was called "head-money," justly increased the outcry. To kill one pirate
entitled the crew of a ship-of-war to a certain prize in money--to kill
a thousand, entitled them to a thousand times the amount. This premium
on blood was wrong in principle, and the result of a wholesale slaughter
of Eastern pirates by order of Brooke, led to the very proper abolition
of the custom of paying this "head-money." The men who are entitled to
the praise of securing this amelioration of our naval system were not,
however, content with the triumph of the just portion of their case;
they sought to brand the rajah as a cruel and greedy adventurer--in
which attempt they fortunately failed. It is surely unjust to test the
acts of a man living and ruling amongst savages by the strict usages of
action acknowledged and found most proper for guidance in civilised
communities. When, after his first appointment, Rajah Brooke returned to
see his friends and to take counsel in England, he was welcomed very
warmly. He was made Knight of the Bath; invited to dine with the Queen;
found his portrait in the print-shops, and his biography in the
magazines and newspapers. The government recognised his position;
ordered a man-of-war to take him to the seat of his new settlement; gave
him the title of Governor of Labuan, with a salary of L.2000 a year,
with an extra L.500 a year as a consular agent, and afforded him the
services of a deputy-governor, also on a good salary--the hope being
that the result of all this would be the opening of a new emporium for
British trade.' To this notice might be added an expression of deep
regret that there should be any controversy as to the real nature of Sir
James Brooke's operations in the East. This scandal ought surely to be
put an end to by some distinct investigation and avowal one way or the
other.

The above notice of Sir James Brooke naturally suggests a recollection
of his relentless accuser, Joseph Hume, and we turn up the account of