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

THE WESTMINSTER SEWERS.

Viscount DUNCAN asked the Chief Commissioner
of Woods, Forests, and Works, &c., whether any and
what amount of damage has been done to the houses
and property of the Crown by the operations of the
Commissioners of Sewers in constructipg their new
sewers in Westminster, and whether any claim
for compensation will be made on that account.
Ho also asked the Noble Lord whether it was true
that the infernal machine erected by the Commissioners
in Palace-yard last year had destroyed the foundations
of the Comptroller-General's offices?

Lord SEYMOUR said that last year be had remon-
strated with the Commissioners on the dangerous con-
sequences of their proceedings. These remonstrances
had, however, no; and he had now to state that
all those buildings in the vicinity of the sewer-
age operations of the Commissioners, including
the United Service:Museum and the old Exchequer..
bill Office were more or less damaged. The
claim for compensation rested with the occupantl, and
not with the Crown, and no doubt they would be able to
obtain it.—(Hear, hear.)
The Chief Justices Salaries Bill was read a third time
and passed.
INHABITED HOUSE DUTY BILL.

On the motion tor the third reading of this Bill,
Mr. DISRAELI said he could not let that opportu-
nity pass without again expressing his disapprobation of
the Bill; which he considered was one of the most im-
politic financial measures that could be introduced under
existing circumstances.—(Hear, hear.) He believed
that very few months would elapse ere the
country would regret that such a measure had received
the sanction of the House.

After a few words from Lord JOHN RUSSELL, the
Bill was rend a third time and passed.
ASSESSED TAXES COMPOSITION BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS, FISHERIES, &c., BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was also read a third time and passed.
PRIVATE LUNATIC ASYLUMS (IRELAND)
BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
TURNPIKE ROADS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was also read a second time.
SIR JAMES BROOKE AND BORNEO.

Mr. HUME moved for an address to her Majesty,
that she will be graciously pleased to appoint her Royal
Commission to inquire into the proceedings of Sir
James Brooke on the north-western coast of Borneo,
since his appointment as her Majesty's "Commissioner
and Consul-General to the Sultan and Independent
Chiefs of Borneo;" and, especially, into the attack
made by her Muje‘ty's and the Honourable East
India Company's naval forces, under his advice and di-
rection, on certain wild tribes of that island, called the
Sakarran and Sarebas Dyaks, on the night of the
31st July, 1849 ; and further tbat her Majesty
will graciously command. that the opinion et
her Nlajesty's judges be taken and laid by her
Majesty's Ministers before this House, touching the.
legality or otherwise of the holding by Sir James
Brooke, at one and the same time, of the following ap-
parently incompatible offices, viz., of sovereign ruler of
Saraw..k, he being a British subject; of her Majesty's
Commissioner and Consul-General to the Sultan and
independent chiefs of Borneo, he, Sir James Brooke,
residing at Sarawak, where there is no independent
Chief; and also of the appointment of Governor of the
British settlement cf Labuan, distant 300 miles from
Sarawak, at which British settlement Sir James Brooke
has not been actually present more than a few months
during the last three years. The Hon. Gentleman said
he bad at last obtained an opportunity of calling the at-
tention of the House to transactions which had long
been before the public, and to which be bad given 4

great dial of consideration. He was sorry that, on the
last occasion when this subject was introduced, some
Hon. Members diverted the attention of the House from
what was a question or public interest to a question of
certain squabb:ee between private individuals, and he now
wished the subject to be considered as of great national
importance, and as effecting the honour and the cha-
racter of this country. He had been asked that very
day, " Why do you introduce a question of this kind
after so long a period has elapsed, and when, the matter
being passed, it cannot he remedied?" He could not for
a moment acquiesce in any such opinion, and he was
anxious to remind the House that he had endeavoured
from a very 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 documents
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 newspsper
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, belongieg to the East India
Company, and in the pay of the British Govern-
ment, had 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 he (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 wbatever. Now it was well known that
every naval officer in command was bound, by the regu•
Wiens 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 had 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 ord. rs to
Captain Farquhar. Sir F. Baring replied that some of
the papers he had not get, and ono he apprehended he
should have to write out for; but he had no objection to
their production—that was to eay, 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 fer a copy of Cap-
tain Farquhar's instructions ; but these instructions
had never yet been produced. He mentioned these
circumstances to show that be, 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.
Ha 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 had offered no resistance. He
maintained that the extermination of these persona 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 aimed 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 law so to slay them;
and it was, also, a violation of the treaty entered into by
this country on she 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 of
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 ef Parliament, witty the treaty entered into,
end with the orders of the Admiralty. As Le (Mr.
Hume) found it impossible to obtain from the Govern-
ment cr 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 James Brooke in reference to the Sakar-
ran—he said they were a tribe that only armed them-
eelvee 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 not very formidable ene-
mies. A bock had been published by a Mr. George
Windsor Frle, 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

