Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T21:52:37.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Notes on the North Borneo Dispute

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Leigh R. Wright
Get access

Extract

The Philippine claim to the territory of North Borneo, or as it is now called, Sabah, is not of recent origin. Rather it is based on an older claim to the area by the Sultans of Sulu. But the Sulu claim itself is suspect. A look at the background and an analysis of the status of North Borneo is therefore essential to understanding the nature of the dispute.

In January 1878 Sultan Mohammed Jamalul Alam, granted a portion of North Borneo, which he claimed, to an international syndicate headed by Alfred Dent, a London businessman, and the Austrian Baron Gustav von Overbeck. A few weeks before this grant was made, in December 1877, the Sultan of Brunei had ceded North Borneo, including the whole of the area claimed by Sulu, to von Overbeck and Dent.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , May 1966 , pp. 471 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © The Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The most recent study of the origin of the State of North Borneo is in Wright, L. R., “British Policy in the South China Sea Area with Special Reference to Sarawak, Brunei and Nordi Borneo, 1860–1888,” unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1963.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., passim. Dent with other old China hands was instrumental in organizing the China Association which had an interesting role in Anglo-Chinese relations after 1889. See Pelcovits, N. A., Old China Hands and the Foreign Office, New York, 1948.Google Scholar

3 Pryer, W. B., “Notes” on Ada Pryer's manuscript of Ten years In Borneo, London, 1894Google Scholar, in the British Nordi Borneo Company Papers (hereafter BNBCoP).

4 The best record of early Brunei is in Low, H., “Selesilah” (Book of the Descent), in Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (hereafter JRASSB), June 1880Google Scholar; and Hughes-Hallett, H. R., “Sketch of the History of Brunei” in Journal of the Malay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (hereafter JRASMB), August 1940.Google Scholar Low's information is from family records of the Brunei rajas which he translated. Together these two sketches furnish most of what is known about Brunei before the 19th century.

5 Hughes-Hallett, p. 24.

6 Low, “Selesilah,” p. 8.

7 Lord Stanley of Alderley (ed.) The First Voyage Round the World by Magelleon, The Hakluyt Society, London, 1874, pp. 110–8.Google Scholar

8 Moreland, W. H. (ed.) Peter Floris: His Voyage to the East Indies in the Globe 1611 to 1615. The Hakluyt Society, London 1934, p. 73.Google Scholar

9 Saleeby, N., History of Sulu, Manila 1908Google Scholar, is perhaps the most complete history of Sulu.

10 Batara is a sanskrit title for a great ruler. This may have been the Sultan of Sulu but more than likely one of his rajas.

11 Low, “Selesilah,” p. 26.

12 Low, “Selesilah,” p. 15.

13 Hughes-Hallett, “Sketch of the History of Brunei,” p. 33; but see Low, “Selesilah,” p. 15n.

14 See Treacher, W. H., “British Borneo” in JRASSB, No. 20, 1889, p. 19.Google Scholar

15 Dalrymple, Alexander, A Full and Clear Proof that the Spaniards Can Have No Claim to Balambangan, London 1774, p. 31.Google Scholar Dalrymple puts the date of die Brunei “grant” to Sulu at 1704.

16 Harlow, V., The Founding of the Second British Empire, London 1952, pp. 70–97Google Scholar, gives a clear account of the East India Company's Borneo venture.

17 The treaty of 20 November 1761, copy in British Parliamentary Papers (hereafter P.P.), 1882, LXXXI, pp. 530–1.Google Scholar See also India Board to Granville, 11 February 1852, British Foreign Office (FO) Sulu series 71, Vol. I (hereafter as FO 71/1). Dalrymple, p. 32, gives the date of die treaty as January 1761. It is probable that the agreement was negotiated in January and die documents drawn up and signed in November.

18 Saleeby, , History of Sulu, pp. 72–9.Google Scholar

19 Ibid., grant of 2 July 1764; treaties of 23 February 1763 and 28 September 1764. See also India Board to Granville, 11 February 1852, FO 71/1.

