[Footnote 1: Laurentius de Rodulfis, _De Usuris_, pt. iii. Nos. 1 to 5.]

The most complete treatise on the subject of money exchange is that of Thomas da Vio, written in 1499. The author of this treatise divides money-changing into three kinds, just, unjust, and doubtful. There were three kinds of just change; _cambium minutum_, in which the campsor was ent.i.tled to a reasonable remuneration for his labour; _cambium per litteras_, in which the campsor was held ent.i.tled to a wage (_merces_) for an imaginary transportation; and thirdly, when the campsor carried money from one place to another, where it was of higher value. The unjust change was when the contract was a usurious transaction veiled in the guise of a genuine exchange. Under the doubtful changes, the author discusses various special points which need not detain us here.

Thomas da Vio then goes on to discuss whether the justifiable exchange can be said to be a species of loan, and concludes that it can not, because all that the campsor receives is an indemnity against loss and a remuneration for his labour, trouble, outlay, and risk, which is always justifiable. He then goes on to state the very important principle, that in _cambium_ money is not to be considered a measure of value, but a vendible commodity,[1] a distinction which Endemann thinks was productive of very important results in the later teaching on the subject.[2] The last question treated in the treatise is the measure of the campsor's profit, and here the contract of exchange is shown to be on all fours with every other contract, because the essential principle laid down for determining its justice is the observance of the equivalence between both parties.[1]

[Footnote 1: 'Numisma quamvis sit mensura et instrumentum in permutationibus; tamen per se aliquid esse potest.' It is this principle that justifies the treatment of _cambium_ in this section rather than the next.]

[Footnote 2: _Studien_, vol. ii. p. 212.]

SECTION 2.--THE SALE OF THE USE OF MONEY

-- 1. _Usury in Greece and Rome_.

The prohibition of usury has always occupied such a large place in histories of the Middle Ages, and particularly in discussions relating to the att.i.tude of the Church towards economic questions, that it is important that its precise foundation and extent should be carefully studied. The usury prohibition has been the centre of so many bitter controversies, that it has almost become part of the stock-in-trade of the theological mob orators. The att.i.tude of the Church towards usury only takes a slightly less prominent place than its att.i.tude towards Galileo in the utterances of those who are anxious to convict it of error. We have referred to this current controversy, not in order that we might take a part in it, but that, on the contrary, we might avoid it. It is no part of our purpose in our treatment of this subject to discuss whether the usury prohibition was or was not suitable to the conditions of the Middle Ages; whether it did or did not impede industrial enterprise and commercial expansion; or whether it was or was not universally disregarded and evaded in real life. These are inquiries which, though full of interest, would not be in place in a discussion of theory. All we are concerned to do in the following pages is to indicate the grounds on which the prohibition of usury rested, the precise extent of its application, and the conceptions of economic theory which it indicated and involved.

[Footnote 1: Brants has a very luminous and interesting section on _Cambium, Op. cit._, p. 214 _et seq_.]

We must remark in the first place that the prohibition of usury was in no sense peculiar to the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, but, on the contrary, was to be found in many other religious and legal systems--for instance, in the writings of the Greek and Roman philosophers, amongst the Jews, and the followers of Mohammed. We shall give a very brief account of the other prohibitions of usury before coming to deal with the scholastic teaching on the subject.

We can find no trace of any legal prohibition of usury in ancient Greece. Although Solon's laws contained many provisions for the relief of poor debtors, they did not forbid the taking of interest, nor did they limit the rate of interest that might be taken.[1] In Rome the Twelve Tables fixed a maximum rate of interest, which was probably ten or twelve per cent, per annum, but which cannot be determined with certainty owing to the doubtful signification of the expression '_unciarum foenus_.' The legal rate of interest was gradually reduced until the year 347 B.C., when five per cent, was fixed as a maximum.

In 342 B.C. interest was forbidden altogether by the Genucian Law; but this law, though never repealed, was in practice quite inoperative owing to the facility with which it could be evaded; and consequently the oppression of borrowers was prevented by the enactment, or perhaps it would be more correct to say the general recognition, of a maximum rate of interest of twelve per cent. per annum. This maximum rate--the _Centesima_--remained in operation until the time of Justinian.[2]

Justinian, who was under the influence of Christian teaching, and who might therefore be expected to have regarded usury with unfavourable eyes, fixed the following maximum rates of interest--maritime loans twelve per cent.; loans to ordinary persons, not in business, six per cent.; loans to high personages (_ill.u.s.tres_) and agriculturists, four per cent.[3]

[Footnote 1: Cleary, _The Church and Usury_, p. 21.]

[Footnote 2: Hunter, _Roman Law_, pp. 652-53; Cleary, _op. cit._, pp.

