O LEVEL 2018 PURE HISTORY PAPER 1

1 (a)
Study Sources A and B. How similar are these two sources? Explain your answer. [5]
(b)
Study Source C How reliable is this source as evidence about Sir Andrew Clarke? Explain your answer. [6]
(c)
Study Source D. How surprised are you by this source? Explain your answer. [5]
(d)
Study Sources E and F. How far does Source E prove the judgments in Source F to be accurate? Explain your answer. [6]
(e)
Study all the sources. ‘The British intervened in Perak to help the local people.’ How far do these sources support this view? Use the sources
and your knowledge to explain your answer. [8]
Why did the British intervene in the Malay States (Read Essay 1 for CK)
On 20 January 1874 Sir Andrew Clarke, Governor of the Straits Settlements, signed the Pangkor Treaty (sometimes known as the Pangkor
Engagement) with the Malay chiefs of Perak. This treaty committed Britain to a policy of active involvement in the affairs of Perak (a policy subsequently
extended to other Malay states), including the appointment of a British Resident as an advisor to the Sultan. Before this treaty Britain had followed a
policy of non-intervention. A separate agreement was also signed at Pangkor between the British and the Chinese secret societies on the same day.
Why did the British decide to intervene in the Malay States?
Source A: An extract from the Pangkor Treaty, signed 20 January 1874.
Large numbers of Chinese are employed and large sums of money are invested in tin mining in Perak by British subjects and others residing in Her
Majesty’s Possessions, and the mines and property are not adequately protected. Piracy, murder and arson are common, whereby British trade and
interests greatly suffer, and the peace and good order of the neighbouring British Settlements are sometimes threatened.

Certain Chiefs of the Kingdom of Perak have stated their inability to cope with the present difficulties, and together with those interested in the
industry of the country have requested assistance.

Her Majesty’s Government is bound by this Treaty to protect the Kingdom and to assist its rulers.
Source B: From an agreement made at Pangkor between the British and the headmen of the Chinese secret societies, 20 January 1874.
The disputes that have existed among the Chinese employed as miners at Larut in the Kingdom of Perak have been referred to the decision of His
Excellency the Governor of the Straits Settlements, who has examined the matter and has decided as follows:

That both sides in the disputes shall be disarmed and the stockades destroyed.

That both shall be at liberty to return to their work at Larut.

That one or more Officers of the Government of the Straits Settlements, together with two Chinese to be chosen for that purpose by the two societies,
shall be employed as Commissioners to settle all claims as to the mines occupied and business conducted.

That all future arrangements as to the supply of water for the mines shall be subject to the regulations of the British Resident.
Source C: An extract from an article in the ‘Straits Times Overland Journal’, 25 July 1874.
This journal is glad to learn that the excellent arrangements agreed to at Pangkor on 20 January for the pacification of the country, the development of
its resources, the advancement of trade and the general security of life and property, are well on the way to being fully carried out. Perhaps the most
serious weakness of Sir Harry Ord’s government was his indifference to the disturbances that were chronic in the Malay states, and it says much for
the political wisdom of Sir Andrew Clarke that, on his arrival here as Governor, he at once saw that his first duty was to put an end to these
disturbances. Sir Andrew could not have started his administration in a manner more honourable to himself, more advantages to the native states, or
more satisfactory to the community.
Source D: From an article in the ‘Straits Observer’, November 1874, ten months after the Pangkor Treaty.
We have a moral duty to put a stop to so great a destruction of human life in the Malay states, hindering the progress of civilisation, and holding back
the honest effort of peaceful industry to bring forth the wealth of the peninsula. The Government of the Straits Settlements is responsible for carrying
out this duty, and it is pitiable to see a great opportunity so wasted by the timidity of those who apparently are unable to grasp the results of their
policy. It is undignified for a high official of the British Government (which the Governor of the Straits Settlement is) to be running backwards and
forwards between one petty Malay chieftain and another, begging them to be peaceful, neglecting our own interests, to patch up hollow treaties and
agreements with sham sultans and puppet princes; when by boldly seizing power over those states a permanent peace would ensue.
Source E: From an article in the ‘Straits Times’, May 1876.
We British have been forced without our consent into the position which we now occupy with regard to these semi-barbarian states. We did not seek
it. It is due to no greed on the part of our merchants that Perak, Larut and Selangor are now under British officers. It was simply that our own peaceful
trade had been disrupted by the most barefaced murders and destruction, with the approval of the rulers of the land. These rulers seemed to believe
that they were free to carry out such cruelties and tyrannies as the native customs of the land allow. It was left to Sir Andrew Clarke to secure some
legal control and a full protection of trade. Maybe he was too keen to make these arrangements, but there can be no doubt that he carried out a most
important reform by the Pangkor Treaty.