§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been given to the Treasury letter of 23rd January 1893, stating the opinion of the Treasury that alterations should be made in the instructions of the Board of Trade to official receivers, and that a Committee should be appointed to investigate the question in all its bearings, and to advise as to the limits within which the action of the Department should be restricted, and to the memorial to the Lord Chancellor, dated November 1894, of bankers and merchants in agreement with that letter; and whether Her Majesty's Government will agree to the appointment of a Select Committee of this House to make the investigation suggested by the Treasury?
§ MR. E. BOULNOIS (Marylebone, E.)I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is intended that any action should betaken in consequence of the memorial addressed in November, 1894 to the Lord Chancellor, and signed by 125 leading bankers and merchants, which memorial requested that effect should be given to the views of the Treasury on the subject of the winding-up of public companies; and whether any instructions have been given to the official receivers not to act as permanent liquidators in any case unless the parties interested are unable to find a competent representative of their interests elsewhere?
§ MR. BRYCESubsequently to the letter of 23rd January 1893, the whole subject to which it related was considered by a Departmental Committee, presided over by Sir J. Rigby, which took evidence at considerable length, and whose Report was presented, 1633 in due course, to both Houses of Parliament. The Treasury and the Board of Trade accept the view of the meaning of the Statute which will be found in that Report, and the Treasury authorised the expenditure necessary to give effect to it. The practice of the Board of Trade is in accordance therewith. There does not, therefore, seem to be any necessity for an inquiry by a Select Committee.
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLES, arising out of the answer, asked whether the Board of Trade had acted or had neglected to act on the recommendation of the Committee; that the official receivers should be instructed to take all reasonable means to discourage their functions as permanent liquidators; whether, as a matter of fact, since the Report was received, the official receiver in a particular case, had not acted as official liquidator; and whether he had not, contrary to a specific recommendation, borrowed a sum of a million-and-a-quarter in order to carry on the company.
§ MR. BRYCEadmitted that the practice of the Board of Trade had varied. As regarded the particular case alluded to, what was done was done under the orders of the Committee.
§ MR. BOULNOISasked the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Treasury still adhered to the objection to the existing system contained in the letter sent by himself on January 23rd, 1893?
§ *SIR JOHN HIBBERTCertainly, so far as I know, the Treasury hold the same opinion.
§ MR. T. GIBSON BOWLESWell, then, do the Board of Trade act upon it?
§ MR. BRYCEThe Board of Trade are acting in accordance with the Report of the Committee, which is subsequent to the letter of the Treasury.