The development of English company law before 1900

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. AbstractThis article outlines the development of English company law in the four centuries before 1900. The main focus is on the evolution of the corporate form and the five key legal characteristics of the corporationseparate legal personality, limited liability, transferable joint stock, delegated management, and investor ownership. The article outlines how these features developed in guilds, regulated companies, and the great mercantilist and moneyed companies. I then move on to examine the State's control of incorporation and the attempts by the founders and lawyers of unincorporated business enterprises to craft the legal characteristics of the corporation. Finally, the article analyses the forces behind the liberalisation of incorporation law in the middle of the nineteenth century. JEL Codes: G10, G18, G30, K10, K20, N23

Bubbles in history

“…Under pressure from the South Sea Company, the UK passed the Bubble Act in 1720, which forbade the formation of any joint-stock companies in the absence of Parliamentary approval. The importance of this Act may have been overstated in the pastjoint-stock companies were already illegal under the common lawbut in any case, very few companies formed after the South Sea scheme collapsed (Harris, 1994;Turner, 2018).…”

Inequality, Inc.

“…A broad reconceptualization of elements and constituencies and a related trade-off of roles, rights, claims and obligations thus provided the basis for a new corporate architecture that had nominally positive effects for most of the newly conceptualized corporate constituencies . However, most of its benefits were bestowed upon minority shareholders, who, compared to a traditional unlimited liability partnership architecture, found in this architecture an opportunity for a relatively risk-free investment in a secondary share market without the risks and liabilities of engaging in actual 'management ' (Freeman et al, 2011;Johnson , 2010;Turner, 2017). However , to attain these benefits, shareholders had to accept that they were reconceptualized in the new architecture of public corporations as a largely external constituency without direct claims to ownership and control (Ireland, 1999).…”

“…The understanding of this architecture as well as the understanding of the elements within this architecture , including the understanding of corporate constituencies like directors , managers , and shareholders , differed signi ficantly from the understanding of the nature of these elements and the structure of rights , claims and obligations between these elements that had been assumed in the unlimited liability partnership architecture that had been dominant until the 19th century. Neither the reconceptualization of these individual elements nor the way these legal elements became reorganized in a new corporate architecture were self-evident by the time these reconceptualizations were devel -oped ( Perrow, 2002;Freeman et al, 2011;Johnson, 2010;Turner, 2017;Veldman & Willmott, 2017a,b).…”

An Incomplete Revolution: Corporate Governance Challenges of the London Assurance Company and the Limitations of the Joint-Stock Form, 1720–1725

“…29 This supports explanations that dismiss the importance of the Bubble Act in explaining low levels of incorporation in the 18 th century. 30 The paper proceeds with a brief description of the British economy and marine insurance sector in the early 18 th century. Examination of the parliamentary inquiry surrounding the proposed incorporation of the REA and LA identifies contemporary perceptions of the different organizational forms, and the rationale for the change in ownership.…”