20 Capain Trotter to Court of Directors, 24 December 1769, FO 71/1. The Sultan confirmed the cession “from Kimanis on the west side, in a direct line to Towson Abai on the east side thereof with all the lands, places and people within those limits and also all the islands to the northward of the said island of Borneo as Balambangan, Palawan.…”

21 Dalrymple, pp. 29 and 33. See also Costa, H. de la, S.J., , “Muhammad Alimuddin I, Sultan of Sulu”, Paper before the International Conference on Asian History, University of Hong Kong, September 1964.Google Scholar

22 Law Officers to FO, 3 February 1879, FO 71/15. The Law Officers were the government's legal advisers.

23 There were treaties between Sulu and Spain in 1646, 1726, 1737, 1805, 1836, 1851 and 1878. The treaties of 1737, 1836 and 1851 were treaties of “capitulation” which Spain interpreted as acknowledging Spanish sovereignty. See N. 66, and Saleeby, History of Sulu, passim.

24 See British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. XXIV, London, 1923, pp. 807–11Google Scholar; and Saleeby, , History of Sulu, pp. 196–9.Google Scholar

25 Miller, H. (ed.), Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America, Washington 1937, Vol. IV, p. 353.Google Scholar

26 Brooke to Palmerston, 24 January 1851 in British Foreign Office, Borneo Series 12, Vol. 9 (hereafter as FO 12/9); Farren to Palmerston, 4 May 1851, FO 71/1. See also Barrows, D. P., History of the Philippines, Chicago, 1924, pp. 243–4.Google Scholar

27 Farren to Palmerston, 4 May 1851, FO 71/1; and Salecby, pp. 89–112.

28 St. John to Palmerston, 14 October 1851, FO 71/1.

29 Private letter of Lord Howden to Lord Malmesbury, summer of 1852; and memo, thereon by Malmesbury, 26 August 1852, FO 71/1.

30 See Wright, “British Policy” Ch. V, passim.

31 Copy of the protocol is in Hertslet, E., British Commercial Treaties, Vol. XIV, London, 1908, pp. 513–6.Google Scholar

32 Tregonning, K. G., “American Activity in North Borneo 1865–1881”, in Pacific Historical Review, Nov. 1954CrossRefGoogle Scholar, gives an account of this enterprise. Torrey later became U. S. Consul in Bangkok.

33 Agreement of 11 July 1874 between von Overbeck, Montgelas and Mitford; and agreement of 19 January 1875 between von Overbeck and Torrey, in BNBCoP. The latter agreement was only an option to buy Torrey's title.

34 The grant of the Sultan of Brunei, 29 December 1877, is in BNBCoP. See also Irwin, G., 19th Century Borneo, Singapore 1965, p. 200.Google Scholar For a discussion of Dent's role see Wright, “British Policy,” Ch. V, passim.

35 See Hughes-Hallett, “Sketch of the History of Brunei,” p. 39.

36 W. B. Pryer, op. cit. Later in the century the Spaniards installed the same Dato as a puppet Sultan of Sulu.

37 W. H. Treacher was acting Consul and acting Governor of the Colony of Labuan. His part and the support which the Dent-von Overbeck project received from the British Foreign Office under the influence of Julian Pauncefote, Assistant Permanent Undersecretary, is fully discussed in Wright, op. cit.

38 See W. B. Pryer, op. cit., and Treacher, op. cit.

39 The grant, dated, 22 Jan. 1878, is in BNBCoP.

40 Treacher to Derby, 22 Jan. 1878, FO 12/53.

41 Treacher to FO, 20 April 1878, enclosing a copy of the treaty; and Walsham (in Madrid) to FO, 12 March 1878, FO 71/13.

42 See e.g. West (Madrid) to Salisbury, 23 September, 1878 in British FO Confidential Print NO. 4033, “Sulu.” The Sultan “hard pressed” decided to give in to Spanish “pecuniary terms.” Gov. Robinson of Singapore (telegram) to Colonial Office (hereafter CO), 22 Feb. 1878, FO 71/13.

43 Treacher to FO, 20 April and 31 May 1878, FO 71/13.

44 Correspondence between Odo Russell (in Berlin) and FO, Walsham (in Madrid) and FO and between FO and CO, FO 71/13, passim.

