Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T12:08:55.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘The last acre and sixpence’: views on bank liability regimes in nineteenth-century Britain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2009

John D. Turner
John D. Turner
Affiliation:
Queen's University of Belfastj.turner@qub.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the nineteenth century, British banking had a complete spectrum of shareholder liability regimes, ranging from pure limited to unlimited liability. Although the debate surrounding the US experience with double liability in banking is well documented, we know relatively little about the British experience of and debate about shareholder liability regimes in banking. Consequently, this article traces the development of views on shareholder liability regimes in nineteenth-century British banking. One of the main findings is that the chief argument for limited liability in British banking was based upon the perceived weaknesses of unlimited liability. In addition, it appears that much of the debate concentrated on the depositor-assuring viability of alternatives to unlimited liability.

Résumés

Au dix-neuvième siècle, le système bancaire britannique avait une gamme entière de régimes de responsabilité des actionnaires, s'étendant de la responsabilité limitée pure à la responsabilité illimitée. Bien que le débat autour de l'expérience des Etats-Unis avec la double responsabilité bancaire soit bien documenté, nous connaissons relativement peu de choses sur l'expérience britannique des régimes de responsabilité des actionnaires et le débat sur la question. En conséquence, cet article trace le développement des vues sur les régimes de responsabilité des actionnaires dans le système bancaire britannique du dix-neuvième siècle. Un des résultats principaux est que l'argument principal pour la responsabilité limitée dans le système bancaire britannique était basé sur les faiblesses perçues de la responsabilité illimitée. De plus, il apparaît que la plupart du débat de concentrait sur la viabilité, quant à l'assurance du déposant, des alternatives à la responsabilité illimitée.

Abstrakte

Im 19. Jahrhundert verfügte das britische Bankwesen über ein vollständiges Spektrum an Aktionärshaftungssystemen – die von der reinen beschränkten Haftung bis zur unbeschränkten Haftung reichten. Obwohl die das US-Modell der Nachschusspflicht im Bankwesen umgebende Debatte reichlich belegt ist, wissen wir dennoch relativ wenig über die britische Erfahrung dazu und die Debatte, die Aktionärshaftungssysteme im Bankwesen umgab. Und folglich befasst sich dieser Artikel mit der Herausbildung von verschiedenen Betrachtungsweisen zu Aktionärshaftungssystemen im britischen Bankwesen des 19. Jhd. Zu den wichtigsten Ergebnissen dieser Studie gehört, dass das Hauptargument zur Unterstützung der beschränkten Haftung im britischen Bankwesen auf den anerkannten Schwächen der unbeschränkten Haftung basierte. Des Weiteren scheint es, dass sich die Debatte größtenteils auf die Realisierbarkeit von Alternativen zur unbeschränkten Haftung zur Absicherung von Einlegern konzentrierte.

Resúmenes

En el siglo XIX, la banca británica tenía un espectro completo de regímenes de responsabilidad del accionista, que variaba desde responsabilidad puramente limitada a responsabilidad ilimitada. Aunque el debate sobre la experiencia de EE.UU con doble responsabilidad en la banca está bien documentado, conocemos relativamente poco acerca de la experiencia y el debate de los regímenes de responsabilidad del accionista en la banca británica. Consecuentemente, este artículo detalla el desarrollo de las opiniones sobre el régimen de responsabilidad del accionista en la banca británica del siglo XIX. Una de las conclusiones más importantes es que la razón principal de la responsabilidad limitada en la banca británica estuvo basada en la percibida falta de solidez de la responsabilidad ilimitada. Además, parece que gran parte del debate se concentró en la viabilidad aseguradora del depositante de alternativas a responsabilidad ilimitada.

Type
Articles
Information
Financial History Review , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , October 2009 , pp. 111 - 127
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Banking and Financial History e.V. 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This paper has resulted from research conducted during my tenure as the Houblon-Norman Fellow at the Bank of England. Thanks to the trustees of the Houblon-Norman Fund for financial assistance.

