The witnesses called by the hostile memorialists came to curse, but remained to bless. Reluctant as they were to tell all they knew, enough was dragged out of them to show the true character of the Seribas and Sakarang Dyaks. One was the dismissed Lieutenant-Governor of Labuan, the second a man of German extraction, who had lived on Sir James Brooke’s bounty for many years, and the third the banished Patingi of Sarawak; but he showed no animus against Sir James Brooke. In point of fact, they did not prove hostile witnesses, as the testimony of the first two, apart from the feeling displayed, was quite satisfactory. Mr Devereux and Mr Prinsep observe in their reports that the memorialists or their agent did what they could to prevent the native witnesses from appearing, but enough came forward to prove to both Commissioners the piratical character of these Dyaks, and Mr Devereux pointedly remarks that no undue severity was exercised. In spite of the instructions to the Commissioners, which were remarkable for their hostile spirit, these gentlemen reported favourably on all those points on which the public felt any interest; the Seribas and Sakarang Dyaks were declared pirates, and it was found and placed on record that Sir James had not been a trader whilst in the service of the Crown. On matters of opinion they differed, and did not accept Sir James’s claim of the complete independence of Sarawak _de jure_, though it was so _de facto_. The other questions were of no practical importance. Although we did not receive the report of the Commissioners until the end of the following year, I may now notice the findings, and then close this unfortunate story of ministerial weakness and bad faith. There were four heads of inquiry. First—Whether the position of Sir James Brooke at Sarawak was compatible with his duties as Commissioner and Consul-General? It was decided to be incompatible; but Mr Devereux added, ‘It may be stated as regards the past that the junction of the two positions has had beneficial results.’ As the British Government had appointed Sir James to the post without any solicitation on his part, with a full knowledge of his position at Sarawak, any blame would be theirs and not his. As, however, he had resigned his posts, this point had only an academic interest. Second—Whether the interests of Sir James Brooke as a holder of territory, and as a trader in the produce of that territory, were compatible? It was found that Sir James was not a trader in the true sense of the term any more than the Governor-General of India. Third—Personal complaints against Sir James Brooke. Two were made, but not entertained by the Commissioners.