There's a couple of hits in the British Newspaper Archives (
http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk), which suggest that Charles William Wallace's Will was disputed in some way, something about "a clause providing that if his son failed to obtain a baronetcy ...". (I'm not at the library at the moment so can't read more than this).
Edit: I can see enough of it to grasp that if the son, Captain Charles William Wallace, of Asiiley Gardens, London, failed to obtain a baronetcy or superior title, the whole of the residuary estate, valued at over £250,000, would go to the British and Indian Treasuries. It seems the trustees were seeking to set aside this clause.