INTRODUCTION.

AS the following pages may poſſibly be read by perſons who are unacquainted with the merits of the tranſactions, therein alluded to, which have occurred at Norwich, in the State of Connecticut, it may not be amiſs to give a brief ſtatement of the ſame. It is generally known that ſince the commencement of the preſent war in Europe, the trade of America has been extended beyond any former example. This increaſe of trade has occaſioned a great demand for money; and although many Banks have been eſtabliſhed, in different parts of the continent, their funds have not been ſufficient to anſwer the demands of the Merchants. In conſequence of this deficiency, recourſe has been had to rich individuals, who, thinking their money, like merchandiſe, ſhould bear a price in proportion to the demand for it, have, I underſtand, purchaſed Notes and Bills of Exchange, at 3, 4 and 5 per cent per month diſcount, in the large towns, ſuch as Philadelphia, New-York and Boſton. This practice has, on a ſmaller ſcale, extended to ſome of the more inconſiderable places, and, among the reſt, to Norwich; where notes have, it ſeems, been purchaſed at a diſcount of 2 per cent per month. This deſperate ſituation of money affairs has alarmed ſome of the good citizens of Connecticut to a very conſiderable degree; inſomuch that at Norwich, and, I am informed, at another place in Hartford County, (the only places in the United States, or in the world, I believe, that ever poſſeſſed ſuch worthy guardians of the publick weal,) ſocieties have been formed to cruſh this alarming evil, as it is called, by means of the Statute againſt Uſury. The Society at Norwich is headed by a Mr. Eli • Hyde, an Attorney, whoſe common Informer is a perſon of the name of Cyrus Biſhop. The Deputy Informers of the Society are a Mr.—Ames, (not the honourable Mr. Ames, Reader,) Mr. Biſſel, Mr. Daviſon, &c. There are ſeveral perſons belonging to the Society whoſe names I do not know; but I am told they are people who are not of a deſcription to have much to do with either buying or ſelling of Notes: This circumſtance, however, proves them to be the moſt proper men in the world for the buſineſs they have engaged in; they being perfectly diſintereſted—for although they laid informations, againſt different gentlemen, to the amount of about four thouſand Dollars, one half of which was to come to them, if they ſucceeded, they meant to pocket their own two thouſand Dollars, merely for the publick good.

ONE of theſe cauſes came to a hearing before the City Court in the month of January laſt. It was then contended by the Counſel for the Defendant, that the action was brought before a wrong Court, the City not having authority to • y cauſes of that nature. The members of the City Court, actuated no doubt by the pureſt motives, decided that they were competent to try this cauſe: but from their deciſion the Defendent appealed to the Superior Court. In March laſt the Superior Court ſat at Norwich, and the Judges decided that the City Court had no juriſdiction of the cauſe, it being the province of the County Court to try it. This determination of the Judges of courſe annulled all the writs that had been iſſued by Mr. Hyde, who had to pay coſts and begin de novo. But with what muſcles ſhall I relate the cataſtrophe of this great affair! When Mr. Hyde's new writs arrived, (the morrow after this determination of the Judges,) it was diſcovered that the Defendants had all been ſupplied with other writs the evening before! and the worſt part of the buſineſs is, there is great room to ſuſpect that ſome of their friends have ſtepped in between them and the Society, and demanded the 4000 Dollars in queſtion. I hear that on this occaſion the ſurpriſe and diſmay of Mr. Biſhop was equal to that of Parſon Adams, when he fell from his imaginary throne into a Tub of Water. Nor was that of Mr. Hyde exceeded, when the weighty hand of Mr. Daggeu fell, like thunder, on the table of the Houſe of Repreſentatives, and he ſaid "Sit down Mr. Hyde."

SUCH is the preſent ſtate of the buſineſs. What will be the final iſſue of it is more than I can determine. I ſhall however proceed to enquire what the end of it ought to be.

CURSORY REMARKS, &c.

THE attention of the people of America, from ſome of the beſt to the baſeſt, from the Governor and Legiſlature of New-York, to the Connecticut Societies, having lately been turned, in a conſiderable degree, to the ſubject of Uſury, it has been a matter of ſome ſurpriſe to me to obſerve, that no one has undertaken a thorough inveſtigation of the principles of Uſury laws. In order to promote inquiry on the ſubject, I ſhall take leave to offer a few curſory remarks relative to it, in hopes that ſome perſon poſſeſſing better information, may be induced to produce a more perfect work. I conceive that the beſt manner of treating the queſtion will be 1ſt, To give a brief hiſtory of the laws reſpecting Uſury. 2. To conſider them in their relation to Religion. 3. To take a view of their Moral tendency. 4. To examine the juſtice of them. 5. To inquire into the neceſſity for them. 6. To make a few remarks on their political tendency; And, 7. To compare the proceedings of the Norwich Society with the law.

CHAP. I. On the Hiſtory of Uſury Laws.

LAWS againſt Uſury have been made in many countries. Probably that of Moſes (Deut. xxiii. 19, 20,) was one of the firſt. The Intereſt of Money was fixed at 12 per centum per annum, by the Roman Decemvirs, and that law exiſted till the time of Juſtinian. The character of Juſtinian exhibited the paradoxical extremes of avarice and profuſion. The diſorder of his finances was ſuch as would hardly admit of being remedied; but in order to improve them, he reduced the Intereſt of money to 4 per cent. per ann. Pandects (l. 22. tit. 1, 2,) and Code (l. 4. tit. 32, 33.) In ſome caſes indeed he allowed 6 per cent. and merchants and manufacturers were permitted to pay 8 per cent. becauſe among them the riſque was greater; but ſuch perſons as were the moſt likely to lend to himſelf were not to have more than 4 per cent.

THE Inſtitutes, Pandects and Code of Juſtinian have been the Scriptures from which the Engliſh Civilians have drawn their legal knowledge. From them they probably got the idea of laws againſt Uſury. In England there was very little trade before the ſixteenth century, and, conſequently there was not much money in circulation. Scarcity of money always has a tendency to raiſe the Intereſt of it; ſuch at leaſt was the caſe in England; for from the time of Edward 3d, to that of Henry 7th, and indeed for ſeveral centuries, the Jews and Lombards, who had money to lend to the Barons, and others, on perſonal ſecurity, could make from 45 to 50 per cent. for if. Henry the 8th was an avaricious man who wanted to borrow money cheap, and as he could oblige the Parliament to do juſt what he pleaſed, he got a law paſſed37 Hen. 8. c. 9. to fix the rate of Intereſt at 10 per cent. This was the firſt Engliſh Uſury law, and this law was repealed by the Parliament of Edward 6th, which declared the law itſelf to be "unlawful, and moſt impious." The Statute of Henry, was, however renewed by Elizabeth (13. c. 8.) who had it declared, in the preamble to the Act of Parliament, that Uſury was forbidden by the law of God, and conſequently was unlawful. James 1ſt, (c. 17) reduced the intereſts of money to 8 per cent, and the Rump Parliament lowered it to 6 per cent. This rate of intereſt was fixed in New-England, and, I ſuppoſe has continued ſo ever ſince; a law of the Rump Parliament, having been conſidered as of equal authority with both law and goſpel, by many of the firſt ſettlers of Maſſ • chuſ • s 〈◊〉 . That act of the Rump Parliament was confirmed by Charles 2d. (c. 13) who wanted large ſums of money to ſupport the licentiouſ • s and debaucheries of his court, and his fooliſh wars againſt the Dutch. He Indeed endeavoured to reduce the rate of Intereſt ſtill lower, and employed Sir Thomas Culpepper, and others, to publiſh pamphlets on the ſubject; but the parliaments of thoſe times were not ſo manageable as ſome which had met before. Anne carried on a very expenſive continental war, and in order to raiſe money on better terms, the parliament paſſed a law (12 Ann. St. 2. c. 16.) which fixed legal intereſt at 5 per cent. and enacted that whoever took more ſhould forfeit treble the money borrowed. That ſtatute, although ſo groſsly unjuſt, is now in force in England, but almoſt the only purpoſe it anſwers is to diſtreſs ſuch people as cannot give good ſecurity, by putting it out of their power to borrow money. The Uſury laws in England have been made ſometimes under a pretence of religion, but in reality they have always been made with a view to enable the government to get as much money as poſſible from the people, on the cheapeſt terms. The government however cannot now borrow money at 5 per cent. or any thing like it. The miniſter cannot get more than about £ 45 for £ 100 of 3 per cent Annuities, and the Navy, Victualling and Tranſport Bills, &c. are at ſuch a diſcount as makes the intereſt on them equal to about 15 per cent. The mon • ed men in England prefer government ſecurity to any other, and as much more than legal intereſt can be got for that ſecurity, perſons in trade who often want to borrow money, cannot now get any for the paltry conſideration • 5 per cent; they are therefore obliged to go without money, as a larger intereſt cannot be taken with ſafety. This ſtate of things has made the money-borrowers clamorous for a repeal of the Uſury Laws, and if the government can find reſources by forced loans, or any better method than borrowing, thoſe laws will doubtleſs be repealed.

