estatutos a ser motivo de dudas, ambigüedades y cuestiones.
' 13 Elizabeth, c. 8, § 9. " Mr. Plowden (p. 66), in commenting upon the conclusions to which Sir Edward Coke arrives, says, " The learned commentator upon these statutes of usury appears to have substantially contra- dicted his own opinion upon the abrogation of the common law.
COMMOlSr LAW JUEISDICTIOIT. 57 It is somewhat remarkable that, until late years, all the guilt of usury had been laid by most of the writers on the subject at the door of the lender ; and none of the authors who alluded to the point at all For, says lie, the ecclesiastical jurisdiction is saved hy the said Statute of the 13<A of Elizabeth, as thereby it appeareth. Now, tbie direct inference from Lord Coke's words is — therefore the com- mon law was not abrogated or abolished by the 27th of Henry VIII., for if it had been, then the ecclesiastical jurisdiction over usury could not have been saved, though it might have been revived by this subsequent Act of Elizabeth. Now, this saving of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, of which Lord Coke here speaks, is the direct saving of the common law against usury."