§ Sir J. Newportwished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whether his late majesty had left a will, or, if he had died intestate, in what manner his personal property had been disposed of?
§ Mr. Tierneyrepeated the question, and asked, in case of the non-existence of such a document, what had become of that property?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that he did not know, and it was not his duty to know whether such a paper existed.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that when he put a similar question to the chancellor of the exchequer upon a former occasion, the right hon. gentleman was certainly understood to have stated distinctly that a will did exist. If his late majesty had died intestate, it was proper that the House should know what had become of the money vested by acts of parliament under commissions, before they proceeded to grant sums of money to any part of the royal family. He trusted that some honourable member would take an early opportunity of making a motion upon the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerob- 154 served, that if there was no will the personal property, he apprehended, devolved to the successor to the throne.
§ Mr. Tierneythought it very important to ascertain whether his majesty had died intestate, or if any paper amounting to a will had been found, what measures had been taken with respect to the disposition of the personal property of his late majesty.
Mr. Bernalwished to know from whom he was to receive official information upon this subject, if not from the chancellor of the exchequer.
§ Mr. Humecontended, that if his late majesty had died intestate, his property was no longer private but public; and if public, it was the duty of the House to ascertain, especially in the 'present distressed state of the country, in what manner it had been disposed of.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerassured the hon. gentleman, that no part of the personal property of the his late majesty had come under the cognizance of that part of the government connected with the Treasury.
§ Mr. J. P. Grantsaid, that as part of the property, which was primâ facie to be considered as the property of the Crown, had been put up to sale, the House ought to be informed whether any inquiry had been made to ascertain whether it belonged to the Crown or not.
§ Mr. Humewished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer whether he would have any objection to state, upon a motion being made, what steps had been taken by ministers to ascertain whether his late majesty had left a will, and what part of his personal property was likely to accrue to the public.
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer was silent.
Mr. Baringthought that if this subject appeared to be involved in any mystery or intrigue, a strong sensation would be excited in the country. If the exaggerated estimates had gone abroad as to the amount of the property left by his late majesty; that circumstance was itself calculated to excite the public attention, which would probably be increased after the conversation which had taken place upon the subject. If the right hon. gentleman did not wish to give any distinct information, he might at least state some reason which rendered it inconvenient to be more explicit.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerre- 155 peated, that no part of his late majesty's property had come under the cognizance of the Treasury, the disposition of it belonged more properly to the authority of another court.
Mr. Bernalobserved, that information was extracted from the right hon. gentleman, like a bad cork from a bottle of brandy.
After some further conversation, Mr. Hume gave notice that he would make a motion respecting the personal property of the late king to-morrow.