The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-11 00:00:00

Admiral of the White the Hon. Sir Thomas Pladen Capel,
K.C.8., to be Admiral of the Red.
Admiral of the Blue Sir Edward Durnford King, K.C.H., to
be Admiral of the White.
Vice-Admiral 'Richard Curry, C. 8., on the reserved half-pay
list, to be Admiral on the reserved half-pay list.
Vice-Admiral of the Red Sir John Wentworth Loring,
K'C.B., 8.C.H., to be Admiral of the Blue.
Vice-Admiral of the White Edward Hawker to be Vice-
Admiral of the Red.
Vice-Admiral of the Blue John Ayscough to be Vice-Ad-
miral of the White.
Rear-Admiral of the Red Sir Edward Tucker, K.C.8., to
be Vice-Admiral of the Blue.
Rear-Admiral of the White Charles John Austen, C.D., to
be Rear-Admiral of the Red.
Captain Sir John Rims, C. 8., to be Rear-Admiral on the re-
served half-pay list.
Captain Sir James Stirling to be Rear-Admiral of the Blue.
The following Captains on the retired list have also been
promoted to be retired Rear-Admirals, on the terms pro-
posed in the London Gazette of let September, 1846, without
increase of pay :
Captain Edward Barnard.
Captain William Bateman Dashwood.
Captain Martin White.
Captain John Cookesley.
Captain Charles George Rodney Phillott.
Captain William Wolrige.
• Commission by the Lord-Lieutenant of Lincolnshire.
Royal South Lincoln Militia—Joseph Livesey, Esq., to be
Captain, June 21.
Commission by the Lord-Lieutenant of Suffolk.
Ist Troop of Suffolk Yeomanry Cavalry—Sir Robert
Jacob Buxton, Bart., to be Cornet, vice Frederick Aston
Oakes, Gent., resigned. July 8.
The Lord Chancellor has appointed Henry Wilcocks
Hooper, of the city of Exeter, Gent., to be a Master Extraor-
dinary in the High Court of Chancery.
BANKRUPTS.
Thomas Edwinla
tone,Southee,and
August
advertising
2 agent,
at
e F l el
eel n
Fleet-street, eaett ,
theto
surrender July 21,
Court of Banlikurculipatncya-n.,
BWashiintgmhoarieotrffieecti.al assignee, Basing-
hall-street .
Taylor and James Wylde, Flock manufacturers,
Wood-street, London, July 21, at twelve, and Aug. 22, at
one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee,
Basinghall-street ; Lepard, Bannatyne, and Gammon, Cloak-
lane.
William Edward Johnson, coal merchant, New-wharf,
Little Abingdon-street, Westminster, July 18, at twelve, and
August 22, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Cannan,
official assignee, Birchin-lane, Cornhill ; Jerwood, Ely-place,
Holborn.
James Murray, woollen warehouseman, Gresham-street,
London, July 18, at one, and August 15, at eleven, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Stansfeld, official assignee ; Link-
later, Charlotte-row, Mansion..house.
William Williams, builder, Ashford, Kent, July 19 and
August 15, at twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Stuns-
feld, official assignee ; Laurance, Flews, and Boyer, Old
Jewry-chambers.
Thomas Barber, bookseller, Cambridge, July 18, at one,
and August 15, at half-past eleven, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Graham, official assignee; Pickering, Smith, and
Thompson, :Stone-buildings, Lincoln's-inn; T. and G.
Archer, Ely, Cambridgeshire.
Elizabeth Thompson, brushmaker, Reading, July 22, and
Aug. 23, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Groom,
official assignee, Abchurch-lane ; Finney, Furnival's-inn,
Holborn.
Philip Rufford, Francis Rufford, and Charles John Wragge,
hankers, Stourbridge, July 28, and Aug. 18, at half-past ten,
at the Birmingham District Court. Whitmore, official assig-
nee, Birmingham ; Harward, Stourbridge ; Motteram,
Knight, and Emmet, Birmingham.
Philip Rufford and Francis Rufford, bankers, Bromsgrove,
July 26, and Aug. 16, at half-past ten, at the Birmingham
District Court. Whitmore, official assignee, Birmingham;
Harward, Stourbridge; Motteram, Knight, and Emmet,
Birmingham.
