No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Acheh Treaty of 18191
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2009
Extract
The strategic location of Acheh at the northern entrance of the Straits of Malacca coupled with the Sultanate's control of the pepper districts of north Sumatra were vital factors affecting British policy towards Acheh in the late 18th and early 19th century. During this period, Britain was involved in a series of wars with France in Europe, and these wars came to affect Anglo-French relations in the Indian Ocean. British possessions in India, especially those situated in the Bay of Bengal, were vulnerable to French naval attacks during the period of the north-east monsoons. The danger of French attack was first felt during the Seven Years War (1756–1763) and after peace was signed in 1763 the Directors of the Company recommended the search for a base to the east of the Bay of Bengal. The result of this protracted search was the foundation of Penang in 1786. But settlement at Penang did not entirely remove the fears of the British vis a vis the French naval threat to their Indian possessions. There were, in Southeast Asia, other stations which the French could use “with complete impunity” to launch an attack on the Company's settlements in the Bay of Bengal. Acheh was one base which seemed to fit into French strategy. During the War of American Independence, de Suffren, the brilliant French naval commander, had utilised Acheh as a refit and supply station, after having launched an attack on British territories in India. In 1796, another French commander, Sercey also refitted his fleet at Acheh. The outbreak of Napoleonic Wars in Europe, and the fear of renewed French actions in the Bay induced the Directors to sanction the building of a naval base in Penang in 1805. In their instructions to the newly created Penang Presidency, the Directors drew its attention to the existence of “an inviting port opened to him [European enemy] in Acheen” which the French could use. In an attempt to counter any French designs, the Directors were prepared to sanction a policy of extending political control over Acheh. This course of action, however, was rendered unnecessary, as the French defeat at Trafalgar in 1805 released British warships for service in the Indian Ocean. The danger from the French, however, continued to exist owing to the presence of French privateers but they ceased to operate after the termination of the Napoleonic Wars in 1814. The establishment of peace in Europe saw the restoration of the Dutch possessions in the Archipelago by the British. Soon fears were aroused of the probable Dutch domination of the main routes of the Archipelago, especially the Straits of Malacca. Consequently, the securing of free passage through the Straits of Malacca assumed great significance in the formulation of British policy in Southeast Asia in general and in Acheh in particular.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The National University of Singapore 1961
Footnotes
1
British intervention in Acheh politics (1818–19) has received extensive treatment from a number of writers, viz. J. Anderson, Acheen (London, 1840), C. A. Gibson-Hill, ‘Raffles, Acheh and the Order of the Golden Sword’, J.M.B.R.A.S., 29 (1), 1956, pp. 1–19 and C. E. Wurtzburg, Raffles of the Eastern Isles, (London, 1954) Anderson's account, although biased, is detailed and the author has made extensive use of official records. Gibson-Hill's paper seeks to locate the date when the Order of the Golden Sword was conferred on Raffles, while Wurtzburg is primarily concerned in outlining the role of Raffles in the signature of the Acheh Treaty. This paper, however, has utilised the Straits Settlement Records more fully in the hope of clarifying the attitude of the Penang officials towards this important issue.
References
2. Cowan, C. D., ‘Early Penang and the Rise of Singapore 1805–1832’, J.M.B.R.A.S., 23(2), 1950, p. 3.Google Scholar
3. Wurtzburg, , Raffles of the Eastern Isles, p. 24.Google Scholar
4. Hall, D. G. E., A History of South-East Asia, (London, 1955) pp. 428–29.Google Scholar
5. Notices of Penang, , Journal of Indian Archipelago, 6. 1852, p. 20.Google Scholar
6. Cowan, C. D., Early Penang, p. 4.Google Scholar
7. In 1809 a French agent Col. de la Houssaye was captured with letters for the Sultan of Acheh. This increased apprehensions in Penang of French designs in Acheh. See Baker, A. C., ‘Some account of the Anglo-Dutch relations in the East at the beginning of the 19th century, J.S.B.R.A.S. 65, 1913, pp. 2–4.Google Scholar
8. For a statement of Penang's import and export trade with Acheh (1810–1824) see Anderson, , Acheen pp. 222–27.Google Scholar
9. Anderson, , Acheen, p. 30 fn.Google Scholar
10. Anderson, , Acheen, p. 31 fn.Google Scholar
11. Traditionally, the Sultan, was primus inter pares as regards the Uleebalangs, but by end of the 17th century his power was severely curtailed by the three leading panglimas of Acheh. Panglima Polim, chief of the 22 Mukims was considered the most powerful and during the period under consideration dominated the other two Sagis. See Hurgronje, G. Snouck, The Achehnnese (Leiden, 1906), Vol. I, pp. 132–33.Google Scholar
12. Anderson, , Acheen, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar
13. Notices of Penang, , Journal of Indian Archipelago, 6, 1852, p. 20.Google Scholar
14. Penang, to London, 18 02 1807, S.S.R. B. 2.Google Scholar
15. Anderson, , Acheen, p. 38.Google Scholar
16. Anderson, , Acheen, pp. 40–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Syed Hussein was a wealthy and influential merchant of Penang. For biographical details see, Gibson-Hill, C. A., Raffles, Acheh, pp. 11–12.Google Scholar
18. Bengal to Penang, , 10 09, 1813, S.S.R., R. 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Anderson, , Acheen, p. 34.Google Scholar
20. Penang, to Sultan of Acheh, 2 08 1809, S.S.R., A. 6.Google Scholar
21. Fenwick's clash with the Penang officials started as early as 1795 when he was employed by Syed Hussein. In June, 1795 the Penang authorities had charged him of “secreting” men from other ships and pressure was put upon Syed Hussein to dismiss him. About 1810, having caused further irritations to the Penang officials, Fenwick went over to Acheh.
