HC Deb 22 July 1850 vol 113 cc106-22

(3.) 6,914l. to defray the expenses of Labuan.

MR. HUME

said, he should object to the vote for sundry reasons, one of which was the conduct pursued by Sir James Brooke to Mr. Wise, his partner. It had been asserted by an hon. Gentleman that Mr. Wise had never been a partner of Sir James Brooke. But he thought he would be able to show that Mr. Wise stood in that relation to Sir James Brooke; and that it was not until after the massacre of 1,500 individuals—which, by the way, had never been published in the Gazette, or the orders directing which never laid on the table of that House—that Mr. Wise changed his opinion of, as well as dissolved his connexion with, Sir James Brooke, as the following letter to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would show:— London, 31st October, 1848. To the Right Hon. Viscount Palmerston, &c, &c., Foreign Office. My Lord—I have received advices by the last Overland Mail, announcing the departure from Singapore of the Government establishment of Labuan. The foundation of that (if properly managed) important colony, the object of my unceasing efforts since 1842, being at length accomplished, I cannot conclude my voluminous correspondence with Her Majesty's Government on the subject of Borneo, without tendering my grateful acknowledgments to your Lordship, and to the Gentlemen of your Lordship's department of the Government, for much kindness and patient attention to details, throughout the progress of my communications. I therefore avail myself of this opportunity of acquainting your Lordship, that I have terminated the political relationship hitherto existing between Sir James Brooke and myself.—I have the honour to be, my Lord, your Lordship's faithful servant, (Signed) "HENRY WISE. The following was the answer of the noble Lord:— Foreign Office, November 3rd, 1848. Sir—I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 31st ultimo, announcing the termination of your connexion with Sir James Brooke, and thanking his Lordship for the attention paid to your several communications relative to Borneo; and to the new settlement of Labuan. In reply, I am directed by Viscount Palmerston to thank you for the information which you have at various times transmitted to this office with reference to these matters, which in his Lordship's opinion contributed in no small degree to their final satisfactory arrangement.—I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, (Signed) "H. U. ADDINGTON. Another allegation was, that Mr. Wise had instigated all the agitation that took place in that country, and that he had been urging Sir James Brooke to form a partnership with him. But he (Mr. Hume) had in his possession a letter dated the 14th of March, 1843, in which Sir James Brooke invited Mr. Wise to join him in a buccaneering company, and as partner to share in the profits. The letter was as follows:— Singapore, March 14,1843. My dear Wise—I will explain to you now my own ideas on this subject, and you may consider them at your leisure. When we consider the numerous companies which are formed (if properly introduced) I cannot doubt that Sarawak would offer temptations to capitalists which few other fields present, and that the outlay of sufficient capital in mining and agricultural pursuits would repay sufficient interest for money until the country was developed enough to afford direct revenue. A company of three to five hundred thousand pounds capital, in shares (as may seem best to the projectors), would be sufficiently powerful to protect itself, even supposing the Government refused their countenance in direct assistance. The recognition of Government, of course, with such interests at stake, would probably be gained; but it would not be absolutely necessary in the first instance. If recognised, the arrangement would be easier. If they resolved to embark without British recognition, their prospects would be as follows. As a preliminary, the country must be made over to them in perpetuity, under the Borneo crown, with all its revenues, present or future, and the yearly sum I now pay (and in case of success to increase), might be bought out and out for a moderate sum—say 2,500l. or a fixed sum yearly might be substituted. The company would then have the entire territorial right, which might be extended at pleasure. The modes of raising the interest of the money after three years are as follows: 1st, The diamond mines in the river Suntah, which river I have reserved entirely from the encroachments of the natives. I will not dwell on this topic, as it must become a matter of inquiry, further than to say, that there can be no doubt of the existence of diamonds in considerable numbers, both in the pebbly strata and in the bed of the river. The lower part of the river has only been worked; but I am sanguine that the higher you advance towards its source the greater will be the quantity, and on the present ground the endless holes show how the Landak diamond workers find it worth their while to travel so great a distance. I may mention two facts as the ground of my belief in the value of this river. The first is, the statement of a native of consideration and a man of veracity, that in three days' time taking the pebbles out of the bed of the river, he (with ten others) got a quantity of diamonds, which sold at Sambas (at half their value) for 5,000 Java rupees. The next fact is, that at present both Chinese Kunsi's Companies offer to work under European superintendence, and free of all expense, provided I would give them half the profits. The working is easy, and the expense slight, and the mines would come into operation in six months. 