Samuel Street, shoemaker, Devizes, July 24, and Aug. 21,
at the Bristol District Court. Acraman, official assignee,
Bristol; Abbot and Lucas, Bristol.
William Ayres, grocer, Cardiff, July 24, and Aug. 21, at
eleven, at the Bristol District Court. Hutton, official as-
signee, Bristol; Stanley and Wasbrough, Bristol.
Fletcher Clarke, wine merchant, Hawes, Yorkshire, July
28 and Aug. 21, at eleven, at the Leeds District Court.
Hope, official assignee, Leeds; Robinson, Leyburn ; Bond
and Barwick, Leeds.
- Richard Bramwell, draper, llalifax, July 28, at twelve,
and Aug. 20, at eleven, at the Manchester District Court.
Pott, offiaial assignee, Manchester; Sale, Worthington, and
Shipman, Manchester.
James Pownall and James Youil, brewers, Manchester,
July 21, and Aug. 12, at twelve, at the Manchester Dis-
trict Court. Fraser, official assignee, Manchester; Lycett,
Manchester.
James Hoyle and Thomas Hoyle, cotton manufacturers,
Salford.

to 2s led ; Mexican taken in, Silvers 3s, and black 3s 2d to
3s 3d per lb.
Oros —Transactions in pale Seal Oil have been larger
than last week, and rates are firm at 301 15s to 311 per tun :
other kinds are wated at 291 to 301 10s, and supply small.
In Cod little has been done, and 361 10s to 371 is the present
value. For Southern, prices have become firm at 291 to 321
for low to fine. In sperm there is still little doing; prices rule
at 83! to 84/ 103 for good and fine. Headmatter in small
parcels realise 901 to 921. Linseed Oil has been
in brisk request, chiefly for home consumption, and an ad-
vance is apparent, 32s 6d per cwt havinz been currently
paid; for delivery several contracts have been entered into
at 32s to 32s 3d, and the market hal a firm aspect. At public
sale 30 pkgs Cocoa Nut Oil sold at 29a to 29s 3d for Sydney
and Ceylon.
TALLow.—To-day at public sale 220 casks Sydney Tallow
sold at 36s to 378 9d for sheeps, and ox 35s to 36s 6d, 140
pkgs American 36s to 37s 6d.

cordance with the desire of the Committee on Episcopal
incomes (Parliamentary Paper, No. 400, page 224).
A 1.4), whether the Bi,hops who have received larger in-
comes than were assigned to their sees have paid the
surplus over to the common fund, or have retained it.
Also, whether the Ecclesiastical Commissioners intend
taking legal proceedings for the recovery of the sums
which, according to the last report of the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners, appear to be due from certain
bishops, and if not, what course they propose to adopt
that the common fund may not be deprived of that
amount so long due, and, as appears by Parliamentary
Paper, No. 153, so repeatedly demanded. Also, whether
it is true that the Bishop of Salisbury bas intimated to the
Commissioners that he will receive from them, as a
fixed income, the sum assigned to his see, and whe-
ther any other bishop has acted in like manner.
Such being the case, of course all the bishops who had
received their sees since that time came under that Act
of Parliament. Lately a Bill had been passed, which
provided that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should
arrangements, by which the incomes of the bishops
should neither exceed nor fall short of the sum
assigned to them.—(Hear, hear.) That was to take
place from January, 1842, and with regard to the bishops
greaser since then. Tho Ecclesiastical Commissioners
were considering a scheme for carrying into effect the
provisions of that Act, so that they would receive an
exact sum. With regard to the other bishops he was
not called upon to speak, but it was evident
they were entitled to the incomes which were settled on
them, and that Parliament was no more justified in in•
terfering with them than they were in interfering with
any other private property whatever. Those who had
received more than the sums assigned to them by
law, bad retained it according to their right by law.
