Next follows the evidence of Abong Bit, once a Sarebas pirate, but now preferring peace and industry, a quiet resident of Sarawak. He said it was the ordinary custom of the Sarebas and Sakaran people to go out on piratical expeditions, sometimes from the one, and sometimes from the other. The objects of these expeditions was to plunder and obtain heads. When at sea they attacked all whom they could overcome without exception or distinction. He himself had been out at least thirty times. He was at the attack on Palo, near Sambas, inhabited by Chinese. The fleet killed numbers of Chinese and Malay fishermen at the entrance of the Sarebas river. He was also at the attack on Sinkawan, when upwards of one hundred Chinese were killed. At the capture of Sangie Takong, where fifty were killed. At that of Sangie Brahu, where a hundred and fifty were killed, and at Durie, where a hundred heads were obtained. Many other places were also attacked by the fleets in which Abong Bit was out. The Malays plundered, and the Dyaks amused themselves with taking the heads. All these places were in the Sambas and Pontianak countries (Dutch possessions). They were not attacked from motives of revenge, but for the sake of heads and plunder. The people of Sarebas do not trade, but when in want of money and slaves go pirating. Abong Bit himself has taken many slaves, and plundered with the rest. Of those taken by him some are dead, and some have been sold. He left Sarebas about six or seven years ago; but had lived there from his boyhood, and is now an old man.

Sajay, a Malay, formerly a pirate of Sakaran, but now resident at Sarawak, after giving many other instances of the atrocities in which he had been engaged, among others attacking a fleet of the Sow Dyaks, killing two hundred men, and enslaving two hundred women and children, proceeded to state,-that the Sarebas and Sakarans do not make these attacks on account of injuries received: "but kill, plunder, and destroy all persons and vessels they meet at sea."

Abong Byong, one of the captured buccaneers, swore that he had frequently been out pirating from Sarebas; his object being plunder, the Dyaks taking heads. They never made any distinction of nation, had no friends when at sea, but captured all they could conquer. He had been present at the taking of many trading prahus: some were from Brune, some from Sambas, and some from the islands. He had been at the attack of many Chinese and other settlements. He was also present at the Mouth of the Sarebas when the piratical fleet was destroyed by Captain Farquhar. That fleet was from Sarebas.

Abon Hassan, a Sadong Malay, confessed he had committed innumerable murders, and then very naïvely explained the creed of the Sakarans on the subject of piracy. His tribe, though in partnership with the Sakarans, was everywhere but on shore regarded as fair game. His father was killed by the Sakarans at the mouth of the Sadong river. On one occasion he was off the coast with Sherrif Saib, when they were attacked by two Sakaran prahus, although their crews knew well Sherriff Saib, and the vessel he was in. They were beaten off. Sherrif Saib was their great friend and abettor, and Abon Hassan having boarded the Sakaran prahu, asked them why they attacked their friends, to which they replied-" At home we make

a distinction between friends and enemies, but at sea everybody we kill and plunder."

After giving at some length the evidence of several individuals who had themselves been plundered by the Sarebas and Sakarans that excellent journal the Singapore Free Press observes,

*

"Had time allowed we believe hundreds (of witnesses) might have been obtained to depose to the same effect. They show very clearly the piratical character of the Sarebas and Sakaran tribes, and the manner in which they conduct their operations. When on a cruize their hand is against every man, they shed blood freely, and when they do not murder their victims they preserve them only to deliver them into a rigorous slavery. Women and children share the same fate. It will be observed that the pirates consist of two classes, united in this nefarious trade- the Malays, who follow it for the sake of plunder; and the Dyaks, whose chief aim is the acquisition of heads. Their power for the present is shattered, and if they are only kept in awe for some time longer we may hope to see them renounce their piratical character and turn their energies to more peaceful pursuits." The Dutch historian of piracy in the Archipelago reckons the Sarebas among the tribes by whom it is encouraged and carried on, and the Dutch Government when most intent upon its suppression, could think of no other means than the absolute reduction under their own authority of all the communities on the north-west coast. The broad-brimmed Talleyrand, who is for scuttling the British navy, is evidently of opinion that we ought not to interfere with the pirates so long as they confine their attacks to native vessels, though these, as I have shown, are the indispensable feeders of English commerce. He affirms that no English vessel engaged in legitimate trade has ever been attacked by pirates in China-meaning, I suppose, the waters of Borneo. The Dutch, however, who have had some experience, are of a different opinion. In the "Geographical Outline of Netherland India," published in 1843, occurs the following passage:

"Small islands, rendered almost unapproachable by sunken reefs, serve as retreats to the pirates. From the midst of these sea-dens, they suddenly rush forth in their prahus, filled with men, not only to attack the native craft, but even European ships, taking advantage of calms or contrary winds, or the smallness of the crews, to gratify their audacious rapacity."