22. Penang, to London, 21 01 1815, S.S.R., B. 4.Google Scholar
23. Minute by Governor, 16 Oct. 1817, S.S.R., A. 12.
24. Penang, to Bengal, 21 08 1815, S.S.R., D. 5.Google Scholar
25. It is interesting to note that the Syed had 30–40 cannons aboard his fleet, together with quantities of arms, powder, and other military stores. See Anderson, , Acheen, p. 57.Google Scholar
26. Penang, to London, 13 12 1815, S.S.R. B. 4.Google Scholar
27. Penang, to Bengal, 28 02 1816 Google Scholar, S.S.R., D. 5.
28. Gibson-Hill, , Raffles, Acheh, p. 14.Google Scholar
29. Penang to London, 12 Dec. 1816, S.S.R., B. 4. Penang Consultations, 14 Nov. 1816, S.S.R., A. 11.
30. Minutes by Philips, , Erskine, and Macalister, , 16 10 1817 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, S.S.R., A. 12.
31. Gibson-Hill, , Raffles, Acheh, p. 15.Google Scholar
32. Minute of Bannerman, , 18 12 1817 Google Scholar, S.S.R., A. 12.
33. Coombs had come to a provisional agreement with Saif-al Alam on the terms of a proposed treaty which was to be signed between the British and the Sultan of Acheh. This appears to be yet another attempt by Coombs at bolstering the claims of the pretender, although it failed to receive subsequent recognition. See Anderson, , Acheen, pp. 126–7.Google Scholar
34. Anderson, , Acheen, pp. 108–28.Google Scholar
35. Raffles, S., Memoir of the Life and Public Service of Sir Stamford Raffles (London, 1830) pp. 56–7.Google Scholar
36. Gibson-Hill, , Acheh, Raffles, p. 9.Google Scholar
37. Anderson, , Acheen, p. 131.Google Scholar
38. Hastings, Lord to Bannerman, , 31 10, 1818 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Dutch Records ‘A’. Vol. 28.Google Scholar
39. Instructions to Raffles and Coombs, 31 Oct. 1818. Dutch Records ‘A’, vol. 28.Google Scholar
40. Penang, to London, 8 03, 1819, S.S.R., B. 5.Google Scholar
41. Bannerman, however, was at liberty to delay or hasten the proceedings. The Supreme government had permitted the Penang authorities to finalise the plans of the Acheh mission. Hence, there was no irregularity in the actions of the Penang officials, although there was little justification for the employment of delaying tactics.
42. For this action. Raffles was subsequently censured by the Bengal government.
43. In this ‘war’ the Commissioners consumed “a thousand pages of the Company's largest sized paper” before deciding to recognise the claims of Jauhar. See, Raffles, S., Memoirs, p. 397.Google Scholar
44. For text of the Treaty see Anderson, , Acheen, pp. 218–21.Google Scholar
45. Kemp, P. H. Vander, Raffles' Atjeh Overeenkomst van 1819, (The Hague, 1900), p. 168 fn.Google Scholar
46. Ibid., p. 176 fn.
47. Cowan, , Early Penang, pp. 98–100.Google Scholar
48. Mr. Sartorious was sent with a copy of the ratified Treaty to be presented to the Sultan. See Cowan, , Early Penang pp. 110–11.Google Scholar
49. Penang, to Bengal, 4 09 1822, S.S.R., D. 7.Google Scholar
50. Kemp, , Raffles' Atjeh, pp. 229.Google Scholar
51. Penang, to Bengal, 25 02 1824 Google Scholar, S.S.R., D. 7.
52. Notes by Dutch and British Plenipotentiaries, 17 March 1824. F.O. 97/249.
53. Kemp, , Raffles' Atjeh, p. 231.Google Scholar
54. Cowan, , Early Penang, pp. 158–59.Google Scholar