The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-08 00:00:00

PIRATES IN BORNEO.

Mr. HUME moved an address for return of the applies-
Seas that have been made to the Admiralty Court, in
England, the Vice-Admiralty Court, in Bengsd, at Singa-
pore, and at Prince of Wales Island, for bead or bounty
money, upon the destruction or dispersion of alleged pirates
on the coast of Borneo and adjacent island., in each year
since 1841 ; suiting when and on behalf of whom the several
applications were mode to the court, specifying the names
and number of the vessels engaged in each action, the
names of the commanding offices., and the number of the
crews of such ship., and the dates of the respective actions ;
stating farther the number of alleged piratical vessels do•
growl, captured, or dispersed, the number of pirate
alleged to have been on board at the commencement of each
. &edam, the number of such persons destroyed, captured, or
I disponi, Gni do amount of head money awarded by the
1
coast in emit ease, and whether the said amounts have
bees al in whole or in part, or removed by appeal to any
other mart.
INSPECTION OF COAL MINES.

Mr. HUTCHINS begged to put 7;;;Iion to the
Under Secretary for the Hoene Department. It would be
remembered that ke (Mr. Hutchins) intended to make •
motion for the reappointment of :a committee to inquire
into the inspection of coal-mines ; but bad not done so on
the understanding that the present government intended to
bring in a bill on the subject this session. He understood
'that they no longer intended to do so. He begged to ask
whether it was true that no bill on the subject was to be
introduced, and whether, if he brought on his motion, it
would meet with the support of the government.
Mr. FITZROY said that it the boo. gentleman brought
on his motion for the re-appointment of a committee, it
would meet with no objection on the part of the govern-
ment ; but he wished to call the attention of the hon. gen-
tleman to the circumstance that two inspectors had been
sent to visit the coal-mines of France and Belgium, as It
was believed that the system for providing against accidents
in those countries was more effectual then that adopted in
this country. He would suggest to the hon. gentleman
the advisability of postponing his motion until the return of
those inspectors.
Mr. HUTCHINS intimated his intention of postponing
his motion until then.
UARA.
Mr. HUME begged to ask the noble lord (J. Rus-
sell) what had been the result of the conferences respecting
the quarantine laws, held in Paris in 1851.
Lord 3. RUSSELL said that the result of the conferences
was that the persons employed to conduct them had adopted
• project for a convention with regard to sanitary regale
tions which had been submitted to the different powers by
whom they were employed. On the regulations reaching
this country they were referred by the Secretary of State to
the Board of Trade. It was found that the matter was
one of great difficulty, and it was still under consideration
with • view to establishing a convention which should be
agreeable to the powers in question, as well as to all the
maritime powers which had not taken part in the coeference.
SIR J. BROOKE AND MR. HUME.
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND rose to put a question to
Lord J. Russell, of which he had given notice, but before
doing so he wished to draw attention to a most extraordi-
nary document which bad bean circulated that morning,
and of which he had • right to complain. It was well
known that the honourable member for Montrose had
for the last two years been in the habit of putting notices
on the paper containing allegations end aecusstioos against
Sir James Brooke. He (Mr. Drummond) had therefore
given notice to the government of Lord Derby, that he
should insist any motion of that sort, in order that the hon.
member for Montrose should be prevented from bringing
them forward without his (Mr. Drummond) having an op-
Iportunity to reply to them. When the present government
came into office he gave a similar notice to them. The hon.
member had now shifted his ground, and wrote despatches
I from Bryenston-squen, containing grass libels.
Mr. HUME—I deny it.
I Mr. DRUMMOND—LibeIs, gross libels, which were
I printed at the government expense, and two of which he
now held in his hand; and they were printed with the
' sanction of her Majesty. It was charged 'plait Sir
J. Brooke, a servant of the crown, who had been approved
of by the noble lord, and the noble lord the member for
Tiverton, that he "utterly disregarded all truth," that
" he was pelterieg with the truth," that he was guilty " of
glaring violations of the truth," and " of gross and scanda-
lous falsehoods which were now brought under the consi-
deration of their lordships." That paper was presented,
not by the ordinary means of • motion, but by commend
of her Majesty. lie (Mr. Drummond) begged to ask for
what reason it was that her Majesty was thus made to
bring forward charges against a servant of the crown, to-
wards whom, as far as could be judged from public docti-
meuts' there was no moon for a departure from the ap-
proval he had hitherto received.
Lord .1. RUSSELL said that the origin of the produc-
lion of the correspondence in question was, that after the
resignation of Lord Derby's government, and at • time
when there was no minister in the house who could take
on himself to give an answer with respect to papers which

