HC Deb 23 May 1850 vol 111 cc287-307

House in Committee of Supply.

SIR F. T. BARING

said, that the Votes that would be proposed would include, in the total amount of each, the original as well as the supplemental estimates. He should now propose that there be granted to Her Majesty the sum of 883,999l., to defray the charge of naval stores, building and repairs, outfits of fleet, &c.

MR. COBDEN

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (who was absent) had given notice of an Amendment on this vote, which he presumed he would move on some future stage of the estimates. He (Mr. Cobden) thought that the practice of appointing the first day after an adjournment of the House for going into these Votes was not only on inconvenient system, but ought to be put an end to. He belonged to two important Committees upstairs; and it was there agreed, that as all the Members were not likely to be in town immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays, the Committee would not resume their sittings till Monday next. He had observed that the Government systematically named the day on which Parliament assembled for voting large sums in the estimates; and if such a course were persisted in, the House ought to resist it by a vote. At the present it was not the intention of his hon. Friend to divide the Committee.

SIR G. PECHELL

thought that at least this vote ought, under the circumstances, to be postponed; and fully agreed in the remarks of the hon. Member for the West Riding. With respect to the vote itself, various ways had been pointed out for the reduction of our expenditure, whether in the Naval or any other department. The hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side would not admit that the Army and Navy should be exposed to a reduction such as was comprised in the financial plans of the hon. Member for the West Riding; but if not, let them, then, see whether the efficiency of the Navy could not be kept up consistently with the reduction of votes like this. There was a large class of vessels now kept in ordinary at considerable expense; he meant the class of vessels from 28 to 44 guns, which would be of no use in any future war, and ought to be put up to auction, and got rid of. But if they still preferred to keep these ships in ordinary, at so great an expense, at all events they might reduce the expense and cheapen the system of caulking them. As to the cost of building ships, too, there was no comparison between the cost of building in our dockyards and in private yards. For example, the Waterwitch brig, built by Messrs. White of Cowes, after several years' cruising, was sold, a most efficient vessel, to the Government for 12l. a ton; while the cost of vessels built in the dockyards reached 20l. a ton. The next point was the consumption of coals. They never saw a steamer using her sails; but, in cases where there was not the least necessity for haste, up went their steam, though wind and tide might be favourable. A saving of 20l. a day might be effected in some of the dockyard ports by a little attention in this matter; and if the port admiral were to make a weekly return of the consumption of coals, there would be much less smoke raised in future. He trusted his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty, who, he sincerely believed, had the interest of the service as well as its economical management at heart, would take his remarks in good part, and give his attention to the points to which he had ventured to refer.

SIR F. T. BARING

regretted that the hon. Member for Montrose had not been aware of the firm intention of Government to bring on the Navy Estimates that night, and consequently was not present; but, at the same time, the hon. Member must have been quite aware of the course Government intended to pursue respecting them. He could assure the House he did not find it very agreeable to bring on the estimates the first day after the holidays; but any one present at five o'clock could not say there was not an ample attendance of hon. Members. It was scarcely fair, in talking of a large expenditure, to omit to state that a reduction of 390,000l. had taken place in the vote as compared with former years. He was happy to state that a reduction had taken place in the sum for coals, as compared with the cost last year, of not less than 54,000l.; and very stringent regulations had been issued by the Admiralty respecting the issue and use of fuel. He believed the hon. Member for Brighton was not an advocate for building men-of-war in private yards. [Sir G. PECHELL: Not altogether.] The case of the Waterwitch did not offer a fair comparison; because she was purchased secondhand, and never was built at the cost stated, and there was, of course, considerable difference in the price of a new vessel and of one some time in service.

MR. FITZROY

asked on what ground so large a reduction was estimated in the cost of coal. He also wished to know whether any steps had been taken for the speedy coaling of our steamers. The subject was one of great importance, and had been under the consideration of the former board, and he hoped to hear some method was in view for obviating the difficulties of providing steamers with fuel in cases of pressing urgency.

SIR F. T. BARING

explained that the reduction was caused by the decreased consumption at the different yards, and by the coal being contracted for at lower prices. The mode of fuelling had also caused a reduction, and it was hoped some further improvement might be made on the present method.

