REMBAU HISTORY, BTC. 31 
heirloom in his family pérut of Tanjong wards. This family 
distinction can support no claim to precedence as a  Head”’ 
of the warts tribe. 
Not even a royal creation can be claimed for the Dato’ 
Méntri Lela Pérkasa.” Dato’ Akhir’s appointment as Undang 
in 1837-8 A.D., was challenged by one Kulub Kéchil, also a 
warts of Kampong Pulau. An appeal to arms bringing no 
decisive result, the good offices of the Dato’ Kélana of Sungai 
Ujong (Kélana Kawal) were invoked. He decided that longevity 
should settle the dispute, and that, in the meantime, both 
claiments should rank as Undang. To keep peace between the 
two he appointed a warzs of kampong Chengkau—with the title 
of Méntri Penghulu as go-between. This officer is the ancestor 
of the Dato’ Méntri Lela Pérkasa. Within 3 years Kulub Kéchil 
died a natural.death and the reason for the Méntri’s existence 
disappeared. 
The office of To’ Raja Diraja represents nothing more 
than the ennobling by Tungku Radin (Yam Tuan Besar, A.D., 
1837) of a royal Kathi, who was also a waris of eanenaanne 
Chengkau—in an attempt at obtaining a supporter in Rembau 
for the claims of the Sri Menanti suzerain. 
It must then be held that only the fortunate conjunction 
of an able holder of the offices with a crisis that could be 
turned to their private account has prevented the positions of 
To’ Méntri, To’ Mangku, and To’ Raja from being involved in 
the oblivion that has befallen the two Méntris and the two 
Laksamanas mentioned as important Rembau chiefs in 1831 
by Newbold ; * whose very titles, if the Suroh Raja: be eRe 
ed, find no slates ¢ in Rembau to-day. 
(1) Harvey op. cit. p. 259, states that the Mentri was created 
by Raja Radin—a state ent for which noanthority can be found. 
(2) This account of the origin of the ‘‘Mangku Bumi” is not ad- 
mitted by the warts Tanjong. They claim that the title was granted 
by the Raja of Siak to a warts Tanjong who on a@ visit to Siak pre- 
sented the Raja with a fine piece of wood-carving, a legend that 
provides even less support for the Mangku’s claim to rank as kepala 
waris than the-story given in the text. 
(3) vide Newbold « op. cit. vol, 1T. pp. 124-125. 
R. A. Soc., No. 56, I910. 