The Bishop of Durham had paid over a much
larger sum to the Cummissioners than they were entitled
to receive from him; 11,0001. was the sum settled for
him to pay, besides giving up an estate of 2,0001. per
annum, which it was calculated would reduce his in-
come so 8,0001. It should be stated likowise that the
present Bishop succeeded two prelates whose in-
comes were 23,0004 per annum, and whose
charittes and contributions were of course
commensurate to their incomes. This created a very
considerable demand on the present Bishop, to
which he had responded as far as he was able, to the
amount of no less than 45,000/.—(Hear, hear.) The
next question of the Hon. Baronet referred to certain
bishops who were obliged to pay over certain sums which
were in excess of the sums fixed for their incomes. Some
of these had received much less than had been fixed
for them, and could not have paid over the sums
required from them without great inconvenience. The
Bishop of Ely was indebted in a considerably amount
to the Commisioners, and at no time had his income
exceeded the income assigned to him. The Commis-
sioners had not proceeded by law for the re-
covery of these sums, but had merely written
at intervals to acquaint the Rev. Prelates of the
amounts due and request payment. The Archbishop of
York had paid all that was due, and the Bishop of St.
Asaph was now making arrangements for that purpose.
In tho case of the Bishop of Ely there was every reason
to believe that if he lived the whole sum due from him
would be paid, though the Commissioners, from the
consideration that his income had never reached
the sum estimated, were naturally desirous not to press.
With regard to the last question, the Bishop of Salis-
bury bad put into his hands a letter writtea by him to
the Commissioners so late back as February last, by
which he voluntarily came under the hands of the Com-
missioners.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

(THIS EVENING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Wool-
sack at Five o'clock.

BURGESSES AND FREEMEN'S ENFRANCUISE-

MEN r BILL.

Lord BEAUMONT postponed the committal of this
Bill until Monday.

PRIVATE BILLS.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, several private
Bilk were forwarded a stage.
The Earl of CARLISLE presented a petition in
favour of the preservation of the Crystal Palace, and
praying that it might be made a shut-up winter garden;
also; petitions from various places against the Papal ag-
gression.

E SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY il, 1851.

which had been embodied in the Government
Bill. He proposed to draw attention to one or two parts
of this Bill, because the question wall of much import-
ance, inasmuch as it affected the feelings and interests
of all the seamen in the merchant navy—seamen's
widows and seamen's orphans. The persons to be af-
fected by the Bill were of all others the most deserving
of kind consideration. Ono provision of the Bill was,
that no contribution was to be received from any person
after a specified period, Government only undertaking to
bear the weight of the pensions already incurred. Now
there were a number of persons who were entitled to
pensions, but to whom pensions had not yet been granted,
who had paid their contributions regularly, who had
thererefore an inchoate right to a pension, and yet who
would be deprived of their right by the careless way, he
would not say the insidious way, in which certain pro-
visions had been introduced into the Bill. The provision
he particularly wished to draw attention to was the one
which provided that seamen who had contributed for an
aggregate period of sixty months were required to con-
tribute continuously for two years more, otherwise they
would forfeit all claim to relief from the fund, their
widows and children. Now, it must be recollected that
a great dumber of seamen acquired right to these pen-
sions every year. These persons had contributed for five
years, and yet they were required by the Bill to con-
tribute for two years longer. He would show
their Lordships how unjustly this provision would
work. From a calculation made in 1847, it appeared
about 800 seamen acquired yearly a right to relief from
this, they being worn out in the service. Of necessity
this number for two years would be deprived of pensions
because they could not comply with the conditions of
the Bill by contributing continuously for the next two
years to the fund. There would be at least 1,600 persons
thus unjustly deprived of their pensions. But this num-
ber would be greatly augmented, because such a thing
as continuous payment was not known in the administra-
tion of the Merchant Seamen's Fund. The seaman only
paid during the time he was employed, and as he was only
employed about nine months in each year, a young sea-
man would thus be seven years before he could work out
his five years' payments, and nearly four years before ho
could work out his 24 months' continuous payment. The
operation of this provision would extend the number of
1,600 to which he had referred, to 3,200 and more, and
thus this large number of deserving persona would be
deprived of pensions to which they had a just claim. The
provision for continuous payment was absurd, and would
practically deprive a vast numder of persons entitled by
right to pensions. The result would be that the con-
tinuous payment would not be continued beyond the five
years, and the Government would thus be deprived of
all resources for the payment of those pensions to sea-
men. There was another provision of the Bill which
was equally objectionable—namely, that all pensions
to be granted hereafter should be granted on a
uniform scale, according to the average rate of the pre-
sent pensions. At the present moment the pensions in
some ports were extremely liberal; Liverpool, for in•
stance, where it amounted to nearly 12/. a year; but in
some of the smaller ports to which worn-out seamen
went, and where the wages being less the contributions
were smaller, they did not amount to more than 12s.
Could anything be more preposterous than that they
should be all reduced to one level? Those who had been
in the receipt of the 12/. per annum had, moreover, es-
tablished their rights by usage, and yet the Bill pro-
posed to deprive them of those rights by establishing one
uniform rate, which would average no more than 52a.
the year. No doubt many seamen would obtain an ad-
vantage by this; but it would be entirely at the expense
of others. But that was not all. The average number
of pensions, it was provided, was not to exceed the aver-
age number granted at each port each year for the last
five years. This would be a manifest injustice and wrong.
A.t Liverpool, for instance, there were a greater number
granted last year than in the year before, and a greater
number that year than in the year preceding it; and the
same held good at many other ports of the kingdom.
But taking the average of the last five years would be to
take a smaller number than that of last year of the pen-
sions given in each class, and consequently the injustice
and the wrong was made manifest. There was then a
provision that the aggregate amount of pensions should
not exceed the amount of the preceding year, until the
new rules came into operation—no doubt to place
a check upon the trustees; but how would this act? In
the first eleven months of the present year as many pen-
sions had been granted as in the whole of the past year;
and consequently, whatever might happen—however
much destitution might prevail—the trustees would be
wholly powerless to deal with it. These points he re-
commended to the attention of the Noble Earl and her
Majesty's Government. Ho did not for a moment sup-
pose that her Majesty's Government would intentionally
or knowingly do wrong to the seamen, but he certainly
did think that they had been guilty of a most culpable
error in the preparation of these propositions. It was
with a feeling of the deepest regret, humiliation, and
shame, that he saw the determination of her Majesty's
Government to wind up accounts in this affair. All the
other Governments of Europe—France, Austria, as re-
garded Venice, Rome even—made a fitting provision for
their worn-out seamen; while England, who depended
on that class for the dominion of the seas, and who in
the next war might have, as she bad done before, to de-
pend upon them for her safety—for her very existence
—for all, threw the obligation of providing for them
in their old age and infirmity to the winds, and
commended them to the mercy of boards of guar-
dians to get relief as they best could from
an unwilling or indifferent community. Ile
could not bear to look at the possible event in this case.
He had been always taught to look on them as the fa-
voured children of the state, and he always considered
them in the same light as he did seamen of ships of war.
According to old practice, and under the authority of
Acts of Parliament, the Crown had a right to call on
their services. He looked upon it, therefore, as an act
of great impolicy to disgust these men. Instead, how-
ever, of serving them, the other measures of the Govern-
ment, especially those on the navigation laws, had still
further injured them by depriving them of employment.
These seamen, who formed the nursery of our fleets,
should, in his opinion, have been attached to the country,
instead of being loft to give their services to foreign
states. He regretted many things that passed daily be-
fore his eyes. He regretted that though this country
had increased in material wealth—though not in the
same proportion as other countries—her people were not
in mind, in spirit, and in statesmanlike wisdom, the
great people that they formerly had been. Looking,
however, at what passed daily, he was led more and
more to the conclusion that one of the greatest calami-
ties that could affect a constitutional state was the pro-
tracted existence of a weak, timid, and irresolute Go-
vernment.—(Hear.)
