ABSTRACT
One final point: Dr Collins writes that the evolution of central banking 'took place in a largely unregulated environment - one in which a laissez-faire, non-interventionist philosophy dominated'. A lot depends on what one means by 'largely unregulated', but I agree that the monetary system then may appear so by comparison with twentieth-century monetary systems. Regulations still remained, none the less, and they were significant. As for the dominance of laissez-faire, one has only to read Herbert Spencer
I also have a few comments to make on Bill Allen's assessment of chapter 11. After outlining my argument that there were two sources of regulatory restrictions on banking, Mr Allen suggests that the partnership restriction became less significant after it had been relaxed in 1826 - I could hardly disagree with this point - and then argues that he 'finds it hard to see [the partnership restriction] as a complete answer' because the 'crises did not come to an end'. My only defence is that I never took the position that is criticized. As far as I know, no one has blamed all the crises on the partnership restriction alone.