Mr. DISRAELI

was anxious to express his concurrence in the objections taken by the right hon. Baronet to the course proposed by the hon. Member for the West Riding. He did not agree with that hon. Member that it was inexpedient to proceed with important business on the first day Parliament met after a recess. His opinion was that, if it were understood that important business would be brought on, the attendance of Members would be more numerous, and it was no greater hardship upon one more than upon another. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Montrose, which was the more remarkable, perhaps, because it was so rare an occurrence. In the absence of that hon. Member, his supporters ought not to post-pose the Motion of which he had given notice, because there was now a possibility of its being carried, which there would not be if the financial reformers were all present.

LORD J. MANNERS

said, that as it had been announced that the hen. Member for Montrose would divide, on some future occasion, upon the Motion to which they were just about to assent, it would perhaps be better not to oppose the vote now.

Vote agreed to.

(2.) New Works at Devonport.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 339,839l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of New Works, Improvements, and Repairs, in the Naval Establishments, and for a new Dock and Engine House at Devonport Dock Yard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1851.

SIR W. MOLESWORTH

said, that as a Member of the Committee on the Naval Estimates, he felt it his duty to object to the part of the vote which referred to Keyham docks. The expense of those works had been going on increasing year after year, and the Committee had agreed they ought not to have been undertaken. There was now a proposal to give 120,000l. for the docks at Keyham, and a further sum of 20,000l. was set down for works at Bull-point, which had been rendered necessary to protect the docks. He thought those works ought to be stopped at once, and therefore proposed a reduction in the vote to the amount of 140,000l.

Afterwards Motion made, and Question proposed— That a sum, not exceeding 199, 839l., he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of New Works, Improvements, and Repairs in the Naval Establishments, and for a new Dock and Engine House at Devonport Dock Yard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1851.

SIR. F. T. BARING

said, that the utility of the docks at Keyham had been so fully discussed it was hardly necessary for him to enter upon the question again. Though the Committee had expressed a doubt as to the propriety of commencing the works at all, they thought it would be inexpedient and unwise, having already expended such large sums, not to complete them; and, as far as his recollection served him, they recommended that the works should go forward gradually; and, with reference to the engagements of Government, that recommendation had been strictly followed, and it would be very unwise to stop works which would be useful in case of war, and to throw away upwards of 500,000l. already expended on them.

MR. PETO

agreed that the works ought not to be stopped altogether, and he recommended that the vote now proposed should be granted, which would effect the most useful part of the plan, and then the works might be stopped. But in respect to the factories for building and repairing steam machinery, he really thought the Government ought to pause before proceeding with that portion of the design, for they could be at once better and more cheaply supplied by the great engine manufacturers on the Clyde and the Thames.

MR. COBDEN

objected to the proposal to lay out 150,000l. to complete the basin. It should be recollected that the basin would never have been made at all had it not been intended for the use of the factory. It appeared that the Government could not make their steam machinery without these enormous basins, but the manufacturers could; they had only a sea wall, from which they put the boilers on board the vessels. But the Government must do everything in such a magnificent way that they must have basins. In voting the 150,000l., they would be voting for one step only in the whole process. He was not aware that the Government had submitted any new plan since the last report. But the sum of 150,000l. was not all. The Committee had reported that when the factories were completed, 80,000l. would be required for the wages of the workmen to be employed in them, and for their tools and instruments 20,000l. more. Then would come the outlay for keeping the machinery in repair. And all this was for an establishment which the Committee had pronounced useless, and would not have recommended at all had it not been begun; and the question practically was, whether they would incur an annual expenditure of 100,000l. for wages and tools. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty said these works would be useful in time of war; but he contended that if that time should come, there were factories and basins in existence adequate to answer any call. He should support the Motion for stopping the works.

MR. PETO

said, that all he was anxious about was, that the Government would promise not to begin the factories for steam machinery until circumstances had proved them to be actually necessary.

SIR F. T. BARING

said, that not one farthing was taken on this vote for factories or machinery, or for anything beyond the basins; and that nothing would be done in respect to factories or machinery without the subject again coming before the House.

ADMIRAL BOWLES

defended not only the basins but the factories; as, without them, the Government would have no place to repair and refit its steam navy. It was of vital importance to England, as a maritime power, that there should be a steam basin at Plymouth.

MR. M'GREGOR

was disposed to take the same view of the subject as the Government. He was of opinion that the docks at Deptford, Sheerness, and New-porthaven might be dispensed with, and that the requirements of the country might be satisfactorily met by there being four docks only, one at Woolwich, another at Chatham, a third at Portsmouth, and a fourth at Devonport. He would support the present vote, inasmuch as it was in-intended to defray the expense of works which were in progress of completion.