CHAP. II. On the connexion between Religion & Uſury Laws.

SOME Law-makers have pretended, and many religious people believe, that it is contrary to the Chriſtian religion to take more than a certain ſum for the uſe or intereſt of money. This opinion is taken from the law of Moſes, (Deut. xxiii. 19, 20.) which ſays, Thou ſhalt not lend upon uſury to thy brother; uſury of money, uſury of victuals, uſury of any thing that is lent upon uſury. Unto a ſtranger thou mayeſt lend upon uſury, but unto thy brother thou ſhalt not lend upon uſury. Now, whatever Chriſtian carefully examines this paſſage, he will find that the law was not intended for any other people than the Jews; it was to bind them in their tranſactions between each other only, but like the reſt of their laws and ceremonies, was not extended to either Heathens or Chriſtians, and even a Jew was allowed to take uſury of any perſon who was not a Jew. Religious men may, however, be diſpoſed to heſitate about believing me on this occaſion; I will therefore produce the authority of the learned and Reverend Archdeacon Paley, who was as religious as the beſt of them. He ſays Philoſophy, p. 158, 159. There exiſts no reaſon in the law of nature why a man ſhould not be paid for the lending of his money, as well as of any other property into which the money might be converted.

THE ſcruples that have been entertained upon this head, and upon the foundation of which the receiving of Intereſt or Uſury (for they formerly meant the ſame thing) was once prohibited in almoſt all Chriſtian countries, aroſe from a paſſage of the law of Moſes, Deut. xxiii. 19, 20.Quoted above.

THIS prohibition is now generally underſtood to have been intended for the Jews alone, as part of the political or civil law of that nation, and calculated to preſerve amongſt themſelves that diſtribution of property, to which many of their laws were ſubſervient; as the marriage of an heireſs within her own Tribe; of a widow who was left childleſs to her huſbands brother; the year of Jubilee, when alienated eſtates reverted to the family of the original proprietor—regulations which were never thought to be binding upon any but the commonwealth of Iſrael.

THIS interpretation is confirmed, I think beyond all controverſy, by the diſtinction made in the law between a Jew and a foreigner, unto a ſtranger thou mayeſt lend upon uſury, but unto thy brother thou mayeſt not ſend upon Uſury a diſtinction which could hardly have been admitted into a law, which the divine Author intended to be of moral and ;univerſal obligation.

BUT left the conſciences of Religious men ſhould not be quieted, or their doubts removed by the Divine, I will produce the teſtimony of a Lawyer, whoſe opinion is not often controverted; I mean that of Judge Blackſtone. He ſaysCommentary, Vol. 2. p. 455 and ſequel. The enemies to intereſt in general make no diſtinction between that and Uſury, holding any increaſe of money to be indefenſibly uſurious. And this they ground as well on the prohibition by the law of Moſes among the Jews, as alſo upon what is laid down by AriſtotlePelit. l. 1, c. 10. , that money is naturally barren, and to make it breed money is prepoſterous, and a perverſion of the end of its inſtitution, which was only to anſwer the purpoſes of exchange, and not of increaſe. Hence the ſchool divines have branded the practice of taking Intereſt, as being contrary to the divine law both natural and revealed; and the canon law has proſcribed the taking any, the leaſt, increaſe for the loan of money as a mortal ſin.

BUT in anſwer to this it may be obſerved, that the Moſaical precept was clearly a political, and not a moral precept. It only prohibited the Jews from taking uſury from their brethren the Jews; but in expreſs words permitted them to take it of a ſtranger: which proves that the taking of moderate Uſury, or a reward for the uſe, for ſo the word ſignifies, is not malum in ſe, ſince it was allowed where any but an Iſraelite was concerned. And as to Ariſtotle's reaſon, deduced from the natural barrenneſs of money, the ſame may with equal force be alledged of houſes, which never breed houſes; and twenty other things, which nobody doubts it is lawful to make profit of by letting them to hire.

THESE authorities and arguments will I preſume be ſufficient to convince any man that there is no connexion at all between Religion and Uſury. No wonder however that many men are now puzzled on the ſubject, as that is no more than has happened before to Ariſtotle, Cato, Seneca and Plutarch among the heathens; to Cyprian, Lanctantius, Baſil, Chryſoſtom, Gregory, Ambroſe, Jerom, Auguſtin and Shakeſpeare, and other caſuiſts, with whole councils among the Chriſtians. The Parliament of James I. inſerted in his Uſury law, which allowed 8 per cent. intereſt, that this Statute ſhall not be conſtrued or expounded to allow the practice of Uſury in point of religion or conſcience. And the learned Biſhop Sanderſon determined that to take ſix in the hundred is ſabbath breaking, becauſe the plow goes on Sundays. If all theſe abſurdities were to be admitted as authorities, eveery man who receives intereſt of any kind ſhould be denominated a Uſurer, and it muſt be believed, that he who receives only 6 per cent breaks the Sabbath by ſo doing: indeed there are very few abſurdities which ſome of the above named writers have not maintained. Now I not only differ with them all, after the example of Paley and Blackſtone, but I go farther. I mean plainly and unequivocally to aſſert, that ſo far from being conformable to religion, the exiſting Uſury laws are contrary to the ſpirit of both the Jewiſh and Chriſtian religions. The utmoſt extent of the law of Moſes goes no farther than an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth—that is make good what you have taken wrongfully; if you have taken Uſury of a brother reſtore it—but the law againſt Uſury ſays you ſhall forfeit both principal and intereſt: which is at the rate of all your teeth and eyes for one. The goſpel directs that Whatſoever ye would that men ſhould do unto you, do ye even ſo to them Matt. vii. 12. . Now ſuppoſe any one of theſe religious men ſhould have charged 6, 12, or 18 per cent more than is allowed by law, would they wiſh, for ſuch an overcharge, to pay £ 124? Impoſſible! If then they would not chuſe to be ſubject to this law themſelves, how can they deſire to ſubject others to it conſiſtently with this ſacred rule; which is the moſt comprehenſive that ever was was laid down, and contains in itſelf a whole body of morality and practical religion. It is diſguſting to hear religious tradeſmen—Paper-makers, Carpenters, Coopers, Bakers, &c. declaiming againſt Uſury, and, like the Phariſee in the Goſpel, thanking God that they are not as Uſurers are—unjuſt, covetous and extortioners—they never charged more than 6 per cent: whereas the true ſtate of the caſe is, they make a virtue of neceſſity, and their not having charged more is ſolely owing to their not having money to charge upon. They can ſee the more in the eye of their brother but not the beam which is in their own eye. For what Paper-maker is there who does not, or would not if he could, make 100 per cent profit on every • ag he grinds? What Carpenter would not make as large a profit on every Chaiſe or other article he ſells? Are there not Coopers who ought to be indicted for extortion on every hoop they ſell? Bakers too, who condemn Uſury, have not ſcrupled to ſell twelve ounces of Bread for ſix-pence, and yet theſe pious Gentlemen take upon them to aſſert that they never charged more than 6 per cent. Might it not with propriety and juſtice be ſaid of them Thou that judgeſt another doeſt worſe things. If the intereſt of money is to be ſettled by religion, let us have the profits of trade ſettled by the ſame rule. Let us have a maximum for the produce of the farmer's lands—and let the profits of the merchant, trader and mechanic be fixed at 6 per cent. How would tradeſmen like this? Not at all, although this would be equally juſt and religious with fixing the intereſt of money, for the law of Moſes ſays, that Uſury is not to be charged to a brother on victuals or any thing elſe, any more than on money: therefore if the old laws againſt Uſury are to be put in force, let us have the old laws againſt Extortion enforced alſoSuch is the va • ity and number of caſes in which extortions are practiced, that the Ju • an law againſt Extortion exceeded an hundred chapters. Cicero ad Familïares, VIII. 8. .

