Lords Sitting of 21 May 1824

GENERAL GAS COMPANY'S BILL.
The Earl of Lauderdale, on the order of the day for the second reading, being moved, said, that he intended to move that this bill be read that day six months. Throughout the whole country, there was no place which had heard of the bill which had not petitioned against it. He objected to the general principle of giving such powers to any corporate body as this bill purported to convey. The granting of a monopoly of this kind would take away all the check which arose from competition. The most advantageous mode of supplying gas to towns would be, to allow those who had an interest in their being well lighted to become the contractors.
The Earl of Limericksupported the bill. It had, he said, been brought into the House of Commons on February, and no opposition was there made to the measure. The bill was, not to destroy competition, but to enable another company to enter into competition with those already established. Nor was it meant to injure other companies. An objection had been made to the bill, on the ground of its enabling the company, as a corporate body, to escape the bankrupt laws. He was authorised by those who introduced the bill to say, that they were ready to give up this protection; and were also willing that the name of any town where gas companies were established should be exempt from its operation.
The Earl of Rosslynobjected to the principle of the bill, as he must to all bills which went to establish joint-stock companies, without a very strong case being made out. He saw no necessity for the present company, and no prudence in establishing it, contravening, as it did, the principles of the common law, that when

791
any man engaged in trade, he was answerable to his creditors with the whole of his property.
The Lord Chancellorthought, that if their lordships understood the true state of the case with respect to this bill, it would be impossible for them to pass it. He was against the powers given to companies of this description; more especially I when they were not incorporated by charter. There was a practice, with respect to speculations of this kind, which called loudly for some legislative prohibition. Persons formed schemes for the establishment of a company, and while they speculated on obtaining a charter, went into the market with shares which were Sold at a given price, though they might, in the result, prove to be of no value whatever. This was a subject not undeserving of their lordships' attention: it was worthy of their consideration whether it would not he proper to annul, by a legislative act, all such contracts. The present bill was for the purpose of lighting all towns with gas, except London and ten miles round it. This measure, it seemed, had passed the House of Commons without opposition, which was very extraordinary: but that was no argument in its favour; for, the moment the public attention was called to it, numerous petitions were presented against it. The learned lord alluded to the circumstance which he had formerly noticed respecting the capital of the company. It was provided, that it should not exceed one million sterling; but how much it really was to be did not appear. In such cases persons subscribed certain sums; there was a name in one column of half a sheet of paper, and a certain sum in another: but the amount of the subscription did not show the state of the funds of the company, for their lordships were well aware that subscribing and paying were now-a-days two very different things. In going over the clauses of the bill, he saw none which afforded any efficient remedy against the company. There was one by which creditors might proceed to levy by distress; but the proceeding was one which would probably produce most distress to the creditor, for he would find nothing to carry away but a gasometer and inflammable air. It was said that the partners were to be made liable to the full extent of their subscription; but, how was the creditor to get at the parties? In these incorporating bills a clause was introduced,
792
providing that the company might sue and be sued by their treasurer. This was very well for the interest of the company; but of what advantage was it to any body to get a verdict against the treasurer, if he had no funds? He had, on a former occasion, proposed, with respect to these bills, that a clause should be inserted, enabling the person who obtained a verdict against the treasurer to levy the amount by distress on any individual partner, leaving it to that individual to seek his remedy against the company. He repeated his objection to the incorporation of any company, except by a charter from the Crown. In that case, if the company acted improperly, the Crown could at once put them down, by withdrawing the charter; but when they were established by act of parliament, it required the passing of another act to repeal the former, before any remedy could be applied to the evil. He did not mean to say, that there might not be cases in which it would be proper to pass measures similar to the present bill; but their lordships ought to be extremely cautious how they established companies, with powers which might prove seriously injurious to the interests of individuals.
The Earl of Lauderdale's motion was agreed to; and, of course, the bill was thrown out.

SILK-MANUFACTURE BILL.
The Earl of Lauderdale, in moving the third reading of this bill, observed that the noble lord opposite had charged him with bringing in this bill at a time when all was peace and quietness in Spitalfields in consequence of the subsisting regulations. Now, the fact was, that one half of the work in Spitalfields was not regulated.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that some alteration had been made in the regulations respecting the narrow work, but there had been none as to the broad.
The Earl of Darnleycould not object to the principle of the bill. He, however, thought that it was not prudent to press the measure at the present time, and therefore would not vote either way.
The Lord Chancellorwas of opinion, that those who felt themselves most injured by the bill, did not rightly understand it. He was also of opinion, that the measure was premature, and that the arrangement which had been recently entered into ought not to be disturbed. Their lordships then divided; for the

793
third reading—Contents 39; Proxies 22—Not-Contents 36; Proxies 19— Majority for the third reading 6. The bill was accordingly read a third time and passed.