_Catallum_ and _lucrum_ were the technical words used for “principal” and “interest” respectively in bonds and other formal documents. See, _e.g._ Round, _Ancient Charters_ (Pipe Roll Society, Vol. X.) No. 51, and John’s Charter to the Jews, _Rot. Chart._, p. 93. ----- The taking of usury, denied by law to Christians, was carried on by Jews under great disadvantages and risks; and the rates of interest were proportionately high, ranging in normal cases from two to four pence per pound per week; that is, from 43⅓ to 86⅔ per cent. per annum.[446] During his nonage a ward had nothing wherewith to discharge either principal or interest, since he who had the wardship drew the revenue. At the end of a long minority an heir would have found the richest estates swallowed up by a debt which had increased automatically ten or twenty-fold.[447] ----- Footnote 446: See Pollock and Maitland, I. 452, and Round’s _Ancient Charters_, notes to Charter No. 51. Footnote 447: The Crown was sometimes called in to enable a creditor, overwhelmed by the accumulation of interest, to come to a settlement with his creditors. In 1199 Geoffrey de Neville gave a palfrey to the king to have his aid “in making a moderate fine with those Jews to whom he was indebted.” See _Rotuli de Finibus_, p. 40. Ought we to view John’s intervention as an attempt to arrange a reasonable composition with unreasonable usurers, or was it simply a conspiracy to cheat Geoffrey’s creditors? Magna Carta prevented this great injustice to the ward; but, in doing so, inflicted, according to modern standards, some injustice on the money-lenders. During the minority no interest at all, it was provided, should accrue to Jew or other usurer; while, if the debt passed to the Crown, the king must not use his prerogative to extort more than a private debtor might; he must confine himself to the principal sum specified in the document of debt. The provision that no interest should run during minorities was confirmed by the Statute of Merton,[448] which made it clear, however, that its provisions should not operate as a discharge of the principal sum or of the interest which had accrued before the ancestor’s death. The Statute of Jewry, of uncertain date,[449] made interest irrecoverable by legal process. All previous acts against usury were repealed by the statute 37 Henry VIII. c. 9, which, however, forbade the exaction of interest at a higher rate than 10 per cent., and this remained the legal rate until reduced to 8 per cent, by 21 James I. c. 17. Money-lending and the usury laws are subjects closely bound up with the repressive measures against the Jews. Footnote 448: 20 Henry III. c. 5. ----- Footnote 449: _Statutes of Realm_, I. 221. -----