BUT without proceeding farther, enough has been ſaid to warrant the concluſion, that what is mentioned reſpecting Uſury in the law of Moſes, is not binding on Chriſtians; and this concluſion will be confirmed beyond all poſſibility of doubt or cavil, when we conſider that the ſubject is no where mentioned in the New Teſtament. On the contrary an oppoſite doctrine is every where inculcated, and the law of retaliation is totally aboliſhed by the goſpel. I may therefore ſafely aſſert in the words of the Statute of Edward VI. that, ſo far from being religious, the laws reſpecting Uſury are Unlawful and moſt impious.

CHAP. III. On the Moral tendency of Uſury Laws.

THE next thing I propoſe to conſider is, the moral tendency of Uſury Laws. In this point of view, however, I can ſee nothing but a total departure from, and oppoſition to, all the rules of morality, notwithſtanding the preambles to ſome of thoſe laws make a whining profeſſion of regard to poor debtors. I conceive the morality of trade conſiſts in every man making the beſt bargain he can, and adhereing with religious exactneſs to that bargain; whether he be a buyer or ſeller, borrower or lender. Now if the rule I have here laid down is right, the non-compliance with an agreement, muſt be a breach of morality. The Uſury laws not only ſanction this breach, but they authorize the moſt outrageous oppoſition to this rule of morality. They encourage a ſharper to agree for the payment of more than legal intereſt, and that poſſibly with a man who does not know that ſuch laws exiſt, and afterwards to cheat him out of the whole ſum, principal and intereſt. Indeed they do more for they hold out a lure, and, as it were, invite the ſharper to commit this deliberate piece of villainy; for one half of the money forfeited by the lender, is to go to the informer. Or whole gangs of theſe ſharpers may conſpire together for the purpoſe of ruining men who poſſeſs more property than themſelves; and though they might not ultimately ſucceed in their wicked deſigns, the laws put it in their power to diſturb the peace of families, and much better members of ſociety than themſelves, for a certain time. If ſuch be morality, then the Robbers of Greece, the Pirates deſtroyed by Pompey, the plundering Arabs, and the Banditti of Italy were good and moral people. For if the Uſury Societies pretend that they are going to get the money of Uſurers for the Public Good, the ancient Societies, I have mentioned, did not act without ſome pretence equally plauſible. The Greeks robbed becauſe they thought it Honorable The writings of the ancients prove the truth of this aſſertion in numerous Inſtances. For example, Achilles could boaſt that he had ſacked twelve cities in the Iſlands of the Archipelago; and an equal number on the plains of Tray. And the latent fire of Ulyſes, at the Court of Alcinous was rouſed by the taunting inſinuation, that he was "Perhaps a merchant in purſuit of gain" vide Hom • r.—The Pirates pillaged mariners, becauſe they called them Lawful Prey—The Arabs plunder becauſe they think it the beſt and moſt eaſy mode of living—The Banditti of Italy robbed and murdered travellers, becauſe they thought their doing ſo was a proof of courage. The principles however on which theſe people acted were evidently vicious and immoral; but not more ſo, I conceive, than is a law which authoriſes a gang of people to aſſociate for the purpoſe of plundering thoſe who perhaps never ſaw them or had at ſingle tranſaction with them. Would it not be equally moral, and more honourable to tolerate by a law the practice of taking a man's property by force and violence? He would then have a chance of defending himſelf.

ANOTHER kind of immorality attendant on Uſury Laws is their rewarding Informers; who, in all European countries, at leaſt, are conſ • dered as the very outcaſts, dregs and peſts of ſociety; whoſe hand, like that of Iſhmael, is againſt every man, and every man's hand againſt them, and with whom none but men of "like occupation with themſelves" will aſſociate. Their word or oath, in a court of juſtice, in England, is conſidered as of no conſequence or value, nor will it have any weight whatever, with a Jury of men of the very meaneſt capacity. If then Uſury laws have a tendency to reduce men to this degraded and wretched ſtate, no farther proof or argument need be ſought after to convince the world of the Immorality of them.

CHAP. IV. On the juſtice of Uſury Laws.

THE queſtion reſpecting the Juſtice of Uſury laws is determined by the laws themſelves. The law of England, on a conviction of uſurious practices, enjoins a forfeiture of three times the amount of the capital loaned. The law of the State of Connecticut alſo enacts that Every perſon who ſhall take, accept and receive by any way or means, more than Six Dollars for the uſe of One Hundred Dollars, for a year, ſhall forfeit and loſe for ſuch offence, the full value of the money ſo lent; one moiety thereof to the public Treaſury of this State, the other half to the Informer who ſhall ſue for and proſecute the ſame to effect. Now it will, at firſt ſight, be evident to every perſon that no man, although he were more learned than Yelverton, or Littleton, or Coke, or Hales, or Blackſtone, or Mansfield, or all of them together, can ever prove that there is any juſtice in ſuch moſt horrid and barbarous forfeitures. With a Goth, Vandal or Monk, they might indeed be juſtice, but never can paſs for ſuch in any enlightened or liberal ſtate of Society. Any thing in the Uſury law of Connecticut, which has the leaſt appearance of juſtice, is that part of it which directs the proceedings to be by a bill in equityAnd even this part is unjuſt, for, in ſtrict juſtice no more than what is paid over and above the current value of the money, ought to be deducted.. In that way the lender loſes the Intereſt only, and certainly that is the utmoſt extent that any legiſlature had a right to proceed to: but to take away the principal, to reduce a man to beggary and ruin, for an action which is not either immoral or unjuſt, certainly has much more of the appearance of violence and robbery, than of juſtice, in it—and I am moſt fully convinced that no Law makers had a • ight to paſs ſuch laws, as they are evidently both immoral and unjuſt. But admitting there ought to be Uſury laws, thoſe which now exiſt appear to be juſt the contrary of what they ought to be; for living is at leaſt fifteen times as expenſive now, as it was when the Intereſt of money was 10 or 12 per cent. In the 12th Century a fat ox and a meal of bread for an hundred men could be had for two ſhillings; and twenty horſes might be fed for four pence. In the 13th Century, wheat might be bought for a ſhilling, and oats for four pence a quarter, a gooſe for four pence, a lamb for ſix pence, and fowls at a penny for a couple. Such were generally the prices for ſeveral ages afterwards; and I have ſeen a tavern bill for Queen Elizabeth, her attendants and ſervants, for a breakfaſt on Turkeys, Fowls, Claret, &c. which did not amount to more than 4 s. 8 d. ſterling, a little more than a breakfaſt for one man coſts now. Is it not ſtrange then that legiſlators ſhould have been ſo extremely hard upon money, as to leſſen its value in proportion as the value of 〈◊〉 other articles of trade increaſes? Does this look like juſtice?

