said, that this was an awkward time to go on with the Bill, as they had no opportunity of receiving the opinions of the boards of guardians on it. It would be much better if the Government had brought it forward earlier. He was anxious to get rid of the appointment of a new medical board to superintend the medical charities of Ireland. It might be said that it could not be called a separate board, as it was to be taken from the Poor Law Board; but it should be recollected that they vested it with separate separate powers, and it would be inevitably a separate board. He deprecated their paying any attention to the evidence given before Committees before the year 1847, as, up to that time, the poor-law system was new, and little known before that year. This Bill, as it at present stood, would throw great expense upon the poor payers of the poor-rate, who would not have any control over it. It would also be very injurious to the poor, by giving them too easy facilities for medical relief. The best way to keep men in health, was to let them have no time to be ill. He thought that the least that should be done would be to postpone the Bill for another year. He should move the omission of such words as would suffice to raise the question as to whether or not there should be a separate board.

said, that, in the first place, he disapproved of the doctrine, that the evidence which had been given before either House of Parliament should be deprecated. He believed that a more objectionable system than that of the medical charities in Ireland was not to be found. It was oppressive to the ratepayers, unfortunate as regarded the medical charge, and demoralising to the medical profession. His hon. Friend had proceeded upon a fallacy altogether; his hon. Friend had proposed to strike out those clauses of the Bill which established a separate board. There was no such thing. The board was composed of the Poor Law Commissioners and the medical gentlemen who were added to the board; it was a combined board, and was not, as the hon. Gentleman supposed, an exclusively medical board. He would state what he intended to propose in this clause. He would give the Lord Lieutenant power, by warrant under his hand, to appoint two persons who, with the assistant commissioners, should be commissioners of the board. He believed that if the House could pass this Bill, they would afford better relief to the sick poor in Ireland.

hoped the House would not adopt the compromise. The proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow would absolutely destroy the most vital and necessary element of the success of the measure.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved an Amendment to provide that there should be one competent and responsible physician or surgeon upon the board instead of three, on the ground of expense. He believed there would be no lack of attendance on the part of respectable medical men at the meetings of the board.

opposed the Amendment.

said, that the hon. Baronet contemplated the appointment of a man of the first eminence in his profession. He put it to the Committee, whether it was likely a man of eminence in his profession would have time to attend to the duties imposed.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 58: Majority 40.

Same Clause. Amendment proposed, page 1, line 9, after the words "physicians or surgeons," to insert the words "of not less than ten years' standing."

Question put, "That the proposed words he there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 50: Majority 23.

then moved the addition of a proviso to the effect that the Poor Law Commissioners should be responsible for all the acts of the board.

Question put, "That the Proviso be there added."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 24; Noes 60: Majority 36.

House resumed.

Committee report progress.

said, he wished to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he had received any satisfactory answer from the Portuguese Government to the remonstrances of the importers of wine, the produce of Portugal, against the impost of 6 l. per pipe levied upon wine exported to England, when sixpence the pipe only is imposed upon wine exported to America? The wine merchants of London had petitioned that House, and had complained that they were greatly aggrieved by those exactions, which checked the importation of wine to this country. He conceived the consumers of wine in this country had a right to be put upon the footing of the most favoured nations by Portugal. He was aware that the pretext for the continuance of these exactions was the decision of the Oporto Wine Company, which claimed some peculiar privileges with regard to the exportation of wine to England. It appeared this duty often amounted to 30, 40, or even 50 per cent on the cost of the wine.

replied that repeated communications had been made to Baron Moncorvo on this subject, which was of very considerable importance to the British consumers of wine; but he was sorry to say that he was unable at present to state to the House that any satisfactory results had been arrived at from his communications with the Portuguese Government. There could be no doubt that this imposition of extra duty was not only injurious to the British consumer, but also to the Portuguese wine-grower. Not only the additional charge, but the very mode of classifying the wines for the British market, was productive of much injury; for only one-half of the descriptions of wines produced could be exported to this country. He could assure the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government would not desist from making such representations to the Government of Portugal as they thought most likely to induce it to alter the present system.

said, that seeing the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, he wished to put some questions to him on a matter, as he conceived, vital to the character of the English Bench, and the administration of criminal justice in this country. In the report of the proceedings of the Central Criminal Court yesterday, on the trial of a person of the name of Pate, for a wanton and cowardly attack on Her Majesty, and who was found guilty without any recommendation to mercy, he found that Mr. Baron Alderson, who was the learned Judge who presided at the trial, had imputed to him the following words in passing sentence on the prisoner:—

"Considering who you are—the station in life you have filled—and the respectability of your connexions, it is not the intention of the court to inflict upon you, as we might have done, the disgraceful punishment of whipping, because we have some feeling of respect for you, even in your present miserable and unfortunate position. We do not wish to add to the disgrace of your family. We have some respect for you, though you had none for others."

It appeared to him that these were words of a very extraordinary nature, and he hoped almost unprecedented; for, if truly reported, they must seriously affect the character of one of the Judges, and the equal and just administration of the criminal law; he, therefore, trusted he might be allowed to put some questions on the subject to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he wished to know whether the right hon. Baronet had seen the report of the words which he had read, and which were attributed to Mr. Baron Alderson,? Also whether, if he had seen them, he had thought it his duty to communicate with Mr. Baron Alderson, with the view of ascertaining the accuracy of the report? And whether, in the event of the report proving to be accurate, the right hon. Baronet would consider it to be his duty to tender some advice to the Crown on the subject? He considered this subject affected the honour, the dignity, and the impartiality of the Bench, and calculated most seriously to affect that estimation and respect with which the people of this country have heretofore been accustomed to regard the administration of the criminal law within these realms.

replied that he had read the proceedings at the trial to which the hon. Member referred, and he had not felt it to be his duty to call upon the Judge for any explanation of what he said in passing sentence. He had not done so because he did not feel himself justified in calling upon any Judge of the land to give reasons for what he did, or to afford explanations as to his conduct in the exercise of his judicial functions.

Sir, in rising to move that the House resolve itself into Committee to consider an Address to be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give directions that a monument be erected in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter's, Westminster, to the memory of the Right Hon. Sir Robert Peel, I do not intend to dwell on the political services or on the public character of the deceased statesman. I take it for granted that this House will be desirous to testify the sorrow it feels at the loss this country has sustained by the death of the right hon. Baronet. I take it for granted, beeause on the first notification of the melancholy event, the House spontaneously agreed to adjourn for the day. I take it for granted, because the feeling of regret which prevails on this subject throughout the country has been very general and very deeply felt and expressed, thus testifying the high estimation in which it held the services of Sir Robert Peel. I take it for granted, from the feeling which was obvious when I wished to propose that a public funeral should be ordered for the purpose of showing the respect of this House to the memory of Sir Robert Peel, and from the fact that the observations which I then made appeared to meet with the unanimous concurrence of this House. I may also advert to the general sympathy of respect and esteem which has been manifested at this sudden and afflicting event not only in this country but in foreign countries, which is a remarkable demonstration that this calamity is considered not less a loss to other nations than to this country. I believe it is without precedent that the National Assembly of France should agree to enter on the minutes of its proceedings the words of its President expressive of its respect for the character, and its sorrow for the death, of a British statesman. Such, therefore, being the circumstances, known to all, patent to all, I cannot but believe that this House, the seat of his exertions, and which has so often witnessed the exercise of the great abilities with which he was endowed, will be anxious to place on record some permanent testimonial of their respect for his worth and talents. Taking this view of the subject, it remains to be considered in which way the testimony should be made. I adverted to a public funeral on a former occasion, but I did not persist, in consequence of what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge, who was a near friend and coadjutor of the right hon. Baronet, who informed the House that Sir Robert Peel had left express directions that his funeral should be as private as circumstances would admit. Of course I cannot think, in the present instance, of proposing such acts as were adopted by this House to testify its respect on the death Mr. Percival and of Mr. Canning, when this House agreed to make some provision for the families of those distinguished men, who had died in the public service. There remains only, as I conceive, the proposal of the erection of a public monument, by which we may show1, or endeavour to show, the sense of the loss the country has sustained. Perhaps I may in this place state that Her Majesty, being anxious to show the sense which the Crown entertained of the services rendered by Sir Robert Peel to the Crown, desired me to inform Lady Peel that Her Majesty was anxious to bestow upon her the same rank as was bestowed on the widow of Mr. Canning. I received this day an answer to this offer on the part of the Crown, which I immediately communicated to Her Majesty, in which Lady Peel says it is her own wish to bear no other name than that by which Sir Robert Peel was known. Lady Peel has also intimated that a specific direction was left for his family by the late Sir Robert Peel, in which he desires that no one of his family would receive any title or public reward in respect of any services which he might be supposed to have rendered the country. This was the stronger reason why this House should desire that some other testimonial should remain, by which this House might testify its feeling with respect to an event so sudden, and that a calamity so great should not be allowed to pass by without notice. I have already said that I did not mean to enter upon any question as to the public services of Sir Robert Peel, and I will not enter at this time into the nature of the measures with which his name is associated, as the mover, or of which he was the advocate. I think it far better to refer to the example which has recently been given under the Commission which was appointed by Her Majesty with the view of considering how far the fine arts might be made available for the adornment of the New Houses of Parliament. The Committee of this Commission, formed of persons of different political opinions, had to consider the eminent men in commemoration of whom statues should be erected, and among others, they determined that statues of Hampden and Lord Falkland should be placed in this building. If any one was disposed to open a discussion as to the merits of those great men, not only in their Parliamentary struggles in the House of Commons, but also in the contests in which they shed their blood, and died on the field of battle, no one could come to this House and say that both were deserving of the same distinction. But I imagine the Gentlemen who formed this Commission felt that they were both men of such splendid talents and such manly virtues as to adorn the age in which they lived; and however different their views, and however various their talents, they had both most at heart the love and welfare of their country. Let us not wait for a long period to elapse before we take occasion to do honour to the departed statesman. Let us do so now, not two centuries hence—as in the case of the honours to Hampden and Lord Falkland—not even ten, twenty, or thirty years from hence, but now, when every one agrees in the desire to do honour to the memory of Sir Robert Peel. What I propose to do is to follow, with the exception of a pension, the precedent set on the occasion of the death of the Earl of Chatham. When the Earl of Chatham died, Colonel Barré proposed that a public funeral should take place to his honour; but a gentleman who was then in office in the Administration to which Lord Chatham was at that time opposed, gave it as his opinion that it would be better to have a monument to the memory of the Earl of Chatham. That suggestion was immediately adopted and assented to; and Lord North, the Prime Minister, came down to the House before the debate closed, and gave his concurrence. It is perhaps, rather a remarkable circumstance, as connected with that vote, that Colonel Barré, who moved it, had himself been at one time opposed as strongly as any politician could be to the opinions of the Earl of Chatham. There is also another remarkable circumstance, which I have from a noble Friend of mine, to the effect that when Colonel Barré was introduced to Lord Chatham, and made some apology for the severity of the language which he had upon occasions applied to him, the Earl of Chatham replied that he could easily forgive that, for he had himself applied most severe language in commenting upon the conduct of Sir Robert Walpole, to whom he was opposed in opinion at that time; and that he was far from resenting any freedom of language to which he might be exposed, if he thought it was sincere. I think that this anedote, considering the character of Colonel Barré as the former opponent of the Earl of Chatham, does show that on occasions of this kind we should all endeavour rather to pause for a time, and forget that natural encounter upon which the welfare and interests of the country require us at other times to enter—that we should all recollect that the time when we assemble to do honour to the man who has devoted his talents to his country is not the time to consider particular opinions or particular measures, but rather the time when we should endeavour to show that we concur and participate in that general feeling of sorrow and regret which is felt by the great mass of the nation. I now move that this House resolve itself into Committee to take into consideration the resolution for an Address.

