PROPERTY OF INTESTATES. (Hansard, 31 January 1832)

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
objected to the production of this account, us involving a great many difficulties; the Motion was couched in much too general terms—the precise nature of the documents required ought to be specified.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
wished to explain why the return relative to intestates had not been made. He had inquired into the matter, and found that to make up such an account as the hon. Member had moved for, and the House had ordered, would compel the Solicitor of the Treasury to suspend all other business in his office for six months. He wished to forewarn the House of the great expense also which the return would cause. He had no objection whatever to produce it; but he should wish that the House should 1029 first of all be in possession of an estimate of the probable expense of making out the return. If it chose to order the return after such an estimate was laid before it, of course it was in the power of the House to do so; but he wished that the House should, in the first instance, know the expense.

§ Mr. Harvey
would undertake to say, that the whole expense would not be 50l. The right hon. Gentleman had shown him a return for one year, and he was sure that similar returns for every year might be prepared for 40s. each. The amount of some estates which went in this way into the hands of the Crown was immense: and he had been told only a few days ago of one estate of upwards of 100,000l. which thus went into the possession of the Crown. This was a source of public revenue, which was quite unexplored, and an account of which ought to be before the House. If there was a difficulty of making out the returns, from their magnitude, that was an additional reason why the House of Commons should inquire into the matter. The Solicitor of the Treasury was very well paid—he attended to a great variety of business, and ought to have time to furnish such an account. If the business of his office were conducted properly, it would not, he was sure, take one clerk three days to make out the return.

Mr. Hume
said, it was the duty of the Solicitor of the Treasury to lay an annual account before the Treasury, and there could therefore be no difficulty in making the return, unless indeed the Solicitors had rendered no account to the Treasury, in which case the return ought to be immediately and imperatively called for. He would recommend an abstract, and he was sure that it might be prepared for a few shillings.

§ Mr. Spring Rice
had not refused the production of the paper. His observation was, that before the Motion was agreed to, it would be proper that they should be acquainted with the probable expense to which it would lead. If the hon. Gentleman would move for the accounts for the last seven years, which would probably just as well answer his purpose, they would be prepared much more easily and at considerably less expense.

Mr. Hume
would wish to know whether the accounts of the Solicitor to the Treasury were not annually rendered to the Treasury?

§ Mr. Spring Rice
could not take upon himself to say, that during the last thirty years—the period embraced by the motion—such accounts as those sought for had been annually rendered to the Treasury; but this he knew, from the manner in which the department of the Solicitor to the Treasury was conducted, that the accounts of that office were as regularly rendered as they possibly could be to the Treasury.

Mr. Hume
again suggested, that, under such circumstances, an abstract of those accounts might, without much difficulty be procured.

§ Sir Charles Wetherell
said, that if the question went to a vote, he should support the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary to the Treasury.

§ Mr. Harvey
was ready to accede to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman, and to limit his Motion to the last seven years.