2nd, Agriculture—Coffee, nutmeg, sugar, or cotton, one or all, might be chosen on the finest ground, the clearing of which by the Dyaks would cost but trifling sums. This would be an outlay in the first place, but must repay largely in the course of two, three, and seven years, as the various crops came into bearing. Trade—The monopoly of antimony ore, held without expense, may be reckoned at 5,000l. a year. Opium, which, as the Chinese advanced, would form a steady monopoly, and from the rest free trade would be considerable, if prices of goods were kept at the same rates as at Singapore. Other sources, such as veins of gold and other ores in the mountains, might be found; but as they are uncertain I need not dwell on them. I may here mention, that neither the existence of tin or copper has yet been fully ascertained. The ultimate advantages on a large scale to be looked to are, the settlement of English planters, the certain increase of the Chinese and native population, and the advancement of the Dyaks, from which sources a permanent revenue would be derived. On my own part, the cession of Sarawak could be made on easy terms, such as a moderate salary as governor, on the same terms as any other governor—the employment of the few persons who have followed my fortunes at fair salaries—the purchase of whatever stock in trade may be on my hands, and the present of a certain sum in the shares of the company, which would make my success dependent in a great measure on theirs, and enable me to reward the gentlemen with me. I do not myself see why this opening should not lead to results similar to India itself. (Signed) "J. BROOKE. Here was the temptation held out by Sir James Brooke, who nevertheless declared that he never was influenced by mercantile speculations. It had also been asserted that Sir James Brooke was not at present, nor at any former period, a merchant. But he had a letter in his possession, written by Sir James Brooke in September 1841, from Sarawak. It was as follows: Having returned to Singapore, I bought another vessel, and filled her with merchandise, and returned here once more. But here was a letter to the Rev. Mr. Johnson:— Sarawak, 24th Sept., 1841.—Oh, if the echoes of Exeter Hall could catch this news; if some of her big-mouthed orators could only hear it, how would they ding it into the ears, the 'long ears' of the public; but philanthropy, like other I things, is a fashion, and I do not think they care much about Borneo yet. Sarawak, 7th Dec., 1841.—The religious community must help us. My great working friend is Templer. Sarawak, 16th March, 1842.—You speak of having me made a knight, or even a baronet. I am not sanguine. The former title I am not ambitious of; but hero, in this distant corner of the world, it would be very useful, both with natives and Europeans. In England a knight may be elbowed in every street; here you may seek for and not meet with one, and therefore it is, desirable. If I am a baronet, I will be Vyner and not Brooke—the old title shall be revived. Sarawak, 25th Aug., 1842.—The great advantage to me personally by this reconciliation of; the parties in Borneo is, that Muda Hassim and his rascally train will remove to the capital, and we shall be rid of the great impediment to trade; for these Borneo rajahs are the terror of the trader, and, like other great people, run into debt for thousands without hundreds to pay. Now, he wanted to show that, from first 'to last, Sir James Brooke had been an impostor; and that self-gain and self-aggrandisement were the motives that swayed him, and not philanthropic feelings for the unfortunativc natives. It had been stated by hon. Gentlemen that there never was a desire on the, part of Sir James Brooke to speculate as a merchant or trader; but let them hearken to the following-letter:— Singapore, 15th Jan., 1844.—After nearly three years, then, I could close my accounts at Sarawak without being a loser; and this when I have built houses, boats, &c, and purchased guns and many other things. At the same time, I have not exported above one-third the amount required of antimony ore. I should like much to have our family baronetcy, but I know not that I would solicit it, for a refusal is too painful to be risked. Everything looks well at present, but still I do not allow myself to be sanguine. That showed that the gentleman had not been unmindful of personal distinction. It had been stated that Mr. Wise pestered Sir James Brooke to get him into partnership with him; but the following letters might explain the matter:— J. Brooke to H. Wise. Sarawak, Feb. 20, 1845. My dear Wise—I have the pleasure to communicate to you an arrangement that I have determined upon regarding my future trading concerns in this country, viz. 1. In consideration of your services during the last two or three years, whereby the Government recognition of my proceedings in Borneo has at length been obtained, I hereby consent to your joint participation with myself in all profits arising from my several transactions here, after the payment of the annual expenses of my establishment (an estimate of which I have already given you) and of Mr. Ruppell's allowances. 2. In order to afford Mr. Ruppell sufficient time to close the present accounts, I propose that this arrangement commences on the 1st of April next. 3. The antimony ore, and all other shipments of produce from hence on my account, will be consigned to your London firm for realisation, and account sales thereof rendered to mo direct. 4. The establishment by you of another house at Singapore—the propositions of the Sultan of Saniboa—and the continuance or otherwise of my present arrangements with Messrs. Boustead, Schwade, and Co., I leave, with all matters of detail, entirely to yourself and to your London firm for decision. 5. Duration of this agreement our mutual convenience. (Signed) "J. BROOKE. Henry Wise, Esq., H.M.S. Driver, Sarawak River. Singapore, May 8, 1845. What is ultimately to be looked to is the development of the country, and you may rest assured I will not draw back from our arrangement of dividing whatever may turn up. I trust you will not touch the money left in Cameron's hands, is I much wish to leave it entire as a nest egg on which I can fall back. (Signed) "J. BROOKE. Cheltenham, January 10, 1848. In the second count, granting an opium farm monopoly, a clause should be inserted that if the renters do not fully satisfy the demand for the drug, that I am at liberty to do so myself. The following correspondence between Sir James Brooke and Mr. Ruppell would further show that Sir James Brooke had been engaged in mercantile speculations:— Sarawak, March 17, 1845. Mr. George Ruppell, Sarawak.