2 On the US experience see Marquis, R. W. and Smith, F. P., ‘Double liability for bank stock’, American Economic Review, 27 (1937)Google Scholar; Macey, J. R. and Miller, G. P., ‘Double liability of bank shareholders: history and implications’, Wake Forest Law Review, 27 (1992)Google Scholar; Grossman, R. S., ‘Double liability and bank risk taking’, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 33 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Grossman, R. S., ‘Fear and greed: the evolution of double liability in American banking, 1865–1930’, Explorations in Economic History, 44 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the British experience see Hickson, C. R. and Turner, J. D., ‘Trading in the shares of unlimited liability banks in nineteenth century Ireland: the Bagehot hypothesis’, Journal of Economic History, 63 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Turner, J. D., ‘Wider share ownership? Investors in English and Welsh bank shares in the nineteenth century’, Economic History Review, 62 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 See, for example, Hunt, B. C., The Development of the Business Corporation in England 1800–1867 (Cambridge, MA, 1936)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cooke, C. A., Corporation, Trust and Company (Cambridge, MA, 1951)Google Scholar; Saville, J., ‘Sleeping partnership and limited liability’, Economic History Review, 8 (1956)Google Scholar; Jefferys, J. B., Business Organisation in Great Britain 1856–1914 (New York, 1977)Google Scholar; Cottrell, P. L., Industrial Finance, 1830–1914 (London, 1980)Google Scholar; Ireland, P. W., ‘The rise of the limited liability company’, International Journal of the Sociology of Law, 12 (1984)Google Scholar; Alborn, T. L., Conceiving Companies: Joint-Stock Politics in Victorian England (London, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harris, R., Industrializing English Law: Entrepreneurship and Business Organization (Cambridge, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taylor, J., Creating Capitalism: Joint-Stock Enterprise in British Politics and Culture, 1800–1870 (London, 2006)Google Scholar.

4 For answers to these questions see Alborn, Conceiving Companies.

5 Macey and Miller, ‘Double liability of bank shareholders’; Grossman, ‘Double liability’; Evans, L. T. and Quigley, N. C., ‘Shareholder liability regimes, principal-agent relationships, and banking industry performance’, Journal of Law and Economics, 38 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hickson, C. R. and Turner, J. D., ‘Free banking and the stability of early joint-stock banking’, Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Macey and Miller, ‘Double liability of bank shareholders’; England, C., ‘Agency costs and unregulated banks: could depositors protect themselves?’, Cato Journal, 7 (1988)Google Scholar; Benston, G. J., ‘Does bank regulation produce stability? Lessons from the United States’, in Wood, G. G. and Capie, F. (eds.), Unregulated Banking: Chaos or Order (London, 1991)Google Scholar; Horwitz, S. and Bodenhorn, H., ‘A property rights approach to free banking’, Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, 5 (1994)Google Scholar.

7 The five chartered banks were Bank of England, Bank of Ireland, Bank of Scotland, Royal Bank of Scotland and British Linen Bank.

8 Hall, F. G., The Bank of Ireland 1783–1946 (Dublin, 1949), p. 127Google Scholar.

9 Gilbart, J. W., The History and Principles of Banking, 3rd edition (London, 1837), p. 110Google Scholar; Pressnell, L. S., Country Banking in the Industrial Revolution (Oxford, 1956), p. 538Google Scholar.

10 Stuckey, V., ‘Thoughts on the improvement of the system of country banking’, Edinburgh Review, 63 (1836), p. 424Google Scholar.

11 White, L. H., Free Banking in Britain: Theory, Experience and Debate 1800–1845, 2nd edition (London, 1995), pp. 47–8Google Scholar.

12 Joplin, T., An Essay on the General Principles and Present Practice of Banking in England and Scotland (London, 1827)Google Scholar.

13 Ibid., p. 26.

14 Ibid., p. 6.

15 Brown, R., Early Scottish Joint-Stock Companies (Glasgow, 1903), p. 5Google Scholar; Christie, J. R., ‘Joint stock enterprise in Scotland before the Companies Acts’, Juridical Review, 21 (1909), p. 129Google Scholar. Recent research, however, has highlighted that Scottish copartnership banks may not have had a complete separate legal identity in that they did not have the right to sue or be sued in the company name or own heritable property in the company name. See Freeman, M., Pearson, R. and Taylor, J., ‘Different and better? Scottish joint-stock companies and the law, c.1720–1845’, English Historical Review, 122 (2007)Google Scholar.

16 See Kraakman, R. R., Davies, P., Hansmann, H., Hetig, G., Hopt, K. J., Kanda, H. and Rock, E. B., The Anatomy of Corporate Law: A Comparative and Functional Approach (Oxford, 2004), pp. 6–13Google Scholar; Harris, Industrializing English Law, pp. 22–7.

17 Ollerenshaw, P., Banking in Nineteenth Century Ireland: The Belfast Banks, 1825–1914 (Manchester, 1987), p. 10Google Scholar.

18 6 Geo. IV, c.42.

19 Banking Copartnership Act, 7 Geo. IV, c.46.

20 Clay, W., Speech of William Clay, Esq., M.P. on Moving for the Appointment of a Committee to Inquire into the Operation of the Act Permitting the Establishment of Joint-stock Banks. To Which are Added, Reflections on Limited Liability, Paid-up Capital, and Publicity of Accounts, as Applied to Such Institutions; With Some Remarks on an Article on Joint-stock Companies in the Last Number of the Edinburgh Review (London, 1837), pp. 14 and 43Google Scholar.

