Part 22 (1/2)
In the fifteenth century, under Henry VII, the penalty was fixed at one hundred pounds and the penalty of the church added, which was excommunication.
Attorney General Noy, in the reign of James I, thought the taking of money by usury was no better than taking a man's life. He said: ”Usurers are well ranked with murderers.”
In the sixteenth century, under Henry VIII, it was enacted that all interest above ten per cent. was unlawful. Less was not collectable by law, but was not a punishable offence.
Edward VI revived the old laws condemning all interest.
Mary I, next following, executed these laws with extreme severity.
Elizabeth restored the laws of Henry VIII, in which usury less than ten per cent. was not a punishable offence. This edict of Elizabeth adds: ”In the interpretation of the law it shall be largely and strongly construed for the repression of usury.”
This law of Henry VIII and Elizabeth, with the rate of interest reduced, was the statute law of England until 1854, when all the usury laws were repealed.
In 1694 William and Mary II entered into a contract to secure a permanent loan and pledged the kingdom to pay interest on it forever.
The loan marked the turning point in the popular mind with regard to usury. As it was approved in their necessity by the king and queen at the head of the Protestant world, ecclesiastics began to s.h.i.+ft their ground and to apologize for, and excuse, that which had been formerly unequivocably condemned. As the crown was the head of both the church and the state, the condemnation of usury seemed tinged both with disloyalty and heresy. The courts too began to modify their decisions to bring them into harmony with the action of the crown.
The change in the usury laws were not made by enactments of Parliament, but by the decisions of courts. The precedents were gradually acc.u.mulated and the statutes were merely made to conform to them.
CHAPTER x.x.xVII.
FRANCIS BACON.
From the short dissertation on usury found in the works of Bacon we learn that the taking of usury was a recognized evil and odious in his time.
It will be noticed that he eliminates risk from usury and sees that ”In the game of certainties against uncertainties” usury is sure to win. It will be noticed also that he mentions only economic arguments against usury. He does not give ethical and moral reasons. He does not mention the want of sympathy for the poor and their oppression.
In his statement of the arguments in defence he implies that the usurer is less grasping than the man he knew who said ”The devil take this usury.”
This is the very opposite of the picture of the usurer given by his contemporary, Shakespeare, in his character, Shylock.
His specious argument for the regulation of the evil ”For some small matter for the license” is familiar to modern reformers in connection with other sins. He speaks of the reduction of the usury rates as a general good and believes ”It will no whit discourage the lender.”
Wrong-doers in all the ages have been ready to part with a portion of the profits of an unlawful business for the cover of the authority of the state.
The following is his discussion in full
OF USURY.
”Many have made witty invectives against usury. They say that it is a pity the devil should have G.o.d's part, which is the t.i.the. That the usurer is the greatest Sabbath breaker, because his plough goeth every Sunday. That the usurer is the drone that Virgil speaketh of:
”_Ignavum fucos pecus a praesepibus arcent._
”That the usurer breaketh the first law that was made for mankind after the fall, which was, _in sudore vultus tui comedes panem tuum; non in sudore vultus alieni_; (in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread--not in the sweat of another's face.) That usurers should have orange-tawney bonnets, because they do Judaize. That it is against nature for money to beget money; and the like. I say only this, that usury is a _concessum propter duritiem cordis_; (a thing allowed by reason of the hardness of men's hearts): for since there must be borrowing and lending, and men are so hard of heart as they will not lend freely, usury must be permitted. Some others have made suspicious and cunning propositions of banks, discovery of men's estates and other inventions. But few have spoken of usury usefully. It is good to set before us the incommodities and the commodities of usury, that the good may be either weighed out or culled out; and warily to provide, that while we make forth to that which is better, we meet not with that which is worse.
”The discommodities of usury are, first, it makes fewer merchants. For were it not for this lazy trade of usury, money would not lie still, but would in great part be employed upon merchandising; which is the _vena porta_ of wealth in a state. The second, that it makes poor merchants. For as a farmer can not husband his ground so well if he sit at a great rent, so the merchant can not drive his trade so well, if he sit at great usury. The third is incident to the other two; and that is the decay of customs of kings or states, which ebb or flow with merchandising. The fourth that it bringeth the wealth or treasure of a realm or state into a few hands.
”For the usurer being at certainties, and others at uncertainties, at the end of the game most of the money will be in the box; and ever a state flourisheth when wealth is more equally spread. The fifth that it beats down the price of land; for the employment of money is chiefly either purchasing or merchandising; and usury waylays both.