—Hear Sir,—I take this opportunity of acquainting you with the terms upon which 'I am willing to continue your services as manager and superintendent of all my trading operations in Borneo—namely, a salary of 100 dollars per month, and a commission of 10 per cent upon the annual net profits derived from the transactions referred to. Your undivided attention to my business matters will of course be required; and this arrangement, you must also understand, precludes your having any mercantile dealings whatever on your account. I have instructed Mr. Wise to agree with you upon the mode of keeping the requisite accounts, and I propose the 1st proximo as the date of commencing this agreement. You will correspond regularly with Mr. Wise, and attend to his instructions as to the management of the antimony ore, &c., and also render to him as well as to myself an annual statement, closed to the 31st of March, exhibiting the result of each year's transactions. Six months' notice in writing should be given to prevent inconvenience, if you at any time wish to relinquish your appointment, and some arrangement with reference to your mess will be requisite, which you can regulate. Oblige me with your reply to this communication previous to the departure of Mr. Wise from Sarawak.—I am, dear sir, yours sincerely, (Signed) "J. BROOKE. Sarawak, 17th March, 1845. James Brooke, Esq., Sarawak.—Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of this day's date, communicating the terms upon which you are willing to continue my services as manager and superintendent of all your trading operations in Borneo, and which terms I hereby cordially assent to. With reference to the future management of your trading operations at Sarawak, I have agreed with Mr. Wise that the following system for keeping the annual accounts should be adopted from the 1st proximo, the date upon which the new arrangements commence. The whole of the trading operations to be debited with the following items and accounts, namely—Annual payment to the Sultan; house account, including all salaries; 'Julia's' account (annual disbursements); payments for ore in goods or wages; expenses attending transhipment of antimony ore, &c, at Singapore. On the other hand, the transactions in question are to be credited with the following results, namely—Net proceeds of antimony ore, as rendered by London agents; net proceeds of goods sold, namely—vegetables, tallow, birds' nests, rice, opium, Ac.; net proceeds of revenue receipts; and the difference between these amounts is to form the annual profit and loss account, from which my commission of 10 per cent upon the net profits is to be calculated. Assuring you of my continued exertions in the discharge of the duties I have undertaken, to the best of my abilities, I beg to subscribe myself, dear sir, very thankfully and sincerely yours, (Signed) "GEORGE RUPPELL. Now, there were also the accounts current, as kept by Ruppell, which were forwarded regularly: and yet there were gentlemen who would assert in the face of them that Sir James Brooke had never been engaged in trade or speculation. He hoped he had satisfied the House of the truth of his assertions, as also that the difference that occurred between Mr. Wise and Sir James Brooke arose from the duplicity of the latter gentleman. He asserted that the conduct of Sir James Brooke throughout had been mean and mercenary in the highest degree and that his object in attacking neighbouring settlements was that he might render them subservient to Sarawak, for his own objects and purposes. He (Mr. Hume) considered the Government acted wrongly in placing Sir James Brooke in that settlement, in which, by the way, he was not often to be found. Labuan should have a resident governor. But Sir J. Brooke and his lieutenant-governor had been and were at Singapore, not Labuan; and therefore he did not see why that House should vote him 1,500l. for filling an office the duties of which he did not perform. Here was another letter with which he would trouble the House:— August 22, 1842.—Your design upon Mrs. Fry is most laudable, and I trust she will lead all the religious world. Oxford and Cambridge I have no hopes from, because they are not interested parties, and, as a body, they are bigots and bookworms, who think more of their own squabbles than anything that is going on abroad. Don't forget Sir Fowell Buxton, although Sir F. must be disheartened. You do not say anything about the press, though of course you will not neglect it; and the mercantile body, though never moved by generous or disinterested motives, are alive to their own interests, and, if they see an opening likely to increase trade, they will assuredly pour in and help with money. When the vagabonds are laying out millions in mining speculations in the mountains of South America, cannot we get them to supply our exchequer with some dirty thousands? The press—the press—agitate—agitate—ding-dong, knock it into their ears, and perhaps after a time they will awake, like an alderman after a surfeit, and, with a few grunts, think that a penny may be turned. In short, he was sorry to say the general character of Sir James Brooke had not been such as to entitle him to the encomiums he had received. When he (Sir J. Brooke) attacked a man who had been his friend for many years, it was impossible for him (Mr. Hume) to pass it over. He thought he had shown that all the allegations brought against Mr. Wise were unfounded, and he would leave the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey to say what he chose in reply.