commended 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 bad he heard of them attack
ing any British vessel. He (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 abounded
with them. In the inquiry for which he (Mr. Hume)
sought he was solely it tluf need by a desire to see the
character of this ci untry kept up, and the cause of hu-
manity respected. What had the Government done since
he 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 un'ortunate men. That, at all events, went
far to show that such a system was unjust and improper.
He had written to Dr. Miller, who was a surgeon em-
ployed upon that memorable and unfortunate occasion,
who gave similar testimony to that he had already
quoted. The Hon. Member, hsvii,g quoted the opinions
of Lieutenant Ridout, Captain Barker, 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 st itioned Nt Singapore. The *titer said
that he fully concurred in 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 saying that he would as soon go on
a trading voyag- 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. Au address, signed by a great number of the
inhabitants of Singapore, had 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 arguments in favour of
hie motion, he would point to a letter addressed by Sir
James Brooke himself to Lord Palmerston, in which he
stated that he 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 •
quiry? This gentleman was the only man who de-
nounced these pirates. It was utterly impossible 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 he sought. Sir C. Rawlinson said that
the depositions of certain witnesses had been taken be-
fore him; but where were they? Why were they not
produced? Not a single man of the 2,000, in respect to
whom the certificate was given, was brought before him.
But he said, also, that the depositions 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'Dowell and Arthur C.
Cruikshank. The only other evidence was the affidavit
of Sir James Brooke himself, which was at variance
with all hls 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 inte-
rested in the event? The judge ought never to have
admitted it, and on that account alone inquiry was ne-
cessary. As to the address which had been 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 no question,
said Sir J. Brooke, as to the existence of piracy, and
the necessity for its supprestion. No one would deny
this, and the Dutch and Spaniards had been engaged in
a praiseworthy manner in attacking the Illanooris Soo-
loos, the real pirates; but be denied that the poor Dyaks
belonged to that class. His only object was to have an
inquiry into a natter in which the cause of humanity
was involved, and as the Government had adeved the
proceedings of Sir J. Brooke, it was a question how far
they might be implicated, and it was therefore necessary,
t
both for the character of the country, the Government,
and of Sir J. Brooke himself, tba an inquiry should be
instituted. There was another point on which he wished
to say a few werde He had asked the Noble Lord the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs in what capacity Sir J.
Brooke had acted. He asked whether he held the ap-
pointment of Cansul-Genfral. The answer was, yes.
He then asked he Under. Secretary for the Colonies
whether he held the' appointment of Governor of La-
hen • and be said he still remained Governor. lie then
asked the Noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs
whether he had any official information that the Presi-
dent of the United States had recognised the Rs ja
Brooke as the ruler of an independent state, and in that
point of view be was to be regsrded by British and
other subjects. The Nob!e Lord stated that a commu-
nication had been received from the President cf the
United States desiring to establish a treaty of corn-
meree with Sarawak, but none Was concluded;
that
Sarawak was not a British ttrritory and as to the rela-
tion in which Sir J. Brooks stood towards it he knew
nothing, and could only say that the British Govern-
meet had given him no power to exercise rover( ign au-
thority there. He had, thetefore, not obtained the sanc-
tion of the British Government, and, therefore, could not
legally hold poser there. This was plain from the
opinion given by. Dr. Lushirgton respecting deo rigiit of
the New Zealand Association to hold laud in 1841. On
this ground alone, if there were no other, an inquiry
might be justified. It was fitting that they shoulc know
by what authority this murder of 2,000 men had been
committed, for which we bad paid so dearly. lie