MR. BRIGHT

wished to call the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark to the circumstance that 120,000l. was the sum which Government required for the present year; that the other expenses referred to were not now to be incurred; and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Baronet would not think it necessary to divide the Committee. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding as to the Government factories; for England was not in that respect like France, or any of the continental countries, as the French Government, if they wished to build steam ships, must do so for themselves, inasmuch as they could not have recourse to such private establishments as England possessed on the banks of the Thames, the Clyde, and the Mersey, where fleets could be produced and fitted out in much less time than any Government could build them.

SIR F. T. BARING

stated, that Government were not now about to make any demand for factory building. It was not his practice to state in one year what he intended to do in the next. The factories which the Government at present possessed were capable of meeting the demands upon them; therefore nothing would be done with the factories this year, and nothing whatever done until after the matter came regularly under the notice of Parlirment.

MR. CORRY

reminded the Committee that the factories existed not for the construction but the repair of steam vessels. It was essential for the safety of the country that the steam navy should have facilities of repair at certain intervals along the coast, when they could not enter either the Thames or the Mersey without inconvenience and loss.

MR. COBDEN

said, that the Government ought to confine themselves to the repair, and not engage in the construction of boilers. He thought, that as they had now steam basins, docks, and factories, which would enable them to repair between 100,000 and 200,000 horse power, and the total horse power of the steam navy did not reach anything like that extent, they had made pretty good provision already for a time of war. The Select Committee had been told by persons connected with the public dockyards that boilers could be made in those establishments at less cost than by private persons. The mode of taking stock pursued by these public servants, however, differed widely from that adopted by private individuals, for the former made no account of the interest of money, wear and tear of machinery, or the cost of the plant and establishment. He considered that the boilers required for the public service could be obtained from private individuals at less expense than they could be manufactured in the public establishments, and he therefore thought the Government ought not to continue the manufacture.

CAPTAIN HARRIS

said, if the hon. Member for the West Riding looked at the expense to which the country was subjected during the last war by contracts for building ships, he might perhaps come to the conclusion that the soundest policy and the best economy was to maintain public establishments of this kind.

SIR W. MOLESWORTH

said, that, as he understood the First Lord of the Admiralty to say that nothing would be done with regard to the factory buildings till the subject was brought under the consideration of Parliament next year, he would not press the Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put.

Vote agreed to; as was also

(3.) 27,680l. for Medicines and Medical Stores.

(4.) Miscellaneous Services,

Motion made, and Question put— That a sum, not exceeding 175,698l., be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of divers Miscellaneous Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending the 31 at day of March, 1851; also, for divers Miscellaneous Services connected with the Searching Expeditions under the command of Captain Penny and Captain Austen.

MR. COBDEN

said, the estimate contained an item of 100,000l. for bounty allowed for the capture or destruction of enemies' ships of war and of piratical vessels. He thought the Committee ought to have some explanation on this subject.

LORD D. STUART

observed that the vote had increased enormously, for last year it was only 20,000l.

SIR F. T. BARING

said, the money was required for paying the bounty or head money given for the capture of pirates. He could give the House details of all the particular transactions relating to the capture of pirates, but as the accounts had appeared fully in the newspapers, he thought it was scarcely necessary now to go into them.