ANOTHER ſpecies of injuſtice which the Uſury laws ſanction, is their tolerating a ſpecies of perſecution againſt men of property. Governor Jay, in his laſt ſpeech to the legiſlature of New York, complains that men of otherwiſe irreproachable character are guilty of the practice of Uſury. Uſury is merely a ſpeculative point on which men may naturally be expected to differ in opinion. Governor Jay is an enemy to the practice; but he ſpeaks of it in the language of a Gentleman. Very different however is the caſe with the generality of people, and the Societies, who converſe on the ſubject. They repreſent people who have money to lend as a ſet of Robbers, Swindlers, Extortioners, and I know not what beſide; and they ſucceed in raiſing an odium againſt monied men amongſt unthinking people, who neither underſtand or examine the matter. It would be prudent in ſuch people to follow the advice of an ancient writer, who ſays, Underſtand firſt, and than rebuke. Let them conſider that NO MAN IS OBLIGED TO BORROW MONEY. But if I have money to lend, and another man wiſhes to borrow it, ſurely I have a right to conſider his ability to repay it, the inconvenience I might be put to by lending, the value of money, and to demand intereſt accordingly. If he accepts my offer that in itſelf is a demonſtration that he cannot do better elſewhere, and is it juſt that after I have done better than any other perſon for him, he ſhould have it in his power to cheat me? If (ſays BlackſtoneComment. Vol. 2. p. 456. ) I borrow £100 to employ in a beneficial trade, it is but equitable that the lender ſhould have a proportion of my gains. This is certainly agreeable to the nature and ſpirit of trade; for if a Farmer has corn, or cattle, or any other article to ſell, or a Merchant has goods for ſale, it will be uſeleſs for me to tell them what the price of thoſe articles was ten or an hundred years ago, and demand the articles at that price: they will inſiſt on the preſent market price, and if I will not give that they will go elſewhere. I have paid 16 Dollars for a barrel of Flour; this I ſhould doubtleſs have been glad to get at the old price of 5 Dollars, but as I knew it was then worth 16 Dollars to the ſeller, I was obliged to pay ſo much;—and in juſtice the caſe ought to be the ſame with money. When money is ſcarce and much wanted it ought to produce a larger profit, juſt as all other articles in trade do.

THERE are great numbers of people in the world who are paſt labour, and who have ſaved a ſum of money ſufficient to ſupport them in cheap times; but when the neceſſaries of life are advanced to three times the amount of their ordinary value, is it juſt to oblige ſuch people to take common intereſt for their money, and thus to cut them off from two thirds of the nouriſhments, &c. which are neceſſary to the ſupport and comfort of life?

BUT another glaring inconſiſtency and injuſtice • n the Uſury law is this—Money that is lent on uſurious Intereſt is generally, if not always, obtained by the preſſing and, ſometimes repeated ſolicitations of the • orrower; yet the lender is to bear the whole burden of pains are penalties, and the borrower is to be rewarded for his perfidy, if he turns informer, and cheats the lender out of both principal and intereſt. Certainly theſe things ought not ſo to be. If men are to be tempted and bribed to violate every principle of good faith and honour, why are not the penalties of the law to fall equally on the borrower, ſeeing, if this is a crime, that he is equally culpable. Nay he is probably more ſo, for no doubt he always borrows wi • h a view to his own advantage; and the advantages on his ſide are generally much more conſiderableI know a very reſpectable Gentleman who borrowed 20,000 Dollars at New-York at 4 per cent per month, with which he made a clear profit of 1500 Dollars in leſs than four months. than on thoſe of the lender; who, if the borrower happens to fail in his ſchemes, frequently loſes his money without the aſſiſtance of the Uſury law. Upon the whole we may ſafely conclude that there is no more juſtice in the law for defining Uſury and puniſhing Uſurers, than there was in that which condemned women to the flames for having fits, and which reflected equal diſgrace on both Old and New-England.

CHAP. V. On the Neceſſity for the exiſtence of Uſury Laws.

THE next thing to be remarked on, is the Neceſſity for the exiſtence of Uſury laws. This neceſſity will appear to be very trifling indeed 〈◊〉 it be once admitted that money, like every other article of exchange and merchandiſe, if left to its own ſimple operation, will find its own value. That it will do this is proved by a variety of facts, none of which I think is ſtronger than that of the variation in the price of gold and ſilver, according as it is ſcarce or plenty. In China the proportion between gold and ſilver is as one to ten, that is, one ounce of gold is worth ten • unces of ſilverI ſuppoſe this is the reaſon why merchants ſend out ſilver to China, it being worth near one third more there than it is here.. in other parts of the Eaſt-Indies, the proportion varies from one to eleven, twelve and thirteen. In ancient Greece it was as one • o thirteen. In ancient Rome as one to ten, but in the time of Tiberius it roſe to thirteen. During the reign of the Monks the variations were greater in extent and almoſt infinite in number; but when Columbus firſt diſcovered America, the proportion was one to twelveVide Raynal, Hiſt. Philos. of Politique Tom. 3. 503. . From that time the importations of ſilver from Mexico and Peru, have been more than a counterpoiſe to the gold of Brazil, and it now requires near fifteen ounces of ſilver, both in Europe and America, to purchaſe an ounce of gold; but at times when ſilver has been ſcarce and much demanded, I have known the proportion reduced as low as one to twelve, in England. The relative value of gold and ſilver being thus clearly proved to be governed by circumſtances, there can be little doubt, but the value of money, in general, would always be determined by the quantity, as it ought to be, therefore there can be no neceſſity for fixing it by law.

