Chaptee II.

Usury was not altogether prohibited by the com- mon law,-^ though it seems to have been a matter of doubt with the highest authorities to what extent it was recognized. Sir Edward Coke was of opinion that it was prohibited, and says, that "by the ancient laws of the realm, usury was unlawful and punishable."^ And further, " that all usury being forbidden by the law of God, is sin, and detestable."^ But Chief Justice Hale thought that only the Jewish usury of forty per cent, was against the common law.'' At all events, the common law was entirely abro- gated by the Statute of Henry VIII.,* which repealed all former acts, statutes and laws, and declared all pains and penalties and forfeitures for the same utterly void, expressly taking away both the common law and ecclesiastical jurisdiction.^ The subsequent ' Note to Evans Statutes, Part 3. ^ 3 Inst., 152. ' 2 Inst., 151. * Hard., 420. " 37 Henry VIII, c. 9. ' Mr. Plowden, in his Treatise on Usury, states his opinion, and endeavors to prove that the common law concerning usury is still in force and unaltered, and says (at page 61) : " When a statute or act of Parliament is made concerning any point of common law, the common law concerning that point is changed, altered or affected by the statute so far only as the statute expressly goes. So, where an Act of Parliament inflicts a new punishment for an old offence at common law, it still remains an offence, and punishable at com- mon law, as it was before the Act passed. Forgery, for instance, COMMON LAW JUEISDICTIOHT. 55 Statute of Edward VI, which repealed the Statute of Henry VIII., of course revived the common law, and ecclesiastical jurisdictions, but was afterwards, in its turn, repealed by the Statute of Queen Elizabeth, which, however, expressly saved the ecclesiastical was made a felony by the 5tli of Elizabeth, yet it remained an offence at common law, punishable as it was before that statute. I should here say positively, without hesitation, that the common law of usury at this moment exists in its full extent, except as to those instances in which it has been expressly altered by substi- tuting statutes, were it not for the authority of Lord Cote. There is, however, a difference to be made between the