House in Committee.

Resolved— "That an tumble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that a Monument be erected, in the Collegiate Church of St. Peter, Westminster, to the memory of the right hon. Sir Robert Peel, with an Inscription expressive of the Public sense of so great and irreparable a loss, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same."

House resumed.

Resolution to be reported on Monday next.

, pursuant to notice, rose to call the attention of the House to petitions presented on behalf of the depositors in Rochdale Savings Bank, with reference to losses snstained by means of the defalcations of the late actuary of that bank, and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intends to propose any measure to Parliament for the relief of depositors who have suffered in such cases." The case of the petitioners was one of persons who depended on their daily toil for their daily bread, who, by the defalcation of an individual, had been deprived of the savings they had laid up for old age, or times of sickness or distress. They had invested their savings in full confidence that, as the money was deposited with Government, they had adequate security; but now they were met with the allegation that the Government was not responsible. The petitioners complained of the want of proper care and attention on the part of the Government to their interest, stating that the Commissioners had not required a sufficient guarantee for the safety of the funds, inasmuch as no bond or security had been asked from the officials of the bank, and thus that the depositors had been for some years actually without protection, they all the time believing that they had full and substantial security. Some benevolent persons had made a subscription, and 39,000 l. had been paid, leaving a deficiency of 9,400 l. due to these unfortunate depositors. The trustees had no responsibility either. That had been taken away by Act of Parliament; but the names of the trustees gave confidence to the people that their money was safe. One feature of this defalcation was, that the trustees of the Rochdale schools had commenced a system of depositing in this bank the savings they had induced their pupils to make. There was a precedent for making compensation in the case of the Exchequer-bill forgeries, in which the deficiency had been made good; and if in such a case as that the Government acted thus, and compensated the sufferers, how could they act otherwise towards the depositors in this savings bank; how could they deny to the poor the justice they had awarded to the rich? It was contrary, moreover, to the public interest that depositors in savings banks should be deceived by the inducements held out to the poor to invest their savings, for those savings had become a most valuable element in the financial arrangements of the country. Various deputations had waited on the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this subject, to represent the hardship to which they had been subjected, and he earnestly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some satisfactory answer to their representations, for they were suffering great anxiety as to the result, and in their petition they said that, although they were poor, they were the provident part of the poorer classes, who by forethought and prudence endeavoured to save a little independence. But no justice had been awarded to these poor sufferers. A Committee had been sitting, he believed, for two years on the Irish savings banks, and no report had yet been made. A private Member of the House had no power to propose a vote for the relief of these poor people, and he could only represent the case to the Government. For these reasons he appealed to the Government and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the hope that that right hon. Gentleman would give some indication that he admitted the principle that these poor depositors should be relieved. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he would propose to Parliament any measure for that purpose. He appealed to his justice and his mercy to do so, and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would not refuse his acquiescence in some measure of relief.

said, that the subject was under examination before a Committee, and until the report of that Committee had been made, he was not prepared to say that he could introduce any measure of the kind alluded to by the hon. Member.

, pursuant to notice, rose to call the attention of the House to a copy of a letter from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to the Lords of the Treasury, on the subject of the ground appropriated for the site of the Exhibition. He entirely concurred in what he believed was becoming the general impression in the country, namely, that there never had been a greater humbug, a greater fraud, or a greater injustice, than this proposed Exhibition in 1851. Some measures, however, might yet be taken to throw the whole of it over. The replies given by the Government and the Attorney General to the questions that had been put on this subject, had been most evasive. Several trees had been already cut down in the park, to the great annoyance and injury of the public. He was ashamed to see a Royal Commission made literally a trickery by the Government to flatter and please the people, under the guise of a proposal from high authority, but really in order to draw off their attention from matters of greater importance. But he would endeavour, as far as his humble power allowed, to show up all these systematic plans of the Government. The letter he held in his hand stated that the Queen had given her consent that the Commissioners should take possession of the site; but they had been told by the Attorney General, some ten days ago, that he believed the Queen would give her consent, while it appeared, from the paper he held, that Her Majesty had already granted her assent to the possession of that site. The fact was, the whole proceedings connected with the selection of Hyde Park were a gross attack upon the rights of the public. The whole thing was a humbug from beginning to end. It was said that 60,000 l. had been raised for the purpose of meeting the expenses; but he had been informed by an eminent architect, competent to form a sound judgment, that at least 240,000 l. would be required. Who would have to pay this enormous sum? The foreigner? Why, he had no money. But the House had been told by a right hon. Gentleman that the working classes and labourers throughout the country were saving their shillings and their pence that they might be enabled to come up to London next year to see the Exhibition. He should like to know how much the labourers in the rural districts would be able to save; but, apart from that subject, he would ask the House who was to take care of their families whilst they were in London? The poor labourers were to come up to London, helter-skelter, where they would suddenly find themselves amidst the temptations of a great metropolis—were they? What would become of the chastity and the modesty of those who might become the unsuspecting victims of those temptations? Perhaps the Commissioner would look after them. Then it was said that, by comparison with the productions of other countries, the taste and the energies of our own producers would be stimulated. This was mere trash. Foreign manufactures would be brought over here, cheap and nasty; and because they were cheap, and because they were foreign, they would be bought. But, in thus encouraging the foreigner, what would become of the different classes of our own mechanics, who earned their bread by the sweat of their brow? Why, they would have to succumb to the foreigner, not only temporarily, but permanently; because, such was the folly of people, orders which they should execute would be sent abroad. He objected, then, to the Exhibition, upon principle, and particularly upon the ground that it would destroy a park which was sacred to the recreations of the people. He hoped, therefore, that the injunction about to be applied for would be successful. If it were, the names of those who applied for it would be immortalised for having had the courage to put a stop to the delusion and the trickery of the Exhibition. England, he was confident, would rejoice at something having stepped in to prevent a transaction prejudicial to the country; and he called upon the people to unite in a general address to the Throne, praying Her Majesty, before it was too late, to stop a plan subversive of all regard for the true interests of the people.

rose to move the Address to Her Majesty of which he had given notice. He was sorry, at this period of the Session, to have to bring before the House a question which, in his opinion, interfered very much with the cause of humanity, and with the character of this country. It was to bring before them one of the most atrocious massacres that had ever taken place in his time. The question he wanted to submit to the House was, whether he should not have from Her Majesty's Government such papers as would elucidate the terrible massacre which had taken place on the coast of Borneo. He had moved for them, he had applied to the various departments, and he was sorry to say that up to that moment he had not been able to obtain them. He held in his hand a despatch from Captain Farquhar, of the Albatross, detailing the proceedings adopted by certain of Her Majesty's ships for the purpose of intercepting certain of the natives therein designated pirates. He (Mr. Hume) had been anxious to hear what were Captain Farquhar's instructions; but neither at the Admiralty nor the Colonial Office had he been able to obtain any copy of the orders in pursuance of which 500 of the natives of Borneo had been destroyed by the fire of Her Majesty's ships, and 1,000 more afterwards by the boats. He thought it very extraordinary if such acts had been committed without instructions from head quarters. He was aware it had been stated that the attack was directed against pirates, and in the despatch the word was used thirty-two times; but he could not see in all the documents that had been produced, one single act of piracy that had been brought home to these unfortunate men. They had been massacred, it would seem, in cold blood, for only one man, as it appeared, had been killed on board Her Majesty's ships, and he accidentally shot himself. He wanted to know on what instructions this attack had been made. It could not be those of the commander on the station, for Sir T. Cochrane had ordered that no attacks should take place on alleged pirates. His complaint was that this razzia, as he might call it, had taken place without competent orders, or without sufficient proofs that the persons attacked were pirates. Indeed, there was great doubt whether our ships had not destroyed a portion of the royal navy of China, as it was reported that some of these vessels were then making terms of peace with the natives. It was distinctly laid down by Sir T. Cochrane that no persons should be attacked for alleged piracy, or executed, except after full and fair trial and conviction. Now what would the House say when they learned that on the 31st of July, 1848, and notwithstanding the distinct orders of Sir T. Cochrane, Captain Farquhar, acting under the orders of Sir James Brooke, made an attack on 2,500 of the natives in prahus, and brought away not a single individual alive to prove that the persons destroyed were pirates. It was true that after 500 had been killed by the fire of the ships, and 1,000 by the boats, some unfortunate beings were picked up, but they were at once let loose and not taken before any tribunal, and up to this hour no satisfactory investigation had taken place. The only attempt made was a commission of inquiry issued by Sir C. Rawlinson; but that was directed to Sir James Brooke himself, and was not likely to have any satisfactory result. He (Mr. Hume) had used all diligence, and yet he could not get at the instructions under which this massacre had taken place, for which Captain Farquhar and his officers were to get about 20,000 l. of the public money. He had heard from other sources that the orders came from Sir F. Collier, but he could not obtain a copy. He had been informed that Sir F. Collier had expressed his disapprobation of Captain Farquhar's proceedings, and had ordered that persons should not be attacked for alleged piracy; and he had been told that that had been struck out from the published despatches. He believed that Captain Farquhar had acted under Sir James Brooke's instructions; and he thought it strange that those instructions could not be obtained. He admitted that the parties attacked were out on a plundering expedition; but they were not plundering British property, nor should British men of war have been allowed to interfere. The position of Sir James Brooke was certainly anomalous. He was not on English ground, and yet he could command the services of Her Majesty's ships. The use he made of this authority would be appreciated by the following account given by Captain Vigors of the attack and massacre:—