BUT I will mention another fact, which I think will ſettle the matter beyond diſpute. In peaceable times, when money is plenty in Euro • e, it is never worth more than 3, 4 or 5 per cent. In England particularly, ſo late as the year 1792, £ 100 of Annuities which pay only 3 per cent. Intereſt, were worth £ 97, and it was difficult to get 4 per cent. on Mortgages: L • nd alſo in general did not produce more than 3 per cent. and in America money was ſufficiently plen • y to raiſe the Funds conſiderably above par. It is only in times like theſe, when the ruinous war carried on in Europe, and the great increaſe in the trade of this country, has made money ſcarce there, and much demanded here, that more than a very moderate rate of Intereſt can be obtained. Where then is the neceſſity or propr • ety of preventing the man who poſſeſſes money, from taking advantage of this favourable time, any more than there is for preventing the Farmer or Merchant from availing themſelves of a good time for the ſale of their produce or Merchandiſe—or the Jobber in Suſquehanna or other lands, from ſelling his ſpeculations at 50, 100, or perhaps 500It is curious to remark that a perſon who is actively connected with one of the Societies for plundering men of property by the Uſury law, is now ſuing a Gentleman on his own account, for 2500 Dollars on a land Job; for which ſum it ſeems no value ever was or ever will be given. I may alſo be allowed to remark in this place that ſeveral members of the Norwich Society are deeply in debt; and the perſons ſued have "unjuſtly detained" the money due to the Society, until the Secretary of it has been obliged to ſhut himſelf up and demand a Letter of Licence for five years from his creditors. Thus this great man who was going to force every body to be honeſt, has not ſcrupled to take in every honeſt and induſtrious tradeſman from whom he could get credit. The company of Mr. Biſhop is pretty well deſcribed in general terms • Sam. xxii. 2. And every one that was in diſtreſs, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was diſcontented, gathered themſelves unto him; and he became a captain over them. I will here alſo obſerve, that I do not think I am correct in calling the Society the Norwich Society, as moſt of the members live in the Town of Liſbon; and although they have had many ab • tors in Norwich, I believe none, but their Attorney, lives in the city who is actively connected with them, except alſo ſome Informers. At one time the Society muſtered partizans enough to put on the appearance of popularity, but the people have begun to ſee the impropriety of their conduct, inſomuch that at the late election for State Repreſentatives, Mr. Hyde could not collect more than about one fourth of the votes of the citizens of Norwich, and loſt his election. One member of the Society alſo has abandoned it, declaring he can no longer purſue the diabolical ſyſtem; and Mr. Hyde begins to think it an unpopular buſineſs, for I am told he now ſays he is nothing more than Attorney to the Society, and has reſtrained its violence all that was in his power. Query.—Is it any part of the duty of an Attorney to write to a Bankrupt in Philadelphia, deſiring him to give all the information he can concerning Uſury caſes? per cent profit if he can? Indeed I ſhould think there is a much greater neceſſity for a reſtraint on people of this deſcription, for it is pretty clear that where one perſon is injured by the Intereſt of money, an hundred are ruined by jobbing in lands.

CHAP. VI. On the Policy of Uſury Laws.

AMONG the governments of Europe there is apparently ſome Policy in Uſury Laws; for their debts are enormous, and they are almoſt continually borrowing immenſe ſums of money. If they were obliged to pay a high intereſt; they know they could not borrow enough for their ſchemes. If governments were obliged to pay 20 per cent Intereſt, they could no more carry on a ſeven years war, now, than they could in thoſe feudal times when they lev • ed their ſupplies by taking a tenth, fif • een • h or twentieth part of every man's moveable property. Hence it appears that though a high in ereſt would be bad policy for a government, it would be good pol • cy for a people at large, as they could thereby eſcape many evils, and much expenſe of blood and treaſure.

BUT even this unſound pretence of policy, does not attach to the individual ſtates of America; their debts are but trifling, nor does there appear any proſpect of their being un • er the neceſſity of increaſing them. The intereſt is fixed, and it is of no conſequence to the ſtate 〈◊〉 how much the capital ſells per £ 100. The Uſury laws therefore ſo far from being advantageous to America, are on the other hand highly detrimental; for if thoſe laws were repealed, it is probable intereſt migh • for a little time be 10 or 12 per cent.—but as ſoon as the people of Europe underſtood that ſo much was legally to be got here, they would make immenſe remittances to this country; ſufficient, I have no doubt, to reduce the Intereſt of money lower than 6 per cent. Plenty of money would occaſion a competition among the lenders, and the conduct of the Banks at New-York proves that if one lets out money for leſs than is now the legal intereſt, another m • ſt alſo. An infl • x of wealth could not fail to be of the m • ſt eſſential advantage to a country ſo extenſive and ſo thinly peopled as is America; for wherever riches are, induſtry, improvements and population will naturally increaſe: and this country would ſoon prove to the world that it could do without Uſury laws, as well as did thoſe greatly commercial nations the Phoenicians, Carthaginians and Venetians.

THE hiſtory and experience of all ages and nations proves, that in order for trade to be ſucceſsful it muſt be free; and that the more free money has been from legal ſhackles, in any country, ſo much the greater in proportion has been the trade of that country. Thus among the Carthaginians, Phoenicians, Vene • ians and Dutch, where loans were free, trade flouriſhed moſt extenſively: But in the dark ages of Monkiſh ſuperſtition and civil tyranny, when intereſt was laid under a total interdict, commerce was alſo at its loweſt ebb, and fell entirely into the hands of the Jews and Lombards: but when men's minds began to be enlarged, when true religion, and real liberty revived, commerce grew again into credit; and again introduced with itſelf its inſeperable companion, the doctrine of loans upon intereſtBlackſtone's Comment. Vol. 2. p. 456. . While intereſt was prohibited in England there was no trade, and the Jews and Lombards, who clandeſtinely followed the practice of Uſury, made 45 or 50 per cent per annum; which demonſtrates the abſurdity and bad policy of reſtraints on money. Henry VIII. El • zabeth, and James I. tolerated intereſt on loans, not for the benefit of trade, but to enable themſelves to borrow cheaper than of the Jews and Lombards. However, as money became more free, trade began to flouriſh, and England ſoon became the rival of Holland, which had uſurped the dominion of the ſeas. The freedom of money in Holland reduced the intereſt ſo low that the Dutch remitted at leaſt Seventy M • llions Sterling into England to be inveſted in the Engliſh Funds, although they could not make more than about 3 per cent intereſt there. It is true that the rate of Intereſt is fixed by law, in England, but the trade of England was nearly doubled at a time when money would not produce legal Intereſ • .—Now that no one but the Bank will lend on legal intereſt, trade is again rapidly on the decline. Hence it appears that the more free money has been in any country, the greater has been the trade and proſperity of t • at country; and if the State legiſlatures of this country ſhould think proper to repeal the Uſury laws exiſting here, although a temporary inconvenience might ariſe from the Intereſt being more than 6 or 7 per cent, yet I am confident ſo great an influx of wealth would be occaſioned by that riſe, as would ſoon reduce the rate of Intereſt below the preſent legal ſtandard. Is not this proved by every other ſpecies of merchandiſe? If an article produces a high price in any country, is it not ſent to that country from all parts of the world until the price is reduced lower than in any other country? Wheat was a • 4 Dollars a buſhel in England about two years ago, and that price occaſioned ſo great an importation as reduced the value to ſuch a degree as made it moſt fo • the advantage of merchants to ſend flour back to America. Is it not then more than probable that the caſe would the ſame with money? A • leaſt I ſhould think it would be worthy the attention of legiſlatures, ſo far as to induce them to try the experiment.

IT is ſaid by ſome that Uſury laws are neceſſary to reſtrain the avarice of creditors, who, if their debtors cannot pay them, either advance the intereſt or demand ſomething for forbearance; that they are a reſtraint upon taking advantage of a man's diſtreſſed circumſtances, to extort a large intereſt from him, and therefore they are politic. But if ſome creditors are apt to be hard on debtors, why do they not borrow of other perſons to ſave the advance of Intereſt, or forbearance money, if they can do it on better terms? Their not doing ſo is a ſufficient preſumption that they cannot get the money cheaper, or perhaps, on any terms whatever, elſewhere. Again, where a man is in diſtreſſed circumſtances, who, except a very uncommon friend, would ſtep forward and relieve him from his diſtreſs, without a proſpect of an advantage which ſhould be equivalent to the riſk he runs? In this reſpect the Uſury Law is ſo far from being politic, that I am convinced many men fall to ruin and decay, becauſe no one for 6 per cent will advance money to relieve him at ſome critical conjuncture; whereas if a man could legally bargain for a compenſation of the riſk and danger he expoſes himſelf to, • he diſtreſſed perſon might be relieved, he might ſupport his credit, continue his buſineſs, and arrive at opulence, inſt • d of dragging on a life of poverty and •••• chedneſs. Why is this clamour about the c • uelty of creditors? It is a ſtalking horſe to 〈◊〉 the diabolical deſigns of certain perſons. No one ever had better opportunities of knowing the nature of Creditors and Debtors, than had the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, and he has conſtantly and uniformly aſſerted that Where there is one cruel creditor there are ten cruel debtors. Such too the general experience of mankind proves to be the caſe.