MR. AGLIONBY

appealed to the House whether this painful discussion ought to continue? They had to view men in their public capacity, and that House was not the place for reading and discussing all the private letters that had passed between old friends ten years ago. He hoped the House would go on with the public business of the night.

MR. J. STUART

thought the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth rather late in his interference. If the hon. and learned Gentleman thought to stop the discussion at the close of such a speech as had just been made by the hon. Member for Montrose, he could only say the hon. and learned Member must have notions of fair play rather different from the great body of the House. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wanted to have the discussion cut short, he should not have allowed the hon. Member for Montrose to have proceeded so quietly.

MR. AGLIONBY

wished to explain. He did not think he deserved all the ponderous and virtuous indignation of the hon. and learned Member for Newark. He could not have interrupted the hon. Member for Montrose while he was speaking. Besides, private letters on the other side had been introduced before; and to-night the hon. Member for Montrose had been meeting charges with an answer. He wished such a subject had never been introduced at all into that House, and he now trusted that the matter would go no further.

MR. DRUMMOND

said, he very much regretted that the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth was not in the House during the early part of the speech which they had heard from the hon. Member for Montrose, because he would probably not have made the observations which had just fallen from him—he would probably not have made them, if he had been present when the hon. Member for Montrose declared that he had never heard such a tissue of falsehood as the statements made on behalf of Sir James Brooke. Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would not have recommended the House to drop the present discussion, if he remembered that throughout the whole of the Session, from its very commencement, the hon. Member for Montrose had been insinuating charges of various kinds, without the least possibility of Sir James Brooke, or any one who thought him injured, being able to meet those charges: that was surely not fair on the part of the hon. Member for Montrose. The first notice of that hon. Gentleman was of a Motion for the production of letters addressed to the noble Lord the Colonial Secretary; and then he came forward with a statement that the marauders on whom Sir James Brooke had inflicted well-merited chastisement were not at the time engaged in a piratical expedition; at another time, that Sir James Brooke had no authority for the steps that he had taken; and, finally, he brought a charge against Sir James Brooke of being a trader, as if there was something unworthy in that character. He might fur- ther add, that though the hon. Member for Montrose had read several private letters, and had gone into several details repecting the private character and conduct of Sir James Brooke, yet that he had not arraigned his public conduct; and, notwithstanding the various loose accusations which he made, the hon. Gentleman had preferred no charge that it would be at all possible for any one fairly to grapple with. There were three lines of George Colman which, on the present occasion, might serve well to describe him; they were these:— Although he had a tolerable notion Of aiming at progressive motion, 'Twasn't direct, but serpentine. Being able to find no real ground on which to rest a charge against Sir James Brooke, he had recourse to the indirect process of dealing in vague accusations; and when information was demanded, not a word of information was supplied; nothing but the wicked and infamous libel written by Mr. Wise, which had been put into the hands of every Member of that House; they were informed of nothing, except what Mr. Wise told them. The charge of piracy had been established in the clearest manner not only by all travellers, but by the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, by the testimony also of the merchants of Glasgow, and even of London—by the Sultan of Borneo, by Mr. Rawlings, and by the Singapore merchants; and now would the twenty-nine Gentlemen opposite say that there had been no piracy; would they not allow the parties themselves to declare that they were pirates? As evidence of the prevalence of piracy on those coasts, he might mention the treaties into which the chiefs of those piratical communities entered, and the letters which they wrote, and