45 Sultan to von Overbeck, 22 July 1878, BNBCoP. Copy also in FO 71/14, and noted in Ortiz, P. A., S.J., , “Legal Aspects of the North Borneo Question” in Philippine Studies, Jan. 1963, pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

46 Treacher to FO, 24 August 1878, FO 71/14.

47 Sultan to von Overbeck, July 1878, in BNBCoP; and Treacher to CO, 25 April 1879, FO 71/15. The Sultan reported that the letter of 22 July was written by the Spanish interpreter and he had signed under protest.

48 Correspondence between 22 July and 19 August 1878, BNBCoP. See Ortiz, p. 25.

49 Treacher to FO, 24 Sept. 1878; Mackenzie (in Manila) to FO, 24 Oct. 1878, FO 71/14; W. B. Pryer's Diary, entry for 3 Sept. 1878; and von Overbeck to Pryer, 8 Nov. 1878, BNBCoP.

50 Treacher to FO, 24 Sept. 1878, FO. 71/14.

51 Pryer's Diary; Ada Pryer, op. cit.; see also Cowie, W. C., “North Borneo and How It Became British” in London and China Express, 27 Nov. 1908.Google Scholar

52 Layard to Derby, 3 Jan. 1877, FO 71/10.

53 West to FO, 9 Oct. 1878, FO 71/14.

54 Wodehouse minute on a Spanish Note, 27 July, 1860, FO 71/1.

55 Memo, by F. S. Reilly, 20 Feb. 1879, FO 71/15.

56 Memo, by Julian Pauncefote, 24 Feb. 1879, FO 71/15.

57 Granville to Spanish Minister, 7 Dec. 1881, FO 12/58; FO to Morier, 25 Jan. 1882, FO 71/16; and and Morier to FO, 7 March 1885, FO 71/17.

58 Copy in P.P., 1884–5, Vol. LXXXVII, pp. 606–9.

59 See Protectorate Agreement of 1888, in P.P., 1888, Vol. LXXIII, pp. 179–82.

60 Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the U.S., 1930, Washington 1945, Vol. III, pp. 147–55.Google Scholar The grant in 1903 of the Turtle Islands and their subsequent return to the Philippines have no bearing upon the Philippines claim. They had been administered by the North Borneo Company but subsequendy found to lie on the Philippine side of the demarcation line of 1930.

61 Philippine Claim to North Borneo, Bureau of Printing, Manila 1964, Vol. 1, p. 13.Google Scholar

62 Vidal, J. Montero y, Historia de la pirateria malaya-mahometania en Mindanao, Jolo, y Borneo, Madrid, 1888Google Scholar; de la Concepcion, Historia general de Philippinas, v. XII, Manila 1788–1792Google Scholar; Ortiz, op. cit.; and H. de la Costa, op. cit., and Cesar Adib Majul, “Political and Historical Notes on the Old Sulu Sultanate,” paper before the International Conference on Asian History, University of Hong Kong, September 1964.

63 Dalrymple, op. cit.; Keppel, Henry, Voyage to the Indies Archipelago in 1850 in H.M.S. Maeander, London, 1853Google Scholar; and Forrest, T., A Voyage to New Guinea and the Moluccas from Balambangan including an account of Magindanao, Sooloo and the other Islands, London, 1779.Google Scholar

64 Low to Foreign Office, 6 July 1875, FO 12/41; see a'so N.14.

65 Sarawak. Gazette (Kuching), 24 April 1878.

66 For a discussion of Sulu tarsilas see Majul, op. cit. The Spanish-Sulu treaties are only slightly more reliable. They refer to the relationship between Sulu and North Borneo variously as dependency (Treaties of 1851 and 1878) and as tributary (Treaty of 1836).

67 See Tregonning, K. G., “The Elimination of Slavery from North Borneo” in JRASMB, Vol. XXVI, pp. 24–36 (1953).Google Scholar The article notes that as late as 1878 some 600 people were captured as slaves by pirates in the neighborhood of North Borneo.

68 Keppel, p. 45. On piracy see Mills, L. A., British Malaya 1824–1867 (Singapore 1925)Google Scholar, chs. XII and XIII.