much lamented that the late Right How Baronet the
Member for Tamworth was n.. longer among them, be'
cause he held a letter in his hand from the late Right
Hon. Baronet, in which he expressed an opinion that
delay would be dangerous, that au inquiry ought to take
place. He said he had read wi-b great pain the fact!
I which had been stated, but would suspend wasgrnee..
until a full explanation had been given. It that fun.
explanation which he (Mr. Hume) sought. It was pos
sible that he might be wrong, but still respect for the
feelings of large bodies of' men, for the character of this
country, and cf Sir J. Brooke himself, ought to induce.
the Government to support his motion, and he should
have great satisfaction if the result of the inquiry sheltie
prove that he was misteken. He would, therefore, eon'
elude by moving the address.
Mr. HEADLAM said he had listened with great at-
tention to the speech of the Hen. Member for Montrose
on this subject last year, and he never in his life gave°
vote with a more decided conviction of its propriety than
when on that occasion he voted in a majority of 169,
which negatived the motion, in opposition to Vet'
(Hear, hear.) The Han. Member complained of 11,0'
Members not confining themselves to the charges before
the House, but when a high-minded gentleman is charged
with something very like murder, those who mode the J
charge must not be surprised if the friends of Sir J.
Brooke sought to trace these calumnies to their source.
—(Cheers.) Lawyers had a maxim that no man who
had been eine acquitted ought to be again tried for the
same offence.—(Hear, hear.) This doctrine, though
true in general, he did not wish to carry to any absurd
extent, and be therefore admitted that in matters 0f
great public interest an exception might be made; and
had the Hon. Member for Montrose now brought for
ward any very important evidence which was not before
the House on the former occasion, or shown any reason
for reversing the decision of the House, he might
have been justified in again dragging Sir J. Brooke
forward before the country; but atter listening to the.
Hon. Member with the greatest attention, he was bound
to say that he had adduced no material evidence
whatever on this occasion which he might 13(4
have brought forward last year—(Hear, hest)-"
and with respect to the new documentary evidence. It
nude the case of Sir J. Brooke infinitely stronger than
before.--(Hear.) The motion asked, in the first place'
for an inquiry into the proceedings of Sir J. Breoket,
secondly, for an inquiry into the attack of the 31st of
July, 1849; and, thirdly, asked her Majesty to command
that certain questions of state policy might be sub-
muted to the judges. Now, it was not customary to
confound questions of state policy with indictments for
murder.—(Hear, hear.) But be would pass to the real
charge against Sir J. Brooke, which seemed to be tilt&
The Hon. Member for Montrose said that these tribes,
the Sarebas and Sakarrans, were not pirates, but herrn'
less unoffending people, and perfectly incapable, from
want of civilisation and development, frcm doing any
harm to any one, least of all to Europeans; that alt they
had done was to carry on intertribal wars, and that
they had never committed piracy; that at all events
they had not committed any at that time, and even if
they had that an unnecessary degree of cruelty bad been
exercised. What evidence had they on the subject ? In
addition to the abundant testimony already before the
House, documents had been laid on the table that dal
which most completely confirmed that testimony with
respect to the cruel massacres perpetrated by these
pirates. Borneo, as the Honourable Member for
Montrose observed, was a large place; but here
were references to the very tribes and places 10
question by their names.—(Hear.) It appeared that
though the Dyaks from Sarebas and Sakarrau were not
themselves very strong in arms, they were joined by
Malays and Arabs shereefs. In the papers laid before
them that morning, he found a report quoted, dated 00'
tuber, 1830, which recommended that these pirates
should be attacked when they had returned to their re-'
treats. Great stress had le, en laid upon the fact that
there were several vessels from this country which bad
never seen any pirates; but it should be remembered
that piracies in these seas took phce only during a cer-
tain period of the year; and it was absurd to say that corn
tain vessels having seen no pirates, therefore none ex.
ieted there, W hy, so far hack as the year 1834, we were
in treaty with the King of the Netherlands for the ex'
press purpose of putting down piracy in the Malayan
Archipelago, and the King of the Netherlands adopted
measures for suppressing it. In addition to this, we had
a treaty with Borneo to put an end to it. Sir James
Brooke had received instructions frcm the Noble
Lord at the Foreign-office to use his power and in-
fluence with the same object in view, and numerous
representations had come from the mercantile emu-
muuity complaining of piracy. Under these circunr
stances it was that Sir James Brooke, when be
had adopted the very best mode of suppressing
piracy, was denounced in this Hoene and before the
country as the murderer of an uneffending race of men.-."
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then read a letter
which had been written by a naval officer at present in
the coast guard, and formerly serving on board the
Ariadne ship of war in the Indian Seas, in which the
writer bore his personal testimony to the existence of
pirates on the coast of Borneo, and stated that on 000
occasion he himself narrowly escaped with his life from
them, and that at another time an attack upon the
Ariadne by three prahus filled with men was prevented
only by firing a 24-pound shot across their bows. The
writer added that he thought an instance like that,
where a vessel of war had deen attacked by these
" daring robbers," was sufficient to convince even Mr.
Cobden himself of the piratical character of the tribes.--
(L, aughter, and Hear, hear.) In the year 1844, Captain
Keppell was engaged in similar operations against the
Desks of Sarebas, and bis conduct was then sektiow'
ledged and approved by the company at Singapore, the
commander-in-chief on the station, and the Lords of
the Admiralty. Ceptain Keppell suid that on that occa-
sion the pirates were the first to fire, and that in less
than a quarter of an hour they were driven from their
guns.

