§ Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether it is the general practice of his Department to seize the estates of illegitimate persons of poor means who may die intestate without having any regard to the interests of their blood relations; and, if so, whether his Department claims moneys paid by assurance companies on the death of such people?
§ Mr. J. A. PEASEThe general practice of the Duchy of Lancaster with regard to the estates of deceased illegitimate intestates domiciled in Lancashire is the same as the practice of the Crown, acting through the Treasury, with regard to the estates of illegitimate intestates domiciled elsewhere. This general practice is to take out administration to the estates, collect the assets, pay the debts and expenses of administration, then to take for His Majesty, who is legally entitled to take the whole, a percentage of the residue, and grant the balance to putative relations and any other persons who in the discretion of the Chancellor may be deemed suitable recipients of the Royal Bounty.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think it is nearly time that the same law should apply in all these matters as in ordinary cases?
§ Mr. J. A. PEASEI am afraid the law would have to be altered, for there exists no other channel whereby intestate property can be retained possession of and distributed.
§ Mr. RYLAND ADKINSIs the percentage retained by the Crown the same in all cases, or does it vary?
§ Mr. J. A. PEASEIt varies in accordance with the amount of money left, on a graduated scale, ten per cent. being the minimum, and twenty-five per cent. the maximum on estates of £10,000, or above.
§ Mr. MARKHAMasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he was aware that on the 19th April, 1909, a Mrs. Fishwick took out an insurance policy with the Prudential Assurance Company on the life of her brother, Mr. Thomas Oakley, a miner, of Nuncargate, East Kirkby, making a payment of 6d. per week to secure £18 12s. on her brother's death; whether he was aware that in November last Mr. Oakley died, at or near Wigan, intestate, and that the Duchy of Lancaster have now put forward a claim that this money must be paid to them on 1739 the ground that Mr. Oakley was illegitimate, his parents having married after his birth; whether he is aware that all the premiums have been paid in respect to this policy by Mrs. Fishwick, who lived with her brother and was dependent on him; and whether he still intends to insist on this money being paid to the Crown?
§ Mr. J. A. PEASEMrs. Fishwick did not take out an insurance policy on the life of her brother, Thomas Oakley. Thomas Oakley took out two policies for £9 6s. each on his own life, and I am informed that Mrs. Fishwick paid premiums on the two policies amounting to £1 16s. Thomas Oakley died intestate, leaving another sister besides Mrs. Fishwick, and also leaving other property besides the £18 12s. Administration has been granted to the solicitor for the affairs of the Duchy of Lancaster, and when the estate has been administered, all applications to have grants made out of the ultimate residue will be considered in the usual manner. I propose to waive all claim to the policies for £18 12s. to enable the Prudential Office on the faith of their representation to pay over the above sum without further delay to Mrs. Fishwick. The fact that his parents married after his birth, and that Mrs. Fishwick and her sister were legitimate does not deprive the Duchy of the Devolution.
§ Mr. MARKHAMIs my right hon. Friend aware that the determination to waive all claims to the policies was come to only after the question appeared upon the Paper?
§ Mr. J. A. PEASEI have gone fully into the facts, and I think the time has now come when the claim may be waived. It was necessary to go into the whole of the proceedings before accepting the statements.