S3S A VISIT TO THE INDIAN ARCHIPELAGO. 



whatever upon the matter b\ debate, Mn Iliiine had 

 "addressed somo inquiries to this gallant officer, accom- 

 panied with an intimation that ho -was ahoub to movo for 

 inquiry into Sir James Brooke's conduct;, on the 21st July, 

 184D. He aska Captain Hastings, aa M e gather from his 

 reply, why he had refused compliance with Sir James 

 Brooke*s requeatj "on the occasion referred to in t!ie 

 enclosed." These allusions are obscure, and seem to haye 

 been intentionally left so, to mystify those who might not 

 be aware of certain facts : Captain llastuiga replies that 

 "his superiors having approved of liis conduct, he is 

 precluded irom oficiing Mr. Hume any statement of the 

 matter." 



We have no date given iia of the " occasion referred 

 to ; " but the date of his own uiquiry is carefully given, 

 February 1 4, 1 851, — of course eighteen months later than 

 Captain Farquhar'a action, Mr. Humc*a commeiit ia 

 this. If Captain HajstingSj being called upon to assist 

 Sir James Brooko against these pirates — for this is tlie fact 

 referred to — aud reftmng to do so, was approved of by 

 liis superiors, why did they aUo approve the conduct of 

 Captain Fart/tthar in render aid to Sir James Brooke 1" 

 The argiuiiont sounds better than many of Mr. Hume's, 

 and I have met witli those who gave it weight ; until a 

 slight explanation followed wliich was not likely to 

 come out in the debate, and would be too late the day 

 after, as to any effect on members* opinions iAen. What 

 is this explanation ? Merely, that the occasion on which 



