Talk:Bank Charter Act 1844

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Law Mid‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Scotland and Northern Ireland

This Act applies, and continues to apply, in Scotland and Northern Ireland Mauls 21:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought it was under English law - private note-issue in Scotland and NI hasn't been stopped, so how does it continue if this act applies UK-wide? Did the Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1845 and Bankers (Ireland) Act 1845 have anything to do with this? Would be interested to know.

--Cnbrb 12:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Section 11, Restriction against issue of bank notes, specifies only England and Wales, which explains everything.Cnbrb (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consequences

Silsoe objects to my categorising Dr Read's analysis as "conjecture". First, conjecture is not a pejorative term. It denotes a credible theory that awaits incontrovertible evidence in hard sciences or broad academic consensus in "soft" subjects (where the term bold hypothesis seems to be preferred).

The Act was responsible for policies that were entirely consistent with Tory ideology. That they used the Act to evade their responsibility for the severity and duration of the famine is credible but Wikipedia cannot report it as the established consensus view without a lot more evidence. Rather obviously, they could have funded relief by raising taxes and reduced food cost by repealing the Corn Laws or by restricting export of food from Ireland. The view of one historian, no matter how eminent, is not enough to report it without qualification. We would need evidence that his analysis enjoys broad support among historians. We have no citations that say so.

I am also concerned that a complex publication can be summarised as briefly as argued that this legislation reduced Britain's fiscal capacity to pay for humanitarian relief because that seems unlikely to be the whole story. Yes, it certainly reduced the Governments capacity to borrow but not, for example, its ability to raise a famine relief tax. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Silsoe's objection is to the section title being called "Conjectured consequences". I can see how that is also open to misinterpretation but nor can we let "Consequences" stand without qualification. Is there a more neutral word? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The review of the book in the Irish Times indicates general acceptance, there were previous historians with this view such as H M Boot, now footnoted and plenty of Banking School Victorians who agreed and are summarized on the Wikipedia page for the British Banking School. Conjecture is a word suggesting inadequate evidence. Full (in my opinion) evidence is given in the Read book and Boot book and the tax issue is dealt with. It is disappointing you are so strongly against the message of the books, I think your alterations were an overreaction. 'Outcome' could be an alternative word to 'Consequences', if we could agree on that. As far as I am aware, the Corn Laws were suspended during the famine (temporarily). Wikipedia is all about summarizing complex information I would suggest. Silsoe (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Outcome" is a reasonable compromise, I'm content. "Outcomes" might be better.

Your amplification helps a lot to show that it is not just a single voice, which was my fundamental concern. Would you develop the section accordingly please. Even insofar as it summarises the Read book, it is too terse; it doesn't mention Boot. You misunderstand: I have no quarrel with the book(s), my concern has been only on the fundamental principle that Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow.

I haven't studied the great famine in any detail but I'm pretty sure you are wrong about the corn laws being suspended. Quite late in the day, HMG permitted low-tarrif import of unfamiliar maize ("Indian meal") but not wheat. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should cite to back up your assertions if you are not sure? Silsoe (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/58_1_4_Sharp.pdf p.79 Silsoe (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here https://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/58_1_4_Sharp.pdf p.79 Silsoe (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

willdo alterations as you suggest later- sorry writing this on the move Silsoe (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]