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."
This charge against Sir Edward Coke, of contradicting his own opinion, is not warranted by what he said concerning the eccle- siastical jurisdiction ; and Mr. Plowden seems, in drawing his con- clusions, to have omitted to consider the effect of the Statute 5 and 6 Edward VI., 6. 20, which came between the two statutes he speaks of in the passage above quoted. We have already seen that the Statute of Henry VIIL, in express words repeals "all former acts, statutes, and laws concerning usury." This Act of Henry VIII. was in its turn repealed by the Statute 5 and 6 Edward VI.; so that the common law and ecclesiastical jurisdiction were thus revived, and were in force when the Statute of Elizabeth was passed. This latter statute again repealed the common law, so far as it was a temporal law, but saved from its operation the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. KnA. it is fortunate for the usurer that the law is as stated by Sir Edward Coke, for if the saving here referred to had been a saving of the common law of usury, and not only the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as contended for by JMr. Plow- den, the usurer would still be liable on his death, to the forfeiture declared by the common law, namely, all his property.
Mr. Ord, in his treatise on usury, at p. 20, in speaking of this subject, says, "But I notwithstanding think, that in one sense usury may be said