§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has noticed, in the Report recently issued by the Inspector General in Bankruptcy, that it is stated that Section 162 of "The Bankruptcy Act, 1883," was not intended to be penal, and that he has only called to account the trustees in about 10,500 liquidations and compositions that occurred in the five years commencing in 1876, and ending in 1881, out of 100,300 cases that occurred under that Act; whether Trustees under the "Bankruptcy Act, 1861," and under liquidations and compositions under the Act of 1869, prior to the year 1878 and subsequent to 1881, where the estates have not been closed, should be allowed to escape any inquiry into their accounts, and permitted to retain all the unclaimed dividends and undistributed assets they hold under the above-mentioned statutes; 272 and, whether he will give directions for a full investigation of the accounts of all persona who acted as trustees under trust deeds, liquidations, and compositions under the Bankruptcy Acts, 1861 and 1869?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINThe hon. Member is mistaken in assuming that there is any statement in the Report of the Inspector General in Bankruptcy to the effect that "he has only called to account the trustees in about 10,500 out of 100,300 liquidations and compositions." The figures quoted in the Question of the hon. Member relate to the number of estates in respect of which payments had been made into the Bankruptcy Estates Account up to March 31 last. It is intended to investigate, where practicable, the accounts of all persons who acted as trustees under the Acts referred to, whore that course is believed to be likely to be attended with advantage; but it is not intended to put trustees to the trouble and expense of such an investigation where no advantage is expected to be gained.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDHow is the right hon. Gentleman to know whether any advantage will be gained or not, if he does not make an investigation?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINBy the exercise of common intelligence, Sir.
§ MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, How his statement, that the expenses of the new Bankruptcy Act being less than the old one, is borne out by the fact that the cost of the new Act for the current financial year is estimated at £94,737 against £34,677 actually expended for the last year under the old Act; whether his statement, that the expenditure will fall chiefly on the bankrupt estates and not on the general taxpayer, and the amount being largely increased will not bear so heavily on those estates as to supply creditors with further reasons for compounding with their debtors; and, whether this is the chief cause of the great diminution of bankruptcy cases since the now Act came into force?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINThe figures quoted by the hon. Member are not quite accurate. The total expense of the old Bankruptcy Act was £75,000, and under the new Act £133,000, an increase of £58,000, against which may be placed 273 an estimated increase in income of £76,000. The amount of expenses chargeable to bankrupt estates, which in most cases represents the total cost of realization and distribution, is much less than the corresponding charges under the old Act, the apparent increase in the Estimates representing the cost of work done by Official Receivers, which, under the old Act, was done by Trustees at a much larger cost. The chief cause of the great diminution of bankruptcy proceedings is, I believe, the satisfactory working of the new Act, which has practically extinguished fraudulent bankruptcies.