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

FRIDAY EVENING,

simply is, were the persons attacked by the combined
force in the Indian service--by her Majesty's forces and
those under the command of Sir J. Brooke—were they
or were tire y not pirate:?—(dear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentleman who had spoken last has remarked that
no member of her Msjesty's Get/eminent has risen till
a late period of the deueto to state the views of the Go-
vernment. Eis Hon. Friend the Under Secretary for
the Colonies did rise set an early hour; but he gave way
to another who had been more fortunate to attract
your eye. The real question, then, here, is this—were
the Dyaks so attacked pirates, or were they not? In
determining this question I shall first address myself to
the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman who has
just sat down, acd who admits Ix the sake of argument
that they were pirates; but who contends that there
was illegality in the manner of dealing with them as pi-
rates. The Right Gentleman contends that the change
in the law effected by the Act of 1837, by which capital
punishment imposed upon those convicted before a court
of law was abolished, and transportation substituted in
its room—that that change prevents the destruction of
persons as pirates. The argument has no application
to the case in point. If those persons bad been captured
—if they bad been taken prisoners, and if upon their
being taken prisoners they bad been, without trial, or a
sentence of a court, executed, then I should admit that
the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman would be
applicable. There can be no doubt that since the law
had been altered that courts of justice can no longer ap-
ply the penalty of death to persons convicted merely of
piracy; and if a court of law did order their execution,
or persons without trial had executed their prisoners
who were pirates, then the objections of the Right Hon.
Gentleman would apply. But then to deal with pirates
under the law you must have possession of them as
prisoners—you must have taken them.—(Hear, hear.)
Now the peculiar character of the Malays is that
they preferred being killed to their being captured.—
(Hear, hear.) Take the analogous case cf an ordi-
nary enemy in common war. It is not lawful to
kill a prisoner taken in war ; you are not at liberty
to deal with him as you please; but as long as he is en-
gaged as your enemy, and until he asks " quarter" and
puts himself in your power, you continue your hostili-
ties against him. You do so until he by his own act
places himself in your power, and claims your forbear-
ance. Until he does that you treat him and pursue him
as an enemy.—(Hear.) I cannot, then, conceive how
the Act of 1837 can have any reference to a transaction
of this kind; but then taking the broader question—
were these parties pirates or not? I remember in de-
bates on this quacingiodekienrtturenlibseienogos)vyntrttounoetieittdosrwki nieanwasant;:gihstnpeiehocrerhfasrf
persons
or theii
bmnrndease r years we had much
broader assertions than we have heard to-night. We
were told that there might in those Eastern seas be
tribes who were engaged in newly-described operations,
—it was admitted that they had a strong disposition for
amiable proceedings designated "inter-tribal war
(Laughter)—harmless at the least to others,—but, as to
piracy—as to directing attacks upon merchant ships—as
to pillaging square-rigged vessels ! Oh ! there was no
such thing as piracy late that in the Indian Archipelago!
—(Laughter.) Why, I have laid upon the table of this
House proof upon proof that there was piracy, in the
sense of attacking square-rigged vessels—in the sense
of murdering crews—in the sense of plundering every-
thing; and that this prevailed for years over the
whole extent of those seas.—(Hear, hear.) That very
document to which the Hon. Member for Montrose has
referred as being laid on the table to-day,—and which
I regret I could not have given him much sooner in
order that he might have more fully mastered its con-
tents—is an uninterrupted history of operations of the
Netherlands Government for years against a vast and
extensive system of piracy in those seas.—(Hear, hear.)
I have a dispatch from the Consul at Manilla, giving au
account of the operations conducted the other day by
Spain against the pirates at Sooloo, and in that dispatch
he draws a contrast between the accounts he had to give
at firmer periods and at the present time. Ile states
that—" Whereas it was my duty in former years gone
by to record instances of merchantmen attacked, or the
crews of wrecked merchantmen carried off into slavery
of American, British, and other square-rigged vessels
shavingtdoi disappeared ab re ee dn
carried
ine
de never been bbeye n
piratesheard
now,beinign precon-
sequence-
of the recent operations of the British ships of
twi
ou
nr
su peofn
the t h eDnnotre northern er
andn coasto
Spaniards,
secure, and the proceedings of the pirates are, at all
t Borneo,rad eand s thebeeoepmeirnag-
events for the moment, considerably checked."—(Hear,
hear.) I suppose that no man now who has read the
papers that have been laid upon the table will for an
instant deny that piracy to an enormous extent has pre-
vailed all through the seas around Borneo. Well, then,
the other question is, and it is a very simple one,
were these tribes of Dyaks of Sarebas alone and singly
exempt from the guilt which tainted the other tribes
and nations in that country ? Why, Sir, there are
two proofs that they were guilty of that same crime.
We have the depositions of two masters of native vessels
who were examined by Commander Butterworth, and
who declared, as the papers on the table proved, that
the Dyaks of Sarebas were known habitual pirates, and
that though they themselves had not been attacked by
them, they knew them to be habitual pirates. We have
other proofs, which my Hon. Friend could not find in
the papers delivered this morning. These proofs, by a
singular coincidence, include the report of a person
made by him to the Dutch Government years ago, which
stateddistinctly the Dyaks wore pirates, which described
the way they commenced operations in the same kind of
light boats and vessels which my Hon. Friend contended
they could not commit piracy in; and the report further
said the weapons consisted of swords, javelins, and
spears; in short, he described the very kind of expedi-
tions escribed by my Hon. Friend as a proof that the
Dyaks were not guilty of piracy.—(Hear, hear.) We
have proof that piracy to an enormous extent pre-
vailed in the seas of Borneo, and it is impossible to
say that the Dyaks were exempt from guilt, or to
deity, after tho ecncurrent testimony of masters
of native vessels at Singapore and the report of a
person to the Dutch Government, that the Dyaks bad
been guilty of the crime of piracy in a particular way.