"Trying as it was to the patience of all parties, we remained in position until the 31st, during which interval every precaution human foresight could suggest was adopted to ensure success. About half-past seven, p.m., we were engaged in a rubber of whist on board the Nemesis, and had almost abandoned all hope of surprising the enemy, when a spy-boat returned at best speed, with the long and anxiously-looked for intelligence that the piratical fleet had rounded Tanjong Siri, and was rapidly approaching our position. As yet it was, of course, uncertain for which river they would make. This question was, however, soon set at rest, and a brisk fire of rockets from the cutters, and of great and small guns from the remainder of the Rajah's force stationed at the entrance of the Kaluka, announced that the enemy had attempted to force that river, and had met with a warmer reception than they had anticipated. A rocket was now fired by the Rajah, and, on this preconcerted signal, Captain Farquhar moved round Banting Marron with the European force under his immediate command, to support the Rajah, if necessary, and also with a view to enclosing the enemy between two fires, leaving, however, a strong native force at the mouth of the Sarebas, to intercept the pirates in case of their passing the European boats, and making for this their native river. Finding themselves foiled at the Kaluka, the enemy, gallantly followed by the two cutters and the Rajah's light skirmishing boats (which kept up a constant fire) put to sea, with the intention of running for the Batang Lupar; here, however, no doubt much to their surprise, they encountered Captain Farquhar's boats, and being saluted with round shot and rockets, they divided their force. They yet, however, preserved admirable order. Some returning to the Kaluka (still most judiciously guarded by the Rajah), renewed their attempt to enter, but with the like bad success; others, passing in shoal water inside Captain Farquhar, made for the Sarebas, and the remainder, having greater speed than his heavily laden boats, succeeded for the present in escaping to sea. The Nemesis had hitherto remained in the mouth of the Sarebas in position, but ready to move at a moment's notice to any point where her services might be required. She now acted her part, and that right nobly. Perceiving by the fire from Captain Farquhar's boats that the enemy had attempted to put to sea, Commander Wallage gave chase, and fell in with seventeen prahus which had succeeded in escaping Captain Farquhar, and were making in beautiful line for the Batang Lupar. When abeam we saluted them with grape and canister from our 32-pounders, raking the entire line, which we then broke, driving many of them on shore badly crippled, where they fell an easy prey to the Dyak boats, which, headed by Mr. Steel, of Sarawak, in the Snake, followed the Nemesis, but never interfered with her fire. We then pursued five others, and destroyed them in detail, passing round each and pouring in a constant fire of grape and canister, musketry, and rifles, until they drifted past us helpless logs, without a living being on board. That discharge of grape was a fearful sight, as at point-blank range it crashed over the sea, and through the devoted prahus, marking its track with the floating bodies of the dying, shattered prahus, planks, shields, and fragments of all sorts. I should have pitied them; but they were pirates, and the thought steeled my heart."

He asked, was that proper employment for the ships and soldiers of the most civilised country in the world? Now, these people who were thus attacked and massacred were harmless and timid, having no arms but the blowpipe, and being terrified at the report of fire arms; but what he begged to fix on the attention of the House was that not one man had been brought away alive for the purpose of trial in a court of justice. Mr. Low, in his book, had notified to the harmless character of these people, and drawn a wide distinction between them and the Malays living on the opposite coast. At page 127, he said—

"The natives of the western coast of Borneo do not practise many of the vices for which their nation in general has become so famous. In their character they are a mild and quiet people, de- void of the cunning and treachery of the natives of Sumatra, whom the dissolute inhabitants of the capital more nearly resemble. They are not, like the inhabitants of the piratical States, fond of desperate adventure; and not being possessed of a great share of physical courage, and their tastes inclining them to follow the more peaceful pursuits of trade, under a Government which will encourage commerce, they live happy and contented. Piracy, which is considered in Europe to be proper to the nature of every Malay, has never been carried on by the natives of the western coast of Borneo. It is true that formidable fleets were sent from Sambas, and that many ships were taken at Bruni; but the chiefs of both these towns, the inhabitants of which are by far the most dissolute on the island, were Illanons, or at least intimately connected with them. Though the pirates were encouraged by the rulers of the west coast, it does not appear that they have succeeded in inducing the natives of it themselves to go on piratical cruises. Piracy does not, therefore, appear to have been proper to the native inhabitants of the west coast of Borneo, though frequently carried on from its ports; at present the coast is annually infested by the fleets from the Sooloo Archipelago, which, leaving their own islands, situated on the north-east of Borneo, about the middle of the north-east monsoon, sail round the island with a fair wind, stretching across to the coasts of Java, Banca, Singapore, and the peninsula, and visiting all the islands in the way, attacking all the trading boats they meet, and carrying their crews into slavery, frequently landing and capturing the whole of the inhabitants of small villages. ^{* * *} Amongst the Sea Dyaks the practice of preserving the heads of their enemies, anciently instituted that they might be kept as memorials of triumph, has degenerated from its originally sufficiently barbarous intention into a passion for the possession of these horrid trophies, no matter how obtained. From this they (the Sea Dyaks) carried on war with their old enemies of Sakaran with various success, but were finally compelled, about ten years before the new era of Sarawak, again to decamp further westward, when they divided into three tribes, and settled in the villages they now occupy. ^{* * *} The passion for head hunting which now characterises these people was not formerly so deeply rooted in their character as it is at present, and many of the inhabitants of Sarawak have assured me that they well recollect the tribes first visiting the sea with that ostensible and avowed object. In a limited extent the custom is probably as ancient as their existence as a nation. ^{* * *} In March, 1846, a large fleet, led by Bulan, the war-chief of Sakarran, attacked the village of the Balow Dyaks, and killed thirty-five persons, though they had some Malays in the place, and one or two small guns, which were taken. The success which attended this expedition was on account of their having surprised the village when the men were all absent at the farms. During the past Session the Sambas and Sakarran Dyaks attached one of the kampongs of Kalkeka, the next considerable river eastward fram Sarebas, and in the government of the Dattu, Patengi, Abdulraham, of Serekei, who, however, assisted by a force of the Kyans, who inhabit the interior of his country, so amply retaliated, that upwards of fifty of the people of Sarebas were killed or taken captive."

If our ships had attacked these Malays, there would have been some sense; but no, they had spared them, and massacred a harmless and timid race who fled from the report of a gun, and had no arms but a blowpipe. He had an estimate of their character from Sir James Brooke himself. In his Diary he said—

"The Sakarrans are fairer in complexion, superior in nature, and better made than any Dyaks I have seen; their countenances, too, are peculiar—features good, lips thin, and the eyes small and keen; their bodies are spare, and they bear the air of wild and independent people. Some of their prahus carried fifty men, and they plied the paddles with vigour and regularity. They are the most savage of the tribes, the Sarebas excepted, and delight in head-hunting and pillage, whether by sea or land; but those natives who are addicted to piracy and robbery, are exceptions to the general rule, though they come nearer to the account of the Dyak character given by travellers. By sea, the Sakarrans and Sarebas reckon all they fall in with as fair prize, and acknowledge no friends; but in their own waters, they are faithful to their agreements, hospitable, and, it is reported, kind to strangers; but I must not omit, they are held in detestation by all the other Dyaks, who, to stigmatise them, remark, 'When you meet a Dyak with many rings in his ears, trust him not, for he is a bad man.' ^{* * *} The spear and the sword comprise their weapons; they have no muskets or fire-arms, and never use the sumpitan. On one occasion a party went from the camp with a vow or determination not to return without procuring a head. They were ornamented highly, after their fashion, and proceeded with considerable show; but, after a week, they returned unsuccessful, looking starved and fagged, and their finery soiled by the life in the jungle. ^{* * *} The Sarebas are by no means so warlike as the others, and from their great dread of fire-arms, may be kept in subjection by a comparatively small body of Malays. The sound of musketry or cannon was enough to put the whole body to flight; and when they did run, fully the half disappeared, returning to their own homes."

He contended that to massacre these people was not only barbarous and inhuman, but it was inconsistent with the law of nations and of treaties. He thought he had said enough to show that some inquiry was necessary, and he hoped that the Government would direct their attention to the subject. He held that these so-called pirates had no more right to be hunted as they had been, and put to death, than he had, for though they had been carrying on war against other tribes in the same islands, they had done nothing to justify their being proceeded against as pirates. The hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey had alluded on a former occasion to Mr. Wise. [MR. DRUMMOND: I did not name him.] Mr. Wise was a political agent, and when he saw the accounts in the newspapers on this subject, he was astonished. He wrote to the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but though that letter had been asked for, it had not been produced. He also wrote to Sir R. Peel, with whom much correspondence took place on the subject of the settlement of the Island of Labuan, and this was the answer of that eminent statesman:—

"Whitehall, Nov. 28, 1849.

"Sir—I thank you for the communication with which you have favoured me. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will feel it to be their imperative duty to make an immediate and complete inquiry into those circumstances which have induced you to address yourself to the First Lord of the Treasury. I read with great pain the account of the transactions to which you refer, but shall suspend a final judgment upon the proceedings adopted by Sir James Brooke against some of the Dyaks in Borneo, until further explanations with regard to them be given.—I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

(Signed) "R. PEEL.

"Henry Wise, Esq., 34, Cornhill."

He had waited in vain to obtain the despatches under which Captain Farquhar acted; and as far as they had as yet any information, there was nothing to show that he had not acted without orders. He held, that without any proofs of acts of piracy, from 1,000 to 2,000 people had been destroyed, and that not only on board their prahus, but they had been followed up the rivers and hunted to death at their own hearths. Sir James Brooke, without any right that he could understand, had been in the habit of carrying on these razzias upon an unoffending people since 1843; and he (Mr. Hume) felt bound to avail himself of every opportunity of protesting against such proceedings on the part of any representative of this country. If these prahus had interfered with our commerce, or attacked our vessels, he could understand that there might have been some justification for the course Sir James Brooke had taken; but thus to follow up and destroy a people who were afraid of the sound of fire-arms, reflected anything but honour to this country.