in which they plainly stated with regard to their former evil acts (acts of piracy) that they would never do them in future; they engaged, in truth, that they would never plunder or pirate again. He would, with the permission of the House, read the following passage from one of the engagements into which they entered:— This is an engagement made by Orang Kaya Pamancha, together with the head men and elders, Dyaks, now inhabiting the country of Padih, with the Rajah Sir James Brooke, who rules the country of Sarawak and its dependencies. Now, the Orang Kaya Pamancha, the head men and elders, Dyaks, swear before God, and God is the witness of the Orang Kaya Pamancha, the head men and elders, Dyaks, that truly, without falsehood or treachery, or any evil courses, but in all sincerity, and with clean heart without spot, with regard to the former ovil acts, we will never do them in future. Article 1. The Orang Kaya Pamaneha, the head men and elders, Dyaks, of Padih, engage in truth that they will never plunder or pirate again hereafter, and that they will never again send out men to plunder and pirate from Padih river. Then he held in his hand an important letter from one of the oldest merchants in Singapore—the oldest surviving British merchant who had visited that coast. Sixteen years ago, when he visited the coast of Borneo, he witnessed the terror produced by the atrocities of those tribes, which the energy of Sir James Brooke had checked. The entire population of the towns along the coast and at the mouths of the rivers regarded these marauders with the utmost alarm and abhorrence. These were the words in which he wrote:— As one of the oldest, indeed, I believe the oldest, surviving British vistor to the western coasts of Borneo, I feel myself called upon to offer my testimony as to the state of those coasts sixteen years ago. I have a lively recollection, even at this distant date, of the terror in which the coast was kept by the very tribe which you have been instrumental in checking. Scarcely more than a year before my arrival, the entire population of the town of Slaku, a few miles to the south of Sambas, was cut off by a marauding expedition of Dyaks from the north-west coast; and I found all the smaller rivers that I wished to enter so barricaded with wooden piles that I found it difficult to obtain an entrance even for my small boat. I see that in my work on the Eastern Seas (page 269) I have alluded to these Dyaks as coming from 'Serassan' instead of 'Sekaran'—an error which I discovered soon after publication, and which I intended to rectify if another edition had been called for before I left England. I feel convinced that the blow you have struck against the disturbers of the peace on the coast of Borneo will do more towards the general pacification of the tribes of the Indian Archipelago than any event that has occurred since the earliest period of our intercourse with this part of the world. Now if men would go on saying, after such accumulated evidence to the contrary, that these men were not pirates, they were not fit to be believed in any court. The charge against Sir James Brooke originally was, that he was a merchant, and that his mercantile speculations were incompatible with his duties as governor. Now, he had read a score of letters to show that attempts had been made to draw him into mercantile transactions, and twenty more letters to show that Sir James Brooke would have nothing to do with trade, and that he urged these parties to get rid of their mercantile speculations. And he believed there was not one person in the House, when he read those letters, who was not convinced that he had made good these points. It was necessary for him to refute the false assertions made. The hon. Member for Montrose had read a letter from Sir James Brooke; and he (Mr. Drummond) asked him how he got it? Now he would tell the House. He had before stated that Mr. Wise had chosen to falsify Captain Keppel's journal. When Captain Keppel was writing that journal, Sir James Brooke sent him his own journal, in order that he might make it correct. In the box that contained this journal were the private letters of Sir James Brooke to Captain Keppel, which were never intended for the eyes of Mr. Wise. But Mr. Wise got access to them, and detained these letters and took copies of them, and said he would keep them until the opportunity should occur when he might use them to Sir James Brooke's detriment. Why, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had made himself the common cesspool, into which every slander against Sir James Brooke might be poured. That was the way he had got these documents; and