' Attorney- General, vid. Gomyn. ^ Roll. Rep., 240. 8 3 Inst. 151, e. 78. * 2 Inst. 89. ^3 Inst. 161. 'Fenton.
but the Statute and Common Laws have correctly distinguished between these, implying that the latter is exorbitant, and the former is lawful. By some authors the word usurer has been applied to those who have committed any kind of extortion or wrong upon another ; but this application is incorrect.
Usury is defined by Sir Edward Coke, as " a con- tract upon a loan of money, or giving days for for- bearing money, debt or duty, by way of loan, chevi- sance, sales of wares, or any other things whatever," and may be stated in other words to mean the let- ting out or lending of one's property of any kind or description to others, and taking or contracting for an exorbitant return, profit or reward for the forbearance of such property or loan. And it seems to have been in this sense of the term, which places usury in the light of oppression and extortion, that the ideas and opinions of men concerning its sinfulness were conceived, and handed down from a re- mote period of Christianity through succeeding ages, to the present century.
Interest, on the other hand, is differently and well defined as "a certain, fair, and legal profit, which the lender is to have for the use of the thing loaned." ' Thus interest and usury are essentially different; but as we proceed with our inquiry, and come to examine into what has been said and done in former times by divines, moralists, and legislators, we shall ' " Usura est comodum certum quod propter usum rei mutuatse recipitur." — (5 Eep., 70.)
ANTIQUITY OF INTEREST ON LOANS. 15 be led to the conclusion that no subject within the scope of Ethics ever displayed such glaring discre- pancies in theory and practice as usury. The practice of taking interest, or usury, upon loans, is of great antiquity, as is evident