Amendment proposed—

"To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the causes which led, since the year 1841, to the employment of the Naval and Military forces of Her Majesty and the Honourable East India Company on the North Western Coast of the Island of Borneo, and which resulted in a heavy loss of life on the part of certain nttive tribes of that island, called Serrebes and Sakarrans, alleged to be pirates,"

instead thereof.

seconded the Motion.

It is always with much reluctance I venture to present myself to the notice of the House, for I feel that all its indulgence is requisite, when I attempt to address it; but I should not be discharging my public duty were I to be deterred by private considerations from communicating to the House the information which my own experience and practical observation enables me to convey on the subject now under consideration; and I deem this duty the more incumbent upon me when I hear an honourable and gallant profession stigmatised and charged with murder; and the character of a distinguished individual calumniated as the willing advocate of deeds of atrocity and bloodshed, and the abettor of the most cruel massacre. Sir, this House will, I feel assured, do ample justice to this honourable much-injured man, whose patriotic zeal, disinterested enterprise, and laudable desire to extend the commercial interests and the civilisation of Great Britain may justly entitle him to be considered as one of the greatest benefactors to his country. I entertain no doubt, also, that a British House of Commons will justly appreciate the value of the calumnies and disgraceful charges made by certain hon. Members on the opposite side of the House upon that brave, gallant, and distinguished profession whom they have had the good taste to brand with the epithet of murderers. In the several voyages I have made to the East, and to China, I have traversed nearly the whole of the Eastern Archipelago, the Straits of Malacca, of Sunda, of Banca, of Gaspar, of Macassar, the Soloo and Celebes seas, and the adjacent coast of Borneo; and I venture to assure the House that the whole of these seas are more or less infested with pirates of the most sanguinary and cruel description; and that nothing but the fear of European power, or the want of opportunity, would deter them from attacking vessels, and, if successful, of practising the most barbarous atrocities upon their victims. It is true that the ships I have sailed in have been of too large a size, and of too formidable a description, to warrant any overt attack from these daring freebooters; but it was even necessary to be on the look-out, well prepared and guarded against their desperate attempts; and if by any accident, in that most intricate and dangerous navigation of the seas and straits I have referred to, a ship should be thrown on shore, or on the coral reefs which abound there, these cruel pirates would soon be gathered together like mice for the slaughter of the unfortunate mariner, and the plunder and spoliation of his property. Such was the case with Her Majesty's frigate Alceste in 1816; and such would and ever has been the case of every other vessel so unhappily situated. I may be told that such men or pirates as I describe, were not the Dyaks, against whom Sir James Brooke proceeded. I answer, how can hon. Members sitting here prove that? I verily and conscientiously believe that Sir J. Brooke's character is too humane, just, and honourable, to justify the charge of his attacking innocent unoffending men; and that he is utterly incapable of the acts attributed to him; but if proof is necessary on this subject, hon. Members will find it in the papers laid on the table of the House. We find in these papers Sir J. Brooke indignantly repudiating the charge, in his letter to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; we find the Sultan of Bruni appealing to Sir J. Brooke against those very Dyaks of Sarabas and Sakarran; the Pangeruce Macota doing the same; the depositions of sundry Malays attesting to the piratical doings of these same Dyaks; and, finally, the address of the principal merchants and inhabitants of Singapore, thanking Sir J. Brooke for his vigorous measures against these Bornean pirates, and deprecating the attacks recently made on his character, for the public measures he had adopted for the suppression of piracy; but if the House desire to have any further proof, I will, with its permission, read an extract from a paper of great circulation in India, which will give the House some idea of the opinions entertained by the press in that country on this subject, which I apprehend it will not be very gratifying for hon. Gentlemen opposite to hear:—

"A feeling of universal and unmitigated disgust has been created throughout India by the intelligence that the Aborigines Protection Society and the "friends of humanity" in England, have been endeavouring to get up an outcry, on the score of benevolence, against Sir James Brooke, for the well-merited chastisement he has inflicted on the Borneo pirates. Among those in this country who are well acquainted with our Eastern empire, and the duties we have to perform, there is but one opinion on this subject: the act which is now represented as so atrocious, is considered not only laudable, but meritorious. These hereditary and predestinated villains, the avowed enemies of human intercourse, have destroyed the peaceful occupations of industry on that coast, and spread desolation and death among its inhabitants. As soon as British influence had been established in that vicinity, it became our first and paramount duty to annihilate these nests of pirates, and to read the piratical community a lesson, which neither they nor their children were likely to forget. This is our especial vocation in the East, and we have pursued it with vigour and gratifying success in every quarter; we have extinguished piracy in the Persian gulf, and we are now employed on the same mission of humanity on the coast of China and Borneo. We are the paramount naval Power in Asia, and the various tribes who navigate its seas look to us for that protection which we alone can afford them; and it would be a dastardly dereliction of duty if we were to hesitate for a moment to afford it. There is no part of the East to which our influence does not extend, no sea which our navies, warlike or mercantile, do not visit. We are the great Maritime Police of the eastern hemisphere, and on us devolves the important duty of maintaining the peace, and of punishing crime. Where could we find a more appropriate sphere for the beneficial exercise of our power, than in the Eastern Archipelago, which the pirates have so long considered their own especial patrimony? On the present occasion our duty has been effectually and nobly performed by the signal chastisement inflicted on these brigands; but instead of crowning the author of this blessing with a wreath of laurel, our patriots at home are menacing him with a prosecution. Is this British humanity, thus to weaken the hands, and discourage the energy, of those who have now for the first time restored freedom to commercial enterprises on the coast of Borneo? The predatory habits of these wretches have, it is true, received a severe check by this salutary visitation; but those habits are not likely to be extinguished by a single reverse. Nothing but a continuous dread of consequences; a conviction of the ubiquity—so to speak—of retribution, will be sufficient to eradicate them. Any relaxation on our part will give fresh heart to the pirates, and again fill the rivers and creeks and the coasts with their buccaneering fleets. Are our officers and seamen to be deterred from the performance of this duty by the taunts and calumnies of men who arrogate to themselves the character of philanthropists?"

I could multiply extracts on this subject from other works, but hardly consider it necessary. Now, Sir, after hearing these extracts, can there be any doubt about the matter? Will hon. Members for a moment hesitate in believing that if civilisation is to be spread, the arts of peace cultivated, and the extension of commerce promoted by our fellow-countrymen, in this part of the world, that the first step towards so desirable and praiseworthy an object will be, to put down, by the strong arm of power, these piratical tribes, and thereby to give peace and security to the great mass of the inno- cent and well-disposed natives? Away, then, with the morbid sentimentality that designates such a work as massacre! Away, I say, with the hypocritical cant which, while it pretends, by exaggerated and incorrect statements, to inculcate peace, is inoculating the mind and sympathies of England with the worst impressions against men who are discharging a stern but necessary duty, the object and end of which is to promote the civilisation, the happiness, the peace, and the prosperity of their fellow men.

had never seen Sir James Brooke, but when he heard the attacks upon him he was greatly surprised; and an hon. Gentleman opposite having expressed a wish that he should look into the subject, he had done so, with what result the House should hear. It appeared to be denied by hon. Members opposite that these natives were pirates at all. Now, all the authorities concurred in saying that the people of all these seas were nothing but pirates, and never had been anything but pirates. But, as hon. Members opposite cared little for the authorities on this point, he wished to remind them that the Chambers of Commerce at Manchester and Glasgow had never left off teasing the Government until they had established these two settlements. [Mr. HUME: Hear, hear!] He begged pardon; don't let the hon. Member be rash: the impetuosity of youth was very great. These commercial bodies especially asked for the establishment of these settlements, on the ground that they were necessary to suppress piracy in those seas where it was now said by hon. Gentlemen opposite there was no piracy at all. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce declared that the settlement at Labuan would be a terror to the pirates; and the Manchester Commercial Association followed in the same strain, representing that Labuan would be a commanding point for the suppression of piracy. The Glasgow Chamber of Commerce spoke of the necessity of occupying Labuan in order to suppress the Malay pirates. The Glasgow East India Association declared that measures ought to be taken for the suppression of the piracy that had so long prevailed in those seas. [Hear, hear!] Oh! they admitted now, did they, that piracy did exist in these seas? The London and Liverpool East India Associations made the same representations. It had been said that Mr. Wise had seen reason to change his opinion of Sir J. Brooke; but he would show that Sir J. Brooke had discarded Mr. Wise long before that, and that this circumstance was at the bottom of the whole story. It was necessary the House should bear in mind that everything done by Sir J. Brooke in the suppression of piracy was in virtue of a treaty. The third article of the treaty with the Sultan of Borneo distinctly stated that in consideration of the cession of Labuan, the English Government engaged to suppress piracy, the Sultan and the chiefs affording them every facility therein. It was said that these persons were not committing any piratical acts; but the answer to that assertion was, that the Judge before whom the case was tried, remitted the hearing because there was not evidence enough. Witnesses were then brought who were parties in the expedition, and who confessed that they were engaged in piratical acts at the time. Now, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose said that the House ought to believe him, and not the parties who were engaged in these acts. He had received for his perusal the journal of a boy who was engaged in the expedition against these pirates, and which went to establish the same facts. But then they were told that it was cruel to attack these people with 9-pounders. But if they were pirates it was right to destroy them, and so much the better if they had been 24-pounders. It was Mr. Wise who was the real author and instigator of this Aborigines Protection Society, and who had got up this public company that Sir J. Brooke blew up. And that was the cause of the antipathy of the hon. Member for Glasgow. He (Mr. Wise) had teased Sir J. Brooke from beginning to end of their connexion in order to draw him into a commercial speculation. But Sir J. Brooke continually refused, and the real charge against him was that he could not be brought into the scheme. They wished to get possession of the whole territory that was ceded.

I rise to order. The hon. Member for West Surrey has linked my name with Sir J. Brooke, with whom I never had the smallest connexion.

