that this country was often obliged to enter-into treaties with nations in the East, to which the policy of Europe was very little, known, they would see the necessity of avoiding any conduct which was calculated to excite a suspicion of our good faith. Our Indian dominion extended over many millions of people, whom we could never hope to govern by force. In all engagements entered into with such people it was necessary to impress on their minds, that they could rely with full security on the execution of all stipulations made with the British government. The noble marquis concluded
[160
by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent for Copies of the Instructions and Protest mentioned in the opening of his Speech."
Earl Bathurstsaid, he should not object to the production of copies of the instructions which had been [transmitted, for the surrender, in the terms of the treaty, of the colonies which were in pos session of the Dutch in the year 1803; but if the noble marquis wished to obtain copies of the instructions which were sent out after communications on tile subject of the cession had taken place between the Dutch and English; com missioners, these were documents of a very different description, and he could not consent to their being made public. There were points connected with the transaction still under discussion between the two governments; and, in such a state of affairs, their lordships would readily perceive the propriety of his with holding any communication of the documents on which these discussions were founded. It seemed to be the opinion of the noble marquis, that it was the duty of his majesty's government, before they surrendered Java, to exact from the Dutch commissioners a pledge that they would abide by the treaty contracted with the sultan of Palembang while the island was in our possession; but no such pledge could be required, for, had any conditions been demanded before Java and Banca were given up, such a demand would have been a violation of the treaty concluded with the king of the Netherlands in which surrender was unconditionally stipulated. He did not mean to say that representations had not been made an the subject at the, time; but only that we had no right hold possession till an Arrangement should be made. Any agreements entered into with native authorities must have been concluded, either with princes who were subject to the former Dutch government, or those who were independent of it. If with the forever the superiority of, the, Dutch government was restored by the of terms of the treaty and in no arrangement made with the independent Prices, was it ever de dared, either by the British government or the directors of the. East India company, that Java would not be surrendered until the Dutch government agreed to recognize their claims. He majesty a government had agreed to cede the full so-

161
vereignty of Banca to the Dutch government, and, received in return the sovereignty of Cochin. If we had not possessed the full sovereignty of Banca, we could not have fulfilled this agreement. The Dutch would have retained Cochin, and then Banca would have remained in the situation in which it stood before Java was taken. At that time the Dutch had an establishment at Banca, which they would have replaced; so that, consistently with the letter of the treaty, both places would have been in their power. It was true, that on the surrender of Banca by the sultan of Palembang, we had acknowledged him an independent sovereign; but it was never understood that this country was therefore to protect him against the aggressions of every other power. He did not mean to justify the conduct of the Dutch government, but only to contend that there was nothing in the treaty which imposed upon this country the duty of protecting the sovereign of Palembang. He admitted, however, that the question was one which might fairly be a subject of amicable discussion between the governments of this country and the Netherlands. He trusted that this country would always strictly maintain her engagements; but it certainly would not be prudent to search out opportunities for an unnecessary and officious interference in the concerns of other governments. With regard to the protest, he could not agree to its production. Sir Thomas Raffles had been governor of Java. Charges were brought against him for his conduct in that situation; but, on an investigation, he was fully and honourably acquitted, and was afterwards appointed to his present situation. A few days before his departure he represented, that if he went out only as head of the residency in the neighbourhood of another of which fee had been governor, he would be placed in a disagreeable situation, as it might appear to many that the charges against him had been thought well founded. Upon this representation it was agreed that he should have the nominal appointment of lieutenant governor, but he was expressly instructed to consider himself in fact, as merely the commercial resident, and as having no political authority whatever. This being the case, he was surprised how any political character could be ascribed to the protest, and he would leave it to their lordships consideration, whether under such circumstances
[162
it would not be very improper to lay that document on the table. If the noble marquis would agree to confine his motion to the first instructions he should not oppose it.