22-6; Roscher, _Political Economy_, s. 90.]

[Footnote 3: _Code_ 4, 32, 26, 1.]

While the taking of interest was thus approved or tolerated by Greek and Roman law, it was at the same time reprobated by the philosophers of both countries. Plato objects to usury because it tends to set one cla.s.s, the poor or the borrowers, against another, the rich or the lenders; and goes so far as to make it wrong for the borrower to repay either the princ.i.p.al or interest of his debt. He further considers that the profession of the usurer is to be despised, as it is an illiberal and debasing way of making money.[1] While Plato therefore disapproves in no ambiguous words of usury, he does not develop the philosophical bases of his objection, but is content to condemn it rather for its probable ill effects than on account of its inherent injustice.

[Footnote 1: _Laws_, v. ch. 11-13.]

Aristotle condemns usury because it is the most extreme and dangerous form of chrematistic acquisition, or the art of making money for its own sake. As we have seen above, in discussing the legitimacy of commerce, buying cheap and selling dear was one form of chrematistic acquisition, which could only be justified by the presence of certain motives; and usury, according to the philosopher, was a still more striking example of the same kind of acquisition, because it consisted in making money from money, which was thus employed for a function different from that for which it had been originally invented. 'Usury is most reasonably detested, as the increase of our fortune arises from the money itself, and not by employing it for the purpose for which it was intended. For it was devised for the sake of exchange, but usury multiplies it. And hence usury has received the name of [Greek: tokos], or produce; for whatever is produced is itself like its parents; and usury is merely money born of money; so that of all means of money-making it is the most contrary to nature.'[1] We need not pause here to discuss the precise significance of Aristotle's conceptions on this subject, as they are to us not so much of importance in themselves, as because they suggested a basis for the treatment of usury to Aquinas and his followers.[2]

[Footnote 1: Aristotle, _Politics_, i. 10.]

[Footnote 2: Cleary, _op. cit._, p. 29.]

In Rome, as in Greece, the philosophers and moralists were unanimous in their condemnation of the practice of usury. Cicero condemns usury as being hateful to mankind, and makes Cato say that it is on the same level of moral obliquity as murder; and Seneca makes a point that became of some importance in the Middle Ages, namely, that usury is wrongful because it involves the selling of time.[1] Plutarch develops the argument that money is sterile, and condemns the practices of contemporary money-lenders as unjust.[2] The teaching of the philosophers as to the unlawfulness of usury was reflected in the popular feeling of the time.[3]

[Footnote 1: Cleary, _op. cit._, p. 29.]

[Footnote 2: _De Vitando Aere Alieno_.]

[Footnote 3: Espinas, _op. cit._, pp. 81-2; Roscher, _Political Economy_, s. 90.]

-- 2. _Usury in the Old Testament_.

The question of usury therefore attracted considerable attention in the teaching and practice of pagan antiquity. It occupied an equally important place in the Old Testament. In Exodus we find the first prohibition of usury: 'If thou lend money to any of my people being poor, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor, neither shall ye lay upon him usury.'[1] In Leviticus we read: 'And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his hand fail with thee; then, thou must uphold him; as a stranger and a sojourner shall he live with thee. Take thou no money of him or increase, but fear thy G.o.d that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor give him victuals for increase.'[2] Deuteronomy lays down a wider prohibition: 'Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of anything that is lent upon usury; unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou mayest not lend upon usury.'[3] It will be noticed that the first and second of these texts do not forbid usury except in the case of loans to the poor, and, if we had them alone to consider, we could conclude that loans to the rich or to business men were allowed. The last text, however, extends the prohibition to all loans to one's brother--an expression which was of importance in Christian times, as Christian writers maintained the universal brotherhood of man.

[Footnote 1: Exod. xxii. 25.]

[Footnote 2: Lev. xxv. 35.]

[Footnote 3: Deut. xxiii. 19.]

It is unnecessary for us to discuss the underlying considerations which prompted these ordinances. Dr. Cleary, who has studied the matter with great care, concludes that: 'The legislator was urged mostly by economic considerations.... The permission to extract usury from strangers--a permission which later writers, such as Maimonides, regarded as a command--clearly favours the view that the legislator was guided by economic principles. It is more difficult to say whether he based his legislation on the principle that usury is intrinsically unjust--that is to say, unjust even when taken in moderation. There is really nothing in the texts quoted to enable us to decide. The universality of the prohibition when there is question solely of Jews goes to show that usury as such was regarded as unjust; whilst its permission as between Jew and Gentile favours the contradictory hypothesis.'[1] Modern Jewish thought is inclined to hold the view that these prohibitions were based upon the a.s.sumption that usury was intrinsically unjust, but that the taking of usury from the Gentiles was justified on the principle of compensation; in other words, that Jews might exact usury from those who might exact it from them.[2] It is at least certain that usury was regarded by the writers of the Old Testament as amongst the most terrible of sins.[3]

[Footnote 1: _Op. cit._, pp. 5-6.]