The hon. Member will have an opportunity of replying afterwards.

had before him the prospectus of this "Eastern Archipelago Company," in which the names of the directors were printed in Saxon characters; and here, in double Roman capitals, was the name of "John M'Gregor, Esq., M.P., chairman." He had before him the letters of Mr. Wise to Sir J. Brooke, who was Sir James's agent for a time. Mr. Wise, in these letters wrote to Sir J. (then Mr.) Brooke, to say that he hoped to obtain a baronetcy for him, in acknowledgment of his efforts in the cause of civilisation. Mr. Wise was indefatigable in endeavouring to tempt Mr. Brooke to engage in commercial speculations, which Mr. Brooke felt to be incompatible with his habits, with his objects in settling, there, and with his duty to the Government at home. In one of Mr. Wise's letters, he said there would be no limit to Mr. Brooke's gains if he could get the fee-simple of Sarawak assigned to him, but that he perceived his reasons for steering clear of partnership transactions. These letters were written before July, 1844. In 1845, it appeared that Mr. Wise "commenced proceedings for the establishment of the Borneo Company." Was he (Mr. Drummond) right or wrong when he said that to this gentleman was to be attributed the whole origin of that company? But he did more. Captain Keppel, it appeared, published a book containing an account of his operations on the coast of Borneo, and off went this indefatigable Mr. Wise to the publisher, got hold of the work, suppressed the first volume altogether, and, put forth some writings of his own instead, which would go to the world as the work of Captain Keppel. What he wanted to impress on the House was this—that Mr. Wise throughout endeavoured to hook Sir James Brooke into a partnership, and that the latter steadily refused to be led into any such project. [The hon. Member then read extracts, at considerable length, from the letters of Mr. Wise to Sir J. Brooke, in which the advantages of a commercial alliance were strongly insisted on, and great stress laid on the personal attachment of the writer to the Rajah.] In fact, every attempt had been made to get Sir James Brooke to act as the agent of this company; and on his refusing to do so, they had used every effort to malign his conduct and character. Mr. Wise continued to say, that if he had not stopped the first edition of Keppel's book, and the correspondence with the Foreign Office, he doubted if Mr. Brooke would have been in his present high position, and that the assurance he had given that the company should receive every support he could "lawfully" afford them, had been laid before the board, and was fully appreciated, He (Mr. Drummond) thought the House had heard enough of Mr. Wise, and of his assiduity. It was not a pleasant office at any time to expose misconduct, and he should turn with pleasure to the much more grateful task of showing to the Government and to the country the real sentiments of the man they had employed, to prove to them how worthy he was of their confidence—to satisfy them what a noble public servant they had got—and to encourage the Government to repel the slanders which had been heaped upon him. After the prospectus of the Eastern Archipelago Company had been actually published, Sir J. Brooke wrote to Mr. Wise to say he had just seen it, and that he thought it right to remind Mr. Wyse that he (Sir J. Brooke) had told him there was no part of the country in which there was security for life and property except in Sarawak; and that, as to the third paragraph of the prospectus, it would give people to understand that the Sultan of Borneo had given the company the exclusive right of working the coal mines for 150 miles, whereas he had merely given them the right to work the mines, and did not at all justify them in infringing on the rights of the owners of the soil. Sir J. Brooke concluded by expressing his belief that his refusal to join the company would be found not only of great advantage to their interests, but to his own good name. He thought he had said enough to show that the Government had a most valuable servant in Sir J. Brooke; that they could not intrust their business to a more faithful and honest man. But this indefatigable Mr. Wise, understanding what a country this was for humbug, and seeing how easy it was to work on the feelings of the pious, said, after some reference to the instability of the then Administration, and some complaint of systematic shuffling on the part of the Government in being handed over from one department to another, that he was convinced their only chance was in their own exertions, and in organising an agitation on the Manchester plan; that he was considering the best means of doing so; and that, aided by the press and Members of both Houses of Parliament, as well as by rousing the apathy of the religious world, the Government would be compelled to bestir themselves. He added, that he was now "stirring up the Philanthropic Societies," and urged that no element of agitation should be allowed to lie dormant, and that all parties and all creeds should partake of the proposed movement. Accordingly, out came a thundering prospectus from the Peace and Aborigines Protection Societies, stating that the Dyaks were never known as pirates till Sir J. Brooke described them as such. Mr. James Bell, treasurer of the Aborigines Protection Society, had written a letter, in which it was said the movement against Sir J. Brooke originated solely with the Peace and Aborigines Protection Societies. That was what was called a religious society. A clever and able agent, so long as he was the faithful agent of Sir James Brooke, Mr. Wise, was as indefatigable in the line he had since taken. It had been shown that he was at the bottom of the Peace and Aborigines Protection Societies' movements; that he had supplied every particle of the information on which hon. Gentlemen opposite relied: a proof that—

"Death has no pangs like love to hatred turned, Nor hell a fury like a 'traitor' spurned."

begged to explain, in reference to his connexion with the Eastern Archipelago Association, and said, he had only consented to act as chairman, on the understanding that it was confined to working the coal in Labuan. The directors had studiously confined themselves to this object, and had not allowed the company to be committed in any way with regard to Sir J. Brooke. The company had always been able to meet their engagements, and held a sufficient balance at their bankers'. The hon. Member for West Surrey had done the company and himself an injustice by connecting them with the attacks on Sir J. Brooke.

thought that, after the speech of the hon. Member for West Surrey, the character of Sir J. Brooke required no further vindication. He had the honour of Sir J. Brookes's personal acquaintance, and he could say, that those who had long known Sir James Brooke bore testimony to the high, noble, chivalrous, honourable character of that most distinguished gentleman. It was painful to observe how the character of a man who desired to carry out the most philanthropic views, and to act justly towards all those subject to his government, after a long exile from his native country, was assailed in that House. A most important attack on the pirates was made some years ago by Sir T. Cochrane. Did not some of those Gentlemen who now reproached Sir J. Brooke act a very different part when, after an absence of nine years, he returned to England, when he was so enthusiastically received, and when every honour was bestowed upon him? There was not a whisper of accusation against him at that time by these Gentlemen, who allowed him to be appointed to a most important post, and waited till he was at a distance from England before bringing any charges against him. But if Sir J. Brooke's attack on the pirates was outrageous, Sir T. Cochrane's attack was equally outrageous, though it had been quoted to prove the barbarity of Sir J. Brooke in comparison. By the treaty of 1824, between the Governments of England and of the Netherlands, this country bound itself to do what it could to put down piracy in the Eastern Archipelago. From the instructions given to Sir F. Collier and the other admirals who had commanded in the Eastern Archipelago, it appeared that the object of stationing ships in the Malayan Sea and on the coast of China was to suppress piracy. When Sir T. Cochrane and Sir W. Parker held the command, Sir J. Brooke having become Rajah of Sarawak, it became a question with the admirals, whether they should not recommend the Government to put him in possession of the whole country. The Sultan of Borneo had proved himself so treacherous, that they were led to entertain that idea. Hon. Gentlemen talked of Sir J. Brooke having proved himself inhuman; but when they used such language as, that the British troops had covered themselves with eternal disgrace, that Sir J. Brooke was influenced by the desire to plunder, might it not be suggested that there was another kind of inhumanity, which was exemplified in an attack made on persons in their absence? He hoped that the gentlemen of the Peace Society would be deterred by a sense of justice from repeating such imputations as had been cast on Sir J. Brooke by Members of that House, relying on the information they had received, and acting in error.

would have been tempted long ago, had it been consistent with the forms of the House, to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, in words which were not entirely his own, "Enough; you have convinced me there is not an atom of proof that these men were pirates." Everything that had been done, and everything that had been undone, had gone to establish the certainty of that fact. Everything had been talked about, except the question brought by the hon. Member for Montrose before the House. No proof had been given, when, where, on whom, or how, these men had committed any act which British statesmen or British commanders had a right to class with piracy. The one thing palpable was, that the men whose blood this country paid for were not pirates; were not proved to be so, and because there was no proof brought in a case so easy of proof, it followed that not only was it not proved they were pirates, but it was proved they were not pirates. How many years was it since general acts of plunder might have been spoken of as committed on the coast of Cornwall? But that did not constitute piracy. Where were the acts of piracy committed? Nobody knew, nobody could tell; and it was most certain they would tell if they knew. When were they committed? Was it this year, or last year, or the year before, or in 1815, or in 1715, or in the days when the historian of Robinson Crusoe wrote of there being pirates in Borneo and Celebes? The public would be able to say, whether those who concurred in the views he expressed were "canting," and whether they were "hypocrites." They would rather be exposed to such taunts, than be responsible for statements which really consisted of nothing except the cuckoo cry of "Pirate, pirate!" Then a midshipman was brought forward who wrote to his mother of a certain boat's people being murdered. Supposing no discount due for the possibility of the gallant midshipman being in error, nothing was proved but that wars were carried on by one barbarous tribe against another. It was stated that Sir Christopher Rawlinson had delivered a judgment that these men were pirates. In the present transition state of the Ministry, there unfortunately was not a legal adviser of the Crown to ask for an opinion; but he had an attorney general in his own house in a small way, who served his purposes, and who assured him that Sir C. Rawlinson had no more jurisdiction to decide whether these men were pirates, than the Bishop of Calcutta; and if he had attempted it, it would have been what lawyers call coram non judice, which there could be no doubt Sir C. Rawlinson knew better than to do. Sir C. Rawlinson had only authority to collect evidence of the numbers on board at the commencement of the attack; and at one time he appeared to have thought he had not evidence enough. He (Colonel Thompson) came therefore to the conclusion that no evidence of piracy had been, or could be, produced; and he entreated the country to look into the case and judge for themselves, in the event of the House denying the inquiry which was asked. He was quite aware that subordinate officers, naval and military, could not be judges of the service on which they were ordered; but he would throw out for the consideration of all professional men who happened to be in that House, that as Members of Parliament they had a strong interest in checking the employment of the Navy and Army in services from which no one would return with pleasing recollections.

said, that there were numerous instances of piracy noticed in the Singapore Free Press, committed by these islanders. He must apologise for trespassing upon the time of the House, but he was anxious to do justice to those who served their country well; and he was convinced that the country never had been served by a more able, a more gallant, or a more humane man than Sir J. Brooke. When Sir J. Brooke returned to England in 1847, his departure was marked by a general outbreak of the pirates, who threw off all restraint, and carried on their depredations to a tremendous extent. Sir Stamford Raffles proved that piracy existed on the west coast of Borneo, and, in fact, that on the whole of the Malay coast piracy was regarded as an honourable profession, fit to be pursued by princes and nobles. He trusted that this question would be settled without a division; for he should desire to see the House unanimous in its approval of the whole conduct of Sir J. Brooke in these transactions.

thought the defence of Sir James Brooke was complete. He differed in opinion with the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford; for he was satisfied that the people of England would uphold the conduct of the officers of the Army and Navy in repressing acts of piracy, and that no soldier or sailor would be guided solely by the opinions of the people of England, but that, if sent upon any service, however arduous and odious it might be represented to be, he would faithfully perform the duty.