There can be no good policy in a law which countenances a combination of knaves to conſpire the ruin of their more wealthy neighbours and creditors. Their being enabled to attempt this will put a ſtop to all confidence and credit. When that is gone there muſt be a great falling oft in trade; for as the commerce of this country is in a conſiderable degree, carried on by the capital and credit of the more wealthy men, who aſſiſt the leſs wealthy, that capita • and credit may be withdrawn for want of confidence. Then the trade which was ſupported that way will be at an end; Money will daily become more ſcarce; the Farmers will want a market for their produce, and this proceeding, inſtead of making money plenty at 6 per cent, may be productive of incalculable evils. Many of theſe effects of the conſpiracy, are already actually felt at Norwich. But beſide theſe natural evils, the depriving monied men of their natural liberty of action might be productive of great artificial evils. Thoſe that are called monied men are fewIn reflecting on this circumſtance it might at firſt ſight occaſion ſurprize that the Uſury Societies and other friends of the Equality of Property, ſhould wait for a determination of laws to make the diſtribution. But on further conſideration we ſhall perceive that the Landed, Monied and Commercial Intereſts, united, form a majority of the inhabitants of moſt countries, and, except in caſes of Uſury, are able to ſecure their property from invaſion by theſe Societies. In the time of Cromwell a Society of Fifth-Monarchy men ſpr • ng up in England, who wanted to eſtabliſh the reign of "King Jeſus," at they called him, on earth, and themſelves as his ſole Agents in the management of worldly goods; but their hopes were rendered deſperate by the reſtoration of Charles II. Inſomuch that one Venner, of Colen • an Street, London, with his Society conſiſting of about ſixty men, iſſued forth with arms in their hands, and began to make violent and forcible ſeizure in the name of their King; but the people at large ſell on them and deſtroyed them all. Thus it is that property is preſerved, and its rights ſecured. Vid • Bur • el's Hiſtory of his own 〈◊〉 (Introduct.) in compariſon with the g • eat body of the people, and if they are to • hardly uſed it would be no difficult matter for them in their turn to enter into ſuch a combination and conſpiracy as would ruin the government and country. Suppoſe the practices of theſe Societies were ſucceſsfully and extenſively put into effect, and many men ruined by the ſame, would it be ſtrange if a principle of revenge ſhould ſtimulate the monied intereſt to withdraw their property from the Government, from the Banks, from the Merchants, &c. and to lodge it in their own coffers until they obtained a redreſs of this grievance? It is eaſy to foreſee what would be the conſequences of ſuch a proceeding. Now as monied men have the power of doing ſo much miſchief, and do not uſe that power, I think they ought to be treated with ſome indulgence, and not be expoſſed to be harraſſed and made uneaſy by the dregs of ſociety, and perſons with whom they never had a tranſaction. It appears to me that this reſtraint upon their acting according to the rules of nature, of trade, and of common policy, ought to be taken out of the way.

FROM what has been ſaid before, it evidently appears that prohibiting the lending of money is altogether impolitic. The preſent Uſury laws are equal to a prohibition, therefore they muſt be impolitic alſo. For what man will now lend to an individual on perſonal ſecurity at Six per cent? The Funds of the Government, the Banks, Turnpike Roads, &c. pay more, where the money can at any time be commanded, which is not the caſe with individuals. Suppoſe a man lends another man 100 Dollars on a note, he will think himſelf well off if he gets the money in calling for it three times. If the note ſhould be at two months, he will get a Dollar diſcount (at 6 per cent) and if he has to hire a chaiſe to go two or three miles, three times, that will coſt him nine ſhillings, ſo that the buyer of ſuch a note ſtands a chance of being half a dollar out of pocket beſides being kept out of his money two or three months, and taking as much trouble as would coſt him a dollar or two more if he was to hire a perſon to do the buſineſs. As payments are now made it is worth about 2 per cent to collect money, ſo that it cannot be expected any man in his ſenſes ſhould enter into the ſyſtem of lending at 6 per cent. It will therefore be politic for the legiſlatures either totally to aboliſh Uſury laws, or increaſe the rate of intereſt, if they wiſh there ſhould be any trade; for (I ſay it on the authority of Blackſtone) Unleſs money can be borrowed, trade cannot be carried on.

ANOTHER circumſtance which indicates the good policy of repealing the Uſury laws, is their being particularly injurious to certain claſſes of individuals. Among theſe are ſome of the Engliſh nobility and gentry who poſſeſs entailed Eſtates, which they cannot either ſell or mortgage without an act of Parliament. Perſons of this deſcription might get money for little more than legal intereſt if their friends could give legal ſecurity for them; but as that cannot be done they are obliged to raiſe money in a very diſadvantageous way, by Poſt-obit bonds, or Life Annuities. In the latter caſe a gentleman borrows a certain ſum of money for life, and mortgages the rent of his Eſtate for the payment of the Intereſt, or Life Annuity, as it is called. He alſo has his life Inſured to the amount of the ſum borrowed, at one of the offices, eſtabliſhed in London for ſuch purpoſes, and the policy remains with the lender; who is thereby enabled to recover from the office the original ſum loaned, at the death of the borrower. For money borrowed in this way the Intereſt and premium of Inſurance cannot amount to leſs than 15 or 18 per cent. per • nn. when money is plenty; yet a tranſaction of this kind is not adjudged to come within the Statute againſt Uſury.

BUT there it another and more numerous claſs of men who are much more materially injured by the Uſury laws, I mean the poorer fort of tradeſmen. Perſons or Societies who Inſure property at ſea charge a premium in proportion to the riſk; for example the Premium of Inſurance to the Weſt Indies may now be 20 per cent; but in time of peace would be only two per cent. So if a poor tradeſman, who is thought in a hazardous ſituation, attempts to borrow money he muſt pay 24 per cent.—whereas if he could legally give the ſecurity of two or three of his friends, it is probable the lender would rather let him have the money at 8 or 10 per cent, than at 24 or even 30 per cent, and run the riſk of his ſingle ſecurity and the Uſury laws. Such is the difficulty this deſcription of men often experience in raiſing money, that they are frequently obliged to ſend their goods into auctions and ſell them for hal • what they coſt. I could produce the example of a man in Norwich who bought a hogſhead of ſugar for 9 Dollars per Cwt. at three months credit, and ſold the ſame for 7 Dollars ready money, in order to raiſe a little current caſh. Now ſuppoſing there was no more than 10 Cwt. of ſugar in the hogſhead, he loſt 20 Dollars by the ſpeculation, whereas if he had borrowed the money, he raiſed, at 2 per cent a month, it would have coſt him only 4 Dollars and a fraction; and had there been no Uſury law ſo that he could have given legal ſecurity, no doubt he could have borrowed the ſum for two Dollars.—Probably ſimilar inſtances occur daily in larger Towns.

THUS in whatever way I view the Uſury Laws, I can find in them neither Religion, Morality, Juſtice, Neceſſity or Policy, but they contain abundance of the directly contrary qualities. As men become enlightened, legiſlators will ſee the neceſſity for repealing theſe laws, as they have already repealed others which were made by the Monkiſh and gloomy profeſſors of religion, in earlier times. I could wiſh, for the honour of Connecticut, that its leg • ſlators at their next meeting would try the experiment of either repealing this law or at leaſt taking away all the unjuſt penalties it demands. It thoſe miſchievous and gloomy effects which ſome pretend to foreſee ſhould • eſult from the repeal, it is an eaſy matter to reeſtabliſh the law at any time; but this cannot be aſcertained without a trial. For my own 〈…〉 am convinced that the repeal will always 〈…〉 on thoſe legiſlators by whom it is effected.

