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

t-3,l;tninix ,s.Atit

LONDON, FRIDAY, JULY 11, 1851.

In the House of Lords,
Lord BROUGHAM withdrew his two Bills relating to
the County Courts.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH, in moving for certain
returns, attacked the provisions of the Merchant Sea-
men's Fund BilL The measure was defended by Earl
GRANVILLE, and the returns were ordered.
The Bills on the table were forwarded a stage, and
their Lordships adjourned.
In the House of Commons,
At the morning sitting, the Merchant Seamen's Fund
Bill was considered in Committee, as were several
clauses of the Lands Clauses Consolidation (Ireland) Bill.
At the evening sitting, the Inhabited House Duty
Bill. and the Chief Justices Salaries Bill, were respec-
tively read a third time and passed.
Mr. HUME moved an address, praying ‘
‘ That her
Majesty would appoint a 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•Guneral to the Sultan and
Independent Chiefs of Borneo; and, especially, into the
attack made by her Majesty's and the East India Com-
pany's naval forces, under his advice and direction, on
certain wild tribes of that island, called the Sakarran
and Serebas Dyaks, on the night of the 31st July, 1849.
And further, that her Majesty would command that
the opinion of the Judges be taken and laid before
the House, touching the legality or otherwise of the
holding by Sir James Brooke, at one and the same time,
of several apparently incompatible offices."
Mr. URQUHART seconded the motion.

Mr. HEADLAM opposed the motion, and contended
that the destruction of these piratical Dyaks was re-
quired by the interests of justice and humanity.
Mr. URQUHART denied tb at the Dyaks were pirates.
Mr. M..Mu.NEs passed a high eulogium on Sir JAMES
BROOKE, to whom the civilized world was under great
obligations for having destroyed this horde of pirates.
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND defended Sir JAMES BROOKE
—the attack upon him had been instigated by private
parties from personal motives.
Mr. MACGREGOR defended the parties to whom Mr. H.
DRUMMOND had alluded.
Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE quoted the authority of Sir
THOMAS COCHRANE as eviuthce of the existence of
piracy among the Dyaks of Borneo.
Mr. GLADSTONE was convinced that Sir JAMES
BROOKE, when environed by most difficult circum-
stances, had behaved as became a wise and a humane
man. Personal motives were at the bottom of the hostile
agitation of this question. Formal inquiry at Singapore
bad justified Sir J. BROOKE, and although ho thought
the pirates ought not to be slaughtered except caught
in the act of piracy, yet the responsibility of these pro-
ceedings rested nut with Sir J. BROOKE, but with the
Commander of the forces of her MAJESTY and of the
Eat India Company, and with the Government.
Lord PALMERSTON said, in reply to Mr. GLADSTONE,
that his assertion as to our right to deal with pirates
applied only to the mode of dealing with them after
they had been made prisoners. These Dyaks had been
destroyed in the attempt to capture them, and had been
treated in perfect accordance with the laws of war.
There could be no doubt of these persons having been
pirates; the Bornean seas had been rendered unsafe for
merchants, and great losses had been sustained by them.
The Dyak nation lived by piracy, and had, indeed, no
other visible means of subsistence. Arguing, therefore,
first, that the parties had been pirates, and secondly,
that their destruction had been conducted according to
the laws recognised by Rations in such cases, he con-
tended there was no charge made out, and he appealed
to the House to give an honourable acquittal to the
eminent man who had been so unfairly assailed.
Mr. COBDEN asserted that there was no proof that the
Dyaks were pirates, which assertion was met by
Sir F. THESIGER, who declared there could be no
doubt as to the piratical nature of the proceedings of the
parties who bad been killed in resisting their lawful
capture.

Colonel THOMPSON disbelieved that any piracy ex-
isted in the seas in question; in reply to whom,
Mr. FORSTER read from Lloyd's List accounts of be•
tween thirty and forty British vessels which had since
1839 been attacked by pirates in these very seas.
Mr. HUME replied, and the House divided, when there
appearcd—
. .

For Mr. Fume's motion ... ... 19
Against it 230
Majority against it ... -211
The remaining business was then disposed of, and the
House adjourned.

