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

INHABITED HOUSE DUTY BILL.

On tbe motion for 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 oircumstances.—(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 read 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.
DUBUC 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 srcond time.
UNLAWFUL OATHS (IRELAND) BILL.
This Bill was also read a second time.
SIR JAMES BROOKE. AND BORNEO.

Mr. HUME moved- Co; 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 Majesty'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 that her Majesty
will graciously command, that the opinion of
her Majesty'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
Sarawak, 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 of 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 had at last obtained an opportunity of calling the al,.
tention of the House to transactions which had long
been before the public, end to which he had given e

1851.

great deal 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 of public interest to a question of
certain squabbles between private individuals, and he now
wished the subject to be considered as 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 question of this kind
after so long a period has elapsed, and when, the matter
being passed, it cannot be 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 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, 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 Sarebas 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 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 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's 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 had 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'e. 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 the 27th of May, 1547, with the Sulta❑
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 seized
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 nen-acquiescence.
with the Act of Parliament, with the treaty entered into,
end 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 Saftarran 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-
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 not very formidable ene-
mies. A'boek had been published by a Mr. George
Windsor Erle, which stated that Sarawak was a place of
much importance, and bad 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. 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 a' en one pirate, which greatly dis-
appointed him, as he had heard that the coast abound, d
with them. I❑ the inquiry for which he (Mr. Hume)
sought he was solely iefluenced by a desire to tee the
character of this c• untry kept up, and the cause of hu-
manity respected. What bad the Government done since
he first asked for this it quire ? They had abandoned
the system of head-money, after having expended a
great many thousands of pounds in the destruction of
innocent end unfortunate 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 surge on em-
ployed upon that memorable and unfortunate occasion,
who gave similar testimony to that he had already
quoted. The Hon. Member, having quoted the opinions
of Lieutenant Rideut, 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 stationed at Singapore. The writer said
that he fully concurred in the remarks he had made in
the House of Commons on the subject—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 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, had been forwarded to him

(Mr. Hume), whiah stated their approval of his in-
tention to move for dais 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 refute his assent to this in-
quiry. In addition to his other arguments in favour of
his motion, he*evould 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 be cleared up without an in •
qairy ? 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`Dosvell and Arthur C.
Cruiltshank. 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 beard of attach-
ing any weight to the testimony of ono 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 neen referred
to, ho attached no weight to ir, 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 bad
also been published in the papers; but when was
that
got up? In January, 1851. There was no question,l
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 bean 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 bad adopted the
proceedings of
Sir J. Brooke, it was a question how far
they might be implicated, and it was therefore necessary,
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 wished
to say a few words. Be 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
pointmeat of Consul-General. The answer was, yes.
lie then asked the UndefaSecretary for the Colonies
whether be held the appointment of Governor of La-
buan ; and he said he still remained Governor. Be then
asded 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 Raja I
Brooke as the ruler of an independent state, and in that
point of view he was to be 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 be knew
nothing, and could only say that the British Govern-
ment had given him no power to exercise sovereign au-
thority there. He had, therefore, not obtained the sanc-
tion of the British Government, and, therefore, could not
legally held poser 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 00 dearly. lie

