HL Deb 14 March 1856 vol 141 cc134-49
LORD MONTEAGLE,

in moving for returns of Joint Stock Companies who have obtained certificates of complete registration under the Act of last year, said, that it appeared that Parliament was invited to consider two Bills with regard to the law of partnership which had been lately introduced into the other House. They were now approaching Easter, and he should like to know whether the Government would endeavour to induce this House to pass those two Bills in the same unreasonable manner in which they were compelled to pass the Act of last year—namely, at so late a period of the Session that it was wholly impossible for the House to consider the subject with advantage? Last year it was the opinion of many of their Lordships that the subject was so difficult and so important as to deserve consideration in a Select Committee; but the Government had rejected that proposition. Would his noble Friend at the head of the Board of Trade agree to the appointment of a Select Committee when Parliament resumed its sittings after Easter? He made the proposition on the present occasion advisedly. Should the Bills to which he alluded come before their Lordships late in the Session, and the proposition for a Committee then be renewed, let it not be said that the proposal for a Select Committee then made was for the purpose of impeding their progress, such an accusation could not be justly made when it was recollected that he now prayed the Government thus early in the Session to allow an inquiry to take place. It might be said that there had already been a Commission on the subject, and that the propositions of the Government were based on the Report of that Commission; this was, however, the very contrary to the fact, the recommendations of the Commission having been most ungraciously cast aside. It was for their Lordships to take the question into their own hands: this House, with the legal information at its command, was, in his opinion, a fit and proper tribunal to consider what ought to be done upon a subject of such extreme importance as part of the commercial law of this country. As we were now in all probability approaching a time of peace, the very difficult commercial contingencies consequent upon peace rendered caution on the part of the Legislature more important than ever. We might in all probability expect a considerable return of gold, a fall in the rate of discount, and an excitement of all speculative actions. That great and sagacious man, the Emperor of the French, had felt this anticipation, and had cautioned his people against the difficulties which would be consequent on the peace, and might arise under the commandite and partnership law of France. That which the Emperor denounced as a danger the proposed measures tended to stimulate. It might perhaps be said that no evil consequences had as yet arisen from the Bill of last Session. This proved nothing, as the circumstances of the times were peculiar, money was scarce, the rate of discount high, speculations were thereby checked, but peace would give rise to wild commercial enterprise and introduce a state of things widely different from that which had existed since the passing of the last Act, and, if a fever of speculation set in, he should examine with interest and anxiety the returns laid before their Lordships next year, exhibiting the number of bubble companies formed, if Parliament were so inconsiderate as to sanction this measure. But even the proceedings of the last year were not unimportant. If their Lordships were to turn their attention to the new projects started, they would see what absurd and rash schemes some parties were willing and ready to embark in. In the year of grace 1856 it was proposed to have a large joint-stock company, to be called the Universal Purveying Company, for the manufacture and sale of all descriptions of food, for the use of a metropolis containing two millions; another company was to be called a Laundry Company, and others had designations such as the Medicine Compounding Company, the Telescopic Fire-escape Company, the National Newspaper League Company. There were many others, some of which were of the most preposterous character. [The Duke of ARGYLL: Who is to judge of that?] Why, he took it to be a matter of principle that limited liability ought not to be granted for any commercial enterprise unless it could be shown that the enterprise was in its nature useful, and also that it was one which could not be carried out without the concession of that privilege. Upon this principle it was that the Board of Trade decided on charters to be granted to companies, and the Legislature determined on the privileges occasionally conferred by special Acts of Parliament. Such concessions ought never to be made till the propriety of conferring those privileges had first been carefully examined, and had in the judgment of an impartial authority been made manifest. The principle which the noble Duke seemed to advocate—namely, that the privilege of limited liability should be granted to every set of individuals, who at their own will and pleasure chose to establish any commercial enterprise whatever—appeared to be one of a most dangerous character, wholly unknown to the law of England, and had, indeed, been rejected by his own Government when they framed their Bill last year. It was a principle which would excite speculation and gambling, and all that the laws had hitherto done to repress those practices would become inoperative by reason of the Bills now before Parliament. If the Noble Duke (Argyll) was disposed to reject this statement, he could refer to an authority which, as an economist and a Scotsman, he was bound to respect. It was the authority of Mr. McCulloch. What were the observations of that able writer on the former Bill: "you may prevent the formation of such companies, but you cannot prevent them, when formed, from degenerating into mere swindling engines." Such were the words of Mr. McCulloch in his last edition of the Commercial Dictionary, and he went further, and crushed to atoms that fallacy that would include in the principles of Free Trade the power to establish commercial companies with limited liability. He would conclude by reading the following extract from Mr. McCulloch, which he recommended to the attention of the noble Duke and the House— It was said that it was part and parcel of the principle of Free Trade, and that those who opposed it were friends to monopoly. To make any lengthened statement in reply to this, would be if possible, more absurd than the statement itself. The opponents of limited liability never said that A should not engage in this, or B in that employment. But they said 'you may undertake whatever you please, but you must abide by the result of that undertaking. You are, under no circumstances, to be allowed to get rid of the consequences of your own actions. If on the one hand you make large profits, you may use or abuse them as you please; but if on the other hand your speculation fails, and you incur debts, you must either pay them or become a bankrupt. These, which are the principles of plain common sense, are consistent alike with expediency and justice.' He wished now to ask his noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade whether he had any objection to appoint a Committee to consider this subject, after Easter? or, if not, whether he would at least give a pledge that the House should not be called upon at the close of the present Session, when the Peers were not in attendance, to pass a measure of this kind through the House? He would conclude by moving, pro formâ— That there be laid before the House Returns of the Number of Joint Sock Companies formed, or which have obtained Certificates of Complete Registration, under the Limited Liability Act, 1855, and of the Number of Applications not completed under the Act.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, there could be no possible objection to give the returns moved for by the noble Lord, as they had already been laid before the other House of Parliament. With respect to the questions put to him by the noble Lord—of which questions he had received no previous notice—he must say that it was highly inconvenient that these sort of discussions should be raised in their Lordships' House on measures in progress through the House of Commons. The noble Lord desired that their Lordships should not be urged to go into a discussion on the measure he had referred to at a late period of the Session. All he could say was, that he believed there was every reason to suppose that the measure would be brought up to their Lordships in good time, and if not, he should not wish to press it upon their Lordships' attention against their will, and after all, it would always be in their Lordships' power to deal with it as they might think fit. With regard to the appointment of a Select Committee, he thought it was the most inconvenient and the most extraordinary proceeding ever proposed, that one House should appoint a Committee to inquire into the details of a Bill under the consideration of the other House. That was evidently the intention of the noble Lord, for he stated that it would be no answer to say that there had been already a Commission of Inquiry; for that Commission dealt with the principle of limited liability and the law of partnership, whereas what was now wanted was an inquiry respecting a measure now before the other House of Parliament. This was a step entirely new and unprecedented, as the proper time for dealing with the question would be when the Bill was before their Lordships' House. He could not, indeed, expect to derive much advantage from discussing the details of the Bill with the noble Lord, who had declared himself hostile to every principle of it. The Bill of last year had been approved of by both Houses of Parliament, and further experience had only convinced him of the folly of the system of paternal legislation, which sought to guard people against the consequences of their own imprudence. They should leave men to the protection of the spirit of prudence implanted in their own breasts, and not seek to apply legislative securities, as substitutes for individual caution, which experience proved to be utterly useless, and indeed mischievous, as leading them to a fallacious confidence that the State was doing that for them which they alone could efficiently do for themselves. He could not consent to the appointment of the Committee, but he had no reason to doubt that ample time would be allowed for the consideration of the measure.

