THE USURY POWER IN ENGLAND AND COLONIAL AMERICA

The Usury Power In England and Colonial America
Bernard Pyron

"The lands of Italy, which had been originally divided among the
families of free and indigent proprietors, were purchased or usurped
by the avarice of the nobles; and in the age which proceeded the fall
of the republic, it was computed only two thousand citizens were
possessed of any independent substance."

Edward Gibbon,
Decline And Fall Of the Roman Empire

There were two main reasons why the common people lost their lands to
the elite during the Roman Empire. The reasons were usury and
taxation. American, British and European financial elites are still
at it stealing the people's money, lands and possessions through
usury and other scams. In Revelation 9: 20-21 the rest of the men who
were not killed by the plagues "Neither repented they of their
murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of
their thefts." From this statement, we might infer that murder,
sorcery, fornication and theft are to be important transgressions
during the Tribulation. It may be that theft of all kinds of more
valuable stuff will increase by common thieves - and it may also be
that theft of the money of the people by the financial elite will
increase by various means, including usury, especially though the use
of some type of credit cards. The usury power will not repent of
usury or of other types of extortion of money. And the government is
likely to change the laws to make it easier for the usury power to
steal money from the people. Remember, in 1978 the Supreme Court in
Marquette vs. First Omaha Service Corp ruled that only the usury laws
of the state where the credit card bank is located apply, and not the
usury laws of the state where the cardholder resides. Since a few
states have no usury laws, and the credit card banks moved here, the
Court decision wiped out restraints on how much interest can be
charged on credit card debt. At this point in time, many states still
have in place legal exceptions to the attachment of your home and some
limitations on the taking of your other possessions. The federal
government may override these restrictions to help the usury bankers
take possession of more of our assets.

The usury lenders in pre-Christian Rome had more
power over their debtors than is true in the United States in 2006.
During the days of the Roman Empire, a
creditor could force the entire estate of a debtor
to be sold to someone who would then pay part of the debt to the
creditors. But the debtor still owed a part of his original debt,
even though he and his family may have lost their home and other
possessions. This made it difficult to earn enough money to
completely pay off the debts. The victim of usury - plus Roman
taxation - was often reduced to starvation and forced to borrow again
on usury.

If the poor debtor did not pay his debts,
he could be exiled, imprisoned, enslaved or
executed. This information can be found at:

http://www.chapter7-11.com/downloads/bankruptcy%20and%20the%20bible.pdf

We will see that in Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts and New
Hampshire during 1786 - after the Revolutionary War - the usury powers
were having constables seize farms and some debtors were thrown in
prison. Unlike the Roman situation though, the American victims of
usury were not exiled or executed. The Militia and Continental Army
veterans of Shay's Rebellion thought that the promise in Deuteronomy
15: 1-2
on the release from all debt every seven years should be carried out
for them. Of course, the usury power (the bankers), lawyers, judges
and government - and Masons - did not agree with Deuteronomy 15: 1-2,
or with Leviticus 25: 8-55.

To prevent a more long lasting or permanent state of debt to the usury
powers as happened in the Roman Empire and in the U.S. after the
Revolutionary War, God's law requires a sabbatical seven year release
of all debts. Deuteronomy 15: 1-2 promises a cancellation of all debt
every seven years. "At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a
release. And this is the manner of the release: every creditor that
lendeth (ought) to his neighbor shall release it: he shall not exact
it of his neighbor...because it is called the Lord's release."
"Ought" is in italics indicating it is not in the Hebrew.

The main issue for the farmers of Shay's Rebellion was that the local
government and courts were taking their farms. Leviticus 25: 8-55
also applies here. This text says that at every Jubilee or fiftieth
year, the land must be returned to the owner or family that owned it,
to prevent dispossession from their land. In many states of the U.S.
the usury banks can take a large part of a debtor's land, though they
must leave him his house and a few acres.

Ezekiel 46: 16-18 promises that even the Prince of Israel is not to
dispossess people from their inheritance. An owner can sell his land,
but if his land was taken to satisfy a debt, the land must be returned
at the Jubilee, and according to Deuteronomy 15: 1-2 the debt should
be forgiven in seven years.

In Proverbs 28: 8 it says "He that by usury and unjust gain increaseth
his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor."
Usury is in the category of unjust gain; it is taking gain from the
unjust loan or rent of money. Usury in Nehemiah 5: 4-10 causes hard
times for lower income people. And in Ezekiel 22: 12-20 usury is one
of the transgressions of the nation for which God judged and punished
Judea.

English Common Law Opposed Usury

The opposition of the Bible to usury was made a part of English common
law. But during the Middle Ages lands and various kinds of
possessions were seized in England by money lenders who charged high
rates of interest. In the tenth century King Alfred seized instead
the lands and possessions of those who loaned money with usury and
prevented lenders from being buried in consecrated ground. In the
eleventh century, King Edward the Confessor provided that usurers
forfeit their property, be declared outlaws and banished from
England. Then, in thirteenth and fourteenth England loaning money
was made punishable by death. On June 15, of 1215 the British
Nobility got King John at Runnymede to sign the Magna Charta. It gave
certain rights to the common man, one of which was the right to trial
by a jury of one's peers.. This information is at:

http://theseventhtrumpet.net/ebook/abusedem.html

Sir Edward Coke in Coke's Institutes, 152, says "It appears that, by
the ancient laws of the realm, usury was unlawful and punishable."