he (Mr. Drummond) said it was a disgrace that they should be so obtained. Sir James Brooke had offered to give up Sarawak to the Government, if they would accept it; and how did this tally with the statement that he wanted to turn this territory to his own advantage? The hon. Member for Montrose talked of Sir James Brooke having got this territory upon a bucaneering expedition. Now, Sir James Brooke left this country, in his yacht, in 1838; he arrived at Borneo in 1839, when a quarrel was waging between the Sultan and some neighbouring State. He was asked to assist the Sultan, who gave him, in return, the land of Sarawak. With regard to one of the letters read by the hon. Member for Montrose, he (Mr. Drummond) was informed the history of it was, that Mr. Wise went out to see Sir James Brooke at Singapore. The night before he sailed he brought Sir James Brooke a letter in his (Mr. Wise's) own handwriting, to which he wished Sir James Brooke to put his signature. That was the letter read by the hon. Member. [Mr. HUME: No, no!] He told the hon. Member it was. It began "My dear Wise," being, as he said, in Mr. Wise's handwriting. [The hon. Member proceeded to read the letter, which related to the terms of the joint partnership between Sir James Brooke and Mr. Wise.] This letter was dated February 20, and on the 8th of May following, Sir James Brooke, suspecting that all was not right, wrote home to put an end to the agreement. The hon. Member for Montrose said that Sir James Brooke was never at the seat of his government. The truth was, however, that during the last twelve months Sir James Brooke had been sixty days in boats, 160 days on board ships and steamers in the tropics, all in the discharge of public duties; and during eighty-nine days he bad suffered dangerous illness from fever. Sir James Brooke's last letter was dated from Labuan, and not from Singapore, and was dated the 18th of February, 1850. It was addressed to Captain Rodney Mundy, and was as follows:— I can send you rather a favourable account of myself. I caught a bad ague, watching for the pirate fleet night after night, in hard rain, and it brought me near unto death's door. I felt the springs of life collapsing, the desire of life to be weakened; but care and a good constitution have enabled me to rally this time, and, with the advantage of Labuan air, I have got comparatively strong—not as strong as a hon. yet stronger than I was some weeks ago. The medical men, however, still urge me to try change to a cooler climate; and, though with some reluctance, I shall proceed, when an opportunity occurs, to Penang, and perch myself on the hill-top. Labuan, like myself, is rallying. The climate for six months is charming, and for the other six months much the same as Singapore. Fever will disappear before drainage, and is limited to the plain which bounds the harbour. Health insured we shall advance. The Chinese merchants will also move from Bourne in another two months, and we shall then be the centre of trade for the coast; and I have not the shadow of a doubt the settlement will pay its expenses within a reasonable time. That laggard Eastern Archipelago Company keeps us back. It does nothing itself, and deters others from coming here; and one of our elements of success is at present our poison and hindrance. We shall do, however. Sarawak, when I heard not long ago, was quite quiet and flourishing as usual. When Sir James Brooke went to Sarawak it had a population of 800 persons; the population was now 15,000. It exported little or nothing under native rule, and the work done was by slaves. It now exported 2,000 tons, and the work was done by free labour, and not by slaves. There was no situation in the world requiring such a combination of the qualities that made up a great character as for a single individual to go into a savage country and there plant a colony. Sir James Brooke was a willing, fit, and excellent servant, and the whole of the outcry made in that House and in the country came from that one dishonourable source: and as the activity and vengeance of that man would remain, be warned the Government against allowing similar clamours to influ- ence them in withdrawing their support from this excellent public servant. Ever since he knew the House, and long before he had a seat in it, there were always to he found in it mock patriots—men who were always ready to listen to and to propagate every calumny against a public servant, especially in those countries which were most distant from our own—and before an assembly which was not always disposed to listen to those who sought to point out the discrepancies of these statements.

