JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES. (Hansard, 18 March 1825)

§ Mr. T. Wilson
presented a petition from certain Cow-keepers and Milk Venders, complaining of the Milk Company.

Mr. Grenfell
felt surprised, when the law on Joint-Stock Companies was in such uncertainty, that the lord chancellor had not brought forward his intended measure.

§ Mr. John Smith
took occasion to observe, that there had not been a single day, for some time past, without some new joint-stock scheme being brought before the public. He could not help joining, therefore, in the lamentation of the hon. member, as to the uncertainty of the law on the subject.

§ Mr. Huskisson
said, that, as far as any remedy was wanted to check wild and unreasonable speculation, no one could be more willing than he should be, to devise and concert one. With respect to the law, however, it must be recollected that there was one existing, by which these companies were bound, and for any violation of which they were liable. It was, no doubt, the duty of the House to watch attentively any bill coming before them, for the purpose of giving to any of those companies extraordinary privileges. If such a bill came before them, it would be the duty of the House to reject it. But, whatever might be their opinion as to the nature of many of the recent speculations, the law which referred to partnerships was well known; and, with the exception of bankers, he did not see that there was any thing in the law to limit the number of persons who might choose to associate, for the purpose of carrying on any particular trade. He would admit that the rage and folly of the day led to speculations for carrying on ordinary trades in the way of extensive partnerships. They had milk companies, and brick companies, and fish companies, and several others of that kind which he could not enumerate; but, when any of them came before the House with a bill, and asked for no new or exclusive privilege or power, he did not see how the House could turn them away. By refusing the power which they asked, of suing and being sued in the name of one of their officers, he did not see that they could be prevented from acting as a partnership; but, the getting such a power would not of itself be the means of enabling them to continue long in those extensive associations. He was sure that the good sense and industry of those who carried on trades, for the more extensive exercise of which some of the companies had been formed, would in the end prevail, and that those trades would return to their natural channel. Many of the owners of shares, who might be considered as sleeping partners in trades of which they knew nothing but the name, but who expected to reap large profits 1076 without any care, activity, or exertion on their parts, would, he feared, find, in the end, their expectations disappointed, and that they could not compete with effect against individuals, who devoted their whole time and attention to the promotion of their respective trades. The high-raised hopes of many who embarked in such speculations would, in the end, vanish into thin air, and leave those who entertained them nothing but regret and disappointment. At the same time that he gave this as his opinion of many of the speculations afloat, he did not see how the parliament could at present interfere. If, in any of the measures which came before them, any thing illegal could be shown—if any particular evil could be pointed out—he should be willing to afford every remedy in his power; but unless that was done, it would be better to let these companies alone.

§ Mr. Alderman Bridges
defended the milk company, which he said had been established these eighteen months, and had already been productive of much public advantage, by giving to the community a cheap supply of pure milk.

§ Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that though his majesty's government might not feel disposed to alter the law with respect to extended partnerships, yet he thought it was their duty so to regulate it, as to prevent the present practices of the transfer of shares.