much lamented that the late Right Hon. Baronet the
Member for Tamworth was no longer among them, bke:
cause he held a letter ill his hand from the late Rig'',
Hon. Baronet, in which he expressed an opinion ihs'
delay would be dangerou's, that an inquiry ought to take
place. He said he had read with great pain the facp
which had been stated, out would suspend his judgeier',
-until a full explanation he d been given. It was that ill'
explanation which he (Mr. Hume) sought. It was Pt
sible that he might be wrong, but still respect for t."
feelings of large bodies of men, for the character of thie
country, and cf Sir J. Brooke himself, ought to induce
the Government to support his motion, and he shouldd
have great satisfaction if the result of the inquiry oh°
prove that he was mistaken. He would, therefore, COll.
dude by moving the address.
Mr. HEADLAM said ho bad listened with great
tention to the speech of the Hon. Member for Montre:
on this subject last year, and he never in his life ger%
vote with a more decided conviction of itspropriety the,
when on that occasion he voted in a majority of 16,"
which negatived the motion, in opposition to 20.
(I-Tear, hear.) The Hon. ,ember complained of 11°°'
Members not confiring themselves to the charges 1)(31
the House, but when a high-minded gentleman isebergee
with something very like murder, those who made thj,
charge must not be surprised if the friends of Sir
Brooke sought to trace tnese calumnies to their source;
—(Cheers.) Lawyers had a maxim that no man who
had been once acquitted ought to be again tried for ar
same offence.—(Hear, hear.) This doctrine, aloe!,
true in general, he did not wish to carry to any stag'?
extent, and ho therefore admitted that in ,matters °4
great public interest an exception might be made; on
had the Hon. Member for Montrose now brought ibr.:
ward any very important evidence which was not befel'il
the House on the former occasion, or shown any ree,ll°m
for reversing the decision of the House, he rrilgo
have been justified in again dragging Sir J. /30)°,b0
forward before the country; but after listening le `„d
Hon. Member with the greatest attention, he was ban
to say that he had adduced no material evideneet
whatever on this occasion which he !night n°
have brought forward last year—(Hear, be°ol
and with respect to the new docementary evidence, I
made the case of Sir J. Brooke infinitely strongertlllll
before.—(Hear.) The motion asked, in the first p ,
for an inquiry into the proceedings of Sir J.
Basalsecondly,
secceally, for an inquiry Data the attack of the 31st u'd
July, 1849; and, thirdly, asked her Majesty to coulees,
that certain questions of state policy might be Ow;
misted to the judges. Now, it was not customary
confound questions of state policy with indictments leoi
murder.—(Hear, hear.) But he would pass to the red
charge against Sir J. Brooke, which seemed to be thii,
The Hon. Member for Montrose said that these tribe"
the Sarebas and Sakarrans, were not pirates, but 101
less unoffending people, and perfectly incapable, fr°,
want of civilization and development, from doing and
harm to any one, leas, of all to Europeans; that all tads
had done was to carry on intertribal wars, and 00
they had never committed piracy; that at all eveliii
they had not committed any at that time, and even 0
they bad that an unnecessary degree of cruelty bed 130:0
exercised. What evidence had they on the subject ?the
addition to the abundant testimony already -before tu
House, documents had been laid on the table that ea
which most completely confirmed that testimony °it,
respect to the cruel massacres perpetrated by the,et
pirates. Borneo, as the Honourable Member I°o
Montrose observed, was a large place; but he,
were references to the very tribes and places ,";
question by their names.—(Hear.) It appeared tho;
though the Dyaks from Sarebas and Sakarran were °l/
themselves very strong in arms, they were joined be
Malays and Arabs shereefs. In the papers laid befnr
them that morning, he found a report quoted, dated t
ot
tober, 1830, which recommended that these pirate
should be attacked when they bad returned to their re;
treats. Great stress had been laid upon the fact tiled
there were several vessels from this country which 11. s
never seen any pirates; but it should be remembers
;
that piracies in these seas took place only during a CC,
tarn period of the year, and it was absurd to say that
tarn vessels having seen no pirates, therefore none ei
isted there. Why, so far back us the year 1834, we were
in treaty with the ling of the Netherlands for the es
press purpose of putting.; down piracy in the MalaYed
Archipelago, and the King of the Netherlands adePS'ed
measure:, for suppressing it. In addition to this, we uti
a treaty with Borneo to put an end to it. Sir Jam`'„
Brooke had received instructions from the N 0
Lord at the Foreign-office to use his power and l;
fluence with the same object in view, and numern"e"
representations had come from the mercantile ear
muuity complaining of piracy. Under these circern;
i
stances it was that Sir James Brooke, when he
had adopted the very best mode of suppressnS
piracy, was denounced in this House and before tlre
country as the murderer of an uncffending race of meni
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member then read a letl!,'",
which had been written by a naval officer at present
the coast guard, and formerly serving on board O.
Ariadne ship of war in the Indian Seas, in which 111