MR. COBDEN

expressed his desire to have some information with respect to the pirates, in order to ascertain whether they were really pirates. He doubted very much whether this demand for head money was legal, because he believed the Act for the supression of piracy did not apply to the present description of cases. The best proof of this was to be found in the circumstance that the first Act of the Government in the present Session was to repeal the existing law which authorised the payment of head-money. He would like the Committee to consider for a moment the circumstances under which this money was demanded. A gentleman named Brooke, who was sometimes styled Rajah Brooke, became possessed, by means which he would not now stop to describe, of a district of country north-west of the coast of Borneo. He had certain disputes with his next neighbours, whom he was pleased to call "pirates." Now, these people were just as much pirates when Sir J. Brooke knew them as they had ever been before. They were tribes who had been in a state of predatory warfare with each other for many years, but they had never attacked us or any of our vessels. This was the real point at issue. No English vessel had ever been molested or assailed by those pirates. He denied altogether that acts of piracy had been committed against our vessels in the India Archipelago, and he appealed to Lloyd's to show that there was no increased charge for assuring vessels trading in the Indian seas. The history of this massacre of "pirates," for he could call it nothing else, was simply this:—The hostile tribes against whom Sir J. Brooke made war were engaged upon business of their own, and had no intention whatever of attacking us. Sir J. Brooke, however, engaged the services of a ship-of-war and two smaller vessels, and lay in wait at the mouth of a river for the prahus of the natives, which were merely open row-boats, and were not vessels of war. When the fleet of boats appeared in sight, Sir J. Brooke, without calling upon them to surrender, or in any way communicating with them, with the view of ascertaining what they wanted, fired a broadside into them of shot, balls, and rockets, and the unfortunate wretches were unable to make the slightest attempt at resistance or defence. The English steam-vessels of war were then driven among the boats, and the miserable creatures were crushed under the paddle-wheels, and annihilated by hundreds in the most inhuman manner. Some idea might be formed of the nature of the attack when not even one of our sailors was injured in the affray. Indeed, the attack reminded him more of a battue of sheep or rabbits than of honourable warfare. After this mighty feat of valour had been performed, they came to a Christian assembly, and demanded 20l. a head for slaughtering the unhappy wretches. There was no proof whatever that the men were pirates, and Sir J. Brooke himself admitted that the prisoners whom he had captured (and who, if they were pirates, ought to have been hanged), were treated by him with the greatest kindness and then sent home. He (Mr. Cobden) declared the men had been murdered, without one tittle of evidence that they had ever molested us, and that the evidence against them would not have been sufficient to convict for petty larceny. With regard to the charge which was made for destroying pirates in the Chinese seas, he behoved the demand was an illegal one, because we had never been molested or interfered with by the so-called pirates. He, therefore, objected, on principle, to paying 20l. a head for killing people who had never done anything to us. He thought that the least the Committee might do was to delay voting this money until further information was before them.

MR. DRUMMOND

was not able to say why the Government repealed the statute; but when the hon. Member for the West Riding asked for proof of these Bornean pirates being really such, it was enough to say, let him look for any record of voyages or travels, printed or in manuscript, that called them anything else. Yet now we were to be told they were only innocent free-traders. They dealt in men and women to be sure; and their last act of trade, before they were attacked by Sir J. Brooke, was, that they seized upon a body of persons who were really trading, and put them all to death. It was true they carried on war among themselves; the tribes upon the coast were of different nation and religion from those in the interior, who were able to trade, but these pirates would not let them. What was the proof of their being pirates? The judgment of every competent court; and the House of Commons was not fitted to set aside the judgment of the courts in Singapore and elsewhere. Because Sir J. Brooke was carrying on most successfully and meritoriously a most thriving colony, which a certain person wanted to turn into a matter for his own aggrandisement, taking shares and making Sir J. Brooke a joint jobber with him, that man had been an anonymous slanderer of Sir J. Brooke for the last three years, and that was the truth of the matter. As to our having no right to attack persons unless they were pirates against our commerce, why then did we send Lord Exmouth out some years ago against pirates who never touched any person sailing under an English flag? He (Mr. Drummond) hoped there would be an opportunity hereafter, as was promised, of going into the matter fully, when Sir J. Brooke's salary should be before the House.

MR. COBDEN

said, the hon. Member for West Surrey was speaking of a different set of tribes from those he had alluded to. He spoke of Labuan, but Sir J. Brooke did not live within 300 miles of that place; he was living on his own property in the equivocal character of a rajah, and receiving 2,000l. a year from the Government as Governor of Labuan, and 500l. as consul to his own court. They had besides appointed a deputy governor at 1,200l. a year, and the whole island was in confusion because the Lieutenant Governor had misconducted himself in the absence of the Governor. The hon. Gentleman would not tolerate jobs in England, and he hoped he was not going to tolerate them in Borneo. He had no personal hostility to Sir J. Brooke; he never saw him in his life; he had never come into contact with him; but he had a right to speak of him on public grounds when he was called on to vote away the money of his constituents. He had a right to speak of him when he was called on to vote 100,000l. where no grounds had been shown for the claim, and where these pirates, if pirates they were, were only disputing amongst themselves.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, that it was very probable that the depredations of those pirates extended over 300 miles, because they had large deep rivers, along which they sailed.

MR. COBDBN

said, that Labuan was at the extremity of the island, and Sarawak was at the north-west coast, and a person must go by sea to get there. He was not going to let the hon. Gentleman off that way.

