§ MR. DIXON-HARTLAND (Middlesex, Uxbridge)asked the Secretary to 366 the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fac that under small bankruptcies the Official Receiver, as Trustee, can remove the whole of the bankrupt's goods from the premises the day before the rent becomes due, in order to avoid its payment, and that such goods cannot, as in ordinary cases, be followed by the landlord; and, as such Trustee has still the power of holding the premises and preventing a new letting, whether it is a fact that when he afterwards disclaims the landlord can only prove as an ordinary creditor for his rent both before and after the removal of the goods; and, if so, whether he can frame any Rule that will provide a remedy for this grievance?
§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)asked whether, even under the circumstances mentioned in the Question, the landlord would not still be placed in a much better position than any other creditor, being secured to a certain extent; whereas the other creditors might lose the whole of their debts?
§ THE SECRETARY (Baron HENRY DE WORMS) (Liverpool, East Toxteth)I am afraid I cannot express an opinion on the latter Question. The law, as it has been judicially interpreted, appears to be in accordance with the terms of the Question put by the hon. Member (Mr. Dixon-Hartland). The point raised by him, together with certain other questions involved in the present Law of Disclaimer of Leasehold Property, is now under the consideration of the Board of Trade, who are in communication with the Lord Chancellor on the subject.