defence of usury-第6节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


our　per　cent　money　continued　to　be　lent　in　France　at　five　per　cent　the　law　being　evaded　in　several　different　ways。〃　　　　　As　to　the　general　position；　if　so　it　be；　so　much；　according　to　me；　the　better：　but　I　must　confess　I　do　not　see　why　this　should　be　the　case。　It　is　for　the　purpose　of　proving　the　truth　of　this　general　position；　that　the　fact　of　the　inefficacy　of　this　attempt　seems　to　be　adduced：　for　no　other　proof　is　adduced　but　this。　But；　taking　the　fact　for　granted；　I　do　not　see　how　it　can　be　sufficient　to　support　the　inference。　The　law；　we　are　told　at　the　same　time；　was　evaded：　but　we　are　not　told　how　it　came　to　be　open　to　evasion。　It　might　be　owing　to　a　particular　defect　in　the　penning　of　that　particular　law；　or；　what　comes　to　the　same　thing；　in　the　provisions　made　for　carrying　it　into　execution。　In　either　case；　it　affords　no　support　to　the　general　position：　nor　can　that　position　he　a　just　one；　unless　it　were　so　in　the　case　where　every　provision　had　been　made；　that　could　be　made；　for　giving　efficacy　to　the　law。　For　the　position　to　be　true；　the　case　must　be；　that　the　law　would　still　be　broken；　even　after　every　means　of　what　can　properly　be　called　evasion　had　been　removed。　True　or　untrue；　the　position　is　certainly　not　self…evident　enough　to　be　received　without　proof：　yet　nothing　is　adduced　in　proof　of　it；　but　the　fact　above…noticed；　which　we　see　amounts　to　no　such　thing。　What　is　more；　I　should　not　expect　to　find　it　capable　of　proof。　I　do　not　see；　what　it　is；　that　should　render　the　law　incapable　of　〃reducing　the　common　rate　of　interest　below　the　lowest　ordinary　market　rate；〃　but　such　a　state　of　things；　such　a　combination　of　circumstances；　as　should　afford　obstacles　equally　powerful；　or　nearly　so；　to　the　efficacy　of　the　law　against　all　higher　rates。　For　destroying　the　law's　efficacy　altogether。　I　know　of　nothing　that　could　serve；　but　a　resolution　on　the　part　of　all　persons　any　way　privy　not　to　inform：　but　by　such　a　resolution　any　higher　rate　is　just　as　effectually　protected　as　any　lower　one。　Suppose　the　resolution；　strictly　speaking；　universal；　and　the　law　must　in　all　instances　be　equally　inefficacious；　all　rates　of　interest　equally　free；　and　the　state　of　men's　dealings　in　this　way　just　what　it　would　be；　were　there　no　law　at　all　upon　the　subject。　But　in　this　case；　the　position；　in　as　far　as　it　limits　the　inefficacy　of　the　law　to　those　rates　which　are　below　the　〃lowest　ordinary　market　rate；〃　is　not　true。　For　my　part；　I　cannot　conceive　how　any　such　universal　resolution　could　have　been　maintained；　or　could　ever　be　maintained；　without　an　open　concert；　and　as　open　a　rebellion　against　government；　nothing　of　which　sort　appears　to　have　taken　place：　and；　as　to　any　particular　confederacies；　they　are　as　capable　of　protecting　any　higher　rates　against　the　prohibition；　as　any　lower　ones。　　　　　Thus　much　indeed　must　be　admitted；　that　the　low　rate　in　question。　viz。　that　which　was　the　lowest　ordinary　market　rate　immediately　before　the　making　of　the　law；　is　likely　to　come　in　for　the　protection　of　the　public　against　the　law；　more　frequently　than　any　other　rate。　That　must　be　the　case　on　two　accounts：　first；　because　by　being　of　the　number　of　the　ordinary　rates；　it　was；　by　the　supposition；　more　frequent　than　any　extraordinary　ones：　secondly；　because　the　disrepute　annexed　to　the　idea　of　usury；　a　force　which　might　have　more　or　less　efficacy　in　excluding；　from　the　protection　above　spoken　of；　such　extraordinary　rates；　cannot　well　be　supposed　to　apply　itself；　or　at　least　not　in　equal　degree；　to　this　low　and　ordinary　rate。　A　lender　has　certainly　less　to　stop　him　from　taking　a　rate；　which　may　be　taken　without　disrepute；　than　from　taking　one；　which　a　man　could　not　take　without　subjecting　himself　to　that　inconvenience：　nor　is　it　likely；　that　men's　imaginations　and　sentiments　should　testify　so　sudden　an　obsequiousness　to　the　law；　as　to　stamp　disrepute　to…day；　upon　a　rate　of　interest；　to　which　no　such　accompaniment　had　stood　annexed　the　day　before。　　　　　Were　I　to　be　asked　how　I　imagined　the　case　stood　in　the　particular　instance　referred　to　by　Dr　Smith；　judging　from　his　account　of　it；　assisted　by　general　probabilities；　I　should　answer　thus：　　The　law；　I　should　suppose；　was　not　so　penned　as　to　be　altogether　proof　against　evasion。　In　many　instances；　of　which　it　is　impossible　any　account　should　have　been　taken；　it　was　indeed　conformed　to：　in　some　of　those　instances；　people　who　would　have　lent　otherwise；　abstained　from　lending　altogether；　in　others　of　those　instances；　people　lent　their　money　at　the　reduced　legal　rate。　In　other　instances　again；　the　law　was　broken：　the　lenders　trusting；　partly　to　expedients　recurred　to　for　evading　it；　partly　to　the　good　faith　and　honour　of　those　whom　they　had　to　deal　with：　in　this　class　of　instances　it　was　natural；　for　the　two　reasons　above　suggested；　that　those　where　the　old　legal　rate　was　adhered　to；　should　have　been　the　most　numerous。　From　the　circumstance；　not　only　of　their　number；　but　of　their　more　direct　repugnancy　to　the　particular　recent　law　in　question；　they　would　naturally　be　the　most　taken　notice　of。　And　this；　I　should　suppose；　was　the　foundation　in　point　of　fact　for　the　Doctor's　general　position　above…mentioned；　that　〃no　law　can　reduce　the　common　rate　of　interest　below　the　lowest　ordinary　market　rate；　at　the　time　when　that　law　was　made。〃　　　　　In　England；　as　far　as　I　can　trust　my　judgment　and　imperfect　general　recollection　of　the　purport　of　the　laws　relative　to　this　matter；　I　should　not　suppose　that　the　above　position　would　prove　true。　That　there　is　no　such　thing　as　any　palpable　and　universally…notorious；　as　well　as　universally…practicable　receipt　for　that　purpose；　is　manifest　from　the　examples　which；　as　I　have　already　mentioned；　every　now　and　then　occur；　of　convictions　upon　these　statutes。　Two　such　receipts；　indeed；　I　shall　have　occasion　to　touch　upon　presently：　but　they　are　either　not　obvious　enough　in　their　nature；　or　too　troublesome　or　not　extensive　enough　in　their　application；　to　have　despoiled　the　law　altogether　of　its　terrors　or　of　its　preventive　efficacy。　　　　　In　the　country　in　which　I　am　writing；　the　whole　system　of　laws　on　this　subject　is　perfectly；　and　very　happily；　inefficacious。　The　rate　fixed　by　law　is　5　per　cent：　many　people　lend　money；　and　nobody　at　that　rate：　the　lowest　ordinary　rate；　upon　the　very　best　real　security；　is　8　per　cent：　9；　and　even　10；　upon　such　security；　are　common。　Six　or　seven　may　have　place；　now　and　then；　between　relations　or　other　particular　friends：　because；　now　and　then；　a　man　may　choose　to　make　a　present　of　one　or　two　per　cent　to　a　person　whom　he　means　to　favour。　The　contract　is　renewed　from　year　to　year：　for　a　thousand　roubles；　the　borrower；　in　his　written　contract；　obliges　himself　to　pay　at　the　end　of　the　year　one　thousand　and　fifty。　Before　witnesses；　he　receives　his　thousand　roubles：　and；　without　witnesses；　he　immediately　pays　back　his　30　roubles；　or　his　40　roubles；　or　whatever　the　sum　may　be；　that　is　necessary　to　bring　the　real　rate　of　interest　to　the　rate　verbally　agreed　on。　　　　　This　contrivance；　I　take　it；　would　not　do　in　England：　but　why　it　would　not；　is　a　question　which　it　would　be　in　vain　for　me　to　pretend；　at　this　distance　from　all　authorities；　to　discuss。