[Footnote 2: _Jewish Encyclopaedia_, art. 'Usury.']

[Footnote 3: Ezek. xviii. 13; Jer. xv. 10; Ps. xiv. 5, cix. 11, cxii.

5; Prov. xxviii. 8; Hes. xviii. 8; 2 Esd. v. I _et seq._]

The general att.i.tude of the Jews towards usury cannot be better explained than by quoting Dr. Cleary's final conclusion on the subject: 'It appears therefore that in the Old Testament usury was universally prohibited between Israelite and Israelite, whilst it was permitted between Israelite and Gentile. Furthermore, it seems impossible to decide what was the nature of the obligations imposed--whether the prohibition supposed and ratified an already existing universal obligation, in charity or justice, or merely imposed a new obligation in obedience, binding the consciences of men for economic or political reasons. So, too, it seems impossible to decide absolutely whether the decrees were intended to possess eternal validity; the probabilities, however, seem to favour very strongly the view that they were intended as mere economic regulations suited to the circ.u.mstances of the time. This does not, of course, decide the other question, whether, apart from such positive regulations, there already existed an obligation arising from the natural law; nor would the pa.s.sing of the positive law into desuetude affect the existence of the other obligation.'[1]

[Footnote 1: _Op. cit._, pp. 17-18.]

Before we pa.s.s from the consideration of the Old Testament to that of the New, we may mention that the taking of interest by Mohammedans is forbidden in the Koran.[2]

[Footnote 2: ii. 30. This prohibition is universally evaded. (Roscher, _Political Economy_, s. 90.)]

-- 3. _Usury in the First Twelve Centuries of Christianity_.

The only pa.s.sage in the Gospels which bears directly on the question of usury is a verse of St. Luke, the correct reading of which is a matter of considerable difference of opinion.[1] The Revised Version reads: 'But love your enemies, and do them good, and lend, never despairing (_nihil desperantes_); and your reward shall be great.' If this be the true reading of the verse, it does not touch the question of usury at all, as it is simply an exhortation to lend without worrying whether the debtor fail or not.[2] The more generally received reading of this verse, however, is that adopted by the Vulgate, 'mutuum date, nihil inde sperantes'--'lend hoping for nothing thereby.' If this be the correct reading, the verse raises considerable difficulties of interpretation. It may simply mean, as Mastrofini interprets it, that all human actions should be performed, not in the hope of obtaining any material reward, but for the love of G.o.d and our neighbour; or it may contain an actual precept or counsel relating to the particular subject of loans. If the latter be the correct interpretation, the further question arises whether the recommendation is to renounce merely the interest of a loan or the princ.i.p.al as well. We need not here engage on the details of the controversy thus aroused; it is sufficient to say that it is the almost unanimous opinion of modern authorities that the verse recommends the renunciation of the princ.i.p.al as well as the interest; and that, if this interpretation is correct, the recommendation is not a precept, but a counsel.[3] Aquinas thought that the verse was a counsel as to the repayment of the princ.i.p.al, but a precept as to the payment of interest, and this opinion is probably correct.[4] With the exception of this verse, there is not a single pa.s.sage in the Gospels which prohibits the taking of usury.

[Footnote 1: Luke vi. 35.]

[Footnote 2: Cleary, _op. cit._, p. 33, following Knabenbaur.]

[Footnote 3: Cleary, _op. cit._, p. 34.]

[Footnote 4: _Ibid._, p. 35.]

We must now give some account of the teaching on usury which was laid down by the Fathers and early councils of the Church; but at the same time we shall not attempt to treat this in an exhaustive way, because, although the early Christian teaching is of interest in itself, it exercised little or no influence upon the great philosophical treatment of the same subject by Aquinas and his followers, which is the princ.i.p.al subject to be discussed in these pages. The first thing we must remark is that the prohibition of usury was not included by the Council of Jerusalem amongst the 'necessary things' imposed upon converts from the Gentiles.[1] This would seem to show that the taking of usury was not regarded as unlawful by the Apostles, who were at pains expressly to forbid the commission of offences, the evil of which must have appeared plainly from the natural law--for instance, fornication. The _Didache_, which was used as a book of catechetical instruction for catechumens, does not specifically mention usury; the forcing of the repayment of loans from the poor who are unable to pay is strongly reprobated; but this is not so in the case of the rich.[2]