Earl GRANVILLE did not think it advisable to en-
ter as the Noble Earl bad done on the discussion of a
Bill not yet before their Lordships-, be should, there-
fore refrain frcm following the Noble Earl in his analy-
sis, and content himself with staying that when the Bill
should come before the House be hoped he would be
able to show that it deserved in no sense the character
given of it by the Noble Lord. He (Earl Granville)
was not there to defend the Act of 1834; but he was
bound to remind the Noble Earl that no want of cour-
tesy had been shown to the Commission of which be
was chairman, by the Governm•nt, in the matter. A
Bill had been framed in accordance with the recommen-
dation of the Commission, but there was not a single
Member of a single port in the country who did not
come forward and obj(-ct to it. The Government were
therefore induced to bring in another Bill; but this Bill
was looked upon by the sailors, for whom it was in-
tended, as an evil, and therefore no course was open to
them except the one they had taken in this in-
stance. The House of Commons, with unexampled
liberality, had enabled the Government to carry out their
views in the matter, and therefore he (Earl Granville)
regretted all the more the speech had been made by the
Noble Earl. Notwithstanding the Noble Earl's pre-
dictions however—predictions which he (Earl Gran-
ville) had been in the habit of hearing for Jeers when-
ever any large measure was carried—he believed that
the country was never in a more prosperous condition
than at present, and that all the efforts that had been
made had been successful in achieving the moral and
physical welfare of the people.
Lord COLCHESTER complained of the late period
at which important Bills were sent up to their Lord-
ships, and maintained that if they did not discuss them
beforehand they would not have the opportunity of dis-
cussing them at all. He regretted that the fund had
been allowed to pass into a state of insolvency, and he
regretted also that the Government had not brought
forward a satisfactory provision for the aged and de-
cayed sailors. England was the ()Ely country in Europe
which left this class of her population unprovided for.
Sweden, France, Belgium, Spain, Austria (as regarded
Venice) and the United States, providing for their aged
and distressed seamen.
The motion was then agreed to.
LODGING-HOUSES.
_ _

O❑ the motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, the
Lodging-houses Bill went through Committee.
THE GUNPOWDER STORES (LIVERPOOL).
On the motion of Earl GRANVILLE, the Gunpowder
Stores (Liverpool) Exemption Repeal Bill was read a
second time.

great deal of consideration. lie was sorry that, on the
last occasion when this subject was introduced, some
Hon. Members diverted the attention of the House teem
what was a qu, stion of puelie interest to a question of
certain squabble= between private individuals, and he now
wished the subject to be consider, d es of great national
importance, and as affecting the honour and the cha-
racter of this country. He had been asked that very
day, " Why do you introduce a qusstion of this kind
after so lung a period has elapsed, end when, the matter
being passed, it cannot be remedied ?" He could not for
a moment acquiesce in any such (pinion, and he was
anxious to remind the Meese that he had endeavoured
from a v, ry early period to bring the question before
their consideration, but he must say he never knew a
question which was kept in so much doubt and secrecy,
or in which he had encountered so much difficulty in
obtaining from the Government those official chcuments
and papers which ought to have been laid on the table
long ago. His attention had been first drawn to the
subject by an extract from a Singapore newspaper
which appeared in the Daily News of the sth of June,
1849, and which stated that in March and April the
naval force of the Nemesis, belonging to the East India
Company, and in the pay of the British Govern-
ment, hsd joined a collection of prahus with Sir
James Brooke, and had proceeded to attack certain
portions of the Dyaks of Serebas and Sakarran
rivers, in the island of Borneo; but the para-
graph which most attracted his attention was the one
in which it was asked whether it was creditable to
our naval forces to aid or take part in cruel butche-
ries, and brutal murders of the helpless and the de-
fenceless. After reading this account ho (Mr. Hume)
came down to the House and asked the Firt Lord of the
Admiralty if any dispatch had been received from the
Nemesis? The answer of Sir F. Baring was, that there
was no account whatever. Now it was well known that
every naval officer in command was bound, by the regu
lations of the service, to dispatch to the Admiralty, on
the first opportunity, an account of any transactions of
this nature in which he had been engaged. On the 4th
of February, 1850, when the House met, he again re-
peated his question whether the Government bad re-
ceived any official information respecting the massacre
of the Bornean Dyaks; but on that occasion also he
failed in obtaining the papers. On the 20th of March
he moved for copies of Sir Francis Collyer's orders to
Captain Farquhar. Sir F. Baring replied that some of
the papers he had not got, and one he apprehended he
should have to write out for; but he had no objection to
their production—that was to say, when he could get
them. Again, on the 23d of May, 1850, when the vote
for pirate head money was proposed, he repeated his
desire for the official papers, and for a copy of Cap-
tain Farquhar'a instructions ; but these instructions
had never yet been produced. He mentioned these
circumstances to show that he, at all events, was not
chargeable, with the delay which had occurred; be-
cause he had done everything in his power to bring the
question before the House at an earlier opportunity.
