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

SUN,

r

:'• •

LON DON,

virtue, and a thing to be desired,—(Hear, hoar). Such
was the testimony of one every way competent to form
an opinion. His (Mr. B. Cochrane's) anxiety on the
present occasion was to have his name associated with
a debate and with a vote which he hoped would satisfy
the public generally that a public man bad done his
duty nobly and in an honourable manner.—(Hear.)
Mr. GLAI)STONE said that in his judgment the
Hon. Member did honour to himself by availing himself
of the very testimony which he had quoted as to the
character of the distinguished man accused on this oc-
casion, against whom, as appeared to him, no inconsi-
derable amount of personal animosity existed.—(Hear,
hear.) In this hostile feeling with respect to Sir J.
Brooke, he did not share. There was nothing which
had been said by his lion. Friend who had just sat
down, so far as his limited knowledge extended, in which
ho should not be disposed cot dially to concur. He re-
garded Sir J. Brooke with great respect as a man of
energy, truly British, and as being in his heart and in-
tentiene—w betever errors of judgment he may, like
whirs, have fallen into—guided by a philanthropy truly
Christian.—(Cheers.) He could not vote for the motion
of the Hon. Member for Montrose on specific grounds,
which he would afterwards state. At the same time, he
must say, he could not concur in the unqualified lan-
guage which had been used in opposition to that
motion.—(fleer ) lie could not vote for the mo-
tion, because it appeared to him to combine together
a great number ot subjects that had no proper con-
nexion, and to assume, in too marked a manner—if not
exclusived.y—the character of a personal charge against
Sir James Brooke. He thought the Hon. Member for
Mentroie would be the first to admit, if his motion was
of such a character, that by voting in favour of it he
would imply a presumptive acquiescence in that charge.
In respect to the general position of Sir James Brooke,
and to the combination of offices in his person, however
critical that position might be, or however expedient it
might be as a rule of administration to combine such
offices, he did not think that the House, addressing the
Crown for a commission of inquiry on the subject, which
belonged more properly to the Executive, would be alto-
gether just. With respect to the charge as to the de-
struction of a certain number of human beings, if cor-
rect in his view, there was no reason why Sir James
Brooke should be selected as either singly or mainly re-
sponsible for these proceedings. That was a point upon
which they were competent to form an opinion, and he
wished to know who those persons were, as it would be
the duty of the House to call on them to render an ac-
count of their proceedings. He understood Sir J. Brooke
to be invested with a threefold official characteri-1. As
Raja of Sarawak; (2) as consul in the dominions of the
Sultan of Borneo; and (3.) as Governor of Labuan. But
in no one of these capacities had he any authority over
the forces of her Majesty. What he might have done,
had the action alluded to taken place in the waters
of Labuan, was a different matter; but, as it
happened, it took place 100 miles distant. With re-
spect to that action, he understood Sir J. Brooke to
be an advising and consenting party, if not the party
primarily responsible. If the House should think that
there was a misuse of the naval power in the waters of
Borneo on the 31st July, 1849, it appeared to him that
they were not entitled to call on Sir J. Brooke—who was
not the person in command—to bear the responsibility,
but must deal with it in the ordinary form, and hold the
party in command responsible for the use or misuse of
the force entrusted to him. On that ground he could
not accede to a motion which served to indicate that Sir
James Brooke was the person on whom the responsi-
bility of that action ought to rest. But he must also
confess that with regard to the other and main point, he
could not come to the same conclusion as the Hon.
Member for Montrose—he meant, the point whether the
tribes attacked were piratical or not. He was not in-
clined to say that it was a point placed beyond the pos-
sibility of doubt, but after having taken the greatest
pains in examining the evidence, it appeared to him
that the balance of testimony was in favour of the
opinion that those particular tribes were to be dis-
tinguished from the rest of the Dyaks, and that they
were what might be termed piratical, though their
piracy was not of that formidable kind which led to the
attuck of European vessels.—(Hear, hear.) If that, then,
were the point at issue, ho was bound to say that a
piratical character attached to these tribes.—(Hear.)
Upon this point, he must say, he attached importance
to the evidence of Sir James Brooke. He had such en-
tire confidence in his humanity, honour, and integrity,
that he received his evidence, even where he bad an ap-
parent interest, with the most unqualified confidence.—
(Hear, hear.) This matter, too, he had reason to be-
lieve had been judicially argued before Sir C. Rawlinson
in 1849. That part of the question he believed was
before him; and the evidence then was sufficiently mi-
nute to convince him that the judge had decided that
these tribes were piratical. This matter, too, had been
argued before Dr. Lushington. The objection to the
payment of bead-stoney had been made by the Queen's
Advocate, on the ground that the parties were not pi-
rates; and Dr. Lushington, he believed, bad come to the
decision that the tribes were of a piratical character. But
even if there were some doubt remaining on his mind on
this subject, he must at the same time say that no suffi-
cient ground had been made for an inquiry such as the
Hon. Member proposed.—(Hear, hear.) But then he
came to what constituted the real difficulty in this case;
and after listening to the sarcasm and satire of the Hon.
Member for Surrey, he said that this question was not
ne that was to be disposed (If by taunts directed against
the Honourable Member for Montrose.—(Hear, hear.)
As to that Honourable Member it was not often his for-
tune to vote on the same aide with him; but still he was