MR. PLOWDEN

said, that having been for sometime in China, and having some acquaintance with the subject under discussion, he hoped the House would allow him to make a few remarks. He had been in the China sea in the year 1809 or 1810, and at that time a piratical fleet infested the whole southern coast, and spread dismay in every quarter. They did not confine their atrocities to the Chinese, for they attacked English and American vessels. One of the most trifling punishments which they inflicted was to tie the hands of their victims together, and pass a rope through them, and haul them up the mast. He went on board Her Majesty's frigate the Dædalus, commanded by Capt. Bell, which was then in these seas, as an amateur, in order to assist in destroying those pirates. They were requested to escort some vessels up the Canton river, and they disguised the frigate as a merchant vessel, in order to induce the pirate boats to come out. They did come out, and attacked them, and, of course, a very formidable fire was opened upon them. He was sorry to say, however, that it was ineffectual, because the boats soon got into shallow water, where the frigate was not able to follow them. They enabled the vessels, however, to get up the river. On another occasion a sloop of war, commanded by Capt. Wells, son of Admiral Wells, having lost her foremast, hoisted the usual signal for a pilot, the union-jack, whereupon one of the hon. Member for the West Riding's honest traders decoyed Capt. Wells into a fleet of about 40 piratical junks. The sloop, however, was furnished with very heavy metal, and gave the pirates a tremendous thrashing. The punishment inflicted on them had a good effect, for their leader afterwards declared that he would never again attack the British. Such was a brief outline of what they were in the China Sea. Now, with regard to the Malay pirates, the House would remember that the Malay pirates infested the whole of the Archipelago, and were of a most atrocious character. The House must recollect their conduct on the occasion of Lord Amherst's embassy, when the Alceste was wrecked. Nothing but the most determined valour on the part of British seamen could have protected them on that occasion from falling into the hands of these merciful people. The hon. Member for the West Biding said, that these boats were plied by oars, but he bogged to tell the hon. Gentleman that they had large decks, and that they carried cannon also. When Captain Bell commanded the Samarang in these seas, he was attacked while he was at dinner by some of these tribes, of whom it was very likely the Dyaks formed a portion. No less than 19 of his men were killed, and Captain Bell and his first lieutenant were wounded. He, however, put down the pirates, and of those whom he had taken he tied the hands together; he put shot into their stomachs and threw them into the sea.

MR. BRIGHT

said, that it must be matter of regret to observe that every particular case of suffering, cruelty, and atrocity mentioned by the hon. Gentleman had been received with great cheering and laughter by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now the statements of the hon. Gentleman appeared to have no hearing whatever on the question before the House, or if they had anything, told in favour of the view which he and his hon. Friend near him took. Hon. Gentlemen opposite accepted the speech of the hon. Gentleman in favour of the vote; but he had not communicated a single fact which came nearer to their own times than 1810. [Mr. PLOWDEN: 1816.] He would give the hon. Gentleman all the advantage of the additional six years, but it could be no satisfaction to them to vote 100,000l. for 5,000 lives taken away at the rate of 20l. per head, that the hon. Gentleman was able to give them some anecdotes of what took place so far back as 1810. Was the fact of certain matters having taken place some forty or fifty years ago to be taken as a proof of circumstances now supposed to be passed or passing on the coasts of Borneo and China? The House would do well to look into this matter. This vote of 100,000l. represented 5,000 persons or pirates slain and estimated at 20l. a head. Now he wanted to know from the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any information whatever of an accurate character, or even approaching accuracy, had reached the Government so as to justify them in submitting this vote to the House. Neither in the estimates, nor in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, was the least ground alleged so as to justify the House in agreeing to the vote. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing about the matter; for never in his recollection had a vote of such an amount been accompanied with so bold and unmeaning a statement as that which the right hon. Gentleman alluded to this vote. Was this 100,000l. decided upon in the courts of Singapore, Hong Kong, or elsewhere? If a trial had taken place in distant parts, was the evidence of such a nature as would satisfy the courts in this country? Had any evidence been laid before the Government hero? If so, why did not the right hon. Gentleman lay that evidence before Parliament, when he came to ask them for so large a sum for so grave a matter as the slaughter of 5,000 assumed pirates? He hoped his hon. Friend would move that this vote be postponed until the Government consented to lay before the House the facts, data, and evidence on which they had the conscience to ask Parliament to vote this enormous sum. Whatever the Goverment might think of this subject, the public were horrified at the narratives of the atrocities which had been committed, although the accounts came from persons who were interested in making the case wear the best aspect. His hon. Friend did not say that all these persons were innocent traders. What he said was that there were probably innocent traders amongst them. He said that many of them were smugglers, but that there was no proof whatever which would satisfy any court in this country, on the most flimsy charge, that these persons were pirates. Now when he recollected that that House had prayers read every day at that table—when they recollected that they were a Christian Parliament, and that they professed day after day, as he heard hon. Gentlemen opposite profess, great respect for religion in connexion with the State—and when, notwithstanding this, he found them voting rewards for the slaughter of 5,000 human beings, without one particle of evidence that the men they slaughtered were guilty of any crime—he declared that he could not conceive how any Parliament, much less a Christian Parliament, could do this without—he would not use the words that suggested themselves to him—but without bringing everlasting disgrace upon them.