LORD OVERSTONE

considered that the proposal of the noble Lord was most reasonable, that a question of such importance should be subjected to a preliminary inquiry before a Select Committee. The course of legislation which had been pursued on this subject was, in his mind, much more unreasonable and extraordinary than would be the preliminary inquiry to which the noble Lord objected. He would call their Lordships' attention to what had been done. Some time since the Government determined to issue a Commission to inquire into the law of partnership. The Commission in due time made their Report, and the Government introduced a Bill framed directly in the teeth of the recommendations of the Commission, and directly in the teeth of the evidence taken before them—even of those witnesses upon whose evidence the minority in the Commission rested their case. Limited liability, without accompanying safeguards, was not only in opposition to the Report and to all the evidence before the Commission, but in opposition also to the practice of all other countries into which the principle of limited liability had been introduced. Then, how was the measure of the Government introduced? He was absent at the time, but he was informed that it was carried through their Lordships' House during the last three days of the Session, without any sufficient opportunity being afforded for its discussion, and without the support of a single Peer who was not connected with the Government. [Cries of "Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] Be that as it might, he would ask their Lordships to consider the protests that had been entered on their Lordships' Journals, and to judge whether a measure affecting such important interests ought to have been pressed under such circumstances and with such undue haste. If the Government had adopted the suggestion of withdrawing the Bill for further consideration, they would at least have avoided the discredit of the subsequent proceedings. The measure was passed at the very end of the Session, and the very first day of the next Session the Government were obliged to announce that they intended to repeal this Bill and to introduce another. Six weeks had scarcely elapsed before the new Bill had been again withdrawn, and the representative of the Government in the department charged with this measure had declared that he must take the Easter vacation to consider in what form he would again introduce the measure. He made those observations under feelings different from those which operated upon the majority of their Lordships. It had been his fate to have passed the greater portion of his life in the active pursuits of trade and under the influence of the constant oscillations of commercial credit. On behalf of the interests of those engaged in trade and commerce, he protested against a subject of such vast importance being so lightly and inconsiderately dealt with. He said, "a subject of such vast importance," for he believed that in magnitude few questions of internal policy could be compared with it. If the Government were determined to alter the ancient principles of law, upon which all the commercial habits of the country had been established, they should at least have given the matter the most careful and deliberate consideration in the Cabinet, and come before Parliament with a measure by which they were prepared to stand or fall. It was not a question of subordinate importance; the views of the Government respecting it ought to be well considered, and, when once adopted, they should be consistently maintained. He could not withhold his surprise that the allusion of the noble Baron (Lord Monteagle) to the schemes which had been projected under the change of law should have been met with laughter on the part of the Government, Those schemes were but premonitory symptoms—the shadows of coming events; they are seed cast into the ground, which will remain dormant during a period of war expenditure and adverse exchanges. But let peace arrive, and the precious metals return to this country with as strong a tide as they were now flowing out, and the Government, instead of going into the market as borrowers, appear before the country with a surplus revenue, then these concerns will germinate and fructify, and the commercial world, like Nature under a poisoned atmosphere, will teem with all monstrous things. When he found a reference to such symptoms as these met with ridicule, instead of with thoughtfulness and apprehension, he confessed he could not look without some alarm to the fate of our commercial interests under the proposed system of legislation. The history of our commercial and monetary progress during the last thirty years was full of instructive lessons, if we would only read them aright. He well remembered the catastrophe of 1825, when Mr. Huskisson said we were within a few hours of a state of barter; but he had no hesitation in saying that if at that time a Bill like that which the Government had now introduced had been law, a state of things would have been produced in which even that degree of confidence which is requisite for purposes of barter would have been destroyed, and all the ordinary transactions of trade between man and man would have been suspended. From 1825 to the present time this country had gone through a series of commercial crises; but if the President of the Board of Trade would examine the history of those crises, he would find that at each successive period the mischief and disturbance to trade and commerce had been continually decreasing. And why? Because we had from time to time amended our commercial legislation and