§ MR. DRUMMONDSir, I have given notice that I will put a question to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London; but before I do that, I will put another question in consequence of an extraordinary document circulated this morning, and I will show that I have a right to complain, unless the noble Lord is able to give some satisfactory explanation. It is very well known that the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) has been for the last two years in the habit 724 of inserting on the notice paper certain allegations and insinuations against Sir James Brooke. I therefore gave notice to the Government of Lord Derby, that I would resist any Motion of that sort, in order to prevent the hon. Member from moving without giving me an opportunity to reply. When the present Government came into office, I did the same thing; but the hon. Gentleman shifted his ground, and has written despatches from Bryanstone-square containing gross libels, which are printed at the Government expense, two of which I hold in my hand—libels! gross libels!—
§ MR. DRUMMONDAnd those libels are now presented with the sanction of Her Majesty. The charges made in letters addressed by the hon. Member for Montrose to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) are, that Sir James Brooke, a servant of the Crown, approved of by the noble Lord, and by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), has been guilty of "an utter disregard of all truth—of paltering with the truth—of a glaring violation of the truth—of gross and scandalous falsehoods," which it is stated are "now brought under your Lordship's consideration;" and those papers are presented, not in the ordinary way of Motion, but by command of Her Majesty; and the question I ask is, what is the reason why Her Majesty is made to bring forward those charges against a servant of the Crown, towards whom She has no cause, so far as we can know from public documents, of departing from the approbation She formerly expressed.
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL. Sir, the origin of the production of this correspondence was, that after the resignation of the Government of Lord Derby, and when there was no Minister in this House who could take upon himself to give an answer with respect to the papers to be produced, a Motion was made by the hon. Member for Montrose, and an address agreed to for those papers. On accepting the seals of the Foreign Office, I found those papers had been prepared in pursuance of the Address which was, as I have already said, agreed to at a time when there was no Minister in the House that could properly answer on the subject. My first impression was that it was my duty to ask the House to rescind the order that was made; but on further consideration, seeing that the Address had been carried, 725 I thought it would be, perhaps, better that those papers should be presented in conformity with the Address. I accordingly presented those papers, and there was afterwards another application made by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) that other papers should be produced. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Drummond) says the papers are produced by command, and if so it is only because they are a continuance of the correspondence already on the table of the House. I must say that I think the course that has been pursued, owing to the circumstance I have mentioned, is a very inconvenient one, and I trust the House will not agree to any further Motion with respect to correspondence which consists, in fact, of letters from the hon. Member for Montrose to the Secretary of State, containing allegations which he might more properly make in his place in this House.
MR. HUMEI beg, Sir, to explain. Two letters were presented to-day, dated the 10th and 18th, written by me, and the House should know that they were preduced on the hon. Member's (Mr. Drummond's) own Motion. On the 18th of last month the hon. Gentleman moved for two letters, one from Lord Wodehouse to Sir James Brooke, and the other the answer of Sir James Brooke to Lord Wodehouse, and they were delivered and laid on the table. I then wrote a letter, saying that if Lord Wodehouse's letter calling upon Sir James Brooke to explain, and the reply thereto, were published, was it not fair that my letter should be published also? I then asked that my letter of the 10th should be produced; but I did so in consequence of the hon. Gentleman's own irregular conduct. The letter of the 18th was in answer to the papers I had an opportunity of seeing, and which were full of erroneous statements, which I am ready to prove, and respecting which he and all connected with him shrink from inquiry. In consequence of the course taken by the hon. Gentleman, I said both those letters should be produced; and, therefore, if there be any blame in the matter, it is the fault of the hon. Gentleman himself.
§ MR. DRUMMONDI made my Motion on the last day before the adjournment, because the hon. Gentleman had circulated a paper headed "Falsehoods of Sir James Brooke." I now beg to ask the noble Lord whether the Government have received the accounts of the breaking out of the Dyaks in acts of piracy on the 3rd of 726 February, in Sakarran, under the command of the pirate Rentab, who unfortunately escaped in the action with Captain Farquhar, the forcible coming out of a balla (or assemblage for warlike purposes) in war vessels (bangongs), and the attacking the forts at the mouths of the river Sakarran and Regang, by which Mr. Lee and many persons with him lost their lives, again rendering insecure to mercantile interests the whole coast of Borneo?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLSir, the Government have received information that acts of piracy have been committed, and a collision has taken place. I cannot say whether all the acts have been committed that are mentioned in the question of the hon. Gentleman; but a statement has been made that piracy had recommenced, and that a collision had taken place. Upon receiving this information, my noble Friend Lord Clarendon wrote to my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, desiring that the attention of the admiral on the station should be called to the subject, and my right hon. Friend has given the orders which he thought were necessary on this occasion for the protection of British interests.
MR. HUMEHas the noble Lord's attention been directed to the fact that this act of piracy was committed sixty or seventy miles up the country, and had no connexion with the sea coast?
§ Subject dropped.