A lawyer friend of mine has pointed me to Sections XXVI and XXVII of this act which have not been repealed (yet).
If I translate correctly, it means the following in nickel words:
- the act was written with the intention that their Majesties’ subjects may not be oppressed by the Bank of England
- the Bank of England may not monopolize or engross any goods, wares or merchandize
- the Bank of England may not deal or permit to deal or trade with any of the ‘stock-monies’ or ‘effects’, i.e. ‘deposits’ or ‘collateral’, to buy or sell any goods, wares or merchandize
- should anybody do so anyhow, or by order or directions, such dealings or tradings are prosecuted and punished by treble the value of the goods and merchandize traded, if ‘victims’ sue for action in the High Court.
I read the ‘stock-moneyes’ and ‘effects’ to pertain to the ‘financial economy’, while goods, wares and merchandize belong to the ‘real economy’.
Hence I wonder whether “we, the taxpayers” could construe such a High Court Action on the back of the national debt and the money supply, since ‘effects’ are used for the national debt and ‘effects’ are used to pay bailiffs to engross people’s homes and other assets?
But maybe my German / analytical mind thinks around too many corners here…