But we will here briefly interrupt the sequence of events to give in unbroken record the sequel that happily terminated the unprecedented persecutions which the Rajah was subjected to for over five years, for the miserable fiasco of the Commission, the direct result of these persecutions, left the Rajah's defamers powerless and humiliated, and the Government in a disgraceful dilemma.
The Commission sat in Singapore during the months of September and October, 1854. It consisted of two gentlemen, Mr. C. R. Prinsep, Advocate-General at Calcutta, already afflicted with the mental malady to which he soon after succumbed, and the Hon. Humphrey B. Devereaux, of the Bengal Civil Service. At the first and second meetings, of which due notice had been given, to the surprise of the Commissioners no one appeared to support the charges contained in the address to Mr. Hume, and subpœnas had to be served on several of the subscribers to that address. As a result, sixteen witnesses were produced in support of these charges, and not one of them deposed to any acts within his own knowledge which negatived the practice of piracy by the Saribas and Sekrangs; three deposed to specific piratical acts of those tribes; and one rather established than controverted their piratical character. On the other hand, twenty-four witnesses called by the Commissioners, with Mr. J. Bondriot,[[182]] late Resident of Sambas, Dutch Borneo (who volunteered his evidence) deposed expressly to acts of piracy on the part of these people. Traders and nakodas from Borneo, who were present in Singapore, were deterred from coming forward to give evidence by reports disseminated amongst them by the personal opponents of the Rajah that their attendance would lead to detention and inconvenience. The contention that the attacks of the Saribas and Sekrang Dayaks were merely acts of intertribal hostility was not upheld. The charge of wrongful and causeless attack and massacre wholly failed of proof, and was sufficiently negatived.[[183]] This was the judgment of Mr. Prinseps, and so far his brother Commissioner was with him, for, after dealing with their general character, Mr. Devereaux sums up by saying that the Saribas and Sekrang were piratical, and deserved the punishment they received, and that in conflicts with such men atrocities, in the ordinary sense of the term, are not easily committed.[[184]] These were the main points which mostly concerned the public, and upon which were based the grave accusations that it had been the pleasure of Mr. Hume and his adherents to formulate upon totally inadequate and most unreliable evidence. The other points brought by their instructions to the notice of the Commissioners were matters more between the Crown and the Rajah than of general interest to the public. Whether the position of Sir James Brooke as Rajah of Sarawak was compatible with his duties as British Consul General and Commissioner, and with his character as a British subject; was the Rajah engaged in trade? and whether the Rajah should be entrusted with a discretion to determine which tribes are piratical, and to call for the aid of her Majesty's Naval forces for the punishment of such tribes, were points upon which the Commissioners had to decide, and upon which they differed. They, however, agreed that the Rajah was not engaged in trade, and the other questions, except the involved one of the independence of Sarawak, had been solved by the Rajah's resignation of his appointments under the Crown, which was, however, only accepted late in 1855, long after he had in weariness of spirit ceased to exercise the functions of those offices.
"Upon the question of the independence of Sarawak, Mr. Prinseps found the Rajah's position to be no other than that of a vassal of the Sultan, holding indeed by a tenure very bare, and easy to be thrown off altogether." Mr. Devereaux could give no definite opinion; but it was a question to be submitted only to the highest legal authorities, and the Rajah justly protested against the Commissioners dealing with it; and it is a question that has long since been settled.
One result of this senseless outcry in England against the Rajah was that no help was thenceforth accorded him by the fleet in the China and Straits waters. Were an insurrection to take place; were the Sekrangs and Saribas to send round the calling-out spear and muster their clans, not a marine, not a gun would have been afforded him by her Majesty's Government for his protection, and such was the case during the Chinese insurrection.
An evidence of the confidence felt after the quelling of the pirates was the increase in trade, the tonnage of merchant vessels in 1852 having risen to 25,000 tons, whereas in 1842 the whole trade was carried on by a few native prahus. Traders were secure along the coast, and, as was testified to before the Commission, the people of Sambas and Pontianak blessed the Rajah for the protection he had given them against the depredations of the piratical Dayaks; and those of Muka and Oya were thankful that he had settled near them—a little later they had more reason to be thankful, when he relieved them of their oppressive rulers. The Singapore Free Press in February, 1850, said:—
A few, a very few years ago, no European merchant vessels ventured on the north-west coast of Borneo; now they are numerous and safe. Formerly shipwrecked crews were attacked, robbed, and enslaved; now they are protected, fed, and forwarded to a place of safety. The native trade now passes with careless indifference over the same track between Marudu and Singapore where, but a little while ago, it was liable to the peril of capture; the crews of hundreds of prahus are no longer exposed to the loss of life and the loss of property. The recent successful proceedings on the coast of Borneo have been followed by the submission of the pirate hordes of Saribas and Sekrang.
So late as June, 1877, when the Rajah had long been dead, Mr. Gladstone in addressing the House on the question of Turkey and Bulgarian atrocities, and probably as a comparison, said, "I cannot recollect a more shameful proceeding on the part of any country than the slaughter of the Dayaks by Her Majesty's forces and by Sir James Brooke."
Earl Grey and Admiral Farquhar published indignant replies. Mr. Bailie-Cochrane[[185]] took Mr. Gladstone to task in the House, whereupon the latter shuffled out of what he had said with less than his usual ingenuity, by saying that he never meant to blame the Rajah personally, but only the Government. The following is from Earl Grey's reply:—
The additional information respecting him which I have since gained has only tended to confirm the impression I then received that his character was a truly noble one, and I am sanguine enough to believe that it would be regarded in the same light by yourself if you would be induced to read the letters he addressed to his mother in the early part of his career as Rajah of Sarawak. These, to my mind, most beautiful letters are to be found in the very interesting life of Sir James Brooke published some months ago by Miss Jacob. They were written while the events they describe were going on, to a mother whom he passionately loved, obviously without the remotest idea that they would ever be published, and contain an account, bearing the clearest impress of truth and sincerity of all that he did, and of the feelings and motives by which he was guided. We find in them a touching record of his pity for the oppressed Dayaks,[[186]] of his righteous indignation against the oppressors, of his noble self-devotion, and of his fixed determination to hazard, and if necessary to sacrifice for their welfare, not only the whole of his moderate fortune, but ease, health, and life itself, while he steadily refused to listen to all attempts that were made to induce him to use the position he had acquired for his own personal advantage.