He then referred to the transactions that occurred in
July, 1849, when from 1.500 to 2,000 persons were
slain by discharges of musketry and grape-shot, when
they were incapable of making any resistance, and when,
in point of fact, they bad offered no resistance. He
maintained that the extermination of these persons under
the pretence that they were pirates was not justifiable.
He denied that the persons so slain were pirates; that
they did not use the boats which pirates used; that they
were not armed as pirates, and that they did not belong
to the same race as those described to be pirates in the
paper circulated that day and delivered to members by
her Majesty's Ministers. But then, he said, that even if
they were pirates, they should have been captured and
tried, and not destroyed when they were making no re-
sistance. It was a violation of the lsw so to slay them;
and it was, also, a violation of the treaty entered into by
this country on the 27th of May, 1847, with the Sultan
of Borneo. There was nothing done on the part of these
alleged pirates to justify the extreme measure adopted by
Sir James Brooke. The orders of Sir Thomas Cochrane,
the commander in chief of the squadron on the coast,
were, that the vessels of these pirates were to be seiz, d
and detained. His orders. however, were grossly violated
by the blowing-up of their boats, and the massacre 01
their unfortunate crews, Sir Thomas Cochrane, on the
sth of March, subsequently, stated by the adoption
of this course there was a non-acquiescence
with the Act of Parliament, with the treaty entered into,
and with the orders of the Admiralty. As he (Mr.
Hume) found it impossible to obtain from the Govern-
ment or the East India Company a tittle of evidence to
prove that the Sarebas or Sakarran were at all mixed up
with any warlike operations against the British forces,
he would now quote, in support of his argument, the
opinion of Sir Jsmes Brooke in reference to the Sakar-
ran—he said they were a tribe that only armed them-
selves with spear and sword; they knew nothing of the
musket or fire-arm; that from their great dread of fire-
arms they were sure to fly away in the utmost terror
upon a shot being fired. That was sufficient to show
that these, at all events, were sot very formidable ene-
mies. A honk had been published by a Mr. George
Windsor Erle, which stated that Sarawak was a place of
much importance, and had made great progress in the
way of commercial enterprise. Captain Daniel, who had
commanded a ship upon the coast, had written to him
(Mr. Hume) in the latter part of last year, in reply to a
communication from him, stating that during the entire
time of his stay there he had never fallen in with any of
the pirates referred to, nor had he heard of them attack
ing any British vessel. Ho (Mr. Hume) had also a letter
from an officer at Plymouth, dated Dec. 5, 1850, who
stated that during his 16 months' stay upon the coast of
Borneo he had never seen one pirate, which greatly dis-
appointed him, as he had heard that the coast abound, d
with them. In the inquiry for which he (Mr. Hume)
Fought he was solely ieflueeced by a desire to ace the
character of this c, entry kept up, and the cause of hu-
manity respected. What had the Government done since
be first asked for this inquiry ? They had abandoned
the system of head-money, after having expended a
great many thousands of pounds in the destruction of
innocent and unrortunate men. That, at all events, went
far to show that such a system was unjust and improper.
