Article

Riots

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Riots

Scope and Historical Definition

The term “riots” in the Straits Settlements context of the mid-nineteenth century encompasses a range of communal disturbances that, while sometimes modest in their immediate violence, carried disproportionate political consequences. Constance M. Turnbull’s 1958 study of the 1857 disturbances in Singapore and Penang demonstrates that these events were not isolated outbursts of disorder but were embedded within longer-standing tensions over the administration of Asian communities, the powers of the executive, and the relationship between the Straits Settlements and the Government of India [1, pp. 94–95]. Turnbull argues that the communal disturbances of 1857 proved a more vital catalyst for the eventual transfer of the Settlements from Indian to British Colonial Office control in 1867 than the longer-standing grievances over trade policy and judicial reform [1, p. 94]. The disturbances followed earlier outbreaks in 1846 and 1854, establishing a pattern of recurring communal tension that the Singapore Grand Jury explicitly referenced in its January 1857 Presentment [1, p. 99].

The 1857 Disturbances: Singapore and Penang

The year 1857 opened with a general shop-closure by the Chinese community in Singapore on 1 January, triggered by the enforcement of the Police Act (Act XIII) and Conservancy Act (Act XIV) of 1856, which had been passed by the Legislative Council of India but came into force in the Straits only on that date [1, pp. 94–95]. The immediate cause was a failure of communication: the Government had no means of issuing accurate translations of the Acts into Chinese, and Governor Blundell himself acknowledged that translating “the technicalities of an English legal enactment” into Chinese was “utterly hopeless” [1, p. 96]. Rumours magnified the fines and powers attributed to the police, and the Chinese responded by refusing to open their shops [1, pp. 95–96]. Governor Blundell resolved the crisis through a meeting with leading Chinese merchants on 5 January, after which business resumed [1, p. 97].

A second and more serious clash occurred on 5 February 1857, when a police patrol under Inspector Pennefather attempted to remove a barrier of stakes erected by Indian Muslims celebrating a religious festival at the main mosque in Singapore. The confrontation escalated when Pennefather sent for armed reinforcements; the police fired on the crowd, killing one man, mortally wounding a second, and injuring eleven others [1, pp. 101–102]. The Coroner’s Jury returned a verdict of justifiable homicide, but the Governor, relying on the assessment of Law Agent Christian Baumgarten, dismissed Pennefather and two subordinates [1, pp. 102–104]. The dismissal provoked a public meeting of over eighty European residents, who passed resolutions demanding reinstatement and condemning the union of the offices of Commissioner of Police, Resident Councillor, and Judge [1, pp. 104–105]. Pennefather was ultimately acquitted at trial on 28 April after eight days of proceedings, though the Governor-General of India upheld his dismissal from the Force [1, pp. 107–108].

In Penang, where the Chinese community had previously enjoyed greater freedom in conducting social celebrations and religious ceremonies, the enforcement of the same Acts proved even more contentious [1, pp. 110–111]. On 14 March 1857, Deputy Commissioner Robertson led a police patrol that demolished a wayang (theatrical performance) stage obstructing a thoroughfare in front of the principal Chinese temple. The crowd resisted; in the ensuing clash one Chinese was killed, two Indians were wounded, and one sepoy (Indian soldier) was knocked down. The mob seized two sepoy muskets [1, pp. 112–113]. Governor Blundell, who arrived in Penang on 3 April, fixated on the recovery of the muskets as a matter of “national honour,” refusing to hear any Chinese grievances until they were returned [1, pp. 117–118]. The muskets were eventually found in the godown of a European merchant in early July, enabling the Governor to authorise a Commission of Enquiry [1, p. 127]. The Commission, comprising Police Magistrate Thomas Braddell, Justice of the Peace F. S. Brown, and P. E. Mathieu as the Chinese nominee, opened on 13 July; the official members refused to issue a joint report, and Mathieu published his findings independently, recommending Robertson’s replacement [1, pp. 127–128].

Political Consequences and the Question of Governance

The disturbances of 1857 exposed three interlocking issues that had been growing in importance for years: the administration of the Chinese community, the demand of the non-official European mercantile community for a share in government, and the attitude of the Straits Settlements towards the Government of India [1, p. 134]. The Chinese question was complicated by the growth of secret societies (hoeys), whose power had expanded during the 1850s amid large-scale immigration from the troubled provinces of South China during the Taiping Rebellion [1, p. 135]. The Singapore Grand Jury in January 1857 proposed either total suppression of the societies or their registration under stringent conditions, while Blundell favoured building up an efficient police force and sought special powers to deport dangerous characters without trial [1, pp. 99–100]. The Government of India sanctioned the appointment of a special Commissioner of Police for Singapore—Thomas Dunman, who held the post from 1857 to 1871—but declined to grant arbitrary powers of deportation or to pass special legislation against the societies [1, pp. 137–138].

The political dimension was sharpened by the imposition of press censorship under Act XV of 1857, passed following the Indian Mutiny and automatically extended to the Straits Settlements on 13 June 1857 [1, pp. 141–142]. The Penang Gazette and Singapore Free Press protested vigorously, and a public meeting in Singapore on 28 July produced a petition to the British Parliament for exemption from the Censorship Act [1, p. 142]. This episode, combined with the earlier communal disturbances, crystallised the determination of the mercantile community to seek transfer of the Straits from Indian to Colonial Office control—a movement that culminated in 1867 [1, pp. 142–143].

Research and Documentation

Turnbull’s article, published in the Journal of the Malayan Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society in 1958, represents a significant intervention in the historiography of the Straits Settlements. Drawing primarily on the Straits Settlements Records held at Raffles National Library, Singapore, and supplemented by contemporary newspaper reports from the Straits Times, Singapore Free Press, and Penang Gazette, Turnbull shifted the explanatory focus for the 1867 transfer away from the better-documented commercial and legislative grievances toward the underexplored communal disturbances of 1857 [1, pp. 94]. Her central argument—that the racial troubles of 1857 were a more vital factor in leading to the demand for abolition of Indian control than the important issues of longer standing—challenged the prevailing emphasis on trade policy and judicial reform in existing accounts [1, p. 94]. The article also illuminates the role of the Press, the Grand Jury, and public meetings as the principal channels of political expression in a community without representative institutions, and documents the complex interplay between local officials, the Supreme Government of India, and the non-official European community in a period of acute administrative tension [1, pp. 138–143].

MBRAS Sources

Straits Settlements

References

  1. C.M. Turnbull (1958). Communal disturbances in the Straits Settlements in 1857 JMBRAS 31(1): 94–144. Read on JSTOR