bound to express his conviction that no man brought
greater honesty of purpose, or greater determina-
tion to do justice, in every case like the present that he
undertook, than the same Hon. Member.—(Cheers.)
They had now to consider what was the real question
that was submitted to their judgment. In his opinion the
terms of the motion of the Hon. Member were liable to
objection—that it fixed upon Sir J. Brooke a responsi-
bility that did not pre-eminently belong to him; but then
it was for the House to determine, not how the blame
that attached to these transactions was to be distributed,
but of the fact that was placed before them—namely,
that there had been a great destruction of human life,
and whether that destruction had been warranted?—
(Hear, hear.) He brought no charge cf cruelty against
those who had been engaged in this enterprise. He be-
lieved no such motive influenced them; and if he
doubted that there was legality in their proceedings, he
did so admitting that they believed that they were acting
ith a view to what were ultimately the interests of hu-
manity. But admitting this did not dispose of the ques-
tion.—(Elear.) When in that House they heara the
name or .‘ pirates" mentioned, it was supposed that was
the whole question. It was not so. Their relations with
pirates were regulated by law; and if they were, then
they were found to observe the law when dealing with
pirates as when dealing with other criminals who were
not pirates, or with persons who were not criminal.
What was the law in thus dealing with pirates? It, was
chiefly needful to refer to two Acts of Parliament. The
first Act referred to head-money, and it was most vague
in its language as to the manner of treating pirates. It
gave rewards for the capture and destruction of pirates;
and there was, in point of fact, nothing in it to impeach
the legality of these proceedings. By the Act of 1837
circumstances, however, were changed. It declared that
in all cases an act of piracy was not a capital offence.
It enabled them to kill pirates, to capture the rest; but
by the second section of that Act it was enacted that if
a person acting as a pirate resisted his being captured,
he was liable to be put to death; that all persons en-
gaged in active resistance were liable to capital punish-
ment. But then when they came to the third section
of the same Act they would find it declared that any
man convicted of an act of piracy, not connected with
resistauce, should be liable, not to the punishment of
death, to which he would be subjected before the pass-
ing of the Act, but to be sentenced by the court to
transportation for life. Instead, then, of piracy being
a capital offence, it was one only liable to transporta-
tion. Here, then, they had to observe that they had in-
flicted the punishment of death upon 500 persons. There
were only two cases in which they could do so—in case
of active resistance, or their not submitting to capture,
and in the attempt.to capture slaying them. He put this
case to the House. to her Majesty's Government, and espe-
cially to the law officers of the Government. Did these 500
persons thus put to death fall under one or other of these
cases? He did not quote the evidence of any men whose
handwriting was questioned. He quoted the account ot
those engaged in the transaction, and who stated the parti-
culars of it as one that did them high honour. Were these
500 persons deprived of life without a legal warrant,
such as there would be in either of the cases he had sup-
posed?—(Hear.) When the action began there was
partial resistance from some of the prahus ; but that
resistance was partial, and it very soon ceased. The
resistance was followed by flight, and the flight by pur-
suit; but then it was only a nominal pursuit, for the
means of flight were ridiculous as compared with the
means of pursuit. Now, what said Captain Wallis?
That he saw 16 or 17 prahus escaping, and on their com-
ing abreast of him he fired a broadside loaded with ca-
nister shot along their whole line—he raked them along
his whole ne as they were escaping, and not resisting.
--(Hear.) Now, what he asked for was a vindication of
this proceeding.—(Hear, hear.) According to this evi-
dence, a great number of lives were sacrificed when the
men were not resisting. These lives were sacrificed de-
liberately—(Hear)—but whether from humane motives
or not he did not inquire; but they were sacrificed with-
out that legal sanction which was required when they
were dealing with pirates, as if they were dealing with
any other class of criminals. This, then, was the diffi-
culty that presented itself to his mind. This it was
which justified them in addressing the Crown for an
inquiry, not as against Sir J. Brooke, but into the
whole'of the proceedings. It was to the Government he
looked for a vindication of these proceedings, and he
hoped it would have been made through some Member
on the part of the Government in the early part of the
evening; for it was their duty to inquire into every such
case----to ascertain the legality of the proceedings of their
officers abroad as well as at home—it was their duty to
do so, as the only permanent security and guarantee for
the rights of every man amongst them.—(Cheers.)
' Lord PALMERSTON said—l confess I never heard
lwe
theilcyh e
all oarguments atnhdanthienftahcets hp ar
ev
see ben
amdoreebacteominp
complimenteoi nfn sa
wat
sustainuyh ri
inac glh
enthahyen a
dqtpourt
ueho
rspo uoi
osgf
ne hdhhhhi esei
soul ft en
(Hear, hear)—and I must pay the Hon. Member for
o
brings Montrose
s tr 9 then g
d
wmo-
tiona sub-
mitss shown toth this
in tHouse,he
evening.l could not but see that his convic-
tions, n
which were so strong when the subject was last
debated, have been somewhat shaken this year—(Hear,
hear)—and although he has not altogether departed from
his sentiments previously expressed, still those who heard
him—and I am sorry to say that not many of those who
are now present did s?—(Laughter)—still they must
have remarked that he did not show the same confidence
in the soundness of his conclusions which he exhibited
on a former occasion.—(Hear, hear.) The question lies,
as it has been Bait' by the Hon. Member. tor Stafford
[ (Dir. Urquhart), almost in a nutshell. The question