118 



FARMERS' REGISTER— ESSAY ON USURY LAWS. 



to establish the Ibllowuig conclusion, Hhat it is not 

 sinful, but lawful^ for a British subject Jo receive 

 legal interest for the money lohich he may lend.'' 

 Mons. Necktir too, in the notes annexed to his 

 jEloge on Colbert, thought it necessary for him to 

 offer an apology to the church of Rome lor the 

 freedom with whicli he ventured to Avriteupon this 

 critical subject. Thus do we see the wonderful 

 influence produced by a misunderstanding of the 

 law of Moses: and we have besides, an illustra- 

 tion of what I have before .urged, of the great 

 cUlliculty and slowness with which error is banish- 

 ed from the world. Until very lately, all interest 

 was considered immoral: that error is now ex- 

 ploded, and I hope in due time, laws restrain- 

 ing the rale of interest will meet with the same 

 tble. 



Secondly. Men who are without property, or are 

 vnlhrifiy, and sinking in the world, naturally en- 

 vy and hate those who are rising and prospering. 

 "The child who has eaten his cake" s;iys Jeremy 

 Benlham, "is the natural enemy of the child who 

 has preserved his." 



Thirdly. In ancient times, and during trie mid- 

 dle ages, men harrowed money principally for the 

 jmrpose of paying debts. The risk was great, and 

 of course, the interest, very properly, was in pro- 

 portion. The money lender had the borrow^er 

 more in liis power on such occasions, and the pay- 

 ment of the debt frequently rumed him. Thus 

 the lender was made responsibls for the impru- 

 dence and misfortune of the borrower, and became 

 odious in the eyes of the world, especially in Rome, 

 Avhere the lender could imprison, enslave^ and 

 chastise his delinquent debtor. At this time how- 

 ever, the great mass of capital lent, is for purposes 

 of agriculture and commerce. It is to be hoped 

 then, that the prejudice against usury will dimin- 

 ish, since the wealthiest, and most prosperous men 

 in society, are frequently the borrowers, pajing 

 only a portion of their profits to the naoney lenders, 

 who are frequently widows, orphans, invalids. &c., 

 whom the law ought rather to favor than injure. 

 Fourthly. 3Ioncyin the minds of the great majirrity 

 of mankind has been identified with wealth. It has 

 been supposed that if the legislator would bring 

 down the interest of money, that profits would be 

 reduced — of course, that this Avould bring down 

 prices, and thus tiie nation prescribing a low rate 

 of interest, Avould be enabled to undersell all others. 

 This was the argument which seems to have in- 

 fluenced the nrind of Sir Josiah Child, in recom- 

 mending to the British ParUament to reduce it to 

 three per cent. Turgot, to a certain extent, was of 

 the same opinion. I am informed that when the 

 bank question Avas agitated in the Virginia legis- 

 lature in 1816, iiiany advocates of the banking 

 system were under the impression that the quan- 

 tity of money thrown into circulation Avould re- 

 duce interest — /Aai would reduce profits — andtluis 

 we should be enabled to come in competition with 

 producers in other quarters of the world. Now, 

 if there be any strength in the preceding reason- 

 ing, this argument is Avholly fallacious, proceeding 

 upon premises entirely fiilse. In the first place, 

 money is not be identified v/ith national wealth: 

 it constitutes a very small part of it. As Dr. 

 Cooper has well expressed it, money is to be con- 

 sidered as the counters that serve only to mark the 

 points in the great game of commerce. 



Again, when the government is good, a high 



rate of profits is the most certain symptom of a 

 thriving prosperous community; and he must be 

 the merest political quack, who would now se- 

 riously recommend measures for the purpose of 

 reducing profits. Ey means of profits, capitals 

 are increased, and of course the greater the for- 

 mer, the more rapid the increase of the latter. 

 This is most undoubtedly an axiomatic truth: and 

 yet it is strange indeed, that so many should rea- 

 son and argue as if perfectly ignorant of it. 



Fifthly. Debtors are more numerous than, credit- 

 ors; their misfortunes are lamented andpiticd ivhile 

 the creditor seems hard-hearted and uncharitable, 

 luho appears so capable of relieving this distress, 

 and yet exacts the inoney and penalty '^even to the 

 pound (fjlesh.^'' We are not to wonder then that 

 the sympathy of the Avorld, and the influence of 

 numbers are arraj'ed in liivor of the borrower, and 

 against the lender. As a proof of what is here 

 asserted, Bentham has given us a most admirable 

 illustration in theatrical representations. "It is the 

 business of the dramatist (says he) to study and 

 to conform to the humors and passions of those, 

 on the pleasing of whom, he depends for success." 

 Now I question Avhether among all the instance.g 

 in which a borrower and a lender of money have 

 been brought together upon the stage, from the 

 days of Thespis to the present, there ever was 

 one, in which the former was not recommended to 

 favor, in some shape or other, either to admiration 

 or to love, or to ])ity, or to all three; "and the other, 

 the man of thrill, consigned to infamy," They 

 have thus been ever represented as a hard-hearted 

 race, without any bowels of compassion, for their 

 tijllow men; yet as far as fiiets have come to my 

 knowledge, in this state, I should assert that money 

 lenders, take them as a class, are far from being 

 uncharitable. We cannot proj^erly estimate their 

 charity, because the distress which they relieve 

 seems, in many cases, to be brought on by them. 

 Suppose, for examjde. A, a money lender, has 

 lent B i^lOOO, and taken a lien on all A's projierty, 

 which is finally sold. It may be that A has taken 

 only legal mterest, and that the loan when made, 

 was of tfie utmost importance. Now, if he remits 

 ijiSO or ^30 of the debt, he will still be considered 

 as unfeeling and uncharitable by the multitude 

 who look unjustly on the distress of B as occasion- 

 ed by A, and yet not one in that multitude per- 

 haps, if called on, would be willing to contribute 

 $5 to relieve B's distress. There is no reason, if 

 you will only reflect a moment, why the money 

 lender should remit more of the tlebt than others 

 of equal fortune are willing to subscribe to relieve 

 the distress of the del;)tor. But on the contrary, 

 there is an evident reason why he should do less 

 in this respect, in each individual case, than other 

 jiersons of equal wealth. His business necessari- 

 ly brings such cases more frequently to his view, 

 and thereibre his profits would be almost entirely 

 destroyed if he were to be as charitable in every 

 case as perhaps another individual might well af- 

 lin-d to be in the very few case^, in winch his cha- 

 rity was put to the test. 



The sixth cause of prejudice against usury 

 which I sliaU mention, is iiuU'cd of a very puerile 

 character, but it has had influence, and theref()re 

 must not be passed by. It Avas besides, the espe- 

 cial cause Avhich operated most powerfully on the 

 great, the almost une(|ualled mind of Aristotle. It 

 is this: 'Hhat interest ought to be charged on no- 