Yesterday we demonstrated by a few simple hut
unanswerable facts the glaring injustice of the accu-
sations directed against the Raja of SARAWAK. Sub-
sequently, the discussion on those charges, provoked
by the motion of the Honourable Gentleman the
Member for Montrose, came on in the House of
Commons, and yvas conducted, as the reports suffi-
ciently indicate, with a tolerable degree of animation.
A glance at the division, by which the debate upon
Sir JAMES BROOKE and his policy towards the na-
tions of the Oriental Archipelago was brought
to a conclusion, will evidence clearly enough,
wa imagine, the frivolity of the attack
made by a petty section of enthusias's upon
the character of one of the most disinterested and dis-
tinguished among the representatives of our beloved
SOVEREIGN. A miserable minority of 19 was counted
out into one lobby, while no less than 230 declared
themselves resolutely in favour of the Governor of
Labuan, Consul-General of Borneo, and Raja of
Sarawak. After this triumphant declaration
of the sentiments with which the British
Legislature regards the proceedings of Sir JAMES
BROOKS towards the pirates of the Oriental Archi-
pelago, we presume that no further calumnies will
be permitted to be directed against a servant of the
Crown so eminent for his efforts for the advancement
of civilization. Henceforth, in spite of the sinister
aspersions of a few infatuated and disappointed mal-
contents, the remarkable personage here exonerated
from all blame in regard to the manner of his ad-
ministration will be remembered in the:history of our
Esti tern possessions as one of the most meritorious
labourers in the improvement of the Asiatic popu-
lation. While Sir STAMFORD RAFFLES will be cele-
brated by the annalist of those islands as the origi-
nator of their commercial prosperity, Sir JAMES
BROOKE will be admired as the originator of their
political advancement. Such will be the award of
posterity to those illustrious benefactors of their spe-
cies when the traducers of the latter are nearly all of
them obliterated from public recollection.
It cannot be forgotten that when comment-
ing, in our last impression, on the probable
results of the vituperation directed against
Sir JAMES BROOKE, we remarked, with a
certain degree of emphasis, that so far from
militating against his popularity they would prove in
the end eminently calculated to enhance the lustre
and magnitude of his reputation. As a fact almost
immediately corroborative of that assurance, we may
direct attention to the splendid panegyric pronounced
last evening upon his Excellency by a statesman no
less illustrious than her MAJESTY'S Principal Secre-
tary for the Foreign Department. That, of itself, we
are satisfied, must be looked upon by Sir JAMBE,
BROOKE as an ample compensation for the annoyances
he must have course have endured from the malig-
nity with which his name has been assailed, and for
the pertinacity with which his gOvernment has been
misrepresented. More particulary must this have
been the case when it is remembered that the dis-
cussion, in which Lord PALMERSTON thus brilliantly
and admirably participated, was completed soon
afterwards by the rejection of the motion by a ma-
jority of 211. The remembrance of yesterday's debate
in the House
;
of Commons will tend more-
over to sustain the
Raja of SARAWAK hence-
forth in the midst of all the difficulties
of his position, his past conduct having thereby
received the empbatic:comnaendation of the House of
commons and the eulogiunis of the greatest states..
man in her MAJESTY'S Government. As a most ear-
nest expression of those feelings of profound indignae
tion with which the long-continued attacks upon Sir
JAMES BROOKE are regarded by the nation at large,
we refer with especial satisfaction to:the peroration of
the speech delivered last evening by Lord PALmERs.
TON. After refuting with extraordinary terseness
and facility the charges directed against his
Excellency,
the noble orator exclaimed with
some warmth,
" T - say,
,then, there is nothing to in
quire into, unless it
,hicpherslevdeorinngo:
wish to pursue,
from whence came btehatanuninrecimuiirttyinwg
as to who could have been the source
and m align an t_[Here the
Noble Lord was inter-
rupted
by loud cheers, continuing
as soon as they
bad subsided]—l do not refer toanything
House, but I say that
persecution of an honourable mete
in this
malignant and persevering
Sir, I am con-
vinced that this House will, by an overwhelming
majority, Lot only negative the motion of my
Honourable Friend, but by so doing Proclaim to