, in explanation, said, the sentiments he had endeavoured to express were so completely in consonance with those of the hon. and gallant Member, that he could not find another word to say upon the subject.

said, that this was not a question of cant and hypocrisy, as had been asserted, but a question involving the character of one of the ablest, most gallant, and humane men who ever exercised authority in any foreign country in the name of the people of England; and he could not refrain from expressing his strong feelings in defence of such a man. What better evidence of the existence of piracy in these seas could be procured than the depositions, either of the witnesses to the acts of piracy, or the victims of them. When it was contended that this piracy had not been committed on British subjects, he only wished that Captain Aaron Smith could burst in upon the House, as he had upon the Peace Meeting. He thought the conduct of Sir James Brooke had reflected honour on the name of England; and he felt it a privilege to be able to call himself the friend of a man so distinguished.

said, that a great deal had been advanced in the course of the debate respecting the transactions of Sir James Brooke, his concerns with Mr. Wise, and also with the Archipelago Company, and the whole discussion seemed to have turned upon the personal character of that gentleman. Now, he (Mr. Cobden) was not at all sure that Sir James Brooke was responsible for the massacre complained of. What he wanted to ascertain was, the authority upon which Captain Farquhar committed the act in question? The hon. Member for Montrose had submitted a Motion last March for a copy of the instructions given by Admiral Collier to Captain Farquhar; but the return, though ordered by the House, had not yet been presented. He wanted to know why the massacre had taken place, and who was responsible for it? He believed that Admiral Collier coincided in the view he (Mr. Cobden) and others took of this transaction, and therefore he asked the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty, who would most probably take part in the present debate, to be explicit on the subject, for, at the time he submitted his Motion relative to head-money in February last, he stated that he had received a communication from the commanding officer on the East India station, suggesting the alteration of the law which he was then proposing. Where was that despatch? If all they were alleging relative to the desperate pirates at Borneo were true, there never was a time when an Act of Parliament giving head-money was more necessary than at present; and yet, no sooner had the Government received intelligence of the circumstances which had taken place at Borneo, than they came down to the House, and on the 7th of February, a few days after Parliament assembled, proposed the repeal of the Act giving head-money for the destruction of pirates. He asked why did the Government, immediately after Parliament had assembled, come down to repeal that Act, if there was not something wrong on the coast of Borneo, for which head-money was paid? There had been considerable expression of opinion out of doors in consequence of the destruction of human life which had taken place on that coast, because it was alleged that the parties were not pirates in the view contemplated by the Act which granted head-money. Everybody knew that piracy was carried on on other parts of the coast to an enormous extent, and that the Act was passed in order to incite our Navy to increased efforts to put down pirates. What he and others objected to was, that the parties on the coast of Borneo bore no sort of resemblance to the pirates sought to be put down on the coast of Mexico; and it was contended that this objection was valid, because the Government had proposed early in the Session to repeal the Act granting head-money. A great deal had been said about piracy in the Indian Archipelago. He had followed the hon. Member for Newport on the map, and found that that hon. Gentleman had not gone within 500 miles of the place which was now under discussion. The hon. Member for Bedford had read a long account from a Singapore newspaper, to show that these people were pirates; but a statement directly to the contrary might be found in the Singapore Straits Times. To quote a party newspaper, and to bring forward leading articles and extracts from that newspaper as proof that they were pirates, was insulting to the understanding of the House. Why vote 20,000 l. for the destruction of 1,200 or 1,500 human beings, and then, when called upon for proof that these human beings were pirates, go hundred of miles off for newspaper authority? He admitted that there were pirates in various other places, but he asked for proof that those on the coast of Borneo were pirates. He contended that there was not a tittle of proof that the parties committed an act of piracy in the sense contemplated by the statute. The hon. Member for Bedford had read an account of the way in which the alleged acts of pi- racy had been committed; and what were these acts of piracy? It seemed that a boat laden with sago had been plundered. That load was worth about 30 s. In consequence of that plunder the town of Mattoo was attacked, and the parties were repulsed with a loss of ten men. Well, now, did the House approve of sending their ships of war to destroy 1,200 or 1,500 human beings, because the people were in a state of war with their neighbours at Mattoo? Why go to destroy men with whose quarrels we were not at all mixed up? We had no more to do with the people of Mattoo, than we had with those who had never offended us. We had ourselves quarrelled with our neighbours in France in former days; and how indignant should we have been if another nation had then sent their vessels of war, and attacked us on that account? He protested against our being charged with 20,000 l. for slaughtering those men merely because they were at war with their neighbours. He maintained, according to the orders of the Admiralty, that we had no right to employ our ships of war in exterminating those men unless they committed some acts of piracy against our vessels; and, in this case, there was no proof whatever that they had molested any vessel under the English flag. If it could be proved that they had, he would give up the whole case. Were we to be charged with 20,000 l. under such circumstances? He denied that this discussion was an attack upon the character of the Navy. He believed they were indebted to a gallant officer of the Navy for having the matter brought before the House at all, and that no man would read with pleasure the encomiums which had been passed on those who destroyed 1,200 human beings, without the loss of life on our side, or even a scratch. He called such a slaughter a human battue. He believed there never was anything more unprovoked—that we had never encountered such little resistance—and that our services were nothing glorified by the performance of such an act. He did not charge the Navy with being consenting parties to it. On the contrary, he believed the Navy would heartily repudiate all our encomiums upon them for the act. We wanted proof that the parties were really pirates. We did not want Sir James Brooke's transactions with Mr. Wise—these were beside the question. We wanted to know why 1,200 men had been slaughtered: and it would not satisfy those who wanted a reply to this interrogatory to tell them that Sir James Brooke and Mr. Wise had quarrelled. Besides, it ought to be recollected by those who spoke of this quarrel, that if Mr. Wise was aspersed, that aspersion might probably reflect on Sir James Brooke himself. When the House came to vote the money for Sir James Brooke's salary at Borneo and Labuan, that would be the time to take into consideration his conduct as Governor. At present the massacre was under discussion. The other day the House had talked about the evils of intervention in the affairs of other countries; and now he protested against our intervention in Borneo, and against our destruction of the lives of savages, merely because they were going to war with their neighbours. Had Captain Cook, the great circumnavigator, behaved in New Zealand as Sir James Brooke had behaved in Borneo? No such thing. Captain Cook found that the natives of New Zealand were cannibals; and, notwithstanding that he lost two of his crew on the coast, did he open his thirty-two-pounders on the people? No. He left domesticated animals and vegetables amongst them, and the consequence was, that that people were rapidly becoming civilised, and that they would most probably become hereafter one of the most distinguished races on the face of the earth. He (Mr. Cobden) repudiated the idea that he must pay homage to Sir James Brooke as being a great philanthropist, seeing that he had no other arguments for the savages amongst whom he went but extermination. He thanked the hon. Member for Montrose for having brought this question before the House. He gave the hon. Gentleman credit for the purest motives in introducing; it and he believed that the way in which the question had been mooted would have the effect of preventing any similar transactions in future.

had argued the question so repeatedly before, and he had heard the same assertions made so often, as to there being no evidence, that he should hardly have been induced to rise, had he not been called upon to do so by the hon. Member for the West Riding. As the hon. Gentleman insisted on hearing him again, he hoped the House would excuse him if he repeated the answers which he had given on former occasions. The hon. Gentleman had asked how it was that the Government had brought in a separate Bill regulating the distribution of pirates' head-money, and that it should not be given to any until they had been proved to be pirates? That Bill had nothing whatever to do with the transaction before the House, for it happened that that measure had been under consideration some time, and the Bill which was drawn last was to have been introduced but for circumstances that then occurred. It happened that a change took place in the Admiralty; and in consequence of his hon. Friend, then Secretary of that department, having quitted that office, the Bill was not then brought in. There was no doubt that some reward should be given for the destruction of pirates. If the House gave rewards for services in the Navy, they must be given, not only when there was a hard battle or fight, but also something must be given in transactions which might apparently require the same gallantry, but where the service was often of an arduous and dangerous nature. The hon. Gentleman said he did not believe there was any resistance on the part of the pirates, because no one was killed on our side in the transaction. This, however, was no answer to the case which had been put in defence of this proceeding. There was another circumstance which induced the Government at once to proceed with the Bill alluded to—the claim which suddenly came upon them to pay 100,000 l. for the destruction of pirates. This appeared to be a very considerable sum, and it added to the conviction which already existed that the law required revision. It was quite true that that gallant officer, Admiral Collier, had held some private communications with him on this subject, and in which he said he thought that some alteration should be made in consequence of the large amount this country had to pay as pirates' head-money. The hon. Member for Montrose moved for a return of the orders under which the officer acted who had destroyed these pirates. He had no objection to their production, but he had not been able hitherto to obtain a copy of them. They were not at the Admiralty; he had therefore written to Admiral Collier to send them over; that gallant officer, however, had died before his letter reached him, and some delay had arisen, therefore, on this ground. He had also given directions that Captain Farquhar should be written to for a copy of them; but he had left his ship when the order arrived. It was quite clear that Captain Farquhar received orders under which he had acted, and there would be no objection to produce them as soon as they could be procured.

wished to know whether Captain Farquhar had not complained of these orders?

