The daily gazette., 1874-12-26

ilshedl by the British Parliament I'LL
1884. Several extensions were subse-
quently made Of the rIlle, till at length,
IN 1854, the usuary laws weres re e1tslled
altogether in Great Britain, and the
usury maxim of Jeremy Bentham was
thoroughly rooted in the English system
of jurisprudence. This maxim is elab-
grated in Bentham's exhaustive essay on
the Defence Of Usury," and declares
that "No man Of ripe years and sound
mind, acting freely, and with his eyes
open, ought to be hindered, with q view to
his advantage, from maxim any bargain,
in the way of obtaining money, as h.
thinks fit, nor what is q necessary conse-
quence) should anybody be hindered
from supplying him on any terms he
thinks proper to accord to.
1t required thirty-fve years of agita-
tion to get the usury law repealed in
England. This reform was demandedby
the growing commerce of Great Britain
soon after the close of the Napoleonic
wars. 1t was agitated as long ago as the
famous days of the Regency. In 1918
special committee of the House of
Commons, after taking volumious evi-
dence. reported unanimously in favor Of
it. The most eminent tinanciers, mer.
chaNts, economists and manufacturers
supported repeal. Their efforts were rt
pulsed again and again, till at length, on
the 3lst of August,a "a victory was gained by
the passage of the first law for the miti-
CATION of the old penalties against usury
This statute and 6 William ~, pro-
vided that documents arising from usur-
ious transactions should be no longer
null. They We're placed in the same sit
uation with obligations arising from
other illegal transactions. Hence they
were etfectual in the hands of bona .fde
hnldnrs for in Ia
of men obtaining them through the usur-
ious transaction. The obligor, having
been compelled to pay the contents OF
the obligation, had recourse against the
usurious obligee, as for money paid on
his account. The GOOD effects of this
legislation tended, with other causes, to
the ultimate extinction of the usuary
laws twenty years later, by the act OF II
and 18 Vic. c. 90, which was passed 5tll
| August, 1858.
In any scheme for reforming our usury
laws, therefore, it sh ould be. IL funda ;
mental condition to protect the principal
from confscation. The forfeiture, if any
should be limited to the interest. An
| other essential condition is that OF i'm
partiality. All lenders and borrowers
should be treated alike. This rule is no
| toriously violated by our present system.
One of the most mischievous defects Ill
our usury laws has been its partiality for
corporations. All corporations are now
forbidden to plead usury by the act OF
April 6, 1850. Thus, any capitalist; may
lend to corporation Mt usurious rates
and be quite safe from the penalties.
For the corporation, being estopped
from pleading usury, can be compelled
!, to pay, and .is bound by its obligation.
But there is IL second privilege WHICH
should be repealed. We refer to the
permisson conferred by special charter
on certain corporations to lend at any
, rates they please, irrespective OF the
usury laws. These privileges should be
done away with, and the new law shoulo
, enact that, mo person on corporation
G shall, directly or indirectly, take or re
e ceive, in money, goods, or things II
: action, or in any other way, any greater
sum or greater value for the loan or for
5 bearance of any money, goods or thing
in action than seven per cent. subJec
8 only to the forfeiture of all interest
! 1t is said, and we hope with good reason
that the three points we have referret
to, with others, will be embodied in th
! usury amendment acts to be Introduce
] at Albany during the coming Winter
4 We cannot help thinking, however. tina
the more liberal and wholesome measur
n we first suggested could be placed wit
q advantage and carried with success.