the world that Sir JAMES BROOKE retires
from this investigation with untarnished character,
with unblemished honour. And I am persuaded
that he will continue to enjoy the estimation of his
countrymen as a man, who, by braving every con-
tumely, and facing dangers under distant climates,
and perils in unknown lands, has done more to pro-
mote the commercial interests of his country, and to dif-
fuse the light of civilization amongst a people who were
before in the darkness of barbarism." A splendid pane-
gyric and one nobly merited, an eulogium reflecting
honour upon the encomiast, as well as upon the sub-
ject of his approval. No wonder the plaudits were
fervent which interrupted and closed those remarks
of Lord PALMERSTON, remembering that the policy of
Sir JAMES BROOKE was the subject under discussion,
and that the auditors of the Foreign Secretary were
the representatives of the English people.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCUEQUER has succeeded in
obtaining one of those triumphs in which he especially
rejoices, but which are calculated to do greater in-
jury to himself and party than the most decisive and
inglorious defeats. Once more he has by a narrow
mojority negatived the just and reasonable demands
of the Scotch and Irish distillers, and continued a re-
gulation alike injurious to the producers and con-
sumers of home-made spirits for anuther session.
Six times the House of Commons affirmed
the propriety and sanctioned the principle
of the measure brought forward by the
Noble Lord the Member for Kildare, and yet our
excellent Minister of Finance perseveres in his fac-
tious opposition, and offers obstructions at every stage
of its progress. The will of the Legislature, so
clearly and unequivocally expressed, is by him
despised and set at nought. A single defeat, we
should rather say surprise, occurring on the evening
between the Derby and Oaks, when the great ma-
jority of the legislators were absent, was considered
sufficient to induce the Government to advise their
SOVEREIGN to disturb the postal arrangements of the
country, and to introduce regulations that must ne-
cessarily be productive of the greatest inconvenience
to all classes in society. The will of the House of
Commons expressed on a division was the excuse,
but the transparency of the humbug must now be ap-
parent, when we find the contemptuous disregard ex-
hibited by one of those Ministers for the result of no
less than six divisions, and that he is supported by his
colleagues in the extraordinary and, for a Cabinet
Minister, unprecedented course he has thought proper
to adopt.

And what is the subject on which he has
deemed it right to exhibit such perverse and mulish
obstinacy ? Is it one that could by a possibility in-
jure any class of her MAJESTY'S subjects ; or that
could unduly interfere with our foreign or colo-
nial trade? Is there any desire on the part
of the applicants to revive the obsolete doctrines
of protection, now advisedly repudiated by the
House ? Far from it. They demand no favour or
exclusive privilege ; they are the opponents of mo-
nopoly. All they ask is fair play, that the same al-
lowance should be given to the producer of the United
Kingdom that is freely conceded to the foreign or
colonial manufacturer. We have so frequently
entered into the merits of the question that it is
almost unnecessary to allude to any of the details,
with which the reading end the thinking public must
be familiar. It is sufficient. to say that the point of
controversy is whether the Scotch and Irish dis-
tillers shall pay duty on the strength
and quantity of spirit brought into actual
consumption, and for which they receive payment,
as is the case with the foreign and colonial producer,
or whether they shall he compelled to pay on it as
it issues from the worm's end, without any allow-
ance being made for the waste occasioned by leakage,
soakage, or evaporation, which must necessarily occur
if the spirit be kept a sufficient time to come to ma-
turity, and to get rid of the deleterious properties in-
separable from raw spirits of any description.
It seems unnecessary to offer any serious argument
on such a point, which carries conviction on the very
face of it. Sir CHARLES WOOD, however, speaks
as if it were a boon to the distillers that the duty
should be levied at the earliest moment. He drew a
distinction between the Customs and Excise duties—
that the principle as to the former was to levy them
at the latest moment, because up to the latest moment
there was no saying whether the article paid upon
would or would not be exported ; whereas in the
latter it was to levy them at the earliest moment, so
that the duty once paid, the owner of the article
might be freed from any further supervision or in-
terference on the part of the Excise. And is it to
the British Parliament, the elected representatives of
the British people, that such an argument is gravely
put forward by a person holding a high and im-
portant office ? Has he the hardihood to assert
that it is "fur the convenience (the convenience,
forsooth!) of the producer" that the duty was so
levied? If such were the case, why do we
find the producers generally complaining of the
hardship, and showing that it compels them
to give an inferior article to the producer ? But the
statement is also untrue. The privilege of bonding
shows that the assertion is unfounded. That very
privilege was conceded in consequence of the
almost universal complaints preferred by the dis-
tillers, and it is absurd to assert that
the regulation was established for their especial con-
venience, when they were obliged to obtain a mo-
dification of the stringent and obnoxious rule. And
the fact that they are allowed to pay the duty,
at a subsequent period, when the spirit is about to
be brought into consumption, renders it a matter of
course that the duty should only be paid on the
quantity and quality brought into consumption.
The reference to the solemn settlement of 1848
was another specimen of gross and palpable folly.
How many of these solemn settlements have we had ?
Was there not an equally solemn settlement in
1847, which was an alteration of the still more so-
lemn settlement of 1845, which in turn varied the
numerous solemn settlements effected within the pre-
ceding twenty years ? And how was it a settle-
ment ? How were the distillers represented in 1848 ?
Is it not notorious that they were taken
by surprise, without being afforded an opportunity of
producing any evidence or examining a single wit-
ness ? Away, then, with the farce of relying on such
a settlement ; and even if it were what is alleged, it
is unnecessary to say that no settlement could sanc-
tify such injustice as that to which the distillers of
Ireland and Scotland are subjected.