Bank of England Was Created In 1694

Centralized usury banking was created in England as early as 1694 when
the Bank of England was established. The bank was created by English
merchants and goldsmiths, with help from the Dutch-born King William
III, who had married Mary, the British Stuart descendant. The Bank
of England was born before Nathan Rothschild, the English Rothschild
was even born. And Nathan Rothschild had nothing to do with the Bank
of England during the period leading up to the American Revolution
because he was not born until later.

The Bank of England created paper money out of nothing and loaned it
to the English government at usury. But why would a government create
a private bank and authorize it to create money out of nothing and
charge the government interest for the use of that money? Because the
Bank of England was the model for the American Federal Reserve System
enacted in 1913 we will have to ask that same question for the
Congress and President of the United States.

The City of London

The City of London which includes the financial area is a privately
owned Corporation - and is a sovereign
state. The "City" makes up 677 acres in the heart of the 610 square mile
"Greater London" area. The population of the City is about five thousand but
Greater London has about 8 million people.
"The Crown" is a committee of 12-14 men who rule
"The City of London". "The City" is not a
part of England and is not subject to the King or Queen and not under
Parliament. It is an independent state, like the Vatican.

The City is ruled by a Lord Mayor elected for one year. When the Queen
visits the City of London she bows to him and asks permission to enter
his private sovereign State. He grants permission to enter by handing
her the sword of State. During such State visits, the Lord Mayor with
his robes and chain, his entourage in medieval costume leads the Queen
into the City of London where he is the king and she is his subject

The Rothschild-controlled Bank of England, Lloyd's underwriters, the
London Stock Exchange, leading international trading outfits, plus the
headquarters of the newspaper and publishing world are located here.
The small ruling elite of the City of London influence the British
Parliament, Prime Minister and the Cabinet. Some say the ruling
elite of the City of London also influence money policy and economics
in the U.S.

Usury Bank of England and the American Revolution

During the 1750's the American colonies were prosperous, with no
income tax, stable prices, little extortion by usury and very little
unemployment. During this time the colonies were creating their own
interest-free paper money, called "colonial script." Colonial script
reminds me of the "Taliesin Script" that the famous Wisconsin
architect, Frank Lloyd Wright, issued to his workers during the Great
Depression. Wright had little income from architectural clients
during most of the thirties, and so issued paper money to workers that
they could use to buy food from Wright's farm.

Beginning in 1764, however, the English government, under influence
from the Bank of England began to prohibit the creation of colonial
script.

The Currency Act of 1764 said "That from after the first day of
September 1764, no act, order, resolution, or vote of assembly in any
of his majesty's colonies or plantations shall be made for creating or
issuing any paper bills, or bills of credit of any denomination
whatsoever..."

It goes on to say that any act creating money by colonial governments
"shall be null and void." This is from:
http://ahp.gatech.edu/currency_act_1764.html

In part because there were not sufficient gold and silver coins in
the colonies at this time, the Currency Act prohibiting the creation
of paper money caused a severe economic recession in the thirteen
colonies that lasted through the war years.

The Government of George III - who, according to Thomas Jefferson in
the Declaration of Independence, had brought on the colonies a "long
train of abuses" - tried to force the Americans to become victims of
the usury Bank of England. For a period before the Revolution, the
Bank of England may have put money into existence in the colonies
through loans with usury. Without an adequate supply of gold and
silver coins and not being able to create paper money as before, and
on top of that perhaps having to pay the Bank of England usury, the
colonies went into a recession.

Interference with the money supply in the American colonies by the
central usury bank appears to be the larger cause of the American
Revolution. The intent of the Bank of England in having the English
government outlaw the creation of paper money by the colonies seems to
have been to force them to stop issuing their own mostly
interest-free money and instead to rely upon usury notes. But did
the Bank of England issue interest-bearing notes either to colonial
governments or to individuals in America from 1764 to 1776? And to
what extent did colonial governments or the people actually buy these
Bank of England notes that involved the paying of usury?

Here is one web site that claims to deal with this question at:

http://india.indymedia.org/en/2002/03/785.shtml

"By dictate of the plutocracy of England, in America, as everywhere
else in the world, debt would be perpetually and irreversibly
multiplied upon the unassenting subjects of the system, to their ever
greater detriment.

The colonists would pay some thirty-percent annual interest for the
imposed currency. Benjamin Franklin reported, "Within a year, the poor
houses were filled. The hungry and homeless walked the streets
everywhere.'"

This statement does not tell us very much, and I doubt if we could
find out more about the Bank of England issuing usury notes into the
colonies from about 1764 to 1776 from college history textbooks. No,
it would take a time-consuming search of more focused historical
papers in the history journals.

