§ MR. COLMANrose to call attention to the case of John Montagu Upcroft, an illegitimate, who died on 23rd of November, 1861, intestate; and to move for a Return of any allowances made out 319 of the estate, and of any other application for allowance which have been made, and not acceded to by the Treasury. This responsibility did not rest with the present Government, but was commenced long before it came into office, and therefore he was not laying any blame upon the Treasury, who were only carrying out the decision of their Predecessors. Briefly, the facts of the case were as follows:—The Government had received a large sum of money, a small portion of which had been returned to certain relatives of the reputed father, while the claims on the part of the relatives of the mother had not been acceded to. John Montagu Upcroft and Mary Upcroft, the former being an illegitimate son of the latter, died within three days of each other. The mother died possessed of £30,000, and the son of £160,000, so that the sum there was to deal with was much larger than that involved in the discussion that occupied the earlier portion of the evening. The important part of the question depended upon the date of the deaths. Mary Upcroft died on March 20th, 1861, and her son died on March 23rd of the same year. John Upcroft was too ill to make a will; but on his death-bed, he expressed a great desire to make a will, leaving his property to his mother's relatives. If the son had died only two or three days before the mother, then the sum would have come entirely to the mother's relatives, and the statement made to him (Mr. Colman), was that out of the large sum of £ 190,000, £20,000 had been granted to the relatives of the father, while the claims on the mother's side from relatives who were in very great want had been disregarded altogether. In cases of this kind it was usual to say the mother was less to blame; and here was a case in which the mother's relatives had received no sum at all, and he put it to the House and Treasury whether this was not a case calling for due consideration at the hands of the Government. The Secretary to the Treasury might reply that this matter was closed long ago, and the House had heard of claimants arising after an interval of 40 years; but, in this case, all the claimants were known, the facts were indisputable, the relatives on the mother's side were not denied, and there was no fear of cousins or relatives arising to put in a claim. In this case a will was 320 made in favour of the mother, and, but for an accident, the whole property would have gone to the mother or her relatives. He did not at that late hour wish to go into a long discussion; but he desired the House to believe that he had not drawn attention to the case hastily, and he had not alluded to the names in any way to give offence. The facts were very simple. The Treasury came into possession of nearly £200,000; and, while claimant's on the mother's side for a share of this were denied, claims on the other side with, he was bound to say, more influence, had been allowed.