Lord Hollandthought that the noble earl had completely failed in his answer to the statements of his noble relation. The noble earl had endeavoured to show, that in consequence of a deficiency in point of form, part of the information called for was not fit to be presented to their lordships; but he had said nothing to remove the impression produced by the speech of his noble relation, namely, that a transaction had taken place with respect to the surrender of Java, which deserved the serious inquiry of parliament. In moving for the instructions sent to the governor of Java, his noble friend had inferred nothing with respect to these instructions as to the subject of the treaty with the sultan of Palembang. His noble friend merely wished to ascertain whether the terms of the treaty were to be considered as absolute, or whether there had not been some understanding between the two governments on the subject of the surrender of Java, which might have served to modify those terms. Without some such understanding, there was a breach of faith with the native princes with whom treaties had been concluded. We who pretended to go about the world to teach moral lessons to mankind, were particularly called upon to give examples of good faith in the maintenance of treaties. The sultan of Palembang surrendered Banca for what he considered an equivalent, and of that compensation he was now to be deprived. The noble earl had said, that we made no promise to retain possession, of Java but did he mean to contend, that it was just to deliver over to another power a sovereign with whom we had recently made a treaty, without asking any security for the fulfilment of the engagements into which we had entered? This would be an assertion in direct contradiction with the law of nations, and, what was far more important, with the feelings and common sense of all mankind. It would have looked much better had the noble earl said, that those who made the treaty with the government of the Netherlands were ignorant of the agreement entered into with the sultan of Palembang. In that case there would be an acknowledgment of great carelessness; but the colour which the noble lord had endeavoured to

163
put on the transaction gave it a far deeper the. He had objected to the protest, that it was Unofficial: but if his noble friend obtained that document, his next step would be to move for the treaty concluded with the sultan of Palembang. But it was said, why move for all the instructions? The answer was, that though nothing appeared on the face of the treaty, these instructions might show what really we're the views of the two governments with respect to this affair. The noble earl founded an argument on the circumstance of the Dutch having had a settlement on the island of Banca; but the real state of the fact was, that we had obtained the full sovereignty of that Island, on a bargain with the sultan of Palembang, and had afterwards ceded that sovereignty to the Dutch, leaving the sovereign from whom we received it without any security for the Stipulation into which we had entered with him. He must consider the honour of the country very much sacrificed, if the government did not insist on the fulfilment of that stipulation by the Dutch. It might, perhaps, be thought by persons of authority in some other countries, that a great advantage was to be obtained by lowering the character and credit of Great Britain. It might suit their policy to say to nations in remote parts of the globe, "You see what you gain by entering into agreements with the English. Whatever stipulations they may make with you, they are certain to sacrifice you to their general system of policy, whenever they make peace with their neighbours in Europe." This was a consideration which, he thought, ought to induce their lordships to insist on the production of the information asked by his noble friend, in order that the whole matter might undergo a full investigation.
Earl Bathurstin explanation, said, that the question of our right to interfere in favour of the sultan of Palembang might be determined by the nature of the transaction between him and the government of Java, by which he acquired the sovereignty of which the Dutch threatened to dispossess him. If the treaty was a finished transaction, if the exchange of the sovereignty of Palembang against that of Banca was completely executed; then we had done all that on our part we were bound to do. After he acquired from us the sovereignty of Palembang by ceding Banca, our part of the engagement was fulfilled. He was then left to conduct
[164
himself as best suited his own interest and to take those measures most calculated for his protection. We did not stipulate to guarantee him against all aggression, and, whatever we might be disposed to do for him, were riot to protect him in the enjoyment of the acquisition he had made. By receiving Banca in full sovereignty from him, and transferring to him the full sovereignty of Palembang in return, we had done all that we were bound by treaty to perform: the convention was executed; the transaction was complete; and nothing that happened with a reference to the sultan, from those that succeeded us in the government of Java, imposed upon us the necessity of interfering in his behalf. The British government, however, had entered into negotiations with that of the Netherlands on the subject, and what rendered those transactions complicated, and appeared td countenance the Dutch colonial administration in the steps it had taken was, that the Dutch, before 1803, had a factory at Palembang, and by the treaty of Paris in 1814, the possessions within their dominion at the former epoch, and subsequently conquered by us, were to be restored. The question now under discussion between the two governments wag, had the right of the Dutch to this settlement been restored at the peace? He suggested, that the noble marquis, in order to have complete information, should amend his motion, by adding to it, "the treaty concluded between the lieutenant-governor of Java and the present sultan of Palembang, by Which the sovereignty of Banca was ceded to us in exchange for that of Palembang."