CHAP. VII. On the Legality of the proceedings of the Norwich Society.

I UNDERSTAND the Norwich, or rather the L • ſb • n Society conſiſts of about eight perſons, who have entered into regular articles of agreement to proſecute all caſes of Uſury may come to their knowledge. Mr. H • de, it ſeems, has not degraded himſelf ſo far as to ſign thoſe 〈◊〉 . Mr. Cy • us B • ſhop 〈◊〉 conſtituted the Informer General of the 〈◊〉 , but he frequently deſcends lo the mea • office of a pimpPerhaps Mr. Hyde and Mr. Biſhop may be ſurprized at my making ſo free with their names▪ but their wonder will 〈◊〉 • hen I inform them that I do it to return an oblig • I am under to them, of the ſame kind. If they will have the goodneſs to recollect the ſpeeches they have made conc • rning me at their meetings, and to individuals, they will then be ſurprized at the lenity with when I have treated them. Without ſeeking it, I have obtained much more information concerning them than I have m • ntioned; ſome of which, it is true, relates to their private characters, with which I have no buſineſs; but I might have ſtated other, much more ſevere, facts than any I have hinted at, relative to their public tranſactions. My own knowledge of them amounts to very little indeed, for I have not the honour to be much acquainted with Mr Hyde, and as to Mr. Biſhop I never ſaw him; or ever heard of him before he aſſured his preſent important office. Allow me to add that as I intend to return to my own coun • y as ſoon as peace is made, it will be of but little importance to me whether the Society ſucceeds or not, or whether or not the Uſur • law is repealed; but as I think the proceedings of the Society, and the laws, which admit of ſuch proceedings, are diſgraceful to any government and to human nature in general, I have as much right as any other man to animadvert on them; or at leaſt • s m • ch right as Mr. Hyde or Mr. Biſhop have to make ſpeeches concerning me., going from houſe to houſe to know if the inhabitants cannot give him "a little information about Uſury." The di •• al or nocturnal meetings of the Society, are kept in ſome degree ſecret; but as ſome of the members have been unfaithful, their ſecrets get divulged. Hence it appears that their conſultations (to uſe the language of proſaic poetry) in point of principle, were not excelled by the conſultations held at the palace of Pandaemonium, and for eloquence their debates might be compared to the bella inter inteſtina, which has, if I miſtake not, been celebrated by a Roman poet. On theſe occaſions it is determined againſt whom Mr. Hyde, as the Pope of Society, ſhall iſſue his mandates, or Bulls, commanding the perſons fixed on to do homage to the Society, and to pay to Mr. Biſhop 2600 or 600 Dollars, as the nature of the caſe may be. This Summons is iſſued in the manner and form following.

To the Sheriff of the County of New London, his Deputy, or to either the conſtables of the town of Norwich, or to either the Sheriffs of the city of Norwich within the County aforeſaid.

GREETING.

BY Authority of the State of Connecticut, you are hereby commanded to ſummon — of ſaid city, to appear before the city Court to be holden 〈◊〉 the city of Norwich, within and for ſaid city, on the ſecond Tueſday of January next, then and there to anſwer unto Cyrus Biſhop of Liſbon in the County aforeſaid, in a plea that to the plaintiff the defendant render the ſum of Twenty-Six Hundred Dollars, which to the plaintiff (be the defendant owes,) and to the treaſurer of the State of Connecticut, and unjuſtly detains; whereupon the plaintiff declares and ſays, that on the eleventh day of November, A. D. 1796, in the city aforeſaid, Benjamin Ames and Jonathan Lawrence, both of ſaid city, applied to the defendant and wanted the loan of Twenty-Six Hundred Dollars for the term of ſix months;—the defendant then propoſed to let them the ſaid Ames and Lawrence have ſaid ſum on the following terms,—that they the ſaid Ames and Lawrence muſt give their note for the Sum of Twenty-Six Hundred Dollars, payable in ſix months from the date, and muſt allow at the rate of two per cent per month, or at the rate of twenty four per cent per annum, and likewiſe procure Simeon Hubbard and Company's, then of ſaid City, indorſement on ſaid note, aſſuring the repayment of the money at the expiration of ſix months from the date, to which propoſal the ſaid Ames and Lawrence by the agency of ſaid Ame • agreed to, and then it was on ſaid Eleventh day of November, corruptly agreed by and between the ſaid Ames and Lawrence, on the one part, and the defendant on the other part in ſaid city, and the defendant paid over to ſaid Ames and Lawrence, ſaid ſum of Twenty-Six Hundred Dollars, deducting and retaining therefrom ſaid Uſurious Intereſt Three Hundred and Twelve Dollars, and then received ſaid Note of hand from ſaid Ames and Lawrence, ſigned Benjamin Ames & Company, payable to the defendant in ſix months from the eleventh day of November, A. D. 1796, on this expreſs and corrupt agreement—that the ſaid Ames and Lawrence was to allow more than at the rate of Six per Cent per annum, viz. at the rate of Twenty-four per Cent per annum on ſaid note of Twenty ſix Hundred Dollars, which was included in ſaid note, and the Plaintiff further ſays, that ſaid note become due on the eleventh day of May laſt paſt, and on or about ſaid 11th day, the defendant and ſaid Ames and Lawrence did in ſaid city, in purſuance of ſaid corrupt agreement, and in order to carry into effect ſaid uſurious, wicked, unlawful and corrupt agreement, the ſaid Lawrence and Ames paid over to the defendant, and the defendant did then receive 〈…〉 not more than at the ra • e of Six per Cent per annum, or Six pounds upon the Hundred, by force of a wicked and corrupt bargain made as aforeſaid, and the defendant received the full contents of ſaid note, which contained more than the lawful Intereſt, and at the rate of Twenty-four per Cent per annum from the ſum actually received, all by the corrupt, uſurious and unlawful agreement made with ſaid Ames and Lawrence, thereby the defendant in ſaid city, on ſaid 11th day of May, did, againſt law by a corrupt agreement receive on the ſaid note of Twenty ſix Hundred Dollars, more than legal Intereſt, by the hands of ſaid Ames and Lawrence, and thereby the defendant by his wicked and corrupt conduct as aforeſaid, has forfeited ſaid ſum of Twenty ſix Hundred Dollars, the one half to him that will proſecute the ſame to effect, the other half to the Treaſurer of the State,—and thereby an action has accrued to the plaintiff to recover of the defendant ſaid ſum of Twenty-ſix Hundred Dollars, the one half to the Treaſurer of the State and the other half to himſelf, which ſum of Twenty-ſix Hundred Dollars the defendant has never paid in any way or manner, or any part thereof, though often requeſted and demanded, which it to the damage of the plaintiff the ſum of Twenty ſix Hundred Dollars, and to recover the ſame by f • rce of the Statute law to be diſpoſed of as the Statute law directs, and coſts, this ſuit is brought. Hereof fail not, but of this writ make due ſervice and return as the law directs.

Dated in Norwich, the 23d day December, A. D. 1797. ELISHA HYDE, Juſtice of Peace. Thirty-four Cents duty is paid. Certified, per Eliſha Hyde, Juſtice of Peace. A true Copy of the original writ, Teſt. Benjamin Tracy, City Sheriff.