the laws affecting our monetary system, with the view of applying gradual and judicious restraint to the spirit of speculation and the undue extension of credit. The result had been, that during the last six months, this country had gone through a drain of the precious metals the most severe, every intelligent and well-informed man would admit, which had been experienced in the memory of any living person. The country was now emerging from that crisis with alt its commercial and trading operations in a stable, sound, and satisfactory condition. It was a phenomenon, let him say, which it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government, and more especially the department of the Board of Trade, to understand. But what was the simple explanation of this phenomenon? Why, that since 1825 all our legislation had been based on the principle laid down by Mr. Huskisson when he said that the mischief of the grand crisis of that year arose from undue extension of credit and undue stimulus to a dangerous spirit of speculation, and that legislation should be directed to the gradual correction of that evil. The ground of objection to the system of legislation now proposed was, that it reversed the principle from which all past beneficial results had accrued. This law of limited liability had a tendency to intensify the spirit of credit, and stir up the terrible demon of speculation. We saw some indistinct symptoms of this result already; but these were only the first footsteps of the advancing giant, to be hereafter developed in his full and formidable proportions. We were now asked to apply abstract principles of a most dangerous character to a complicated state of society, without due discrimination or those precautionary accompaniments which a proper respect for practical experience would dictate. The principle which it was now sought to introduce was the principle of saying, "You shall borrow without being obliged to repay; you shall take another man's goods without being compelled under all circumstances to return an equivalent." If their Lordships looked back into the ancient laws of this country, they would find that what we now call "credit" was described by our ancestors in its true terms, as borrowing another man's goods. Let it not be supposed that this is a simple question between A and B, between the borrower and the lender, and that these parties may be safely left to adjust the terms of their mutual relation to each other. The question was one of much wider import, and it involved much more extensive consequences. It necessarily affected the interests and well-being of the whole trading community. The introduction of concerns based upon the proposed principle, must tend to deteriorate the general tone of our commercial morality; it must relax the restraints and sharpen the stimulants to credit and speculation, upon the due equipoise of which depends the solidity and safety of the commercial system; it must, for the same reason, tend to produce more violent fluctuations in the range of prices, and to unsettle the steady, regular course of trading operations. It would foment the spirit of excessive enterprise during periods of prosperity and increasing confidence; and when the inevitable collapse took place it would render the calamitous results more widespread and more intense. Limited liability would generate dangerous concerns during the favourable season of growing confidence; but when the inevitable change and consequent pressure occurred, those concerns would break down simultaneously, and, by their fall, extend alarm and greatly increase the destruction of confidence. In 1823 and 1824, the Joint Stock Companies, with a small amount of paid-up capital, were the ready instruments through which speculation spread through the community the poison of blind confidence and gambling operations; and in the following year, 1825, these same companies, by their simultaneous collapse and total rottenness, increased the panic and intensified the destruction of that confidence out of which they had sprung. Moreover, by combining strict limitation of risks with vague and undefined hopes of profit, it would force a gambling principle into the commercial world, and make trade more like a vast lottery wheel than that field of steady honesty and cautious enterprise which it ought to be the object of all our legislation to render it. The whole trading community must, in one way or other, feel the unfortunate effect of these tendencies; no prudence, no foresight, would altogether obviate this result—the whole commercial atmosphere would be poisoned, and all who breathe that atmosphere must be affected by it. The honest, steady, prudent tradesman would find himself irresistibly drawn from his course; drawn, as it were, into a dangerous whirlpool, in spite of all his efforts and his anxious desires to navigate his vessel in more tranquil waters, and through a safer track. For these reasons he must declare his serious protest against the principles of the proposed legislation. He believed it to be equally false in policy and in morality; and he was confident that a measure which was unsound in principle could never prove beneficial to the community. He asked the pardon of their Lordships for trespassing on their attention at greater length than he had intended; but he felt that he could not with propriety allow this discussion to close without deprecating the course which the Government had taken, and expressing his great regret that any resistance should be offered to the reasonable request that this subject should be referred to a preliminary examination by a Select Committee.