replied that that gallant officer had not complained in the slight degree. The hon. Gentleman had also written to him a letter, in which he charged him with having garbled a particular paper before it was laid before the House, and begging him not to garble any more public documents. The hon. Gentleman said he (Sir F. Baring) had garbled information; but he had looked over all the papers, and he could not find any ground whatever for such an assertion. He had asked the hon. Member to point the instance in which he had garbled papers, but the hon. Member had never done so; he (Sir F. Baring) supposed the hon. Gentleman was too wise to do so. [Mr. HUME: There are cases of the kind.] Then why not point out any particular instance of the kind? The hon. Gentleman who spoke last complained that they could determine this question as to whether these people were pirates or not, without referring to authorities. Was the hon. Gentleman aware that a specific treaty existed between Great Britain and the Government of the Netherlands, under the stipulations of which both nations were bound to carry into effect an arrangement for repressing piracy in these seas. The hon. Gentleman had read very differently from him on this subject; for in all the books which he had consulted, he found admissions of the existence of piracy in these seas. He was surprised, also, that the hon. Gentleman had taken no notice of the extracts from the report of some great commercial authorities, which the hon. Member for West Surrey had alluded to. He (Sir F. Baring) alluded to the representations which had been drawn up by Chambers of Commerce in different large towns in various parts of the empire, in which the Government was called upon to protect the commerce of this country from pirates in those seas. Surely these persons might be assumed as being competent to know the particular circumstances attending the commerce in those seas, and as to whether any risk was run from the attacks of pirates. The Government have repeatedly been called upon to afford protection, and put an end to the piracy in these seas. It was clear that the merchants who were members of the Chambers of Commerce at Leeds, Manchester, Glasgow, and other large towns, entertained a very different opinion from the hon. Member for the West Riding. In addition to this, there were parties who, from their local position in these parts, might be supposed to be familiar with the subject. The Government had received repeated representations from the merchants of Singapore complaining of the pirates in those seas not being driven away. The hon. Member for the West Riding had that night made an attack upon the Free Press of Singapore. He (Sir F. Baring) did not intend to defend all that appeared in the Press on one side or the other; but he found in the other Singapore paper an address of the merchants of Singapore, in which they stated that an organised system of piracy existed which was most dangerous to the navigation of those seas, and which must at once be put down to insure confidence. Surely, it must be admitted that those gentlemen must be acquainted with what was taking place in their own neighbourhood. Then, again, the hon. Member said that all he called for was inquiry. Had there not been inquiry? What could they have better than a plain and open inquiry before an English Judge and an English lawyer? It was not so easy a matter to prove facts before them as it appeared to be thought in the House of Commons. In this case the Judge was not only satisfied that there was the appearance of piracy, but that there was actual piracy, and that there were many piratical prahus and boats in those seas. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bradford said that he had been assured that the Judge had changed his opinion. It was true, in the first instance, Sir Christopher Rawlinson said he was not satisfied of the proof of piracy. If hon. Gentlemen would consult the papers, they would see that Sir Christopher Rawlinson said there was not sufficient evidence before him to satisfy his mind that these parties were pirates; he there fore required further evidence. Further evidence was brought before this learned Judge, who then declared that he was perfectly satisfied of the fact of these parties being pirates. Thus, it appeared that they had the declarations of the Chambers of Commerce in this country, they had the address of merchants residing in the neighbourhood of these people, and they had the decision of a court of justice which had carefully inquired into the whole circumstances of the case, and were satisfied as to these people being pirates; and yet hon. Gentlemen stood up and declared in the coolest manner that there was not a tittle of evidence in support of such an assertion.

would state, in two or three sentences, why he should vote for the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. In the first place, he must set right the hon. Member for Bedford. That hon. Gentleman had complained of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose for stating that there were no pirates on the western coast of Borneo. Now his hon. Friend had quoted a passage from a work written by Mr. Low, the secretary of the Government of Labuan, who having been long resident in Sarawak, and being intimately acquainted with the country, said that piracy had not been carried on by the natives of the western coast. He stated distinctly that the pirates of these seas came from the north coast of Borneo, from the southernmost of the Philippine Islands, and that, traversing the whole of the coast, they occasionally attacked even the town of Borneo itself; and it was further alleged that many of the people of these seas traded with the pirates. The question was, whether the parties recently attacked were pirates in this or any other sense. Perhaps they were, after all, disputing about words. He knew nothing of this matter, except what he had read in the papers and in the diaries published by Captain Mundy and Captain Keppel. But he presumed that Rajah Brooke and Mr. Low were good witnesses; and their account was, that these Dyaks were savages in the lowest state of civilisation, ruled over by the Malays; that they went on plundering expeditions without firearms, chiefly against the inland Dyaks; that they came down the rivers, not in prows but in canoes, in the prosecution of the horrid practice of head hunting; and it was further stated that if, when they reached the seas, they found any boat, they would attack it; and no doubt in that sense they were pirates. If they were prepared to exterminate the Dyaks on that ground, they had better destroy the whole population of the island. It was, in fact, to that that the observations of the hon. Member for West Surrey tended. He said the inhabitants of the island were all pirates. If the Government were determined to support the settlement of Sarawak, they must no doubt put down its enemies. It had never yet, however, been recognised as a British settlement. If it were to be so treated in future, there should be some government responsible for all acts, and instructions should be given to the naval officers to use some little discretion in the attacks which were made. But he thought the best course the Government could take was to instruct Sir James Brooke to return to his settlement at Labuan. Believing that the settlement at Sarawak was a mere incumbrance, and that it would be well if our connexion with that part of the country were abandoned, he should support the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 29: Majority 140.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

called the attention of the House to the subject of a petition from that colony, which he had presented a short time since. No notice had been taken by the House of the state of that colony, although the fact was well known that the supplies had been stopped, and that the legislature of the colony had been abruptly broken up with a reprimand from the Governor. He had in his possession the statement of the House of Assembly, and also the counter statement of the proprietors of land in that colony who were adverse to the House of Assembly, and whose statement showed clearly that the absentee proprietors of land had no great confidence in the legislature of that colony. The House, with the petition before it, must either make up its mind totally to disregard such statement and prayer, and pronounce itself disinclined or unable to attend to such matters; or, if it would attend, it must call on Government to produce its statement on the third part, in order that the House might judge fairly upon the subject. If this House adopted the first course, of disregarding this petition, it would publicly announce to the colonies that it possessed no sympathies with them in their elected representatives; that their expressions of public policy found no echo nor channel in that House; that colonial public opinion might expend itself in conflict and recrimination on the spot; but that Imperial England chose to legislate for them, but not to hear them. By so doing they would also say to this country that they were ready to vote away large sums for colonies, even while the colonies are offering, on conditions, to take the expense on themselves, rather than be at the trouble to inquire what those conditions and offered terms may be. In short, they would hand over the destinies of our colonies and of their resources, lavishly poured out, not for their benefit, but for their mismanagement, blindly and unreservedly to the Colonial Minister, unchecked by public opinion. If, on the other hand, the House took the course of demanding some explanation of this statement of colonial grievances from the Government, it would show a just sense of its duty towards fellow citizens unrepresented in this House, and a due regard to our own constituents for the expenditure of their money in the colonies. He would therefore take the sense of the House as to whether the Government should produce such despatches and papers as might be necessary to enable the House to form a judgment upon the petition; and on the vote of money for Prince Edward's Island, he would propose its postponement, in order to afford time for the production of such despatches. With respect to the colony, the facts were briefly these. In a word, the colony demanded responsible government, such as existed in their other North American colonies. This country had hitherto been fearful of granting this demand, during a discussion of many years past, knowing that the first act of a legislature responsible to public opinion would be the forfeiture of the estates of absent proprietors, whose estates were derived from Crown grants, the condition of which, as to settlement of lands, were alleged not to have been fulfilled by the grantees. He thought this, to say the least of it, a very questionable reason for preventing that event from taking place, because, if a local legislature ought to exist in that colony, this country had no right to interfere with any of their acts. With respect to the justice of such a mode of proceeding as the forfeiture of these lands, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, a few years since, when Secretary for the Colonies, had stated it as his opinion that such a forfeiture would be unjust. He (Mr. Adderley) believed those grants to have been originally injudicious, and the result of them extremely unfavourable to the prosperity of the colony. It might, however, be unjust, after so many years, to insist upon their forfeiture. But it might be that the representative legislature of the colony would in all probability deal harshly and summarily, perhaps unjustly, with those titles to the property: he knew but little of that matter. But what he wanted to impress upon the House was, that the Government of this country had gone too far to retrace its steps. They had conceded free representative government, and now it was too late to try to tie their hands up. They could stop supplies, and had done so. They were dealing with the question, and our silence would be of no avail. It appears that, pressed for a decision, Earl Grey, on the 27th of December last, had stated that he could not advise Her Majesty to refuse, if it were the wish of the inhabitants. The case, however, assumed a still more imperative character, as it has been made ostensibly to turn on the question whether or not the colony would provide its own civil list. The real bone of contention, the escheat question, was kept out of sight, and the Government made their condition a permanent civil list. That, however, was at once offered—a Bill was prepared by the colonial legislature for the purpose. The terms were fulfilled; and, what was more, this country was by that means relieved, as it should be, by the colony assuming with its local administration its local expenses also. It was impossible, under such circumstances, that this House could do its duty, either to its petitioners or to its constituents at home, by mere vacant silence. It might be necessary to remodel the colonial le- gislature. It might be necessary to combine again Prince Edward's Island with Nova Scotia, or with other colonies besides, to save these proprietors from unjust treatment. But whatever might be necessary, or the right mode of dealing with the case, at all events it would not do to take no notice of this petition. The House must not abdicate its proper functions, nor hand over all Her Majesty's subjects not directly represented here to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. What he required was, the production of the despatch of the 27th of December, 1849, from Earl Grey to Sir D. Campbell. To say the correspondence was incomplete, and that this House must take no sort of notice of the complaint—that the Colonial Office and the Governor had wound up their correspondence—was to deny the colony a hearing here. The correspondence had been going on for years and years. In 1840, the House of Assembly begged for a Committee of Inquiry in this House. In 1842 the Legislative Assembly voted 100 l. a year for an agent in England; and in the following year they were deprived of the power of having an agent in this country. They had now no mode of starting their grievances except by petition; and he considered that they would be acting most unfairly towards the colony if they allowed the demurrer of the hon. Member the Under Secretary of the Colonies, that correspondence was going on on the subject, to prevent their complaints from being attended to. He should therefore move that the proposed vote be postponed until those papers were produced.

informed the hon. Member that it was not competent for him to move the postponement of the vote.

then moved that the vote be negatived.

was satisfied that no colony could be well administered where the Governor and the Chief Justice were not paid directly by the Home Government, independently of local votes of supply. It was his opinion that the House of Assembly of Prince Edward's Island had acted unjustly in withholding the supplies, and that the House of Commons would imitate the injustice if they acceded to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.

said, that the amount of the vote had been reduced since last year to its present amount; and the whole ground of opposition to it at present, so far as he could learn was, that the noble Lord at the head of the colonies had pro- mised a responsible government to Prince Edward's Island, and that he had not yet fulfilled his promise. He wished to state clearly to the House that there was not the slightest intention on the part of his noble Friend to withhold responsible government from that colony. The subject was in a fair way of being settled in the only mode by which it could be effected—namely, by correspondence between the Governor and the Colonial Office. There was at present some very fierce and bitter disputes going on in the colony with respect to the rights of property and of private individuals, which it was necessary should be settled upon a fair and equitable footing before the Government could be placed upon a firm basis in the colony. While the correspondence relating to those topics was in progress, it would be most injudicious to lay any portion of it upon the table of the House. The adoption of such a course would only tend to prevent a settlement of the matters in dispute, and prevent that early concession of responsible government to the colony which the people required. He would only add, that the last accounts from the colony were such as to lead to the assurance that the Governor was preparing such arrangements between himself and the Assembly, and the colonists, and the Home Government, as would lead to a satisfactory settlement of the disputes. He hoped, therefore, that the House would not agree to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Staffordshire.

