§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a Second Time."
§ SIR G. CLERKsaid, he thought it might be very proper to introduce a measure for the purpose of modifying the present law on the subject of head-money; it might be very proper to define the occasions upon which it was to be payable, and the amounts to be paid. For British subjects found on board enemies' ships in time of war, head-money could be claimed; it could also be claimed for pirates. Now, when the Act of George IV. was passed, the Spanish colonies had but just asserted their independence, and the Spanish Main was infested with pirates. There was then in that part of the world a vast number of pirates, and the most atrocious acts were committed. Respecting the prevalence of those crimes, many complaints had been addressed to the Government by the Association of Lloyd's, and England was certainly not able at once to put down those nests of pirates; but eventually, at great expense and loss of life, they were put down. The amount was and ought to be large for the capture of individual pirates, for, generally speaking, they deserted their ships, and it became, therefore, the more difficult to seize them. The principle of awarding money to officers and seamen in the British Navy was almost as old as the Navy itself; and he believed the amount of head-money during the whole of the war had remained without alteration from the reign of Queen Anne. He was quite ready to say, that the naval service of England did not require any such stimulus as head-money—they were always prepared to do their duty; but why take from them this species of reward? Their pecuniary advantages were not in other respects considerable, and he thought they ought not to be deprived of one like this, which they had so long enjoyed. It was true, that under the Bill of 1825 there 662 might have been some abuses; but let the acts deemed piracy be more accurately de" fined than they had been by that measure, then they might specify more precisely than heretofore the class of vessels to which the law of head-money would apply. He took the liberty of submitting these observations to the House, because he had been connected with the Board of Admiralty when the Bill of 1825 passed, and the suggestions which he now offered were merely for the sake of the officers and men of the Navy. It was his opinion, that many of the objections to the present state of the law might be met by modification rather than by total repeal. Before he sat down, he begged to remind the House that vessels engaged in the slave trade were deemed to be piratical, and he wished to know how they proposed to deal with those cases in which slavers were captured. No doubt the Admiralty might have very good reasons for their measure, but those reasons had not yet been stated.
SIR F. T. BARINGsaid, he would be the last man in the world inclined to cast any reflections whatever on the persons engaged in these dangerous services; but he must say, the mode in which the allowance was at present made, was open to very grave objection. It was now proposed to do away with the distinction between the amounts awarded for every private killed, and every private captured—20l. and 5l. respectively. The gallant officer in command on the station where the recent transactions occurred, had himself expressed his opinion in an official communication, that this subject should be reconsidered, as the services now performed differed from those contemplated when the allowance was originally made. No doubt it was in the power of the House to adopt the proposal of giving 5l. a head for all the pirates captured who might have been engaged; but the course which the Government proposed by this Bill to pursue, was not by any means to deprive those engaged in this service of the expectation which it had been the habit of the service to hold out to them, but simply to place the awards and amounts within the discretion of the Admiralty, rather than adopt any compulsory amount fixed by Act of Parliament. An engagement with pirates was often an engagement with men as capable of fighting their own battles as any body could be, and that class were more dangerous because they were more desperate; and therefore these engagements, 663 though not important in the history of our naval transactions, were still deserving of every reasonable reward. On the other hand, it would be wrong to measure the dangers by the number of the parties opposed to us; and in many of these latter engagements it would be improper to estimate the rewards by the number of the parties actually on board of the prahus. He should be obliged to call on the House shortly for a very large sum, about 100,000l., to pay these rewards, and that of itself was some reason why the subject should undergo revision. But on the best consideration that he had been able to give the subject, he did think it would be better to invest the Admiralty with a discretion any power, in communication with the Treasury, to consider each case on its own separate merits, and allow a reasonable sum as a reward, than to attempt what he did not think it possible by an Act of Parliament to accomplish, namely, to estimate the service rendered in any particular case, and distribute a reward, which he admitted ought to be given in a fair and proper manner.
§ MR. HUMEentirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty in the propriety of repealing this Act, and he thought some credit was due to the Government for the manner in which they had come forward and expressed their disapprobation of the system which now exists. He conceived that the principle on which this money had been given was wrong. It was, in his opinion, a reflection on the service that our naval officers and seamen would not do their duty if they did not get this additional reward. He agreed with the old adage that the pirate was an enemy to everybody, and ought to be put down. He wished the right hon. baronet to tell him when he could lay on the table of the House the papers he had moved for, because on them would depend whether he should call the attention of the House to this fraud which had been committed on the country by means of an Act of Parliament. He could not hold Government altogether innocent in this affair, when he knew that they had promoted the officer employed in this service, though there had been no despatches. He hoped that, before the House voted this 100,000l., they would inquire how the claim had arisen, because under the Act the men for whose capture the money was to be given, were to be brought before a court and proved to be pirates. Now, in 664 the whole of the proceedings in this case, they had no evidence whatever that these men were pirates. He supposed the money was awarded by the court of Singapore. [Sir F. T. BARING: Yes.] That was a power of drawing on the revenue of this country which was most extraordinary. He was told that there was no evidence whatever as to the numbers, and, indeed, the different officers engaged did not know whether the number killed was 600 or 2,000. The Navy ought to do their duty as other navies did, without these additional rewards. There were other matters to which he might call attention. For instance, ships of war were paid for assisting merchant ships when in distress. He was happy to find, however, that the Judge of the Admiralty Court had decided against a claim of salvage by the Indian marine. He was told that in the American navy the orders were to assist all merchant ships in distress, not only of their own nation, but of other nations, without reward.
