Usury : $b a scriptural, ethical and economic viewElliott, Calvin
Religion
Usury : $b a scriptural, ethical and economic view
Elliott, Calvin
Usury
A compromise seems to have been made in the assigned punishments. The
laws for the collection of debts and the punishment of exacting more
than the law permitted were alike extremely cruel.
The creditors of an insolvent debtor were given the power of cutting
his body in pieces and the power of selling his children into slavery.
The penalty of taking more than this legal interest was punished with
more severity than theft. The thief must restore double, but the
usurer must restore fourfold. This we learn from Cato's treatise on
"Agriculture." Cato's own opinion of usury is shown in the answer
which he made when he was asked what he thought of usury, his reply
was, "What do you think of murder?"
Nearly a hundred years later the Licinian law forbade all increase. A
little later we find the one-half of one per cent. permitted by law.
Then under Sylla the legal rate is made three per cent. In the time of
Antony and Cleopatra it is four per cent. For a time there was utter
confusion and intolerably oppressive rates prevailed. Horace, in his
Satires, speaks of one lending at sixty per cent. In the reign of
Tiberius Caesar, Rome was again shaken with another usury sedition, an
uprising of the people against the usurers. The law was finally
adjusted in the Justinian Code, by a compromise permitting six per
cent. and severely restraining the exorbitant rates.
Three hundred and twenty-three years B.C., Livy speaks of a creditor
who kept his debtor in irons, claiming, besides the debt, the interest
which he exacted with greatest severity. It was soon after decreed
that this cruelty should end and that no citizen should be placed in
irons or sold into slavery for debt.
At the close of the republic the rate was twenty-four per cent.
England: In the earliest periods of which we have any records we find
that the doctrine, that letting money to hire was sinful, prevailed
universally over the island of Great Britain. It was the prevailing
opinion that interest, or usury, as it was then called, was unjust
gain, forbidden by divine law, and which a good Christian could
neither receive nor pay. In common law the practice of taking increase
was classed among the lowest crimes against public morals. So odious
was it among Christians that the practice was confined almost wholly
to the Jews, who did not exact usury of Jews but of the Christians.
The laws of King Alfred, about 900 A.D., directed that the effects of
money-lenders upon usury should be forfeited to the king, their lands
to the lords under whom they were held, and they should not be buried
in consecrated ground.
By the laws of Edward the Confessor, about 1050 A.D., the usurer
forfeited all his property and was declared an outlaw and banished
from England. In the reign of Henry II, about the close of the
twelfth century, the estates of usurers were forfeited at their death
and their children were disinherited.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account