He had written to 1)r. Miller, who was a surgeon em-
ployed upon that memorable and unfortunate occasien,
who gave similar testimony to that he had already
quoted. The Hon. Member, having quoted the opinions
of Lieutenant Ridout, Captain Balker, and Captain Has-
, tings, said he made this appeal to the House and the
Government, upon the positive evidence he adduced, to
grant this inquiry. At the end of the last session a let-
ter was addressed to him by a gentleman who was for
several years stationed at Singapore. The writer raid
that he fully concurred iu the remarks he had made in
the House of Commons on the subj,ct—that the case
was one which demanded the fullest inquiry, and that he
had no hesitation in say ing that he would as soon go on
a trading voyage to Borneo as to any part of the British
empire. He then proceeded to denounce the destruction
of these pirates as a massacre and a murder of the worst
description. An address, signed by a great number of the
inhabitants of Singapore, bad been forwarded to him
(Mr. Hume). which stated their approval of his in-
tention to move for this inquiry, and denying that
the parties so cruelly treated deserved the cha-
racter that was given them. He thought that the
Noble Lord could not refuse his assent to this in-
quiry. In addition to his other argnmenis in favour of
his motion, he would point to a letter addressed by Sir
James Brooke himself to Lord Palmerston, in which be
stated that his had no objection whatever to such an in-
quiry. Was it possible to suppose that Sir James
Brooke's character could he cleared up without an in •
quirt'? This gentleman was the only man who de-
nounced these pirates. It was utterly itnpos•-itile that
they could be such as they were represented with the
class of boats which it was admitted they used. He
thought he had made out a very strong case for the in-
quiry. He might be told that there was the certificate
of the recorder at Singapore standing in the way of his
motion. He, however, contended that a certificate given
by Sir C. Rawlinson at Malacca should not prevent the
inquiry for which be sought. Sir C. Rawlinson said that
the depositions of certain witnesses had been taken be-
fore hire); but where were they? Why were they not
produced? Not a single man of the 9,000, in respect to
whom the certificate was given, was brought before him.
But be said, also, that the depositionai of certain other
witnesses who were absent from the jurisdiction of the
court were taken under certain commissions issued by
him. But Sir James Brooke, who had made this attack,
was the first commissioner. The depositions were also
taken before the Rev. F. M`Dova ell and Arthur C. li
Cruikshank. The only other evidence was the affidavit
of Sir James Brooke himself, which was at variance
with all his previous proceedings, and was evidently got
up for the purpose; besides, who ever heard of attach-
ing any weight to the testimony of one so deeply lute-
rested in the event? The judge eugbt never to have
admitted it, end on that account alone inquiry was ne-
cessary. As to the address which had teen referred
to, he attached no weight to it, for he had in his posses-
sion an analysis which showed that it was signed by only
13 out of 27 houses. An address from Batavia had
also been published in the papers; but when was that
got up? In January, 1851. There was rid question,
'said Sir J. Brooke, as to the existence of piracy, and
the necessity for its suppression. No one would deny
this, and the Dutch and Spaniards bad been engaged in
a praiseworthy manner in attacking the Illanoons Soo-
loos, the real pirates; but he denied that the poor Dyaks
belonged to that class. His only object was to have an
inquiry into a matter in which the cause of humanity
was involved, and as the Government had adopted the
proceedings of Sir J. Brooke, it was a question how far
they might be implicated' and It was therefore necesaary,
both for the character of the country, the Government,
and of Sir J. Brooke himself, that an inquiry should be
instituted. There was another point on which he wislied
to say a few words. lie had asked the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs in what capacity Sir J.
Brooke had acted. He asked whether ho held the ap-
pointment of Consul-General. The answer was, yes.
He then asked the Under•S.ecretary for the Colonies
whether be held the appointment of Governor of La-
buan ; and he said he still remained Governor. Ile then
asdcd the Noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs
whether he bad any official information that the Presi-
dent of the United States had recognised the Raja
Brooke as the ruler of an independent state, and in that
point of view he was to he regarded by British and
other subjects. The Noble Lord stated that a commu-
nication bad been received from the President of the
United States desiring to establish a treaty of com-
merce with Sarawak, but none was concluded; that
Sarawak was not a British territory: and as to the rela-
tion
.in which Sir J. Brooke stood towards it he knew
nothing, and could only say that the British Govern•
meat had given him no power to exercise sovereign au-
thority there. Ile had, therefore, not obtained the sanc-
tion of the British Government, and, therefore, could not
legally hold power there. This was plain from the
opinion given by Dr. Lushington respecting the right of
the New Zealand Association to hold land in 1841. On
this ground alone, if there were no other, an inquiry
might be justified. It was fitting that they should know
by what authority this murder of 2,000 men had been
committed, for which we had paid 69 dearly, Ile