We copied a paragraph the other day from the
Sherborne Journal, stating the Sherborne Mercury had be-
come extinct; whereas the fact turns out to be that the
Mercury has only changed hands, and changed the place of
publication to Yeovil instead of Sherborne. Now, this being
the case, we wonder how another paper, from an unworthy
spirit of rivalry, should have published such an erroneous (1)
statement. Whatever difference of politics may exist, truth
should at all times be held sacred, more especially among
journalists, who profess to lead, and not mislead, public
opinion.--[ED. Sun.]

The Earl of Sefton is appointed Lord-Lieutenant
of the county of Lancaster, vice the late Earl of Derby. The
Rev. A. P. -Stanley is appointed to the stall now vacant in
the Cathedral of Canterbury.
DEMISE OF THE REV. FREDERICK VERNON LOCK-
WOOD, CANON OF CANTERBURY.—It is impossible to describe
the feelings of intense sorrow and regret for the loss of the
Rev. Frederick Vernon Lockwood, son-in-law of the Bishop
of Carlisle. All classes have manifested the deepest interest
in this event, which has deprived the Church of one of her
most useful members, and society of one of her greatest
ornaments. It is to be most deeply lamented that he caught
the infection which has terminated his labours, while visiting
one of his parishioners afflicted with the small-pox. The
Rev. Gentleman was appointed to the curacy of Starry the
22d April, 1826, and on the 7th March, 1827, was presented
to the vicarage of Mersham by the late Archbishop of Can-
terbury, and ultimately to the chaplaincy of the House of
Commons, and to a prebendal stall in Canterbury Cathedral.
—Kentish Gazette.

THE CIVIC ENTERTAINMENT.—The Right Hon.
the Lord Mayor received a communication from Lord John
Russell last evening, conveying her Majesty's most gracious
approval of all the arrangements of the civic entertainment
at Guildhall on Wednesday last, and announcing the fact
that her Majesty had been pleased to confer upon his Lord-
ship the dignity of a baronet of the united Kingdom, in
token of the Itoyal appreciation of the hospitality presided
over by his Lordship.
MARGATE, JULY 10.—The town is filling fast.
The General Steam iNavigation Company's steam-ship Prince
or Wales arrived yesterday from London with pas,eugers, in
four hours and forty minutes, being the quickest passage ever
accomplished. The Little Western occupied only five hours
and twenty minutes from London to Ramsgate, both vessels
having called at 13Isckwall and North Woolwich for pas-
sengers.

A. W. Way, Esq., has offered to provide a stag-
hunting establishment for Cheltenham, on being guaranteed
300/. a year by the inhabitants. He proposes to hunt once
a week while Earl Fitzhardinge's fox-hounds are in the
other times.—Bath Chronicle,country, and twice a week, with an ocoaBion4 bye-day, at