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.
October 18, 2009 at 7:06 pm
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.
October 19, 2009 at 3:25 am
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!
March 8, 2010 at 11:37 pm
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
May 11, 2010 at 8:20 am
Yes, Yes, Zina!
It’s a shame that they’ve been getting away with it for SUCH a long time!
Sigh…
May 2, 2011 at 11:52 am
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.
November 5, 2012 at 3:59 pm
I find this thread very interesting. Does anyone know what is meant by the rules of redemption referenced at pt. XIX ?
November 26, 2012 at 10:38 am
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 !
November 26, 2012 at 11:18 am
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!