EARL GRANVILLE

I am quite sure that it is unnecessary for my noble Friend to make any apology for addressing your Lordships on a subject of this sort. I only regret, as he well knows, that since he has been a Member of the House, he has not taken a more active share in our debates, and I am almost reconciled to the warm and almost partisan feeling he has shown by his having addressed your Lordships even upon a question with respect to which I have the misfortune to differ from him. I must decline to go now into the whole question of limited liability. I shall refrain from remarking upon the instances my noble Friend quoted to show the effects of limited liability, the crisis to which he referred having occurred under an exactly opposite state of the law. I shall not even ask him to explain how it can be contrary to Saxon morality to allow men to make what compacts they like between themselves, when they formerly possessed that power at common law, and it was taken from them by statutable enactments. It would be inconvenient to go into those questions in this thinly attended House; but there are one or two points to which I must advert. The noble Lord was not present at the end of last Session, but he alluded to the circumstances attending the passing of the Bill through this House. I admit that it was introduced at a very late period of the Session, and that, as a general rule, it is inconvenient that measures of importance should be discussed and carried within a few days of the prorogation; but I deny that there was no reason for taking that course last year with regard to this Bill. My noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade, following Mr. Cardwell, who had absolutely broken down under the difficulties attending the grants of charters of limited liability, had refused to grant any more of those charters; but companies continued to be formed and to apply for charters sanctioning their new schemes, some of which were of great public utility, the Government found that the other House of Parliament had decided by a large majority in favour of limited liability—and they felt themselves bound, under these circumstances, to introduce some course of legislation, if they could induce Parliament to sanction it. The noble Lord gave an exaggerated account of the state of the House, when he said that no Peers were present when the Bill was agreed to, except Members of the Government and noble Lords holding places connected with the Government.

