Their work as Papal agents was very soon supplemented by financial operations on their own account. They became in communication with the monasteries, not only on account of the Pope’s exactions, but also in connection with the sale of wool, which constituted the chief wealth of the Religious. They were able to give a higher price than could be obtained from other merchants. They could advance money for the building which was continually going on in the monasteries. When a House had to send representatives to Rome the Caursini gave them letters of credit which enabled them to bribe the officers of the Papal courts. But—a fact of far greater importance—their resources, which seemed practically inexhaustible, enabled them to supply money to the English Kings for nearly two hundred years. They lent money at high rates of interest; but, as usury was forbidden by the Church, and a thing hateful and in bad repute, they disguised the real nature of their transactions. The actual money advanced was repaid without any interest; but the lender was paid by various arrangements called by different names, but all meaning the same thing, though of course there was no affectation of not understanding the true nature of the transaction. The Italians were regarded, especially by ecclesiastics, with detestation. Matthew Paris says of them:— “In these days prevailed the horrible nuisance of the Caursines, to such a degree that there was hardly any one in all England, especially among the bishops, who was not caught in their net. Even the King himself was held indebted to them in an incalculable sum of money. For they circumvented the needy in their necessities, cloaking their usury under the show of trade, and pretending not to know that whatever is added to the principal is usury, under whatever name it may be called. For it is manifest that their loans lie not in the path of charity, inasmuch as they do not hold out a helping hand to the poor to relieve them, but to deceive them; not to aid others in their starvation, but to gratify their own covetousness.” (Giles’s translation.) He gives also a specimen of their ordinary form of agreement:—