What, then, has given rise to the charges against Sir J.
cce:u:dsmnisßnuioiscainoii.vorffiatgqirtthoiijue:alutnjoaceoamislritzuerpklrraanhyeairymal,ypmetittirstmiyshlis?inc.ooyrefeho),—eelr.numssinemca:
igGdaoraols(an
agiolihn;flnlfllncsri—tadivdatgthhotedhniomntoianaasfeshetrkraatrunesgoaeo,pnececeedi
whencetw ophear.)aredrri
words to
e etc lou thedat
inoo
any one
sources
persecution.—(Hear,
nssehant
rhf ,
it
sot
hear.)
ei pursue
House.
sr)ees
r.us eell3v theaeurt
n
this
semi
ndedfogHouse,wrmnhoisometoahtsi
c,aitn l
hlmi
publish
continue
of
aoy nnmi
unblemishedatnt
wiynvonehutHsoehet overwhelming
t egnoo raw.
overcoming
honour.--
(Cheers.) i
:ode] ,
yuainv
with
ihit. iget
neffrt
o,distanttenaoesshrsuemtete.ea question,
Ip:wsuet.muchlroetey to
:. ci(tieeeai I
rodoai
large
proclamationsmnivihnt
taa
paid
daosyodatwtel
Ipoosser. —rtr)niaenmtnpfeuotHer
hseott
infuse
the darkest barbarism.—(Load cheers.)
Mr. COBDEN agreed with the Right Hoe. Gentle-
manssmeu iamrsa
wtl (Mr.
se.:
7d
.sTmhweai maintaining
3a complementi,n7 iono g
mae fno,or cf ew
ships
which,
tphhs, e
neseaArgd e-
made up a force of 25 vessels and 4200twmeietnhp.rtobTteeheirtisrtfeholierecefee,
wwLww
eaooe keptustuoliundd
goht
cptouuttmhtop
eelnodoNoottkowo tbutootl
ehtghetuLheaeoNrmrddo
Borneotbhrtl
eaao ltsLkheeo seas from
protect our commerce in the Indian and Chinese oceans.
Having a large face there, with a responsible admiral,
artarFaiesshmslaoungghertse'reHdailnl
thdeiniineurrsnebaprrynodi Sir J. Brooke that he
majority
in that House. He could tell him if the evidence which
could be produced was disregarded, that circumstance
would give tenfold force to the feeling that existed on the
subject. His Hon. Friend had brought forwerd the evi-
dence of five letters written by naval commanders
stationed on the coast. Three had given their names,
two had not disclosed their names, but bad furnished
them to his Hon. Friend. One letter was from Com-
mander Daniel, who stated that he never beard that the
Dyaks attacked English vessels; Sir Edward Belcher
expressed the same opinion, an so did Commander
Young. They were willing to give evidence on the sub-
ject if called upon. The other two writers both stated
that the Dyaks were not pirates. He believed that the
feeling of these captains in the Indian seas was largely
shared in by the service generally, who felt the humilia-
tion which these actions brought on the navy indiscrimi-
nately. Here were five witnesses to the circumstances
alleged against Sir J. Brooke, and be believed their
evidence would have some effect on public opinion. He
had not the honour of knowing Sir J. Brooke personally.
He might be a very honourable man; but what had
been his career in Sarawak? Sir J. Brooke commenced
by certain transactions with a Borneo chief, which
ended in his becoming master of the territory of that
chief and getting a grant of sovereignty confirmed by
the Sultan of Borneo. When he heard of this occurrence
he was anxious Government should not become partners
in this territory, as we had already too much of the
same sort of territorial acquisitions under our control.
His alarm was not unfounded, and he believed
both Sir R. Peel and Lord Stanley, who were
consulted, were of opinion it was not for the advantage
of this country that we should have more territory of
that kind. The next thing they heard was, that Sir J.
Brooke was at war with his neighbour, and that English
vessels were called upon to take part in the contest. Sir
J. Brooke took credit to himself for putting down pi-
racy in Borneo, which was 2,000 miles distant from his
atall? And when he fn
territory. Whywas Borneoend shipsimported of w
intoar
engaged i
the question
this warfare, he Naturally inquired whether the Dyaks
were pirates or not. He would refer to the testimony of
Mr. John Crawford, who was as well or better acquainted
with the races and language of the Indian Archipelago
than any other living man. Heevas of opinion it was not
advisable we should take possession of this new terri-
tory. Mr. Crawford said, the Dyaks of Borneo were
wholly distinct from Malays, and, therefore, when these
races were jumbled together, as they had been in the de-
bate, he was satisfied the subject was not properly un-
derstood. He could bring authority to show that the
Dyaks were not pirates, and he therefore wanted proofs
to justify the cruelties exercised towards these people.
He wanted proofs that the Dyaks were pirates. He had
never heard an instance adduced in which Dyaks had
committed an act of piracy against English ves-
sels. lie demurred to the doctrine that we were
to go over to 'the Sultan of Borneo, and ask him,
" Have you anybody to kill ?" Before we killed peo-
ple„ we should have inquired whether these Dyak
tribes had not grievances to redress that justified
their acts. But then he found there was the occupation
of more than Sarawak. Sir J. Brooke had been lauded
for his disinterestedness ; but he found that Sir J.
Brooke had already gone into his neighbour's territory
carrying on the war there. How had Sir J. Brooke
been conducting himself since he was in Sarawak?
Every one knew where the pirates abounded ; but bad
Sir J. Brooke confined himself to those places? From
the year 1839 to 1849, Sir J. Brooke had been engaged
in attacking and taking Dyak villages and vessels
Though Sir J. Brooke went out as a governor of La