should be produced, a motion was made by the hon. mem-
ber for Montrose and an address agreed to for the produc-
tion of those papers. When he took the seals of the
Foreign-offiee be found the papers prepared pursu-
ant to the address which had been agreed to when,
as he bad stated, there was no minister in the house
who was properly answerable. His Seat impression was
that it was his duty to ask the house to rescind the order
they had made. (Hear, hear.) On further consideration,
however, and seeing that the address hai been carried he
thought it perhaps better that the papers should be pre-
sented in conformity with the address. Accordingly they
were presented. Afterwards another application was made
by the bon. member for Montrose for the production of
other papers; and I thought until this moment that they
had been ordered to be produced on the motion of the hon.
member for Montrose. The bon. member for West Surrey
however said that they were produced by command of her
Majesty. If that were so it was only in continuation of the
correspondence already on the table. lie (Lord J. Russell)
mu,t say that he thought that the course pursued owing to
the sech.ent which he had stated was a very inconvenient
one—(hear, hear)—and he trusted that the house would
not agree to any tur:her motions for the production of this
corres;ionderce, which in tact were letters written by the
hon. member for Montrose to the Secretary of State, and
which ought more properly to form part of a speech in the
house.
Mr. lIUME begged to say, in explanation, that the two
letters produced were written by him on the 10.11 and 18th ult.
(as we understood.) The house should know that this was
the hon. gentleman the member for West Surrey's own
fault ; because on the 18th lie moved for the production of
two letters, one from Loid Wodehouse to Sir J. Brooke,
and Sir J. Brooke's answer to Lord Wodehouse, which
were delivered to the noble lord and printed by command
of her Majesty. lie (Mr. Ilume) then addressed a letter to
the noble lord, stating that if Lord Wodehoute's letter to
Sir J. Brooke and his answer were published, it would not
he fair that his (Mr. Hume's) of the 10th was not pub-
lished also. lie therefore asked that his letter of the 10th
ult. should be published ; and he did so only in conse-
quence 01 the irregular conduct of the hoe. member for
West Surrey. The letter of the 18th was in answer to a
paper which bad been presented, and what lie (Mr. Hume)
had had an opportunity of seeing, andLwhich was lull of
erroneous statements, which be was ready to prove ; and,
with regard to which, Sir J. Brooke and those coiriected
with him, shrunk from inquiring into. He maintained
that it was only fair that those two letters should be pro-
duced, in order to make the correspondence complete: he
had no intention of troubling the house on the matter ; and
it was the hon. gentleman's own fault.
Mr. DRUMMOND said he had made that motion, be-
cause the bun. member was circulating a paper headed
" Falsehoods of Sir J. Brooke."
PIRACY IN BORNEO.

Mr. DRUMMOND begged to ask Lord John Russell
whether the government had received the accounts ef the
breaking nut of the Dyaks in acts of piracy, on the 3rd day
of Februat y, in Salearrun, under the command of the pirate
Rentab. who unfortunately escaped in the action with
Capt. Farquhar ; the forcible coming out of a hallo (or as-
semblage for warlike, purposes), in war vessels (bangongs) ;
and the attacking the forts at the mouths of the rivers
&kaftan and !Ujung, by which Mr. Lee and many persons
with him lost their lives ; again rendering insecure to mer-
cantile interests the whole coast of Borneo.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that the government had re-
ceived information from Sir J. Brooke before he left this '
country, stating that accounts had reached him that piracy
had recommenced in Borneo, and that a collision had taken
place, although he (Lord J. Rueseli) did not.remensher- all
the particulars stated by the hon. gentleman. On hearing
that, Lord Clarendon had written to the First Lord of the
Admiralty requesting that he would direct the attention of
the admiral on the station to the state of affairs, and his
right hon. friend the First Lord bad given the necessary
directions.

HUME asked whether the noble lord was aware of
the fact that these alleged acts of piracy took place 70 miles
up the country ?
PILOTAGE BILL.

Mr. DEEDES asked the President of the Board of Trade
whether, seeing that the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill was
fixed first for Monday, he would postpone the second read-
ing of the Pilotage Bill to another day.
Mr. CARD WELL would not say that he would poatpone
the Pilotage Bill, as he hoped the Canada Clergy Reserves
Bill would be over in time to enable him to proceed with
the bill.

Mr. DEEDES inquired if it would be taken after tea
o'clock.

Lnrd J. RUSSELL—It will not be proceeded with at a
very late hour.
SHERIFFS' COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
In answer to Mr. COWAN,
The LORD ADVOCATE said he proposed to refer the
Sheriff.' Courts (Scotland) Bill to a select committee.
THE DOCKYARD APPOINTMENTS.

Sir B. HALL said that on Tuesday he had given notice
of a motion with regard to dockyard promotions and ap-
pointments, and he then said that he should be prepared
this evening to state the precise words of his motion. Ho
was so prepared ; but in consequence of a communication
he had received from the hon. member for Northamptonshire
(Mr. Stafford) he would postpone doing so until tomorrow
(this day). In reference to that subject, he wished to ask the
First Lord of tOe Admiralty whether there was in the
record.' of the Admiralty the minute of the board cancelling
the order of 29th Sept. 1849, and authorising the Secretary
of the Admiralty to issue a circular directing that all
reports and correspondence relative to promotions and ap-
pointments should be sent to the Secretary to the Admiralty
and not to the Surveyor of the Navy, as had been previously
directed ; also whether there was in the records of the office
any copy of a letter written by Sir Baldwin Walker to the
Duke of Northumberland, dated 10th of May, 1852, with his
answer; and also whether there was an; minutr of the ap-
pointment of Mr. Wells as master smith of Portsmouth
Dockyard, and any letter of recommendation on his behalf
from Sir Baldwin Walker.

Sir J. GRAHAM thanked the hon. baronet for having
given full notice of those questions. With respect et the
first question, he had made inquiry, and he found that there
was no such minute at all on reclrd ; neither was there any
recsrd in existence of the letter to which the second ques-
tion referred. But it was to be observed that a letter ad-
dressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty was not in the
same position as a letter addressed to the Secretary to the
Admiralty. Every communication addressed to the Secre-
tary was recorded; but it was within the discretion of the
First Lord himself whether he would take copies of, or
record the letters proceeding to or from himself directly.
With respect to the question relating to Mr. Wells, the
answer was that there was not on record the original minute
appointing Mr. Wells; but that there was a copy of the
surveyor's recommendation of the 9th September, 1852 ;
and there would be no objection, on the part of the board,
to produce that letter.
Sir B. BALL gave notice that he would move for copies
of the correspondence (as we understood) respecting the
Admiralty promotion of Lieut. Engleilue, engaged In the
service of the Peninsular and Oriental Company.