was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary, that there was even a chance of responsible government being conferred on Prince Edward's Island. However, he should observe that the question was not solely of amount; it was also one of principle. He hoped, notwithstanding, that the hon. Gentleman opposite would be content with having raised the question, without pressing the House to a division.

said, that responsible government for the colony had been determined upon, and all had been, in fact, settled, except the question of 100 l. or 200 l. a year pension to the Attorney General, when the colonists stopped their proceedings on the principle of not granting a pension to begin with. As for the appointment of an agent, he had himself presented their petitions, and had strongly impressed upon the Government the expediency of acceding to the strong feeling of the colonists in that respect. He saw no reason assigned why this correspondence should not be produced, and he thought Her Majesty's Government should no longer resist the pressure from without, seeing matters were in such a state that the popular Assembly, or whatever it might be called, had voted no confidence in the Council. Why did not the Government at once meet the wishes of the people, and concede what they wanted?

was afraid the hon. Under Secretary for the Colonies was too sanguine in his expectations that an arrangement would be effected in the colony; for, according to the last accounts he (Mr. Baillie) had seen, the colonists entertained no hope that their grievances would be redressed unless their case was taken up in that House.

thought the first question that should be settled with regard to these colonies was that of escheats, because if they gave responsible government without any condition to a colony in which large tracts of land were possessed by proprietors in England, the earliest acts of the colonists would be to deprive those persons of their property. This vote was simply for a pension to the late Governor, and the salary of the present Governor; and the only effect of rejecting the vote would be that the colony must pay the money instead of this country. Now, he thought if the colonies defrayed the cost of their own local administration, this country should pay the salaries of the governors, and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would not press his Motion to a division.

said, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies that the question of escheats should first be settled. He thought that this colony should be joined to Nova Scotia. The letters he had received from Prince Edward's Island within the last few days, however, did not hold out any hope of the settlement of the question; but, as it seemed to be the general opinion of the Committee that it would not be advisable to negative this vote, he would not press his Motion.

Vote agreed to.

said, a few days ago, when they were voting money, he took the liberty of asking the noble Lord at the head of the Government, when the vote for ecclesiastical purposes came before the House, if he would undertake to give to the House some clear and definite statement as to the position in which they stood with regard to these votes. He understood that, with regard to the incomes of the clergy, they were to expire when the parties died. [An Hon. MEMBER: They never die.] He wished to know if Government was going to put an end to the present monstrous state of things—voting money for all sorts of religions. Here was the Bishop of Montreal, with a salary of 1,000 l.; the Archdeacon of Quebec, 500 l.; the Rector of Quebec, 400 l., and for house rent 90 l. There was the verger of Quebec 30 l., and 20 l. 18 s. 6 d. for rent of Protestant burial ground. Then, they had the Presbyterian minister 50 l., and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Quebec 1,000 l., and 2,000 l. to the Bishop of Nova Scotia. It appeared to him that the Government had been most indiscriminate in these grants. He would not proceed to move the rejection of this vote now, because there might be circumstances which might make it impossible for them to refuse it at the present time; but he would ask the Secretary for the Colonies whether there was any time fixed upon for getting rid of these payments?

said, it was impossible to give a general answer, because the circumstances differed in each colony. The best way would be to give a statement with respect to each, and therefore he should confine his answer to the vote before the House. With regard to this vote the arrangement was, that it should be continued during the life of the present recipients, and no longer, and therefore when the Bishop of Montreal died, the 1,000 l. paid to him would cease; and when the Archdeacon of Quebec died, the 600 l. paid to him would cease, and so on. It was therefore impossible to tell the precise period when the whole would cease, but the whole would cease when all the present recipients died.

said, that the arrangement was that no new appointments should take place. That was some years ago, and the amount was then 12,000 l. These parties seemed to have very long lives. He had inquired whether some new appointments had not taken place, and he did so because he was told when they were now voting money to pay the French refugees—those who had come over to England in consequence of the revocation of the edict of Nantes—and he asked the question if any of them could be alive now, or that they had been filling up the lists from time to time. He was afraid a little of this had been going on in this case.

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not tell them exactly how this bargain was made—whether it was the mere statement of a Minister to the House when the House was grumbling. And he had not told them when the rent of the Protestant burial ground was to cease. That could not die. He had no doubt that if the Government were to make an inquiry into the matter, they might get rid of many of these payments. The Canadian Government was as free as this Government, and nothing was more scandalous than that we should pay this money, and nothing more degrading to them than that they should receive it.

said, there was one payment, 3,062 l., to the Foreign Missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Nova Scotia. He wished for some explanation upon that.

said, he was afraid as to the Protestant burial ground it would not cease, but it was no large sum. The missionaries of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel were in point of fact appointed to districts, and the payments would cease on the death of the individuals.

wished to know, if the Government here received annually an exact account of these parties and their names, and did they take care that a son of the same name did not succeed to his father's stipend?

Vote agreed to.

said, fourteen years ago, Lord Glenelg advocated the discontinuance of this vote; and it was proved then before the Committee that the presents to the Indians caused much drunkenness and immorality. If the House would support him, he would divide against this vote.

said, he remembered the late Mr. Charles Buller spoke on this subject more than once. He was in Canada, and saw the evil effects of it. He, him- self, had seen some of the remnants of these tribes in Canada, and certainly they had a most degrading appearance.

did not think it would be advisable to reject this vote to-night, because the purchases were already made which this vote was intended to cover. But he should oppose the vote next year, if it appeared in the estimates. He believed that these presents of calico, &c., were often purchased at one-tenth of what they cost.

believed that many of the annuities to the Indians contained in this vote were devoted by them to the establishment of schools. The Governor General of Canada thought it inexpedient to discontinue this vote at present, and he therefore hoped the House would not reject it.

said, that there were 2,600 l. of the vote paid in salaries, which, was a most extravagant amount on account of management, and showed that something was in the background of which they were not informed. There were ordinary contingencies amounting to 1,200 l., which made very nearly 30 per cent of the whole vote. Then there were items for officers' widows, for provisions and gunpowder. The answer which had been given by the Government was of a very unsatisfactory nature; and unless the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a promise that this vote should not appear in the estimates next year, he would advise his hon. Friend to divide the House.

said, that although it had been stated that the sums were devoted to schools, that did not appear on the face of the vote, for it was put down under the head of "Presents to Indians."

said, that a portion of this vote was paid in annuities, and a portion in presents. No doubt a great deal might be said against this vote; but the House ought not to expect him to give a promise that it should not be taken next year. These presents were distributed to certain semi-barbarous tribes as compensation for retiring from the hunting grounds from which their subsistence was derived. What he would undertake to say was, that he would communicate with the Governor General of Canada, and urge the discontinuance of the vote; or, if that were not possible, its limitation within the narrowest limits, consistently with a due regard to the preservation of public faith with these tribes. A large portion of the superintendence of this vote was, he understood, given to the missionaries on the spot.

hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would also communicate with the Governor General to get the Canadian Parliament to pay the grant to the native tribes, seeing that Canada possessed the hunting grounds for which this compensation was paid.

hoped that if the native Indians were not to be paid in the manner orriginally agreed upon, they would be paid in some other form.

Vote agreed to.

wished to know why this vote was only 290 l., when in the next page there was 1,200 l. for the salary of the Governor?

said, that the vote of 1,200 l. was included in the vote for the Governors of the West India Islands.

wished to know whether the person who appeared as Bishop of Montreal, with 1,000 l. a year, was the same person who appeared as the archdeacon of Quebec, with 500 l.; and whether the person who was archdeacon of Quebec was the same individual who appeared as rector of Quebec, with 400 l. a year? If 1,900 l. of the public money was thus paid to one and the same person in Canada, it was important that the House should know it, in order that it might put a stop to an expenditure of so gross a character. He also wished to know if the rector of Christ Church and St. Matthew's was the same person?

said, that the rector of Christ Church and St. Matthew's was one and the same person; but these payments would cease with the death of the party. With regard to the other case, he was not in a position to state the exact facts. The late Bishop of Montreal received 3,000 l.; and having become old, he appointed a coadjutor, to whom he paid 1,000 l. The present bishop held that appointment now, and with it he held the other two mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, making his salary altogether 1,900 l.

Vote agreed to.

asked that this vote should be postponed, as he wished to take the sense of the House whether the colonies which possessed self-government ought not to pay these salaries themselves.

hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press so hardly on the West India Islands.

thought the Government might economise considerably by having one governor only for three or four adjacent islands. The Governor-in-chief of the Leeward Islands had 3,000 l. a year; the Governor of the Windward Islands, 4,000 l.; and each had a staff of clerks and officers. The expense might also be diminished by a similar arrangement with regard to the judges—having them to go on a kind of circuit.

did not think it would be wise to reduce the salaries of the governors.

Vote agreed to.

could not understand why this vote was continued.

thought his hon. Friend must be aware that the vote had been annually agreed to since the Emacipation Act. Under those valuable officers the administration of the law was now on a satisfactory footing, and the removal of those stipendiary magistrates would be considered a loss by the colonists, for they were becoming more necessary with the increase of emigration.

said, they had been appointed at the time of emancipation to see justice done during the apprenticeship; but there was no reason why they should be longer continued.

asked if it was meant that they should continue in perpetuity?

was understood to reply in the negative.

asked the number of stipendiary magistrates in each colony. He understood there were eighteen in Jamaica, only three in Barbadoes, and but one in Antigua. Perhaps the number might properly be diminished in some of the colonies.

said, it was perfectly true the magistrates had been appointed with a view to the apprenticeship, and their numbers had since been diminished; but when immigration began to take place, it was thought proper to prevent the number of justices from being further diminished, as it had been after the termination of the apprenticeship. This accounted for the different numbers in the different colonies.

wished to know how many of these magistrates there were, and the salary of each?

said, their number was 86; they had each a salary of 300 l. a year, and 150 l. a year for travelling expenses. They were not appointed for any specified time. The same qualification was required as for justices of the peace in this country.

thought it desirable that they should be continued; they had been of the greatest use since the extinction of slavery.

Vote agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

The House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.