THIS writ, with the exception of the name of the Defendant; is copied ad literam, and it will appear that, however legal it may be, it is not very logical. I have ſeen another writ ſigned by Mr. Hyde which has the following paſſage in it.—To the Plaintiff the Defendant owes, and unjuſtly detains, whereupon the plaintiff Declares, and ſays that within the city aforeſaid, the Defendant Loaned and Lent Six Hundred Dollars to Eliphalet Bulkley and William Lee, both then of Colcheſter in ſaid County, which money was lent and delivered to ſaid Bulkley & Lee in ſaid City on or about the 10th day of June, A. D. 1797,—which money was returned and paid to the Defendant by ſaid Bulkley & Lee, on or about the 30th day of Auguſt laſt paſt and for the loan and forbearance of ſaid Six Hundred Dollars, leſs than ſixty days from the delivery thereof it was corrup • y agreed by and between the Defendant and ſaid Bulkley & Lee for the Defendant to receive of ſaid Bulkley & Lee more than the lawful intereſt ariſing thereon, &c. From the 10th of June to the 30th of Auguſt, I conceive, there are eighty-one days: how the Society made it "leſs than ſixty days" I am at a loſs to imagine. If they calculate no better on general principles than on dates, I ſuſpect they will find themſelves on the wrong ſide of the queſtion. Indeed at all events I have no ſcruple about believing that the Society will ultimately find that it has been miſtaken. For when theſe caſes come to a full hearing in a court of juſtice, it will appear that they are acting on an entirely new ſyſtem; ſuch as was never heard of, or thought of, before, in any age or country. It will be diſcovered that in order to a conviction the law requires "full evidence." I will not attempt to deny that in ſome caſes the perſon who borrowed money at uſurious intereſt might be admitted as a competent witneſs by a court of juſtice; but it is far from being evident that this practice was contemplated by the framers of the Connecticut Uſury law. On the contrary there is ſtrong preſumptive evidence of an oppoſite diſpoſition.—1ſt. In the clauſe (called obſolete by Mr. Swift) which directs Grand-jurors to preſent ſuch perſons as are of "Evil name for taking exceſſive intereſt." Now if the law-makers thought that the evidence of a perſon who had tranſacted buſineſs with the Uſurer was ſufficient, what neceſſity was there for this clauſe? 2. If a borrower has made a • ſ • r • ous contract with a lender, there is a proviſo in the Statute, in caſe the borrower is proſecuted for amount of the loan, which enables him, the defendant, to file a bill in equity, whereby the plaintiff is obliged to be examined on oath touching the real ſum he lent; and he is to receive that ſum only, without intereſt: Now if the makers of this law had been of opinion that the evidence of the defendant alone, would be ſufficient proof of uſurious practices, is it to be ſuppoſed that they would have enacted a 〈◊〉 of this nature? 3. Theſe parts of the law (the preſentment and bill in equity) are to be carried into effect on the evidence of "one credible witneſs;" but p. 12, it is Always provided, That nothing in this act be conſtrued to prevent any perſons from proceeding upon full Evidence in the common courſe of law againſt exceſſive Uſury, and uſurious contracts. Thus there is a clear diſtinction made between one credible witneſs, and "full evidence." This conſideration alone I ſhould think ſufficient to prove that the compilers of the Uſury Statute had it not in contemplation to admit the evidence of one man, and he a party in the tranſaction, as full evidence. The legiſlators of thoſe times muſt have known that a law ſo conſtrued would occaſion many frauds, there being in all countries men who, for the ſake of a reward, would invent or forge a caſe in uſury, and ſwear that there was uſury in tranſactions were none exiſted. They knew very well that there is no method to prevent a man from giving a premium privately on money, becauſe every man has a natural right to do ſo if he chuſes it; but it appears to me that the law was only intended to prevent the receiving more than legal intereſt by courſe of law. I know very little of the practice of the courts in this country. But in England I believe I can ſafely aſſert, that there never was a conviction on the Uſury State on the evidence of an Informer: A man of that deſcription would not dare to ſhew his face on any exchange in that country. No doubt uſurious practices are carried on to a conſiderable extent in England, but proſecutions for Uſury ſeldom occur, unleſs in caſes of Bankruptcy, or Death; and they do not then occur unleſs it can be proved by the clear indiſputable evidence of Deeds, Books, and diſintereſted living witneſſes; which is there called full evidence The Uſury Statute directs that in no caſe whatever ſhall contracts be made for more than 6 pet cent; but the Legiſlature of Connecticut has allowed 12 per cent. per annum to the proprietors of ſeveral 〈◊〉 Bridges and Turn • ike roads in this State—ſhould not this operate a virtual repeal of the Uſury law? Theſe kinds of ſecurity are very different to reſponden • 〈…〉 bonds, and policies of Inſurance.. If the Norwich (Liſbon) Society was in England their witneſſes would not only be thought ineligible, but the members of the Society themſelves would be indicted for a conſpiracy: for ſuch their aſſociating, actually is. When a man voluntarily comes forward with an information on a caſe of Uſury, he it certain of making himſelf infamous for the remainder of his life; and few men will run this riſk without a proſpect of conſiderable advantage. I underſtand the witneſſes of the Society are to ſwear that they are totally diſintereſted; but will any Jury ever believe ſome of of them? And even if a credible witneſs ſhould be examined the evidence of one man does not appear to be full evidence, and therefore will not warrant the giving of a verdict for the plaintiff. And when it is conſidered that the Uſury Statute is almoſt obſolete; that it is ſo highly injurious to ſociety as it has been proved to be; that Juries ought to do ſtrict juſtice between all parties; and that they are judges of Law as well as of Fact, a Jury ought to be extremely cautious about going into the practice of convictions under this Statute.

SUCH indeed the conduct of Juries generally is in regard to old and barbarous laws. In the cale where a man is killed in a duel the law calls it murder; but if the duel is fought by mutual agreement, and nothing diſhonourable appears on the part of the ſurvivor, a Jury always brings it in Manſlaughter only. Juries in England are generally very ſcrupulous in ſuch caſes, inſomuch that I have known a verdict of Manſlaughter brought in when the Judges charged the Jury to find the priſoner guilty of Murder. Two inſtances of this come within my own immediate knowledge, namely, on the trials of Mr. Patterſon and R. England for killing Gen. Adair, and Mr. Rowles. Lycurgus the Spartan Law-giver, in his code of laws, directed that every child born with any natural defect ſhould be put to death. Draco decreed that every crime ſhould be puniſhed with death. It was the law, of cuſtom, at leaſt, among the Poles, ſo late as the 13th century, to put every old man, who was paſt labour, and every imperfect child to death. And by the laws of France, England and Maſſachuſetts Bay, every poor old woman who happened to be troubled with convulſions, St. V • tus's dance, &c. was condemned to be burnt for a witch. In the barbarous times when thoſe laws were made, they were carried into execution: but if they exiſted now, and a Jury was impanelled to try a child for being crooked, a man for being old, a boy for ſtealing an apple, or an old woman for having fits, would the Jury condemn theſe ſeveral perſons to death on ſuch accounts? No Jury could be found to do this, whatever the law might ſay, in any civilized country; in England ſuch Laws as are barbarous and unjuſt are always got rid of by what is called Fictions in law. When the caſes in Uſury come to be heard, a Jury will no doubt be puzzled to know how perſons who never had a tranſaction with Cyrus Biſhop, can be made to owe him 4000 Dollars by law. If the law could be made to apply to the caſe, a Jury would ſee the neceſſity for evading it by a fiction; but the Jurors before whom theſe cauſes are brought will perceive that it never was the intention of the law to do more than put it in the power of the perſon aggrieved, or his heirs to injure the Uſurer; they will learn that very few convictions have ever been had under this Statute; that proſecutions like theſe of the Society have never been carried on, or even thought of; and that they cannot either on the principles of Law, Juſtice or Honour, give a verdict for Cyrus Biſhop and Company.

NORWICH, 5th MAY, 1798.

ERRATA.

Firſt line of the Note, p. 22. for vanity read variety.