MR. LUSHINGTON

said, it was understood that the Governor of Labuan had made charges against the Lieutenant Governor (Mr. Napier.) He wished to know whether the Colonial Office had come to any decision upon the merits of that dispute?

MR. HAWES

said, the circumstances of the case to which his hon. Friend referred, were still under consideration, and he was unable to communicate any decision upon it. He was very sorry for the delay; but the cause of it would be perfectly intelligible when he stated that the case was one of considerable extent, and of considerable difficulty.

MR. HUME

admitted, that in applying the term "falsehood," of which the bon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey had complained, he had used an expression which was too strong. The hon. Gentleman, however, had admitted all the facts he had stated; he had done more, for he added that Mr. Wise was to give Sir James Brooke half the profits upon his concern. As to the existence of pirates, he was content with the authority of Sir Edward Belcher on that point. At the same time, he wished the hon. Gentleman to understand that he had never seen Mr. Wise, or even heard of his name until after he had given his notice for some returns upon the subject, believing that Government could not have consented to such an awful sacrifice of life without authority. The instructions had never been produced under which the attack was made; and the Government had never ventured to publish the disgraceful proceedings in the Gazette. They were ashamed of them.

MR. AGLIONBY

said, nothing he had hitherto beard had convinced him that Sir James Brooke had been concerned in a mercantile transaction, or that he had ever been engaged in anything to his detriment as a public officer. From pri- vate information, as well as from public documents, he had arrived at the conclusion that Sir James Brooke was a most zealous, energetic, and useful public officer, and also that the parties he had been the means of attacking were pirates and robbers.

MR. COBDEN

thought there ought to be an assurance given to the Committee by the Secretary for the Colonies, that if they voted a salary to Sir James Brooke as Governor of Labuan, he should reside at Labuan. He objected to the vote last year before those events occurred which had complicated this question, and made it a personal one. He objected to the vote of 2,000l. a year if Sir James Brooke was not to reside at Labuan. There would be no difference in the Committee on the subject if there was not such a confusion in Members' heads as to the geography of the country. He did not think, for example, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey had made any distinction between Sarawak and Labuan. [Mr. H. DRUMMOHD: Yes, I have.] Did the hon. Gentleman know that Labuan was 300 miles from Sarawak? Had he a map? [Mr. H. DRUMMOND: Yes, here it is.] Then would the hon. Gentleman lay it upon the table, so that other hon. Members might have an opportunity of seeing it? The distance between the two places being understood, he begged to say that the intervening space was a barbarous country, inhabited by a variety of tribes of the Bornean population. [Mr. H. DRUMMOND: Labuan is an island.] He was aware of that, but it was only seven miles from Borneo. Here, however, the House was called upon to vote a salary to the Governor of Labuan, who was residing three hundred miles away from it, at a place with which there was no means of communication, except by a ship of war, or a hired vessel, and was about as difficult as between London and St. Petersburgh. When they first passed this vote in 1848, they had laid before the House instructions from Earl Grey to Governor Brooke, directing him what to do in founding the territory of Labuan. Labuan belonged to England. Sarawak was not our territory—we had never recognised it, but we voted Sir James Brooke 2,000l. a year for governing Labuan while he resided on his own territory of Sarawak. What had been the consequence? The Committee upstairs had obtained some information on the subject. Earl Grey was examined, and Mr. Crawford, the author of the Indian Archipelago. The affair of Labuan had fallen into confusion. The books of Mr. Napier, the Lieutenant Governor, were in such a state that Sir James Brooke could make nothing of them. At the present moment Mr. Napier was suspended, and taken to Singapore. All he wanted was, that Sir James Brooke, if he was paid as Governor of Labuan, should reside at Labuan. He believed that he would be a very competent man for the office. It was folly to select the best man they could find, and then let him reside somewhere else, and do similar work for himself. Let the Government give an assurance that if this salary was voted, the governor should not be a sinecurist.