LETTER　VIII　Virtual　Usury　allowed。

　　　　Having　proved；　as　I　hope；　by　this　time；　the　utter　impropriety　of　the　law's　limiting　the　rate　of　interest；　in　every　case　that　can　be　conceived；　it　may　be　rather　matter　of　curiosity；　than　any　thing　else；　to　enquire；　how　far　the　law；　on　this　head；　is　consistent　with　itself；　and　with　any　principles　upon　which　it　can　have　built。　　　　　1。　Drawing　and　re…drawing　is　a　practice；　which　it　will　be　sufficient　here　to　hint　at。　It　is　perfectly　well　known　to　all　merchants；　and　may　be　so　to　all　who　are　not　merchants；　by　consulting　Dr　Smith。　In　this　way；　he　has　shewn　how　money　may　be；　and　has　been；　taken　up；　at　so　high　a　rate；　as　13　or　14　per　cent　　a　rate　nearly　three　times　as　high　as　the　utmost　which　the　law　professes　to　allow。　The　extra　interest　is　in　this　case　masked　under　the　names　of　commission；　and　price　of　exchange。　The　commission　is　but　small　upon　each　loan；　not　more；　I　think；　than　1/2　per　cent：　custom　having　stretched　so　far　but　no　farther；　it　might　be　thought　dangerous；　perhaps；　to　venture　upon　any　higher　allowance　under　that　name。　The　charge；　being　repeated　a　number　of　times　in　the　course　of　the　year；　makes　up　in　frequency　what　it　wants　in　weight。　The　transaction　is　by　this　shift　rendered　more　troublesome；　indeed；　but　not　less　practicable；　to　such　parties　as　are　agreed　about　it。　But　if　usury　is　good　for　merchants；　I　don't　very　well　see　what　should　make　it　bad　for　every　body　else。　　　　　2。　At　this　distance　from　all　the　mountains　of　legal　knowledge；　I　will　not　pretend　to　say；　whether　the　practice　of　selling　accepted　bills　at　an　under　value；　would　hold　good　against　all　attacks。　It　strikes　my　recollection　as　a　pretty　common　one；　and　I　think　it　could　not　be　brought　under　any　of　the　penal　statutes　against　usury。　The　adequateness　of　the　consideration　might；　for　aught　I　know；　be　attacked　with　success；　in　a　court　of　equity；　or；　perhaps；　if　there　were　sufficient　evidence　（which　the　agreement　of　the　parties　might　easily　prevent）　by　an　action　at　common　law；　for　money　had　and　received。　If　the　practice　be　really　proof　ag