is nothing for which they have, properly speaking, to be responsible.
The method adopted in France may be described thus:--There is a
private act or contract, in which are given the names of the partners,
and the sums contributed by them. The names of the _gérants_, or those
who, as ostensible conductors of the business, are to be responsible
to the whole extent of their property, are then published. With regard
to those who put in money without incurring farther responsibility, it
is only necessary to publish the sums contributed by them: no farther
information regarding them would be of any use, unless to their
fellow-partners, who would perhaps like to know if the concern is
patronised by men of sense, and they may satisfy themselves by looking
at the deed of partnership. Now, there is perfect fairness in all
this. The public know the persons who agree to take the full
responsibility; they know also the amount of money put into their
hands by other parties. In deciding whether they shall deal or not
with this body, they are not perplexed by mysterious visions of
possible rich unknowns who may be brought in for the company's
obligations. We cannot see that such an arrangement is in the least
unfair, and we are convinced that it would be productive of great
good. The subscribers with limited responsibility, or
_commanditaires_, as they are called, are not cut off from all control
over the management of their funds: it is their own fault if they join
a commandite company where they are not allowed to inspect the books,
and check rashness or extravagance.

It seems to be frequently the case, that a set of able workmen, in the
kind of artistic manufactures for which France is celebrated, become
the _gérants_ of such companies. This, we believe, is a form in which
whatever element of good may happen to lie in the co-operative
theories of a recent school of Socialists will be found. The