§ MR. C. BERKELEYwished to put some questions to the hon. Member for Athlone (Mr. J. Collett). If the accusation against Sir Charles Taylor were true, the Secretary of State was bound to advise Her Majesty to dismiss Sir C. Taylor from the commission of the peace: if the charge were untrue, the Member who brought it 959 forward, unsupported by evidence, was not fit to sit in this House. The question he had to put to the hon. Member for Athlone was this—whether he had sent his affidavits against Sir C. Taylor to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in order that they might be followed up by an ample inquiry?
MR. COLLETTremarked that the questions of which notice had been given were three; and he hoped, in his character of an Irish Member, to be allowed to reply to them all, though he had yet only heard one. He had put himself to considerable personal inconvenience for the purpose; but the three questions of Wednesday had dwindled down to one on Thursday. In reply to the first question, he had to state that, since Monday last, he had taken no further steps in the business. In answer to the second, whether he had lodged his affidavits in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, he would mention that on Tuesday morning, before the hon. Member gave his notice of questions, he (Mr. J. Collett) had employed himself in making copies of all the documents which he had sent to the right hon. Baronet, with a letter, which, perhaps, he might be allowed to read to the House. The hon. Member read the letter, to the effect that he had sent the affidavits, &c., respecting which he hoped that the earliest opportunity for inquiry would be taken, and the result be stated to the House, and that he deliberately repeated his belief in the truth of the affidavits; and that as the right hon. Baronet had asked for the affidavits, in order to found a prosecution upon them, he trusted that, if such prosecution should be instituted by Her Majesty's Government, he should be included in it. This was not meant as an idle threat, but seriously, because if the other parties deserved to be prosecuted, he was most materially involved in the charge. The last question of the hon. Member for Cheltenham was, whether he (Mr. J. Collett) intended to take further proceedings, or to allow the matter to remain where it was? To that he might reply, without pledging himself as to what further proceeding he might think proper to adopt, that he was desirous of the fullest and most searching inquiry, and that if the hon. Member would move for a Committee for the purpose, he would second the Motion with the utmost pleasure.
§ SIR JAMES GRAHAMfelt himself at liberty to state to the House what was 960 the result of the consideration which he had given to the documents submitted to him last Tuesday. He had carefully considered the affidavits; and from the best inquiry which he had been able to institute, the impression which he at first entertained, and which he had expressed to the House, was, he thought, the right one. It was, that the affidavits were extra-judicial, and if false, no indictment for perjury would lie against their authors. Again, if false, although they were were clearly slanderous, no civil action could be brought against the parties issuing them. If they were false, there was, therefore, no remedy against their authors—but on the other hand, if they were true, it could not be doubted but that a criminal information might be filed against Sir Charles Taylor in the Court of Queen's Bench, certainly the most fit tribunal for the institution of such an inquiry. He was not prepared to include the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Collett) among the parties prosecuted; but, actuated by public spirit, as the hon. Gentleman was, the proper course for him to pursue, if he put faith in the affidavits, was to become prosecutor, and proceed against Sir Charles Taylor at law.