HC Deb 11 May 1877 vol 234 cc726-8
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

I wish, Sir, to put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich, of which I have given him private Notice. There was a passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which he delivered on Monday night, which did not attract my attention at the time, but to which my attention has been drawn by a friend of Sir James Brooke— I cannot recollect a more shameful proceeding than the slaughter of the Dyaks by soldiers of Her Majesty and Sir James Brooke. I have two reasons for putting the Question. One is that Admiral Sir Tbemas Cochrane was the Commander-in-Chief in China, and that he gave the order for the attack on the forts; and the other is that there is a feeling among the friends of Sir James Brooke of pain and surprise at this observation, inasmuch as there was a Royal Commission, which inquired into the transaction, and the conduct of Sir James Brooke was highly approved. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether, by the phrase " a more shameful proceeding," or the phrase " the slaughter of the Dyaks," he intended to convey any censure upon the officers in Her Majesty's Service who acted upon the Instructions which they received from the Admiral, and on that distinguished man, Sir James Brooke?

MR. GLADSTONE

I think, Sir, the words quoted by my hon. Friend are not precisely correct; but, at the same time, they do not very greatly vary the effect of the impression I wish to convey. I say they are not precisely correct, because I am made to state that it was the soldiers whose conduct I blamed. According to my recollection, at this distance of time, the operation was entirely a naval one; and my recollection, as far as it goes, is that it was performed with the guns of the ships, and not by a minor warfare in detail. I do not, therefore, accept the words as they stand, but undoubtedly my opinion of the act is that it was an act of great and gross cruelty. With reference to these officers referred to, the responsibility has been entirely removed from their shoulders. I had forgotten at the time I spoke the circumstances of the Commission; but I do recollect and I do now state in the most explicit manner—and I am glad to have the opportunity of stating it again—that neither the Commander-in-Chief, the admiral at the station, could be held responsible except to the extent of the general orders, nor Sir James Brooke, who was a man of great energy, great abilities, and high character, and who was very much esteemed by many persons who themselves are most worthy of esteem; and still less could the officers and sailors of Her Majesty's Fleet be held in any degree responsible. They acted, I believe, strictly under orders; and not only was there the Commission to which the hon. Member has alluded, but the matter was brought directly under the cognizance of the Government and the House; and in the division which took place a large majority of the House and the Government completely upheld the conduct of Sir James Brooke, and those who were concerned in those operations. Therefore, the opinion which I give I give as my own opinion, as ono of the minority in the matter. I still hold that opinion; but I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman that no blame or censure can possibly attach personally to any of those concerned in the matter after the responsibility has been assumed by the autberities at home, and after the House has affirmed in the most decided manner its approval.