LORD OVERSTONE

I said, that the only Peers who supported the Bill were those who were connected with the Government.

EARL GRANVILLE

When the House met—I am speaking of the occasion upon which the Bill passed through Committee—there were about sixty Peers present. A long discussion took place—I spoke I do not know how often—and the Peers gradually left, as we went on repeating the same arguments one after another until a very late hour. It is, therefore, quite true, that very few Peers were present at the end of the debate; and I explained the state of the benches opposite, by saying that it was not caused by the difficulty of obtaining the attendance of Peers at that period of the Session, but by the unwillingness of a large portion of the Opposition to oppose a Bill which, in their hearts, they thought a good one. The fact that every single Peer belonging to the opposite side has now left the House, notwithstanding the notice which the noble Lord placed upon the paper, except one noble Lord who has taken his seat since last Session (Viscount Dungannon), shows that my explanation was correct. My noble Friend, with some warmth and injustice, has attacked the Government for having, as he says, thrown ridicule upon a most important statement made by the noble Lord who brought forward the subject. We threw no ridicule whatever upon it; but the noble Lord threw ridicule upon certain companies which had established themselves for commercial purposes under the new law. When persons have united themselves for certain commercial purposes, I do not think it is very justifiable for any Peer to characterise as unfit the objects for which they have associated themselves, and to create a prejudice against them. When the noble Lord mentioned the objects of one or two companies which had been formed, we merely remarked that there was nothing extraordinary in them. He mentioned, among others, a newspaper company—I do not know whether joint stock companies are good for carrying on a newspaper, but it certainly appeared to me to be most legitimate that people should avail themselves of that mode of enlightening the public. In no single way are the Government obnoxious to the remark that they have treated this subject in a spirit of levity. The whole question is this—whether the Government ought to pledge themselves to ask for an immediate Committee to inquire into this subject, and to give a pledge also as to the time when the Bill now before the other House shall be brought before your Lordships? I think the Government cannot be fairly charged with delay. The Bill was brought in on the first day of the Session; it has been read a second time, and no opportunity has been omitted of pressing it forward. I happen to know this for a fact, having gone to the right hon. Gentleman who has the charge of this Bill to impress upon him the necessity of letting us have the Bill in this House as early as possible, in order that we may have an opportunity of discussing it. But, as to giving a pledge that the Bill shall be in this House by a particular day, that would only be to offer encouragement to those who might be disposed to interpose delay as a means of obstructing the progress of the Bill. The Government, therefore, would not be justified in making such a pledge. With regard to the Select Committee proposed, it would be inconvenient for such a Committee to go into the general question, and highly irregular if the Bill were discussed before that Committee while it is being considered in the other House, and before it reaches your Lordships. At all events, I cannot give a precise answer to the question put to me by the noble Lord without notice. I can only say that my noble Friend is wrong, if he supposes the Government are treating this question with levity. He thinks it desirable that both Houses of Parliament should fully consider the principles and details of a Bill of a most important character, and in this I fully agree with my noble Friend. He speaks as representing the whole commercial community; but I must be allowed to say, that this Bill has been brought before Parliament at the pressing instance of the commercial portion of the community.