Lord Hollandcontended, that if we had received the sovereignty of Banca for that of Palembang, and if we still retained what was given as the equivalent, we were bound to support the sultan in the rights which he had acquired by the transfer.
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, that the treaty and the instructions in question might be granted, but the protest could not, and for this plain reason—that ft Was not an official document, it being made by a person who had no right to make it. In the discussion that might arise after the other papers were laid oh the table, in consequence of the present motion, the Subject might be considered in all its bearings, with as much information and latitude as if the protest was actually produced. He would not refer to the other

165
parts of the question, till the papers moved for were laid on the table. He must, however, animadvert on an omission in the noble lord's observations, in reply to his noble friend. The noble lord had argued as if the government of this country had done nothing; whereas, his noble friend had mentioned, that discussions on the subject were even now going forward between the two governments. The noble lord opposite had proceeded on the idea that we could have withheld the cession of Java and its dependencies till the king of the Netherlands agreed to receive these dominions, subject to the engagements into which, during our temporary possession, we had entered with the native princes. This point could not be maintained, when it was recollected, that the treaty of Paris was entirely unconditional. To have refused the restoration of these colonies, therefore, till the Dutch government entered into our compacts, or submitted to any proposed conditions, would have been on our part a breach of faith. He did not mean to enter now into the general question, but he could not help entering his protest against a doctrine advanced by the noble lords opposite, or implied in their observations, which went to militate against one of the clearest and most generally recognized laws of nations. The doctrine he alluded to was, that conquest gives sovereignty, and that by conquering the islands or colonies of our enemy, we were entitled to consider them as our own in perpetuity. Now he would, on the contrary, maintain, that the conquest of colonies gave us no right to consider them as appropriated; and that the sovereignty resided in the state from which they were conquered, till their final cession by treaty, after peace. All arrangements of such possessions, and all engagements entered into, as administrator of them, by the conquerors, could only be regarded as temporary and conditional, and might cease to be binding after their restoration, unless specially provided for by particular treaties. Nothing had happened in these eastern colonies, nor was any thing authorized by the government, to allow a conclusion to be drawn regarding them, different from what was forced upon us in other cases. They were conquered by us in the same manner as we had conquered other colonies, they were held by us as a conquest: it was contemplated that they might be restored at the peace, and, therefore, any engagements that we
[166
entered into as their temporary possessors, could only be considered as temporary, unless specially guaranteed by treaties independent of our temporary rights.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, he would withdraw so much of his motion as referred to the protest, not because he allowed the justice of the objection stated to its production, but because he did not see that it would be necessary to the discussion if the other papers were granted, and because the whole subject might thus be brought under the review of the house by other means of information. With regard to the terms of his motion regarding the instructions, they might be modified so as to include what the noble lords opposite were willing to produce. He did not move for the treaty of Paris as regarding this question, because it was already before the House. The noble earl opposite had stated, that the Dutch had a factory at Banca before 1803; but that establishment was not equivalent to the sovereignty of the island, or why was the cession of it made a particular article of the treaty, and not included in the general engagement to restore the Dutch colonies? The island was, therefore, not considered as belonging to the Dutch before 1814; it was not given them by us for nothing—we received in exchange for it a valuable consideration in perpetuity. If, then, the sovereignty of this island was transferred to us in perpetuity, and if for it we had received the permanent settlement of Cochin, how could it be contended that our engagement with the sultan was merely of a temporary nature? The noble earl who spoke last had said, that the treaty of Paris was absolute and unconditional; and was not that with the sultan of Palembang, by which we received a valuable colony, absolute too? The sultan had relied on the permanency of his acquisition as much as we did on ours; and were the advantage and security to be all on one side? The rule of the unconditional surrender of conquests could not apply to Banca, because Banca had not been conquered from the Dutch. The noble marquis concluded by reading his motion, which included copies of the two warrants, by which Java and its dependencies, and the island of Banca, were surrendered to the Dutch in 1814, and a copy of the treaty concluded between the government of Java, when under the British dominion, and the sultan of Palembang, regarding the cession of Banca.
The motion was agreed to.