quainted with the celebrated work of Jeremy
Bentham to which he gave the quaint title of
" Defence of Usury." I do not believe any
one else ever rose up to answer his arguments.
Macleod and others whose names are house-
hold words in the modern science of finance,
took the same view; and the result has been
that in England, in our own day, after a
warfare in parliament and government circles
for thirty or forty years, a contest including
the whole British population, for the parlia-
ment Is not controlled by the commercial in-
terests, but as much as any body on the face
of the earth by the agricultural interests,
and a contest conducted there in an enlight-
ened and scientific spirit, there was passed
the act of Parliament passed in 18th and
19th Victoria, which I have read to the con-
vention.
My friend from Anne Arundel (Mr. Miller)
in the course of his observations made one
remark on which I will make a single com-
ment. He quoted Lord Coke, among other
antiquated authorities, who spoke of this
especially in its spiritual relations. I do not
know whether my friend indorses that anti-
quated view when he follows it up with the
common opinion then entertained, and which
a great many people I believe still entertain
that the Bible in some sort condemns the
loaning of money at any other than a fixed
rate. As I remarked before I am not in a
position to make exact citations; but if I
recollect aright, the matter of usury among
the Jews was simply the direction under the
theocracy, that no Jew should take usury
from another, either for money, cattle, horses,
or any other property. I believe those are
nearly the exact words of the Old Testament.
But while by this municipal arrangement
among the Jews, the Jew was forbidden to
take usury for money, cattle, or anything
else, from a Jew, be might take as much
usury as be pleased from an outsider. Every-
body who knows these facts, and who knows
what political economists have said upon the
subject, knows that every writer upon the
subject accepts the investigation which Ben-
tham first made upon the subject as conclu-
sive evidence that there cannot be said to be
any moral wrong in what is known as usury,
—if anybody can define what is usury, which
I will come to it in a moment. There cannot
be any moral wrong in it, because the com-
mandment came to the Jews in the first place
merely as a municipal arrangement among
them, for their profit in some way which we
know nothing about, for some purpose in the
divine wisdom which we cannot penetrate ;
and in the second place, because while for-
bidden to take usury of one another they
were at perfect liberty lo take it of strangers
It would not have been permitted to take it
of strangers if there was any moral wrong
in it.
But if it is wrong to take usury, who shall |
fix what usury is? Here it is above six per
cent. In New York it is above seven per cent.
Somewhere else, in other States, it is above
ten per cent. Who shall say that it is usury
to take seven per cent. in Maryland, but that
in New York eight per cent. is usury? If
there is any moral wrong in it, anything es-
sentially ruinous in it, it ought to be con-
demned, and it ought to be stopped; but why
should we not be able to determine and point
out the amount necessary to constitute usu-
ry? That cannot be immoral here which is
moral in New York. if you cannot fix the
rate up to which it shall be called interest
and is perfectly right and proper, and beyond
which it is to be called usury, and is fraudu-
lent and extortionate, how can you claim that
any rate is in itself wrong? The rate of in.
terest at the bank of England goes up and
down day by day according to the pressure
of the demand by the whole population in the
cities and the country.
That brings me to an observation made by
my colleague, who bases his opposition to
any change here upon the agricultural inter-
est, the interest the people have in it. Of
course as my colleague is aware, and I think
I have given pretty strong evidence of it du-
ring our sessions here, that there is no inter-
est I am more ready to protect. It is for the
very reason that I want to advance and to
protect the agricultural interest, and to aid in
all that will help to support the agricultural
interest ultimately, that I am in favor of this
change. I do not favor it because it is going
to benefit usurers, or benefit rich men at the
expense of poor men—the cry raised here up-
on every question—but because it tends to the
advancement of the whole community by the
adoption of what is regarded in modern times
by those who think upon the subject, as a
great scientific advance.
I will not argue these points, because they
have already been so elaborately covered.—
My friend from Baltimore county (Mr.
Ridgely) has exhausted pretty much what I
should have said upon the question if I had
spoken at length. It is not the raising of the
rate of interest, but leaving money free here
which will bring money into the State. I do
not ask the convention to consent to the per-
manent raising of the rate of interest to say
ten per cent. instead of six. I only say, set
money free; and the effect of it will be that
capital will flow into the State instead of dai-
ly and hourly flowing out of it; it will be that
interest will eventually and permanently fall;
it will be that money will be more plenty,
and there will be more seeking for investment;
and in the course of a few years the rate of
interest will be more likely to sink to four
per cent, than to rise to eight per cent.
In reference to the question of the rich and
the poor, which has been alluded to—the gen-
tleman from Howard (Mr. Sands) had a drive
I at that—that it puts the poor into the hands |