SIR F. T. BARING

said, that the speeches of the hon. Members for Manchester and the West Riding conveyed a certain amount of censure on the gallant officers engaged in the expedition; and he should be glad to know whether these gallant officers, who had been executing a disagreeable and painful duty, deserved to be stigmatised? He thought there existed considerable misunderstanding in the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to how the reward was estimated. By the operation of a certain Act of Parliament a certain sum of money was allowed as head money. That Act rendered it necessary that the applicants should go before a court of justice and prove that the parties with whom they had been engaged were pirates, and therefore in every case before money was paid, the parties were bound and required to have a decision of a court of justice that those against whom they acted were pirates. He thought the House could not have better security than that; and, in his opinion, a court of justice, after hearing evidence in a case, was much more likely to be a sufficient tribunal than that House. Now, it so happened that in the first application which occurred, they had a report of what took place on the occasion. Sir C. Rawlinson, who tried the case, said he must be satisfied that the parties had been pirates, and he decided on having further evidence of that fact before issuing an order. Inquiry accordingly took place; he heard the evidence, and then decided that the proof was sufficient as to the nature of the parties for whose destruction remuneration was claimed. The evidence I taken on that occasion had been forwarded to Government, and he had then extracts from the confession of a Bornean pirate before him, who declared in evidence, on the occasion in question, that rapine and plunder had been the object of his associates. He (Sir F. Baring) therefore thought that the decision of an English lawyer should carry more weight in that House than the slanders circulated against the officers. Then there was also an opinion that should not be overlooked in the matter, namely, that of the commercial body in the neighbouring countries, in support of which he would quote the address of the merchants and traders of Singapore to Sir J. Brooke. But, independent of all these things, there should be some allowance made for the characters of members of an hon. and gallant profession, who had onerous duties to perform, and who, whatever other slanders might be urged against them, were never open to the imputation of inhumanity. He trusted that the House, if pressed to a division, would exhibit the sense in which they entertained the question.

COLONEL SIBTHORP

said, that it was seldom he agreed with or supported Her Majesty's Ministers; but upon the present occasion he could not but do so. However, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for the West Riding, he did not expect that either the case made out by the First Lord of the Admiralty, or that by the hon. Member for Newport, would satisfy either the hon. Member for the West Riding, or his man Friday, the hon. Member for Manchester. He did not know how many innocent free-traders might have been amongst those pirates. There might have been a great number. But it was high time that that mistaken out-of-doors feeling of humanity for pirates should be put a stop to. There was cruelty enough practised by the free-traders at home to those unfortunate persons who were in their employ, and they should begin by putting a stop to that.

MR. COBDEN

said, he blamed the service, not that they had done these deeds, but for having done them without order. He wished to ask if he were correct in saying that the Admiral on the station issued the orders of which he (Mr. Cobden) had spoken, and which had been confirmed at home, to the effect that British ships-of-war should not kill natives under the plea of piracy unless they had attacked English vessels. He wished to know if that were correct?

SIR F. T. BARING

said, that the ships engaged were sent specifically for that purpose. As to the parties attacked, he should say he did not exactly remember the words of the order; but his impression was, that the hon. Member for the West Riding had mistaken it.