EARL GREY

Nothing can be more reasonable than that the Government should not pledge themselves at this moment to grant a Committee on this subject, but it is not less reasonable that the House should expect Her Majesty's Ministers to abstain from calling upon it hastily to pledge itself against the appointment of such a Committee. But, while I willingly recognise the propriety of the Government taking time to consider whether they will consent to submit to a Select Committee of this House the important principles of commercial law involved in the Bill now before the other House, I must say that I concur in every word of the most able speech of the noble Lord on the bench behind me (Lord Overstone), and having listened to that speech with great attention, I agree with him in thinking that this House will do very wrong if it does not institute a deliberate inquiry; and I hope that, after the recess, if the Government do not themselves originate a Motion for a Select Committee on the subject, some other noble Lord will make a Motion to that effect. We are told that it will be a very inconvenient and unusual course for this House to institute an inquiry by a Select Committee into the provisions of a Bill before the other House of Parliament. My Lords, I never heard any one propose that a Bill before the other House of Parliament should be referred to a Committee of your Lordships' House, but I am sure that, after a very short search of your Lordships' Journals, there would be found cases in which subjects of great importance that appeared likely to require legislation in the course of the Session have been considered by a Select Committee in anticipation of a Bill that was coming up from the other House of Parliament. It is quite certain that inquiry ought to take place, and I trust the Motion will not be rejected by the House. The Government itself had changed its views more than once upon the subject within the short space of twelve months; this was the third version of their plan, and all were in the very teeth of the Commission appointed by themselves. I agree with my noble Friend, that in this state of the House it would be undesirable to go into a discussion of this question; but my noble Friend (Earl Granville) has quite misunderstood the argument of my noble Friend behind me (Lord Overstone), who referred to the panic of 1825 as conveying a caution that ought to make the House pause before it embarked in rash legislation on this subject. My noble Friend behind me quoted the panic of 1825, and then my noble Friend (Earl Granville) got up and reminded him that neither in 1825 nor in 1845 did the principle of limited liability exist, and, therefore, that any argument arising out of those two panics was inapplicable to the present Bill. But my noble Friend behind me did not say that the panic of 1825 had been created by the existence of a law of limited liability. What he said was, that the frightful panic of 1825, that caused so great an amount of misery, was mainly caused by the abuse of credit; and argued that if such panics arose, even as the law then stood, from the undue expansion of credit, how much worse they would have been had they had the stimulus of limited liability. And he said that the aim and intention of this Bill was to stimulate credit to the utmost. [Earl GRANVILLE: I think, just the contrary.] My noble Friend behind me thinks, and I agree with him, that the intention and object of this Bill is to facilitate and stimulate credit—but I will not argue the question now. The creation of joint stock companies was a symptom of 1825, for just before that period Parliament had been full of projects—of equitable loans, of pearl fisheries, and every manner of project. At that time there were dozens of these joint stock companies, yet there was some check then upon the formation of such companies; but now the object of this Bill is to take off such restraint, and to allow every man to create a joint stock company, and with a limited liability, to briny dupes to join him in the most absurd projects. The principal discussion upon the Bill of last Session no doubt took place upon a second reading, and on that day there was a considerable attendance, because, as was well known, the Government had had a severe "whip" for the occasion; but it was impossible to study the Bill during the limited time allowed for the Committee. For my own part, I did not profess to be able to move all the Amendments that ought to be carried, but I thought it desirable to adopt those precautions which had been taken in other countries in which the principle of the Bill had been adopted. I, therefore, moved the adoption of some of the securities, which the Commissioners in their Report stated were taken in the State of Massachusetts. Some of my Amendments were carried, and others were rejected. We were engaged for a long time in debate, but I remember the feeling of the House was so decided against the Government, that in one of the principal divisions, not one single Peer, except those in the Royal Household, or holding places in the Government, voted with the Ministers; and one Peer who had been brought up from a great distance to vote with the Government voted with the minority. In all the former history of this House there can he found no case of such a gross abuse of that power which the Government ought to possess. For the sake of obtaining a momentary popularity from persons who had not considered the subject, the Government sacrificed the dignity and character of this House of Parliament, which must be the consequence of their indecorous, hasty, and ill-judged legislation.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

said, he rose for the purpose of setting his noble Friend right with regard to the object of the Bill. His noble Friend misrepresented the object of the Bill in saying that it was to give increased facilities for obtaining and extending credit. The object of the Bill was not that, but to give greater facilities for the employment of capital. The question whether it would lead to greater or less caution in the application of capital was open to argument and discussion. He thought there could be no doubt that it would induce greater caution on the part of those who dealt with Joint Stock Companies, and therefore greater caution in the use of capital; but he protested against its being said that the object of the measure was to extend credit. There were in this country a great number of small capitalists who complained that they had not that facility for the employment of their capital which the great capitalists had; and they pressed Parliament to give them facilities to club their small capitals, so that they might compete with the larger capitalists. To enable them to do this was the object of the Bill, and not to extend credit.

LORD OVERSTONE

said, that if the real object of the Bill was to facilitate the employment of small capitals, the Government ought to compel the companies to pay up the whole of the capital. That would test the doctrine.

After a few words from Lord MONTEAGLE,

Motion agreed to.

House adjourned to Tuesday, the 1st of April next.