SIR F. T. BARINGhoped the House would permit him to say that he had made no observations in reference to the character of the service. There would be but little delay in laying on the table of the House the papers which they had got. The hon. Gentleman had asked for the legal papers. They had not got them officially; but he (Sir F. T. Baring) had learned from the newspapers that the parties came before the recorder of Singapore in the usual manner, and he stated distinctly that he must have further evidence that they were pirates, as he was not satisfied on that point. In consequence, further evidence was given to him, and a commission was appointed to make inquiry on the spot. Subsequently, when counsel stated that they were ready to give further evidence of piracy, the recorder stated that he was perfectly satisfied they were pirates.
§ MR. COBDENsaid, he had presented a petition from a public meeting in London, calling the attention of the House to the subject of the Borneo massacres; and now as they were promised papers on the subject, he should not prejudge the case. But he could not allow the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty to pass, that they were going to have a Bill brought in to pay 100,000l. for destroying the pirates, as they were called, without his protesting against it, because he contended we had no evidence that these pirates troubled our commerce. He might state from the highest authority. 665 that at Lloyd's there had been no appreciable rise of premium on the insurance of ships to the East; and therefore he had primâ facie evidence that there was no piracy of English commerce. This money was claimed for services which were not contemplated when the Bill was passed; for, as the hon. Gentleman stated, the Act was passed to protect our commerce from the buccaneers of the West Indies, who were cruising and plundering ships in that part of the world. He wished the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to understand that they must have an inquiry into this matter. What he understood was this, that we had been slaughtering certain uncivilised tribes, because they lived in a low state of barbarism, and had been carrying on predatory wars with each other; but we had no evidence that they interfered with British commerce. He was prepared to show that there was no evidence that these parties who had been murdered ever molested English commerce. It affected only the Sarebas and Sakarran Dyaks; it did not affect the Malays, but was simply a question affecting two small tribes who had the misfortune to live contiguous to a place taken possession of by a man called the Rajah of Sarawak. He fitted out ships of war to make an attack on the savages. He might have his motive for that, but we had no proof whatever that these tribes had ever molested English subjects; and it was too bad that we should commit wholesale slaughter on these savages, a slaughter greater than that either at the battle of Trafalgar or the Nile, and that without so much as one man being killed in an English ship at all. It seemed to have been a complete battue, as if of so many sheep or deer. Now he hoped they would have the evidence before them before this money was voted, and he hoped Government would be prepared to grant a Committee of the House to inquire about the matter, provided the documents to be laid before the House did not entirely disprove the statements which had been made. He was not now taking the case of those who accused Rajah Brooke, but of those who defended him, and there was so much before the public that he did hope that if Government was not prepared to disprove the charges by official documents, they would grant a Committee. He would not enlarge on the matter. There were men in this country well acquainted with the whole coast of Borneo, who would say that English ships were never molested there. 666 He did not agree with the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield that we were not responsible for our ships of war, and our servants in distant parts of the world. He believed that if we allowed acts of injustice to be perpetrated, whether in Borneo or elsewhere; and if we did not take some steps to remedy those acts of injustice, there was an overruling Providence who ruled the world on principles of justice, and that there would surely be retribution on this land.
§ SIR H. VERNEYwould recommend hon. Members to read upon this subject the work written by Sir Stamford Raffles, who knew more of the condition of that part of the world than the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, or any other Member of that House. His work was full of statements of the piracies that were taking place in the Eastern seas, and proved that no commerce could be safely carried on there unless these pirates were exterminated. Piracy in these islands was reckoned an honourable profession; and if we or any other country desired to carry on commercial transactions between Australia and China the extermination of these pirates was absolutely necessary.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, that all that was wanted was some proof that these men were pirates. The fear that people had respecting this head-money was, that it held out a temptation to men who were going about the world in command of Her Majesty's forces to say, "Is there anybody we can kill for you under the name of pirates, and charge them in the bill?" The people were anxious that every possible means should be taken to sift these things. He could suppose a case where some men, finding two tribes at war, might take one side, and say that all the rest were pirates. These were reasons which made the public regard with great jealousy and suspicion the payment for such services as were now in question.
§ Bill read 2o, and committed for Wednesday.