JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. (Hansard, 28 February 1825)

Mr. Grenfell
objected to the practice of granting to Joint-Stock Companies the privilege of suing and being sued by their secretaries. If, as it was alleged, many companies now in progress had no real foundation, and were only formed with a view of deluding the public, their power of deluding would be considerably increased, by their being enabled to hold out to the world that they possessed any thing like parliamentary sanction.

§ Mr. Huskisson
admitted, that some of the new companies possessed the character which the hon. member said was ascribed to them. Parliament had very properly put an end to the system of gambling by lotteries; but many of these companies led to much more destructive consequences than even that. With reference to what the hon. gentleman had said, he must ask, how it was possible for the House to know whether certain companies were or were not formed on sound plans, and whether their capital was subscribed? He believed, indeed, that if it should appear that the capital of the companies had not been subscribed—that it was only a pretended capital— they would experience great difficulty in getting their bills through all their stages in another place. There were, he understood, some standing orders in the other House, which rendered it necessary for companies wishing to obtain the sanction of parliament to prove that they possessed substantial means.

Mr. Hobhouse
expressed his pleasure at the attention of the House having been directed to the subject, which he considered one of great importance. When the proper time came, he should be able to prove that there was no pretence whatever for some of the projects of the pre- 718 sent companies. There was one company in particular — he could not fairly be blamed for saying any thing to prejudice the shares of the company he was about to name, for when they chose to come to parliament to ask for a privilege, they must not complain of being animadverted on—the Pasco-Peruvian Mine company, which he pledged himself to prove had no foundation whatever, and no object in view, except to work mines on the Stock Exchange. If so, it was too much for them to come to parliament for its sanction to such a delusion.

Mr. Baring
said, he would not venture, in the present stage, to pass an opinion whether the projects were or were not chimerical; but, with regard to the mining speculation to which his hon. friend had referred, it seemed to him to stand upon as good a foundation as the others. Whatever the comparative merits of different schemes might be, the House ought not to pass any bills of the kind incautiously, because the probability was, that they would be rejected elsewhere. A good deal had been said on the subject of a general measure to restrain the spirit of speculation in mining and other shares, to be introduced in another place. Whether the intention had been abandoned, or was to be persevered in, he knew not; but, if he had not been led to expect that such a bill would be brought forward early, he should, ere now, have said something on the subject. He did not see that any great injury would be done by merely granting the power to companies to sue and be sued by their secretary. He cautioned the House against adopting such a tone upon this subject, as might obstruct a great deal of useful spirit of enterprise. He hoped that his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had made up his mind, as to the course which it would be advisable for him, in his official capacity, to pursue. It was, in his opinion, the duty of the House to adopt some general measure, applicable to all undertakings of the kind, without bestowing particular censure upon individual schemes, that might or might not be publicly advantageous.

§ Mr. Huskisson
wished, as he had been addressed in his official capacity, to add a few words to what he had already said upon this subject. It was difficult, if not impossible, for him to ascertain, and decide upon, the merits of any of the plans at present afloat; and to all of them 719 he was as much a stranger as any hon. member who heard him. What he had said last session, he had no objection to repeat now; namely, that if any company came forward to solicit a bill to limit pecuniary liability, or to exempt them from pecuniary liability, he should have a decided objection to it; but, where they only sought for their own convenience, and for the convenience of the public, to be allowed to sue and to be sued by one of their officers, he did not see why such a request ought to be rejected. If it turned out that the company was a mere bubble, no harm, that he could discover, would be done by the facility thus afforded. It would surpass any powers which he possessed, or any leisure he could bestow upon it, to probe to the bottom the merits of the various speculations, and to be able to decide which was likely to be a beneficial undertaking, and which a bubble. It was, as it seemed to him, a question for the public to inquire and determine, before it engaged in any scheme of the kind; though his opinion certainly was, that the parties who speculated ought to be somewhat more cautious.

§ Mr. Hume
contended against the position, that the House ought to lay down some general rule upon this subject. He, for one, should be sorry to see it meddle with any thing of the kind. When hon. members talked of delusions, he should be glad to know whether Waterloo Bridge was not as gross a delusion and as ruinous a delusions as had ever been practised upon the public? Yet that project was supported and countenanced, and had ended in the complete distress of a great many of the parties. These evils, as far as they were so, ought to cure themselves. It was not the duty of the House to throw impediments in the way of speculation, as long as it communicated no peculiar privileges. Individuals ought to be allowed to do as they pleased with their own property.