HH Sultan Abdullah – British Parliament Hansard on Seychelle matters

HC Deb 10 March 1892 vol 2 cc512-3

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether Ex-Sultan Abdullah of Perak has yet been transferred from the Seychelles to Singapore; and what has been the cause of the delay?

Abdullah and the other Malay exiles delayed their departure from the Seychelles to Singapore of their own accord, in order, as it is understood, to realise their property and arrange their private affairs; but they can set out, if they have not already done, so, whenever they please.

HC Deb 05 May 1890 vol 344 c146

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the highly doubtful character of the evidence on the strength of which the ex-Sultan Abdullah of Perak was sentenced in 1876, and to the length to which his term of deportation to the Seychelles Islands has extended, the Colonial Office will consider the desirability of allowing him to return to the Malay Peninsula?

As I stated in answer to a similar question by the hon. Member last July, the Executive Council of the Straits Settlements were fully satisfied of the guilt of the ex-Sultan Abdullah of Perak in 1876, and nothing has since occurred to throw any doubt on the justice of the decision then taken that he should be removed to the Seychelles. Her Majesty’s Government cannot sanction his return to the Malay Peninsula, and Abdullah declined an offer made last year that he should be allowed to reside in Sarawak, among-people of his own race, language, and religion.

Note: Hansard is the traditional name for the printed transcripts of parliamentary debates in the Westminster system of government.


4 thoughts on “HH Sultan Abdullah – British Parliament Hansard on Seychelle matters

  1. Dear editors,

    This is most enlightening. I wonder on what grounds/evidence did Mr Francis Stevenson use to make such a bold claim about the HIGHLY doubtful nature of the evidence against Almarhum Sultan Abdullah.

    Perhaps this merits further investigation?

    • nde Yam

      It is noted that prior to Sultan Abdullah’s ‘release’ from exile, there were many people in the Seychelles who were sympathetic to Almarhum. A petition was signed by many, most of whom were planters, traders and merchants from Britain (who in turn may well have connections to members of Parliament, which may explain why the Rt Hon MP from Eye was convinced of any ‘doubt in the evidence’ that led to Almarhum’s exile) – and this was sent to England as part of Almarhum’s plea to Queen Victoria (about the time of her Golden Jubilee) so as he could return home to his homeland.

      I had viewed a transcript of sorts, of the court proceedings before Almarhum was sent to exile.

      I will in due course peruse them but as I have no expertise in detecting any legal irregularities (if indeed there were any), I cannot guarantee I will be able to answer your question!


  2. Ku Yam,

    More details on Sultan Abdullah will be published soon e.g. extracts of correspondence with reference to the case of Sultan Abdullah, a copy of W.F. Drummond Jervois’ letter to Sultan Abdullah on Datok Sagor & his men, & copies of letter from the people of Mauritius for Sultan Abdullah to be pardoned.


  3. Dear kind editors,

    Thank you ever so much. Appreciate your efforts and I know how tedious and time consuming it could be to read lengthy legal documents.

    May Allah bless you.

    ~ KuYam

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s