The historian of piracy shows that, as far back as 1769, it was the practice of the buccaneers to massacre the entire crews of European ships. "The 'Sea Lion," he says, "cruizing in the Bay of Lampong, was attacked and boarded by a single piratical prahu, and its whole crew, of twenty-four men, were massacred." In 1807 another example occurred. The "De Vrede," a ship of war, was attacked in the roads of Indramayo, by seven piratical prahus, each carrying a hundred men. The Dutch crew partly effected its escape in boats, Beckman, the lieutenant was drowned, but Stockbro, the second in command, was taken and sold for a slave; and, after long hardship and captivity, ransomed by a Chinese merchant. In 1810, the English brig "Fly was taken and its crew massacred, off the coast of Java. In 1812, the schooner-of-war, "Wellington," with two gun-boats and six native vessels, engaged a piratical fleet, • Cornet de Groot. "Notices Historiques sur La Piraterie," 231.

and narrowly escaped, with great loss. Two months after, the buccaneers fought with the armed boats of the ship-of-war " Modest," and in the same year the English ship " Coromandel," having been driven ashore in Borneo, was burnt. Again, the "Helen" was attacked in the Straits of Banca, by a single prahu, with eighty men. Another English ship was taken and most of its crew massacred in the Straits of Macassar; and in 1814, the "Antelope," with some gun-boats, engaged a fleet of eighty prahus in the Straits of Banca.

It would be easy to multiply examples, and to bring them down to our own day; but this would be merely to occupy space with an uninteresting list of captures. From what has been said it will be sufficiently obvious that the piratical prahus of the Archipelago are not mere wicker baskets, like the coracles of our ancestors, but formidable craft, sometimes ninety feet in length, with double decks, and manned by a hundred men. Fleets of such prahus, scattered through the Eastern Seas, not only obstruct commerce and prevent the progress of civilization, but absolutely keep down, to the lowest rate, the population of various islands by the perpetration of atrocities at which humanity shudders.

It is for his services against such men that Sir James Brooke is now attacked by the twin societies, whose orators have nothing but fiction to proceed upon, there being, so far as I am able to discover, not a single writer acquainted with that part of the world, who takes the same views with them. The Times, in the admirable articles it has written on this subject, has too easily taken it for granted that the peace-people are correct in claiming Midshipman Maryatt as a coadjutor in the attacks on Sir James Brooke. Sir James Brooke was not himself of this opinion. At all events, just before leaving England he presented me with a copy of the book, observing that it would be of some use to me. He was well satisfied that Mr. Maryatt entertained no hostility towards him, and from the following passages the reader will perceive that he was right.

"The usefulness and philanthropy of his (Mr. Brooke's) public career are well known; if the private history which induced him to quit the service, and afterwards expatriate himself, could with propriety, and also regard to Mr. Brooke's feelings, be made known, it would redound still more to his honour and high principles; but these I have no right to make public. Mr. Brooke having made up his mind to the high task of civilising a barbarous people, and, by every means in his power, of putting an end to the wholesale annual murders committed by a nation of pirates, whose hands were, like Ishmael's, against every man, &c."

Again,-"We certainly had in our party one or two who were as well fitted to grace the senate as to play at leap-frog, but I have always observed that the cleverest men are the most like children when an opportunity is offered for relaxation. I don't know what the natives thought of the European Rajah Brooke, playing at leapfrog, but it is certain that the Rajah did not care what they thought. I have said little of Mr. Brooke, but I will now say, that a more mild, amiable, and celebrated person I never knew. Every one loved him, and he deserved it."

Further on, the same writer says,-" We all felt annoyed that we had not an opportunity of bidding farewell to Mr. Brooke, and thanking him for his kindness to us, whenever he had an opportu

nity of showing it. He was, indeed, beloved by everybody who had the pleasure of his acquaintance."

From what has been said the reader will, I trust, be led to agree with me, that the outcry now raised against Sir James Brooke by a handful of prejudiced persons must not be attributed to motives of humanity. Egregious vanity is at the root of the whole affair. When the pompous speakers took their places on the platform at the London Tavern, they were absolutely inflated with a sense of their own importance, and looked as grim in their comfortable broadcloth as if they were going on a forlorn hope against the Sarebas or Sakarans themselves. Full of faith in their own rhapsodical powers, and the credulity of their orators, they yet secretly trembled at public opinion out of doors. Not so with those who have engaged to bring forward the question in the House of Commons. Accustomed to political contests, they will thunder through long and tedious hours against Sir James Brooke, will pronounce a panegyric on the Sarebas and Sakaran Dyaks, and do everything else in keeping with their sympathy for criminals and outlaws. Formerly humane men sought to distinguish themselves by siding with the oppressed and injured, with the plundered and bereaved; now, on the contrary, their benevolence leads them to undertake the defence of the plunderer and the bereaver.

