Bank of England Act 1694

This act was written when the Bank of England was founded in 1694 – with the intent “not to oppress Their Majesties’ subjects” – on the occasion of the King borrowing £1.2 million at 8% interest…

Its Section XXVI says the “Corporation is not to trade”. That means no “financial products”. No buying and selling of currencies, debts or other “instruments”, created through “quantitative easing“.

The Act is published by the Office of Public Sector Information which is Part of The National Archives.

The act seems to have been written with the intention of “Their Majesties’ subjects not to be oppressed” by the Corporation.

Our Early Day Motion 1297 suggests that Her Majesty’s subjects have been seriously oppressed and that this oppression needs to be addressed.

14 Responses to “Bank of England Act 1694”

  1. Edward Ulysses Cate Says:

    This is very interesting, considering that the British East India Company was created in 1600, Scotia Mocatta (gold/silver etc.) was founded 1671, and that Barclays Bank was founded in 1690. Do we have here a 400+ year economic war between the 1% sociopaths and 99% decent folks? Sure looks like it to me.

  2. Roger Meadmore Says:

    Having studied gold and silver for 35 years and traded it whenever I could afford to….

    I would be delighted to join you in your endeavours,
    Sabine.

    Roger, Australia. (Always a gold savvy country.)

    Call me anytime on 61-3-5461 3346 ….just try a couple of times if it’s 3 a.m. here!

  3. Zina hawkins Says:

    Once upon a time there was the British Empire who went round the world stealing everything whereever they landed. Now that the British Empire is no more they are looting and plundering their own citizens at home, sorry did I say CITIZENS, alas, citizens have rights and we are still SUBJECTS that is the problems the rest is a window dressing.

    zina

  4. K Says:

    This is interesting. It seems to be suggested that s26 of the 1694 Act prohibits quantitative easing because it prohibits trading by the Bank of England. A proper examination of the section reveals this is incorrect. The section is intended to prevent a practice known as “engrossing”, a process whereby a business buys up enormous quantities of a particular good, almost everything available on the market, and then re-sells them at a grossly inflated price. The concern in 1694 was that the Bank would use its privileged position as the Crown’s only financier to establish itself as a powerful monopoly in keys markets, such as agricultural produce or textiles. There was also a risk that the Bank might exhaust its capital by engaging in everyday trade. Therefore, s26 was enacted. What the Act actually prohibits is the Bank of England using its own stock, or any other of its property, to buy goods to establish a monopoly. Thus the Bank is limited only to one kind of business: lending to the State. Since quantitative easing is the Bank buying up Government debt for cash, effectively the Bank is taking-over existing Government debt incurred on the open market. The effect is that the Government still owes money – now to the Bank of England and not private bond-buyers – but that the original creditors have that debt repaid in cash which they can then spend on the open market. QE actually reduces the amount of “soft money” (trading of debts) and increases the amount of “hard cash”. Since hard cash is fungible, it is worth more than debts which can only be enforced against the debtor. QE therefore stimulates trade – in contrast to a monopoly which restricts it – and is not in contravention of s26 of the 1694 Act.

    Also, on a side point, the British people ceased being “Subjects” in 1949, when they became “citizens” for the first time.

    • mymouths2big Says:

      As the bank of England is a privately owned corporate business, , which publishes no accounts and whose shareholders identities are protected by the Official Secrets Act, it would suggest that quantitative easing, is a method of devaluing our hard earned cash. This digital currency does not actually exist exist and is not even printed.
      However, the effect is that we can by less because of higher inflation, and the increasing of personal debts;, thus creating increasing profits for the bank.

      The sooner we create an national bank, and re-issue our own currency, the Bradbury Pound, instead of borrowing from the IMF with interest – the better.

      • Sabine Kurjo McNeill Says:

        It’s above all a mechanism for receiving ‘vested interest payments’!

        The whole scam is so disgusting that I wish I could flash in neon lights all over the City: bank money, bank money, bank money.

        Over Westminster we should flash treasury money, treasury money, treasury money.

        The difference? Interest! The flaw in the monetary system …

  5. Anonymous Says:

    I find this thread very interesting. Does anyone know what is meant by the rules of redemption referenced at pt. XIX ?

  6. john c malcolm Says:

    Quantitative easing is an inflationary measure that effectively means that much of the money that should be raised in tax is raised by reducing the value of monetary savings and fixed amount annuity payments. As such, it is really a tax on the poor, who keep most of their small savings in cash, and the elderly, who are further impoverished. The seriously rich who have THEIR money in property are completely unaffected, as property prices rise with inflation.
    If this is what is meant by “Socialism”, God help us all !

    • Sabine Kurjo McNeill Says:

      It’s also another way of ‘money laundering': getting ‘real’ interest from ‘fake’ credit…

      The whole system of creating Credit from this air and charging interest for it is the Big Scam of the banks and central banks. And everybody falls for it!

    • Kapil Says:

      that we should fovrgie and forget’. Even if this were actually possible, we are certainly not required to even attempt anything like it if they are unrepentent and likely to offend again on the same serious way. We are entitled to say within ourselves something like: whilst I have handed calling you to account over to God, and whilst I pray that you will see the light, understand what you have done and repent, and apologise so that we can safely be reconciled, I now know you and what you are like, and I choose to guard my heart and the hearts of those under my protection, and (for the time being anyway) to love you in absence.By doing this, as well as protecting ourselves (we are not called to continually cast our pearls in front of swine’) and giving ourselves time and space for our own healing, we give those who have done us wrong the chance to experience that we no longer seek their company, but at the same do not carry any resentment towards them. If it is God’s will that we should be reconciled to them and resume an active friendship, then this course of action can have a powerfully positive challenging effect. If it does not, then it is better that we let them go and enable God to give us something/someone else instead.We hope you find this reply of help.God bless and guide you.

  7. mymouths2big Says:

    Whenever a politician tells you we have a National Debt, they are lying through their newly whitened teeth. Universal Contract Law states the both parties in any commercial contract must supply, ‘mutual consideration’, something considered by both parties of ‘equal value’. I have heard that some shyster lawyers/judges state that ‘mutual consideration’ does not men of equal financial value, which is PHN, (pure horse manure); would anyone trade something worth a considerable amount of hard earned cash in exchange for something worth a fraction of its value?

    What then has the IMF offered the Chancellor, or Bank of England, in exchange for our public services, which by borrowing from it the Government was forced to sell off, plus £billions in interest – Credit!

    All banks including the IMF are fraudsters, creating debt by granting the borrower their own credit-worthiness. Banks do not grant loans (credit) to those whose creditworthiness is uncertain.

    We could copy the Bank and the IMF’s example, and create digital money from thin air and pay off the National Debt tomorrow.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 385 other followers

%d bloggers like this: