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

EVENING,

FRIDAY

r 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 they not pirates?—(hear, hear.) The Right
Hon. Gentkman who had spoken last has remarked that
no member of her Majesty's Government has risen till
a late .peried of the debate to -state the views of the Go-
vernment. His Hon. Friend the Under Secretary for
the Colonies did rise at 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, aid who admits for 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 prisOeers they had 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
h:.td been altered that courts of justice can no longer ap-
ply the penalty of death to persons convicted merely of
piracy; and it 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 token ;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 of 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 question in former 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 Omitted 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 like 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 an
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 former periods and at the present time. He states
that—" Whereas it was my duty in former years gone
by to record instances of merchantmen attacked, of the
crews of wrecked merchantmen carried off into slavery
of American, British, and other square-rigged vessels
having disappeared' and never been heard of, being pre-
sumed to have been carried off by pirates ; now, in con-
sequence of the recent operations of the British ships of
war upon the northern coast of Borneo, and the opera-
tions of the Dutch and Spaniards, trade is becoming
secure, and the proceedings of the pirates are, at all
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 were 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 wore 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 Dyaka were exempt from guilt, or to
deny, after the concurrent testimony of masters
of native vessels at Singapore and the report of a
person to the Dutch Government, that the Dyaks bad
Ist en guilty of the crime of piracy in a particular way.
What, then, has given rise to the charges against Sir J.
Brooke?—(Hear, hear.) Ido not wish to purane the
inquiry from whence arise the sources of this persever-
ing, this malignant persecution.—(Hear, hear.) lam
not applying these words to any one in this House. But,
Sir, lam convinced this House, by an overwhelming
thisi
majority, will negative the motion of my Hon. Friend—
(Hear, hear)—and by doing so publish to the world that
ith
uSnirjranmis
(Cheers.) lam persuaded he will continue to enjoy the
estimation of his countrymen as a man who, overcooling
difficulties and facing dangers in distant climates—pre-
viously almost unknown—has done much to promote
commerce and the interests of the country, and to infuse
civilization into regions which before were in a state of
the darkest barbarhim.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. COBDEN agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Gladstone) that persons employed by the Ad-
miralty ought to look after pirates. We paid a large
sum towards maintaining a force in the Indian and Chi-
nese seas. The complement of ships to protect these
seas was 17, with 3,700 men, which, with their relief,
made up a force• of 25 vessels and 4,209 men. This force
was kept up not to guard those seas from pirates, but to
protect our commerce in the Indian and Chinese oceans.
Having a large force there, with a responsible admiral,
we ought to look to them rather than to proclamations
at Fishmongers' Hall dinners by Sir J. Brooke that he
would put down the Borneo pirates.—(oll, oh.) He
would come to the Noble Lord's question, were the
parties slaughtered in the Bornean seas pirates or not?
Let not . the Noble Lord talk of the large 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 forward 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 had furnished
them to his Hon. Friend. One letter was from Com-
mander Daniel, who stated that he never heard that the
Dyaks attacked English vessels; Sir Edward Belcher
expressed the same opinion, and 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. Ho 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
territory. Why was Borneo imported into the question
at all? And when he found ships of war engaged in
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. He was 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 bad been in the de-
bate, he was satisfied the subject was not properly un-
derstood. He could bring authority to show tbat the
Dyaks were not pirates, and ho 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. He 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 ho 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, apd taking , Dyak villages and, vessels.
Though Sir J. Broolie went oui as a governor of La-