21 Bank of England Privileges Act (3 & 4 Will. 4, c.98).

22 See Hunt, The Development of the Business Corporation, pp. 66–7.

23 Thomas, S. E., The Rise and Growth of Joint-stock Banking (London, 1934), p. 205Google Scholar.

24 For the impact and causes of these failures, see Hickson, C. R. and Turner, J. D., ‘The genesis of corporate governance: nineteenth-century Irish joint-stock banks’, Business History, 47 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

25 Clay, Speech of William Clay, p. 17.

26 Ibid., pp. 90, 92.

27 Ibid., p. 21.

28 Ibid., pp. 19–20, 92–3.

29 Lamoreaux, N. R., ‘Partnerships, corporations, and the theory of the firm’, American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 88 (1998)Google Scholar; Lamoreaux, N. R. and Rosenthal, J-L., ‘Legal regime and contractual flexibility: a comparison of business's organizational choices in France and the United States during the era of industrialisation’, American Law and Economics Review, 7 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Clay, Speech of William Clay, p. 105.

31 Ibid., p. 62.

32 Ibid., p. 117.

33 Ibid., p. 66.

34 Ibid., p. 24.

35 Hickson and Turner, ‘Trading in the shares’.

36 Ibid., p. 935.

37 Bell, G. J., Commentaries on the Laws of Scotland, 6th edition (Edinburgh, 1858), p. 224Google Scholar.

38 Clay, Speech of William Clay, p. 37.

39 Presser, S. B., ‘Thwarting the killing of the corporation: limited liability, democracy, and economics’, Northwestern University Law Review, 87 (1992)Google Scholar; Acheson, G. G. and Turner, J. D., ‘The impact of limited liability on ownership and control: Irish banking, 1877–1914’, Economic History Review, 59 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Clay, Speech of William Clay, pp. 37, 76.

41 Ibid., pp. 68, 92.

42 Stuckey, ‘Thoughts on the improvement’, p. 433.

43 Ibid., p. 433.

44 Clay, Speech of William Clay, pp. 54–5.

45 Ibid., p. 58.

46 Stuckey, ‘Thoughts on the improvement’, p. 438.

47 Clay, Speech of William Clay, pp. 39–40.

48 Knox, J. J., A History of Banking in the United States (1903; reprinted New York, 1969), p. 362Google Scholar.

49 Stuckey, ‘Thoughts on the improvement’, p. 431.

50 Ibid., p. 432.

51 Ibid., pp. 428–9.

52 Stuckey, ‘Thoughts on the improvement’, pp. 437–8.

53 Bell, G. M., The Philosophy of Joint Stock Banking (London, 1840), p. 12Google Scholar.

54 Hickson and Turner, ‘Trading in the shares’.

55 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1836), pp. iii–x.

56 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1836), evidence of Nimmo q. 504; Gibbins qq. 1022–3; Stuckey q. 1453; Austin q. 2152; Martin q. 2383.

57 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1837), evidence of Goodier q. 3512; Marshall qq. 4502–3; Dundas q. 4152.

58 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1836), evidence of Harding q. 2220; Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1837), Austin q. 2131.

59 Anon, ., ‘Agricultural Bank of Ireland’, The Bankers' Magazine 3 (1845), p. 67Google Scholar.

60 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1836), evidence of Martin q. 2405; Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1837), evidence of Marshall qq. 4502–3.

61 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1837), evidence of Gilbart, q. 2119.

62 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1836), evidence of Cassells q. 1571.

63 Joplin, T., An Examination of the Report of the Joint Stock Bank Committee, 3rd edition (London, 1837), p. 33Google Scholar.

64 Anon, ., Remarks on the Objections to Joint Stock Banks (London, 1833)Google Scholar.

65 Joplin, An Examination of the Report, p. 33.

66 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1836), evidence of Austin q. 2129.

67 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1836), evidence of Stuckey qq. 734–8, 1463.

68 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1838), evidence of Dunne, qq. 1354, 1359.

69 Parliamentary Papers, Report from the Secret Committee on Joint Stock Banks (1836), evidence of Martin q. 2416, Gurney qq. 2626–8.

70 Watt, H., The Practice of Banking in Scotland and England; With Observations and Suggestions on the Renewal of the Bank of England Charter, on the Principles and Regulation of Joint Stock Banks, and on the One Pound Note Circulation (London, 1833)Google Scholar.

71 See Cottrell, P. L. and Newton, L., ‘Banking liberalisation in England and Wales, 1826–1844’, in Sylla, R., Tilly, R. and Tortella, G. (eds.), The State, the Financial System, and Economic Modernization (Cambridge, 1999), p. 86Google Scholar.

72 Headlam, T. E., A Speech on Limited Liability in Joint Stock Banks in the House of Commons, May 8, 1849: Together With a Proposed Act of Parliament on the Subject (London, 1849), p. 7Google Scholar.