MR. HAWES

said, the hon. Member for the West Riding had asked him to give the House an assurance that Sir James Brooke should in future reside in the island of Labuan. He also understood him to say, that he would not object to the salary given to Sir James Brooke, provided he resided at Labuan; and he likewise understood him to refer to the instructions laid down for his guidance when he took office. Now, he (Mr. Hawes) begged to state that Sir James Brooke had of his own accord reduced his own salary 500l. a year, namely from 2,000l. to 1,500l.; and, with reference to the request of the hon. Member for the West Biding, that he should reside in the island of Labuan, he would refer the House to the very instructions given to Sir James Brooke, and to which the hon. Member himself had drawn the attention of the House. According to those instructions it was never contemplated that Sir James Brooke should reside entirely at Labuan. It was always intended that he should have special regard to his consular office, with a view to the protection and extension of our trade in those parts. [The hon. Gentleman here read a passage from the instructions given to Sir James Brooke to the above effect.] It would, in fact, be injurious to the public interest to confine the residence of Sir James Brooke to the island of Labuan. Mr. Crawford, whose authority had that night been referred to, stated that Labuan was the most convenient place to fix upon for the suppression of the pirates of the Indian Archipelago, the most desperate and active of whom lay close to the northern shore of Borneo, and had of late years been extremely trouble some, both to the English and Dutch trade. Mr. Crawford then added— From Labuan these pirates might certainly be intercepted by armed steamers far more conveniently and cheaply than by any other means that could be pointed out. [Mr. COBDEN: Hear, hear!] What, did the hon. Gentleman cheer the employment of armed steamers against these poor miserable savages, as they had been called? Mr. Crawford was the gentleman who recommended the purchase of the island of Singapore, which had been one of the most important contributions to the support and extension of our trade in that part of the world. He (Mr. Hawes) had shown that Sir James Brooke was only acting upon his instructions when he was engaged in suppressing piracy and protecting our trade, and, therefore, the hon. Gentleman had no right to call upon him to reside constantly at Labuan.

MR. DRUMMOND

had been attacked on account of his geography', but he thought the hon. Member for the West Riding would not have ventured to do so if he had been aware of a document that now lay before him. On a former evening-it was said that an English ship had never been attacked by pirates in these waters. A return, however, had been moved for and obtained on the subject, and he had made a mark with ink on every place where English ships had been attacked; and if they placed one point of the compasses on Labuan, and drew a very small circle, it would be found that every one of those places was within the circle. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be perfectly ignorant of the real condition of that part of the world. He held in his hand a classification by Sir James Brooke of the inhabitants living upon the various rivers, and from that statement it appeared that though there were many unwarlike tribes who would be very glad to trade with us, they had been prevented from doing so on account of the piracy that prevailed.

MR. COBDEN

said, he had never objected to the occupation of Labuan. What he contended was, that the pirates were not in the neighbourhood of Sarawak, but of Labuan; consequently the governor, who received 2,000l. a year to put down pirates, ought to reside at Labuan. Mr. Crawford had distinctly stated before the Committee, that there were no pirates near Sarawak, and that Sir James Brooke had been putting to death innocent men. He must contend that Sir James Brooke was residing at Sarawak to look after his own business, and not in execution of his duties as Governor of Labuan.

MR. J. STUART

said, it was plain that the hon. Members for the West Biding and Montrose had made a run against Sir James Brooke. [Mr. HUME: No, no!] he was glad to hear it, because, if that had been sooner stated, it might have saved much useless discussion. What, however, was the complaint against Sir James Brooke? That he had put down pirates. The hon. Member for the West Riding said, however, that he (Sir James Brooke) could not put down pirates, because be did not reside at Labuan. But he had effectually put them down, and thereby brought upon himself the enmity of the hon. Gentlemen.

MR. HUME

denied that he had made a run at Sir James Brooke. He had only made a run at the murderers upon a coast where there were no pirates.

MR. J. STUART

Then the hon. Member accuses Sir James Brooke of committing murder, and says he does not make a run at him.

SIR R. H. INGLIS

regretted that any Member of that House should have so far forgot Parliamentary usage as to characterise a person intrusted with high office by the Crown, at a great distance from England, as one who from first to last had acted as an impostor, and then to think it enough, as the hon. Member for Montrose had done, to say that he had made no run at him. A charge had been made against Sir James Brooke that he threatened to sell the territory he had become connected with to the French or the Dutch. It was sufficiently well known that he first offered it to his own Government. But he asked hon. Members to consider whether by such treatment as had been awarded to that gentleman, they were not doing much to cut asunder those ties that bound a gallant and honourable man to his country, and making a poor return for the services of one who had sacrificed the blessings of social life to promote the best interests of his species.

Vote agreed to; also the folowing:—

(4.) 30,000l., Captured Negroes and Liberated Africans.

(5.) 16,350l., Commissions for the Suppression of the Slave Trade.