§ MR. E. STANHOPEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to an article in The Law Times of Saturday last, reflecting in severe terms upon the circumstances connected with the removal of Mr. Kirkby from the office of Trustee in Bankruptcy, to which he had been ap- 871 pointed by a majority of the creditors, and which they still wish him to fill; and, if he will explain the reasons which induced the Board of Trade to rescind the appointment of Mr. Kirkby?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI am afraid I cannot give a complete answer to this Question at present. The subject is a very important one, and it is possible that ulterior proceedings may have to be taken. In the meantime, in reply to the latter part of the hon. Member's Question, I may say that the Board of Trade did not rescind Mr. Kirkby's appointment; but, acting under the powers conferred upon them by Section 21 of the Bankruptcy Act, they refused to confirm it. I have seen the article in The Law Times referred to; but the reason assigned in that article for the course pursued by the Board of Trade had absolutely nothing to do with the action of the Department in the matter. Certain circumstances connected with the bankruptcy which came to the knowledge of the Board of Trade, but which Lad no reference to Mr. Kirkby's personal character, led them to believe that the appointment was not, in the present case, an altogether desirable one, or in the interest of all the creditors. The creditors have power, under the Statute, to appeal to the High Court against the action of the Board of Trade.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEwished to know whether there was more than one creditor who objected to the appointment?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINI am not aware.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEWill the right hon. Gentleman lay the Correspondence on the Table?
§ MR. CHAMBERLAINNo.
§ MR. E. STANHOPEThen I bog to give Notice that I shall move for its production.
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked whether the appeal by the creditors would not be at the cost of the estate?
§ [No reply.]