With this exception, from the day that the Sarawak flag had been hoisted, there have been no disturbances in the Limbang. But in the neighbouring river, the Trusan, the perpetual petty feuds amongst the Muruts, which led to isolated cases of murder, wounding, and cattle-lifting, caused the Government considerable trouble. In 1900, it became necessary to administer a severe lesson. Some Muruts living in the far interior under their chief, Okong, aided by those of the Lawas, not then under the Sarawak Government, having killed twenty-one Muruts of the lower Trusan, an expedition, with which the Rajah Muda went, was sent to punish them. This was so effectually done, that it resulted in the people of the interior coming in from all quarters to renounce their feuds; and since that Trusan has also been free from such troubles. Commenting upon Bornean affairs, the _Singapore Free Press_ in August, 1900, remarked that: "Bruni, though independent, is in a state of bankruptcy and decay, and would not be a desirable acquisition for any one. Its revenues, such as they are, are all leased and sold, and those who should benefit from them have long parted with their interests. The aged Sultan, troubled with debts and worried by creditors, has given powers to the most importunate in their claims, which action has alienated the support of those hereditary chiefs who are entitled to share with him the government of the country. These chiefs assume semi-independence, and each goes his own way unchecked, a method which tends to bring affairs of State to chaos. It is erroneously supposed that the British Government is responsible for this condition of the country. As a matter of fact the British Government has no right, and certainly no inclination, to interfere in the internal affairs of an independent kingdom." This is a very accurate description of the situation at Bruni; but, unless we accept the theory that might makes right, how can the action of the British Government in appointing a Resident to take charge of Bruni a few years later on be justified? No one, however, can quarrel with the statement that the British Government had no inclination to interfere. That had been made manifest enough by many years of indifference to the sufferings of a people, and of shirking moral responsibilities. It is stretching a point to say that the British Government had no right to interfere; it was their duty to do so, and that duty involved the right. Not content with this neglect of an obvious duty, the Government stood in the people's way, by preventing them from turning to others for the aid they so sorely needed.