COLONEL PALMERI beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the estate of one Mrs. Eliza Adams, who died at Lewisham on 7th June, 1893, and consisting of £202 0s. 10d. Two and Three-quarter per Cent. Stock, and £192 11s. 2d. in the Post Office Savings Bank, has been taken by the Crown on the ground that the said Mrs. Adams left no surviving relatives; whether he is aware that Amos Adams, a bricklayer, and husband of the said Mrs. Adams, only predeceased her by a few months, leaving a brother now living, one Alfred Adams, who is an old man in poor circumstances; whether he is aware that the said estate was derived from the earnings of Amos Adams, and not from the earnings of Mrs. Adams herself, who had no separate estate, business, or earnings; whether Alfred Adams would now have been legally entitled to the said estate, but for the accident of his brother predeceasing his wife by a few months; and whether, under these circumstances, the Treasury will consider the equity of making a grant out of the estate to Alfred Adams?
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTThe estate consisted of the particulars mentioned, and the statement in the second paragraph is correct. It has been stated that the estate was derived from Amos Adams the husband, but the securities stood in the name of the deceased during the lifetime of her husband. But the question whether the estate was or was 799 not derived from the husband, as well as the answer to the hypothetical question in the fourth paragraph, would not affect the liability of the Treasury Solicitor, as administrator, to the wife's next-of-kin. The application of Alfred Adams has been considered and refused by the Treasury in accordance with the established practice in such cases, and I cannot undertake to reverse the decision.
COLONEL PALMERBearing in mind the circumstances I have mentioned in the question, will the Treasury give the matter further consideration?
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTwas understood to say that the decision arrived at could not be altered.
COLONEL PALMERThen I will take the earliest opportunity to call attention to this grossly unfair case.
MR. B ARTLEY (Islington, N.)asked the Treasury to take a fair and reasonable view of this matter, inasmuch as the money evidently belonged to the family, and that it was only under a technical rule that it had been "grabbed" by the Treasury?
§ SIR J. T. HIBBERTI do not agree that it has been "grabbed" by the Treasury. We always take a fair and reasonable view, but we are bound to act under legal advice.