73 Ibid., p. 9.

74 Ibid., p. 11.

75 Ibid., p. 13.

76 Ibid., p. 19.

77 Hickson and Turner, ‘Free banking’.

78 19 & 20 Vict. c.47.

79 The failure of the Western Bank, Glasgow's premier bank, led to a call on its 1,280 shareholders of £1,089,577. See Checkland, S. G., Scottish Banking: A History, 1695–1973 (Glasgow, 1975), pp. 466–9Google Scholar.

80 21 & 22 Vict. c.91.

81 25 & 26 Vict. c.89.

82 Levi, L., ‘The reconstruction of joint stock banks on the principle of limited liability’, The Bankers' Magazine, 40 (1880), p. 473Google Scholar.

83 Bagehot, W., ‘Sound banking’, Saturday Review (1856), reprinted in The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot (London, 1976), p. 308Google Scholar.

84 Ibid., p. 308; W. Bagehot, ‘Unfettered banking’, Saturday Review (1856), reprinted in Collected Works, p. 311.

85 Ibid., p. 312.

86 Ibid., p. 312.

87 Bagehot, ‘Sound banking’, p. 308.

88 Bagehot, ‘Unfettered banking’, p. 311.

89 Ibid., p. 313.

90 W. Bagehot, ‘Limited liability in banking − I’, The Economist (1862), reprinted in Collected Works, p. 396; W. Bagehot, ‘Limited liability in banking − II’, The Economist (1862), reprinted in Collected Works, p. 401.

91 Bagehot, ‘Unfettered Banking’, p. 313.

92 Ayres, H., Banks and Banking, Limited and Unlimited (London, 1863), p. 21Google Scholar.

93 Sayers, R. S., Lloyds Bank in the History of English Banking (Oxford, 1957), p. 222Google Scholar.

94 Anon, ., The Law of Limited Liability, in its Application to Joint Stock Banking, Advocated (London, 1866), p. 40Google Scholar.

95 Anon, ., ‘Limited liability as applied to banks’, The Bankers' Magazine, 20 (1862), pp. 625–8Google Scholar.

96 Wilson, A., Banking Reform: An Essay on the Prominent Dangers and the Remedies They Demand (London, 1879), p. 69Google Scholar.

97 Checkland, Scottish Banking, p. 471.

98 Wilson, Banking Reform, p. 46.

99 Levi, ‘The reconstruction of joint stock banks’, p. 474.

100 Anon, ., ‘Reasons in favour of limited liability for joint-stock banks’, The Bankers' Magazine, 40 (1880), p. 55Google Scholar.

101 ‘Banks and limitation of liability’, The Economist, 28 (1880), p. 1224.

102 Ibid., p. 1224.

103 ‘Methods of attaining limitation of liability’, The Economist, 28 (1879), p. 229; Rae, G., The Country Banker: His Clients, Cares, and Work from an Experience of Forty Years (London, 1885), p. 258Google Scholar; Mitchell, W., Our Scotch Banks and Their Position and Their Policy, Being a Practical Plan for Limited Liability (Edinburgh, 1878), p. 22Google Scholar.

104 Rae, The Country Banker, p. 257.

105 Acheson, G. G. and Turner, J. D., ‘The death blow to unlimited liability in Victorian Britain: the City of Glasgow failure’, Explorations in Economic History, 45 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Rae, The Country Banker, p. 258.

107 Levi, ‘The reconstruction of joint stock banks’, p. 476; ‘Banks and limitation of liability’, The Economist, 28 (1880), p. 1224.

108 Anon, ., ‘Banking capital and limited liability’, The Bankers' Magazine, 42 (1882), p. 718Google Scholar.

109 Rae, The Country Banker, p. 252.

110 Ibid., p. 260.

111 Figures calculated from data contained in Banking Almanac and Yearbook, 1885.

112 ‘Methods of attaining limitation of liability’, The Economist, 28 (1879), p. 229.

113 Rae, The Country Banker, p. 233.

114 See Hickson, C. R., Turner, J. D. and McCann, C., ‘Much ado about nothing: the introduction of limited liability and the market for nineteenth-century Irish bank stock’, Explorations in Economic History, 42 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

115 ‘Methods of attaining limitation of liability’, The Economist, 28 (1879), p. 229; ‘Limitation of liability among banks’, The Economist, 37 (1879), p. 1280.

116 Levi, ‘The reconstruction of joint stock banks’, p. 476.

117 Ibid., p. 477.

118 Rae, The Country Banker, p. 267.

119 Notably, Wilson (Banking Reform, pp. 77, 97) also argued that publication of audited accounts should be a prerequisite before liability is limited.

120 Wilson, Banking Reform, pp. 77, 97.

121 Parliamentary Papers, Report of the Treasury Committee on Bank Amalgamations (1918), p. 5.

122 Bank of England Archives, Capital of the Bank of Scotland, C48/61, secret memo dated 27/10/1937.