writer bore his personal testimony to the existence °
pirates on the coast of Borneo, and stated that on nil.
occasion he himself narrowly escaped with his life fr're
them; and that at another time an attack upon the
Ariadne by three prahus filled with men was prevent%
only by firing a 24-pound shot across their bows. Iv
,writer added that he thought an instance like the'
;where a vessel of war had deen attacked by the°
"daring robbers." was sufficient to convince even Die.
!Cobden himself of the piratical character of the tribes.;'
Captain(Laughter, and Hear, hear.) In the year 1844, Captain
Keppell was engaged in similar operations against the
tDe lass of Sarebas, and his conduct was then acknoir
ledge(' and approved by the company at Singapore, the(
commander-in-chief on the station, and the Lords
the Admiralty. Captain Keppell said that on that cede
eion the pirates were the first to fire, and that is lest
than a quarter of an hour they were driven from the's
guns.
Mr. COBDEN (we understood)—You said just OW
they bad no fire-arms.
Mr. HE ADLAM—No. What he bud said was that
.
the D} aks, taken by themselves, had not many fire-arms''
but that they were in communication with and under the
influence of the Arab shereefa, and that when the Corr
bined fleet went forth—composed of Dyaks and sherege
and Malays—they were armed with fire-arms.—(Hear'
hear.) Captain Keppell then proceeded to say that PO
less than 56 guns of various sizes were taken, as well ali,
a vast quantity of ammunition; that a ton and a half 01
gunpowder fell into the hands of our people, and th°
besides this 200 piratical boats were destroyed. After
having punished the two principal tribes of the pirate.'
Captain Keppell next determined on attacking the tribe's
who furnished the fire-arms, who mustered 10,000 v,ilr;
riots, and could put to sea with a hundred prahus; and
he stated in his report that the interests of British coal'
merce Would be greatly advanced by the continuance of
measures for the suppression of piracy in those seas. An
he meant by that was, that after making these examples
sEirete slight supervision might be exercised, so as to
prevent the renewed growth of these piratical corona;
nitiea and their return to their former practices; an'
Captain Keppell and Sir J. Brooke seemed both to enter
fain 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, agai_n resorted to their old practices, and in,
consequence a similar example of them was required
to be made in 1849 With regard to this question
of " piracy," he confessed that he was a little stir
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 tbeil
reach, no step was to be taken except to capture them and
bring them to trial under the 3d and 4th Victoria-a'
(Hear, hear, and a laugh)—that when the pirates were
returning from a marauding Expedition to the river from
which they had 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. Headier's) could not
agree that that was the best mode of suppressing piracy'
He did not thirk that such a course bad ever heel
adopted by any
nation in the history of the world, on
°1
he did cot believe that that was the intention of the
treaties_ between this country and the Netherlands, end
Sir James Brooke and the. Sultan of Borneo. A quer
tion might arise as to what constituted piracy, and Sir
James 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. nes°
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 WV°
them had gradually worn off. In that year their depre'
dations at sea became more frequent, though not 0'
a formidable character, and after his departure for
England, in 1847, the pirates threw off all reserve sad
hara,sed 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
facts, 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 Come
mender Parker in the course he had pursued—(Hear)
—and not 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 thiss
European vessels bad not been assailed in the Malayan'
Archipelago. But let the House observe the mode its
which the trade was carried on in those seas. Vessels'
were sent from this country to Singapore, and from
thence their merchandise was conveyed in small Dyak
boats, to the coast cif Borneo, and it was against those
small boats that the acts of piracywere committed. And if
the pirates put a stop to this trensit of European goods
from Singapore to the coast of Borneo, surely it WO
practically the same, as far as injury to commerce and
to particular trans was concerned, as if European yes-
sets themselves had been attacked. But, in point of
fact. European vessels had been attacked, though he ad-
mitted ihe number wits not very great.—(Hear, hear-)
With regard to the allegation of cruelty which had been
brought against Sir James Brooke, the Hon. Member
quoted a passage from a letter of Commander Parker,
to the eff, ct that when a consultation took place on
board of one of her Majesty's ships on the Borneaa
coast, with the view of making arrangements for a cut-
ting off" about 3,000 of the pirates who had escaped
in the action of the previous day, Sir James Brooke de'
cidedly rejected the proposal, as one which was calea;
lated to occasion "an unnecessary effusion of blood;
The Hon. Gentleman then read a letter from the Bisho2
of Calcutta to thaw that the rule of b'ir Joao Brooke ill

Baral
chart
4.
crate
880. I
!tat('
indef
Rev.
try,

even,
ray ft
of th.
has

the
*nee
(yep`
r
oger
f life
'hese
1846
431;i10
d
pots
Pre.
of
for
.1
and
)Sir
the
r at-
coo ,

ie