Mr. COBDEN (we understood)—You said just nor
they bad no fire-arms.
Mr. HEADLAM—No. What he had said was that
the Dyaks, taken by themselves, had not many fire-arms;
but that they were in communication with and under the
influence of the Arab shereefs, and that when the corn-
biped fleet went forth—composed of Dyaks and sbereefs
and Malays—they were armed with fire-arms.—(Hear,
hear.) Captain Keppell then proceeded to say that no
less than 56 guns of various s;zes were taken, as well as
a vast quantity of ammunition; that a ton and a half of
gunpowder tell into the hands of our people, and that
besides this 200 piratical boats were destroyed. After
having punished the two principal tribes of the pirates,
Captain ice ppell next determined on &necking the tribes
who furnished the fire.arres, who mustered 10,000 war-
riors, and could put to sea with a hundred prahus; and
he stated in his report that the interests of British com-
merce would he greatly advanced by the continuance of
measures f.)r the suppression of piracy in those seas. All
be meant by that was, that after making these examples
s, me slight supervision might be exercised, so as to
prevent the renewed growth of these piratical commu-
nities, and their return to their former practices; and
Captain Ke ppell and Sir J. Brooke seemed both to enter-
tain the opinion that very little force would be necessary
for that purpose. But this plan was not adopted, and the
result was, that the tribes, forgetting what had taken
place, again resorted to their old practices, and in
consequence a similar example of them was required
to be made in 1849. "Wi7h regard to this question
of " piracy," ho confessed that he was a little sur-
prised at hearing the doctrine which had been pro-
pounded by the Hon. Member for Montrose. The
Hon. Member seemed to think that in respect to pirates
who roamed about the seas murdering men and women,
and destroying all the vessels that came within their
reach, no step was to be taken except to capture them and
bring them to trial under the 3d and 4th Victoria—
(Hear, hear, and a laugh)—that when the pirates were
returning from a marauding expedition to the river from
which they bad sailed forth, a steamer and one or two
boats were then to catch them; that instead of pre-
venting their issue from the river in the first place, the
forces were to wait until they had seen the act of piracy
committed, and afterwards proceed to capture and try
them according to law. He (Mr. Headlam) could not
agree that that was the best mode of suppressing piracy.
He did not thick that such a course had ever been
adopted by any nation in the history of the world, and
he did not believe that that was the intention of the
treaties between this country and the Netherlands, and
Sir James Brooke and the Sultan of Borneo. A ques-
tion might arise as to what constituted piracy, and Sir
J-im„ very properly stated that it appeared clear to him
that the plunder or seizure of a peaceful trader on the
high seas constituted an act of piracy without reference
to colour or nation. The good effects of Captain Kep-
pell,s operations against the pirates were stated by Sir
James Brooke to consist in the fact that they no longer
ventured to take the sea in force, and that the loss of life
and injury to commerce had greatly diminished. These
good effects, he said, continued for two years; but in 1846
he was convinced that the former habits of the people
were too strongly planted in them to be eradicated by
peaceful means, and that the impression produced upon
them bad gradually worn off. In that year their depre-
datioesat sea became more frequent, though not of
a formidable character, and after his departure for
England, in 1847, the pirates threw off all reserve and
harassed the trade as much as before. In consequence Sir
James made representations to the Commander-in-Chief
in the Indian seas, who, after satisfying himself of the
faces, ordered Commander Parker to make a similar at-
tack to that which had been made with so much success
in 1844. These instructions of Rear-Admiral Collier
had been produced, and they completely justified Com-
mander Parker in the course be had pursued—(Hear)
—and rot a word was contained in them which showed
that the admiral entertained the slightest doubt of the
propriety of making such an attack. It was said that
European vessels had not been assailed in the Malayan
Archipelago. But let the House observe the mode in
which the trade was carried on in those seas. Vessels
were sent from this country to Sirgapore, and from
thence their merchandise was conveyed in email Dyak
boats, to the coast of Borneo, and it was against those
smell beats that the acts of piracy were committed. Aud if
the pirates put a stop to this transit of European goods
from Singapore to the coast of Borneo, surely it was
practically the Caine, as far as injury to commerce and
to particular tribes was concerned, as if European ves-
sels themselves had been attacked. But, in point of
fact, European vessels had been attacked, though he ad-
mitted the number was not very great.—(Hear, bear.)
With regard to the allegation of cruelty which bad been
brought against Sir James Brooke, the Hon. Member
quoted a passage from a letter of Commander Parker,
to the effect that when a consultation took place on
board of one of her Majesty's chips on the Bornean
coast, with the view of tasking arrangements for cut-
ting off" about 3,000 of the pirates who had escaped
in the action of the previous day, Sir James Brock.) de-
cidedly rejected the proposal, as one which was calcu-
lated to occasion "an unnecessary effusion of blood."
The Hon. Gentleman then read a letter from the Bishop
of Calcutta to glow that the rule of 6'4 Janus Brookein