MR. COBDEN

said, there was another reason why they should defer the question. It was a question that referred to the destruction of 5,000 human beings, and for which they were called upon to pay 100,000l. Now, was it not right that they should inquire if these 5,000 individuals were rightfully destroyed, and whether they were bound to pay the 100,000l.? They had not a single proof before them that the parties had ever attacked an English vessel. He did not mean to say that the men destroyed were all innocent traders; he admitted, on the contrary, that they were barbarians, savages, engaged in intertribal warfare; and if such were the case, he did not think they were bound to pay for the destruction of such savages, unless it could be shown that they had attacked English vessels.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

wished to bring the Committee to the point before them. They had really no discretion in the case, because there was a positive and imperative Act of Parliament, which said that after it had been adjudged that pirates had been destroyed, a certain payment was to be made. Sir C. Rawlinson had decided that these pirates were pirates. There was thus a judgment in rem—[Mr. COBDEN: Where is it?]—which was final and binding to all intents and purposes. It was therefore a waste of time to pursue this discussion.

LORD J. MANNERS

concluded that the hon. Member for the West Riding must be ignorant that any judgment had been given in this case; for when the Attorney General pointed out that such was the case, the hon. Member asked in an audible voice, "Where is that judgment?" The hon. Member for Manchester had ventured, because those on his side of the House had cheered the interesting statement of the hon. Member for Newport, to accuse them of being disposed to cheer every bloody sentiment. So unjust and absurd an averment only deserved to be treated with contempt.

MR. PLOWDEN

said, his statement was impugned because it referred to days gone by; but the very same kind of transactions were occurring at the present day. Gentlemen opposite had a meeting some six or eight weeks ago to discuss these questions; but he thought they would always on these occasions be the better by having Captain Aaron Smith among them.

MR. COBDEN

knew something of Captain Aaron Smith, who had himself been a most atrocious pirate. If a Committee were appointed to inquire, evidence could easily be brought forward to prove what the conduct of that man had been in the case of the Cambria, Captain Cook. It could be shown that Captain Aaron Smith, who was with a piratical ship in the Gulf of Mexico, took Captain Cook from his vessel, and carried him on board the pirate ship, where he was tied to the mast and wounded in such a manner by the crew that he still bore the marks upon his body. Captain Aaron Smith was tried for piracy. [An Hon. MEMBER: And acquitted.] He was tried and acquitted; but he was not tried on Captain Cook's charge; and he (Mr. Cobden) would certainly believe Captain Cook before Captain Aaron Smith. His firm belief was, that this Captain Aaron Smith was all that Captain Cook had charged him with.

LORD J. MANNERS

wished the Committee to observe, that the hon. Member for the West Riding asserted in the first place that those people had been unjustly put to death against whom Sir C. Rawlinson had pronounced judgment, and then he asked them to look upon Captain Aaron Smith as a pirate because he was tried and acquitted.

An HON. MEMBER

stated the case of a relative of his own, who served on the coast of Borneo, and who was attacked by those very people who were described by the hon. Member for the West Riding as innocent of piracy.

MR. M'GREGOR

said, that if he had sufficient confidence in the judgment of the Court of Singapore, he should support the vote, but because he had not, he should oppose it. The ships belonging to his own constituents were as much exposed to piracy in the East as those of any other port; yet he would defy any one to bring forward a case in which one of them had been attacked; and he would even extend the remark to ships trading from the Mersey and the Thames. By passing that vote, they would sanction a crime. It was with great reluctance that he opposed any vote brought forward by the Government; but he could not support the vote now under consideration. He believed the time would come when Sir J. Brooke would be tried in this country for the massacre, and that Gentlemen, at the next election, would hear more on this subject than they would desire

The O'GORMAN MAHON

scarcely expected, after such statements as those made by the hon. Member for Newport, that the vote would have been opposed; least of all did he expect that the friends of peace would charge any person in that House with having received with acclamation those statements, as wanting Christian feeling, and as the rewarders of murder. He deprecated such attacks as unworthy of the character which that House ought to maintain. Gentlemen might dispute the fact of pirates existing in those seas; but he believed the brother of a Member of that House—the brother of the hon. Member for Crickdale—had lost his life during the last eight months by an attack of these pirates. The rewards they proposed to give were not for the murder of 5,000 pirates, but for the protection of millions of the human race.

