SIR ItOBERT INGLIS'S OPINION. 275 



^logy is ratker due to Mm than to ray readers for the 

 measure in whicli I have allowed tmpelf an indulgence 

 which, as a matter of fcelingj is rather at Ms expense tliati 

 for kU gratification, I find mjself, however, in good 

 company ; and I will conclude tlie more personal part of this 

 voltmie in the langtiage of an indiridual never suspected, 

 except by Mr. Hume, of giving an unconscientious vote, 

 to " screen " eitlier a political or a moral reprohate, 



" The question at issue/' says Sir Eobeht Inglis, ''m 

 the character of one of the ablest, and most gallant, and 

 most humane men, who ever exercised authority in the 

 name of England in any part of the world ; and I feel it 

 to be an honour to express my strong feeling in favour of 

 such a man. 1 repeat that there never 1ms appeared in 

 the dependencies of England, in a distant part of the 

 globe, one who did more honour to the name of England 

 than the Raj all of Saniwak, Sir James Brooke ; and I am 

 sure any one might feel it a priWlege to call himself a 

 friend of that distinguished man." 



In the exercise of a rights which botli this privilege and 

 my professional experience seemed to confer on me, I 

 have made this long digression, as an humble elucidator 

 of the tnith, aJid vindicator of one whom only tmth 

 would satisfy. Should I have failed, I am not the less 

 convinced tliat; though the advocato be weak, the cause 

 is strong, and will prevail. 1 can with sincerity disclaim 

 all intentional oflTensiveness. Public speeches, public 

 letters, public documents have been, according to my 



T 2 