69 Treacher, op. cit. pp. 48–55, June 1890.

70 pryer's Diary, op. cit.; Harrisson, Tom (ed.) “The Diary of Mr. W. Pretyman” in Sarawak Museum Journal, No. 8, Dec. 1956Google Scholar, passim, and No. 11, June 1958, p. 322; and John, St., Life of Sir James Brooke, Rajah of Sarawak, Edinburgh 1879, pp. 47–8Google Scholar and 56–7.

71 Tregonning, K. G., “William Pryer the Founder of Sandakan” in JRASMB, Vol. XXVII, p. 43 (1954)Google Scholar; and Pryer's Diary.

72 Commander Schufeldt (U.S.N.) to the Sultan of Brunei, 1 March 1880; and Sultan of Brunei to President of the U. S., 8 March 1880, FO 12/55; Pauncefote memo., 28 April 1883, FO 12/60.

73 For a recent treatment of the incidents surrounding these negotiations see H. de la Costa, op. cit.

74 Capt. Trotter to Court of Directors, 30 Nov. 1769 in Home Miscellaneous Series, Vol. 102, pp. 337–8, East India Company papers, India Office Library, London, as noted in Harlow, V. T., op. cit. p. 90Google Scholar, and H. de la Costa, and Keppel, p. 67.

75 FO memo., 28 Sept. 1878, FO 12/53; and Wyndham to FO, 27 August 1880, FO 71/15.

76 Salisbury to West, 20 May 1879, FO 71/15.

77 See also Ortiz, p. 25.

78 Treacher to FO, 22 Jan. 1878, FO 12/53; and Treacher to FO, 10 Nov. 1879, FO 71/15.

79 Philippine Claim, p. 23; and Maxwell, W. G. and Gibson, W. S., Treaties and Engagements Affecting the Malay States and Borneo, London, 1924, p. 157.Google Scholar

80 See Hertslet, E., China Treaties, Vol. 1, London 1908Google Scholar; and Maxwell, and Gibson, , op. cit., p. 143.Google Scholar

81 Philippine Claim, p. 63; and in BNBCoP. The terms of the Brunei and Sulu grants are substantially the same.

82 This point was furdier implemented in the British North Borneo Company Charter when Britain retained the right to dissent from, and negate any act of the company in its handling of foreign relations.

83 E.g. Orosa, Sixto y, The Sulu Archipelago and Its People, Yonkers 1931, p. 32Google Scholar says, “In 1878 Sultan Jamalul Alum ceded the remaining Sulu possessions in Borneo to the Sabah North Borneo Company …”; Harlow, p. 90; and Keppel, p. 67.

84 British Note to Philippines of 25 May 1962, noted in Philippine Claim, p. 150.

85 “A Proclamation” by the Sultan of Sulu, 25 Nov. 1957 in Philippine Claim, p. 147; and “Instrument of Cession … of Norm Borneo” by Sultan of Sulu, 12 Sept. 1962, Document 84, Philippine Government, Manila. In 1915 the Sultan renounced “his pretensions of sovereignty” which in fact he had not possessed after 1878, in a “Memorandum Agreement” with the U. S. Governor-General of the Philippines (the “Carpenter Agreement of March 1915), Philippine Claim, pp. 126–128. A pronouncement by C. F. C. Macaskie of the High Court of the State of Norm Borneo in 1939 recognized tiiat the Philippine Government was “successor in sovereignty” of the Sultan and of Spain over the Sultanate of Sulu and does not imply that Norm Borneo was a part of the Sultanate (see Ortiz, p. 37 and Macaskie, C. F. C., “The Philippine Claim to Borneo” in North Borneo News and Sabah Times, 7 Sept. 1962Google Scholar).

86 Pauncefote memo, to Granville, 8 July 1880, FO 12/55; Pauncefote Minute on CO to FO, 2 June 1881, and Law Officers to FO, 14 July, 1881, FO 12/56; Hansard (British Parliamentary Debates), 3rd series, Vol. CCLXVII, c. 1148 ff., 17 March 1882; and Vol. CCXCV, c. 448–9, 9 March 1885.

87 See the Protectorate Agreement of 1888.