I did not find on the Internet more explicit information on the
mechanism used by the Bank of England to force the colonists to use
its usury notes, or whether these notes were issued to colonial
governments or the people. There were few if any banks in the
American colonies from 1764 to 1776. So how did the British introduce
their usury notes into the American economy?

Here is another web site that deals with a somewhat different aspect
of the issue of the interference with the money supply in America by
the Bank of England at:
http://www.nccs.net/monetary_reform1.html#1

"The bankers behind the privately owned Bank of England wanted to
force the colonies to borrow "bank notes" from them. Beginning around
1720, the Parliament was induced by the Bank of England to suppress
all colonial money. Many years of defiance on the part of the colonies
finally terminated in 1749, when Parliament passed the Resumption Act,
which required that taxes and contracts all had to be paid in gold or
silver. Gold and silver were so scarce in the colonies that the
results were disastrous. A deep depression ensued. Prices fell. Trade
stagnated. This was one of the major causes of the Revolutionary War."

In addition, the English government owed a huge debt to the Bank of
England for financing several wars. The English government then tried
to tax the American colonists to help pay the usury debt to the Bank.
In high school and college courses on history we learn about the Stamp
Act, the Sugar Act and other tax acts that the English government
imposed on the colonies. But the main problem was the recession
caused by the interference with the money supply by the Bank of
England.

Shay's Rebellion

In 1786 - after the end of the Revolutionary Way - Secretary of War
Henry Knox wrote to President George Washington saying that the
Shays
rebels "are determined to annihilate all debts public and private."
Thats exactly what Deuteronomy 15: 1-2 and Leviticus 25: 8-55 say.

In Massachusetts constables were seizing the farms of veterans of the
Militia and Continental Army because they had not been able to keep up
payments on their mortgages. Some farmers were also put in jail as
debtors. This is from:

http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/Shays.htm

In response to being victimized by usury lenders Daniel Shays led
about a thousand farmers and mechanics to the
Massachusetts Court of Common Pleas on August 29, 1786 and took it
over. In September 600 farmers closed the courts in Worcester.
Then in Concord, where the Revolution began, 800
laborers formed into into a militia and closed the debt
court at Great Barrington. Five hundred farmers marched on the court
in Bristol county and shut it down.

By September of 1786 Shay's Rebellion had spread to New Hampshire,
the "Live Free or Die" state where the farmers took over the capital
and held the governor and the
legislature captive.

In western Massachusetts, Daniel Shays led 1500 farmers and laborers
to Springfield where they occupied the courthouse for three days. By
December of 1786 Shays had nine thousand men following him. All this
was because of the usury practiced by lenders who were exploiting the
farmers in an economy still suffering from the interference with the
money supply by the Bank of England. Daniel Shays had been a Captain
in the Revolutionary War.

The Continental Army and Militia veterans in Shay's Rebellion wanted
Deuteronomy 15: 1-2
on the release from all debt every seven years to be carried out in
the now supposedly free American colonies. But Shay's men soon found
out that the colonies were not as free as they might have hoped,
because the judges, lawyers, Masons and courts were acting as
enforcers for the usury lenders.

The American Revolutionaries who were in Shay's Militia thought they
had risked their lives fighting for the overthrow of debt, usury and
dispossession from their
land. But supposedly free America had its own homegrown elite of
money lenders, merchants, lawyers and judges who thought they
deserved to rule over the common people. Many lawyers and judges were
Masons and so the Masonic lodge was a part of this elite.



Leviticus 25: 10, promising the return of one's inherited land every
fifty years, was inscribed on the Liberty Bell. See:

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2006/1/9/3123/67264

While Deuteronomy 15: 1-2 promises a cancellation of all debt every
seven years, Leviticus 25: 10, the Jubilee Year, promises a return of
one's inheritance (land).

The quote below is from: http://www.calliope.org/shays/shays2.html

"The critical battle of the rebellion was Shays' attack on the
government arsenal at Springfield in January 1787, the only means of
standing off troops who were advancing from Boston under General
Benjamin Lincoln. At the arsenal, the defending militia commanded by
General William Shepard unexpectedly fired their cannons into the
ranks of the advancing rebels, killing four and wounding others.

Crying "murder" -- for the insurgent farmer-veterans never supposed
their neighbors and fellow veterans would fire on them -- the Shays
men retreated in disarray, pursued by Lincoln's government soldiers."

Shays and some of his followers went to Vermont. But about 200 of
Shay's men were captured and tried in Massachusetts.
" General Lincoln himself, the subduer of Shays' Rebellion, came out
in favor of mercy. On the other hand Samuel Adams, the influential
Revolutionary patriot and head of the governor's advisory council,
called for the execution of convicted traitors to the republic." So
much for the Yankee "patriot" Samuel Adams. The followers of Shays
were eventually pardoned.

Shay's Rebellion was a major reason why the federal Constitution was
created. "For George Washington, who gave the insurrection as a
reason for his own attendance at the Philadelphia convention, 'there
could be no stronger evidence of the want of energy in our governments
than these disorders.'" This statement is quoted on:

http://www.calliope.org/shays/shays2.html