COLONEL THOMPSON

still remained unconvinced that any English vessel or subject had been molested by these so-called pirates. He would go further and say, he believed there was not a jury in the land that would not return upon their oaths that there had been no such thing. They were manifestly petty tribes warring upon one another after their own way. He did not find any tangible attempt to state the name of any vessel or individual that had been attacked, and therefore he did not believe that any such thing had taken place. He did not think the hon. Member for Newport saw all the inferences that would be drawn from his own statement. He wished the hon. Member would repeat his statement, as it had been imperfectly heard. Since he declined, he (Colonel Thompson) would only request that he would stop him the moment he stated anything incorrectly. He believed he heard the hon. Member say, he knew an instance where a British frigate, in 1816, captured two vessel swhich were considered of the class of those now in question. The crews rose upon the frigate, and attempted to recover their vessels—no unusual event among any belligerents. A number of the frigate's people were killed in the contest which ensued; and when the struggle was over, the captain of the frigate—such had been the hon. Member's affirmation—ordered the survivors of the captives to be run up to the yard arms, and the wounded to have shot put into their stomachs and be thrown overboard. It was clear enough, after this, who were the pirates. He would merely ask, what would have been the comments if the case had been reversed. It was enough to make a man tear off the uniform he had ever worn in a service where such things were done. And those who did them were christened men, and would probably have been offended if any had called them infidels. But the public would judge between them, and it would be seen whether the opinion of the House or of the public would carry the day. He should particularly like to ascertain whether the transactions in China were in accordance with the orders on that station or not; and it behoved the House to know by whom those orders were contravened.

MR. S. HERBERT

had always imagined that piracy was a crime against the law of nations; and he did not know that it was necessary, in order to justify any nation in repressing piracy, that the persons who had been the victims of that crime should belong to that nation. But the hon. Member for the West Riding was so horrified at the crime which had been committed by a British officer when in pursuit of pirates, that he was not content that the victims of these pirates should have been perhaps some Portuguese crew; his humanity would not be satisfied unless the crew of an English ship had fallen victims to the atrocities of those piratical tribes. The whole opposition to the vote was founded upon misapprehension. If they thought the whole of these proceedings to have been unjust, they should either appeal (if it were possible) from the decision of the Court of Admiralty at Singapore, or move an Address to the Crown for the removal of Sir C. Rawlinson, for having made an unjust decision. But if neither of these steps were taken, then, in common justice, they could not refuse to allot to the officers the amount of the prize money which the Act of Parliament awarded him. But, dismissing that part of the case, he wished to ask a question of the Government, which he had no doubt they would be able to answer in a way perfectly satisfactory for the reputation of Sir J. Brooke. It was alleged that Sir J. Brooke was engaged in extensive mercantile speculations in Sarawak, while the piratical tribes which he had been repressing were principally in the neighbourhood of that locality. Now, oven a clerk of 100l. a year in Ceylon was not permitted to have a coffee garden, because he should not be tempted to engage in mercantile speculations. This was a just regulation. It was, therefore, of importance that some Member of the Government should be able to state to the House, that the assertion which had been widely spread by the public press respecting Sir J. Brooke was entirely unfounded.

MR. HAWES

said, that from all the information he possessed, his belief was directly opposed to the report that Sir J. Brooke was engaged in any mercantile undertaking whatever. Indeed, he believed, on the contrary, that it was because Sir J. Brooke had abstained from entering into mercantile speculations, that he obtained the enmity of those by whom he was once admired.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, that in reference to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire, he was hound to state, in justice to Sir J. Brooke, that the imputation cast upon him as to trading, was one to which his friends were in a position to give the most positive contradiction. Sir J. Brooke applied to him (the Attorney General), not professionally, but as a private friend, to advise him as to his moving for a criminal information against the parties who had published the report, in order that he might have an opportunity of explaining the whole of his conduct; and Sir J. Brooke refrained from taking that step entirely upon his (the Attorney General's) advice. He (the Attorney General) there fore took upon himself the whole responsility of Sir J. Brooke having so acted. He (the Attorney General) thought that as Sir J. Brooke was a public man, whilst there was a possibility of such a charge being made against him in the House of Commons, it was his duty to wait till that opportunity was afforded for giving a contradiction to it.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

read a return, moved for by the hon. Member for Montrose, in which it was stated that eight and twenty piracies on British vessels had been committed since the year 1839 in the neighbourhood of these islands, in most of which instances the crews had been murdered.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 145; Noes 20: Majority 125.

List of the NOES.
Brotherton, J. Robartes, T. J. A.
Greene, J. Salwey, Col.
Hall, Sir B. Smith, J. B.
Hardcastle, J. A. Stuart, Lord D.
Henry, A. Tenison, E. K.
Heyworth, L. Thompson, Col.
King, hon. P. J. L. Walmsley, Sir J.
Lushington, C. Williams, J.
M'Gregor, J.
Molesworth, Sir W. TELLERS.
Pechell, Sir G. B. Cobden, R.
Pigott, F. Bright, J.

House resumed. Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.