O: There is one reference about it in The Brief for The Prosecution. Apparently, the Bank of England was private at that time, not just de facto, but de jure:
At the time of writing these lines (January 1944) it is already evident that “monetary reform” is coming out of the wilderness into the most respectable circles. That is good. But the idea that John Citizen must automatically benefit thereby, is premature. Various well- meaning if somewhat naive organisations have stated, as though it were both axiomatic and desirable, that only “the State” has the “right” to issue purchasing power. That is the Divine Right of Kings complex once again. Mr. Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of “England” may be heard to murmur “Nationalisation? We welcome it.” A much abler if less theatrical banker, Sir Edward Holden Chairman of the London City and Midland Bank, (Midland Bank) during the 1914-1918 war, when told that his policy was leading directly to nationalisation of banking, replied “Well, I don’t care. I should still manage it.”
To put the matter quite shortly, transfer of power almost certainly means transfer ofpolicy. We have seen the transfer of power. What is the policy? Whose is the policy?
The policy is MONOPOLY.
Me: Indeed monopoly IS the real problem, not only of policy, but of paradigm as well. The present monopoly monetary paradigm of Debt Only as the sole form and vehicle for the distribution of credit/money IS the kernel of the problem….and the new paradigm of monetary grace as in gifting is the new one. That doesn’t mean there won’t be money created in the form of Debt, but it WILL break up both the monopoly on credit creation and the monopoly paradigm of Debt ONLY.