But the House of Commons if it have not lost all regard to its own character will be careful to silence this outcry by explaining the true state of the case, by proving that it is not through any love of severity or bloodshed that we have undertaken the suppression of piracy, but as a sad and solemn duty performed towards those who can hope for protection from none but us. For long ages population has been kept down in the Archipelago, commerce circumscribed, and the progress of civilization arrested by the piratical system. Now, therefore, that the course of events has led us into those regions, and given us influence there, it is incumbent on us, as Christians and civilized men, to range our whole power and authority on the side of the industrious classes against those arrogant and sanguinary marauders who have converted nearly the whole Archipelago into a region of death.

Sir James Brooke is pre-eminently a humane man, and would at any time infinitely prefer using persuasion to force; but, at the same time, he is a statesman, and understands too much of human nature to imagine that vast piratical hordes can ever be induced to quit their calling, without undergoing severe chastisement. They must be made to feel the iron hand of civilization before they will consent to depart from the hereditary maxims which have hitherto governed their conduct. To them the sentiments of humanity are unknown. They think only of blood and pillage, and could they catch their white patrons of the London Tavern, would spear them as coolly as they would so many specimens of the Mias Pappan. I trust the Legislature will not suffer itself to be influenced in the slightest degree by the outcry of the twin societies, but will be at the pains at once to clear the character of Sir James Brooke and that of the officers of the "Nemesis" and "Albatross" from all the aspersions gratuitously cast upon them; and, in the second place, to give its sanction to that policy which can alone remove the Oriental Archipelago from heathen darkness and barbarism.

THE STAGE AS IT IS IN 1850.

Decline of Acting.-Decadence of the Literature of the Stage.-Monopoly of the Patent Houses.-The Drama of Charles XII.-Windsor Theatricals.-Prospects of the new Season at Her Majesty's Theatre.—Mr. Lumley's activity.

No fact is more obvious to the habitual play-goer-if that class of pleasure-seekers be not wholly extinct-than the decline of acting, as an art, within the last twenty years. Since the retirement of the Kembles, the Keans, the Youngs, the Ellistons, Emerys, Mundens, Listons, Davenports, Blanchards, and Dowtons, no new candidates have appeared to supply their places, or to furnish the least compensation for their loss. The more recent deaths of Mrs. Orger, and that easiest of humourists, poor Wrench, have left fresh gaps, which we have no hope of seeing filled up; and when Mrs. Glover and Farren withdraw, an event which may be looked for at no very distant day, the hearse of the Old School may be got ready, and we must prepare to follow High Comedy to the sepulchre. This gradual going out of the Old School of actors is more severely felt in comedies of the first order, than in any other department of our dramatic literature. In Tragedy there is a self-sustaining power which of itself carries us through with more or less force, and enables us to put up with mediocrity in the acting. But there is no mediocrity in Comedy. It must be excellent, or miss the mark altogether. Passion finds something like an adequate vent in the language set down for it; but wit, humour, manners, depend upon the brilliancy and fitness of the expression. Here the actor must reflect in person, gaiety, and bearing the purpose and brightness of the scene. If he lag behind the vivacity of his rôle, if he substitute vulgarity for high breeding, if he renders the finesse and sparkle of the dialogue with heaviness or awkwardness, the liveliness vanishes, and all becomes flat, insipid, and offensive. The accomplished gentleman of Comedy-the Orlando of modern society-requires a rare combination of fine qualities-figure, voice, taste, a happy temperament, and a familiar acquaintance with the usages of the drawing-room. It is more in sorrow than in anger, we must add, that there is no such phenomenon at this moment on the English stage.

The re-action of this decadence upon the literature of the theatre is palpable. The actors complain that the falling off is in the authors. The authors assert, with greater reason, that it is in the actors. The actors cry out, "Give us a good play!" The authors answer, "Give us actors to play it!" The public have the power of deciding upon at least one side of the dilemma, and until the stage is reinforced by competent performers, they are not likely to have an opportunity of pronouncing a verdict upon the other side. No dramatic writer will be found to risk a great labour in the inadequate hands to which, in the present condition of the theatres, it must be unavoidably entrusted. If he write for the stage, he must write down to it; he must crop and suppress his imagination to suit the capacity of the company; he must keep his characters within the limits, beyond which his actors may not venture without certain fai