fits arising from the use of your money may be considered as due to you beyond your principal.

Something more than this may indeed be fairly claimed, where you run any hazard of losing your principal by my becoming unable to repay it; you may in these circumstances justly expect to be paid for such hazard. And upon this account it is, that you may fairly expect higher interest where your security is bad, than where it is good.

There is indeed one case in which interest may be demanded for money lent, though it was no condition of the original loan; and that is, when the money is not repaid at the time fixed for payment. At that time the borrower's property in the money ceases, and the lender may demand to be satisfied for whatever damage he sustains by not having his property restored to his possession at the time that it ought to be.

law.

Usury why forbid- XXVIII. The authority of the law of Moses seems to den by the Mosaic weigh the most of any thing with those who maintain that interest is unlawful. Grotius urges upon this head, that the matter of the law which forbids usury, though it may not be necessary, is certainly commendable; and that, in this view, the law is binding upon christians, who are obliged by the gospel not only to observe the rules of strict justice, but to comply likewise with all the most perfect and exalted rules of moral duty. An Israelite, says he, was allowed indeed to take increase of a stranger, but was forbidden to take it of his neighbours or brethren. Now the gospel, as he goes on, has taught us to look upon all mankind as our neighbours or brethren. From whence he concludes, that whatever moral duty one Israelite owed to another; the same duty is owing from a christian to all mankind: so that no christian, consistently with his religion, can take interest or increase of any man for money lent. Before I examine this argument, it may not be amiss to inform the English reader, that a passage in the book of Leviticus, relating to usury, is wrongly translated in our bibles. The passage is this-And if thy brother be waxed poor, and fallen in decay with thee, then thou shalt relieve him, yea, though he be a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with thee: take thou no usury of him or increase; but fear thy God, that thy brother may live with thee: thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor lend him thy victuals for increase. This passage at first sight implies, that the Israelites might not take increase of a stranger or sojourner; if he was grown poor or fallen to decay amongst them: they are commanded to relieve their brother who was in such distress; not only if he was an Israelite, but though he was a stranger or a sojourner, they were to take no usury or increase of him. But it is to be observed, that the words, yea, though he be, are not in the original: and if we render the original literally it will be-Thou shalt relieve him, a stranger or a sojourner, that he may live with thee. There is something wanting to make the sense full; and instead of supplying it with the words yea, though he be, it should have been thus supplied-If thy brother is waxen poor, and fallen to decay with thee, then thou shalt help him, a stranger and a sojourner shall help him, that

he may live with thee. In the common translation it is plain, that a stranger or a sojourner must be called the brother of an Israelite; which

Levit. XXXV. 35, &c.

is so unusual in the other parts of the law of Moses, that this alone would be a sufficient reason for concluding, that our translators have missed the sense of this passage. The intent of the law in this place seems to be, that all persons who lived under its jurisdiction, whether they were Israelites or sojourners, should help a poor Israelite. This precept is, in this respect, like the fourth precept of the decalogue; it extends to all who dwelled in the land. And we may find a farther reason for preferring this sense to the sense which is expressed in our translation, if we compare this passage with another that we meet with in the book of Deuteronomy. *The law says there,-Thou shalt not lend upon usury to thy brother, usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing, that is lent upon usury: unto a stranger thou mayest lend upon usury, but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon usury. Here is a plain difference made between those who are called brethren, and those who are called strangers. Nay, we find, that the Israelites were allowed to lend upon usury to strangers, though they were forbidden to lend upon usury to one another. And since, according to the common translation of the passage cited from Leviticus, they were alike forbidden to lend upon usury either to their brethren or to strangers, it is evident that our translators must have mistaken the sense of that passage; because the same law cannot expressly allow in one place what it expressly forbids in another.

If then it appears that the Israelites were forbidden to lend upon usury to one another only, and were, without exception, allowed to take usury of strangers; the consequence will be, that there can be nothing morally wrong in the practice itself: if there had, they would have been forbidden it in respect of foreigners, as well as in respect of one another: since what is wrong in itself, is as much so, when practised towards one set of men, as when practised towards another set. But if this practice was not forbidden to the Israelites upon account of any viciousness in it, then, notwithstanding the perfect morality which christians are obliged to, we cannot conclude from this precept in the Mosaic law, that it is unlawful for christians to take interest for money lent.

In fact this precept seems, from the distinction made between Israelites and strangers, to be of a political rather than of a moral nature: and no part of the merely political law of Moses is binding upon christians. The circumstances of the Hebrew nation, and the Mosaic constitution of government, will show us upon what policy this law was founded. They were not originally a trading nation, and consequently could make but little advantage by the use of money. And besides, by the Mosaic constitution, the land was equally divided between the several members of the community; and lest this equality should in process of time be broken in upon, no person was allowed to purchase land in perpetuity; whatever was bought, was to return again at the year of jubilee to the former owners. With the same view likewise, that the inheritance of one family or tribe might not pass into another, and the original equality of land be destroyed by accumulation, heiresses were commanded to marry within their own family or tribe. Since then, we may collect from these institutions, that the legislator intended to pre

Deut. XXIII. 19, 20.

serve an equality, and to prevent any one person or family from growing too rich; a plain reason appears why usury, especially in a nation without trade, should be prohibited. If it had been allowed of, those who paid it must have been impoverished; and those who received it, though they were in some measure prevented from realizing their fortunes by purchases of lands in perpetuity, would yet have grown more rich in proportion to their neighbours, than the law designed they should be.

to a loan.

Question relating XXIX. There is another question which may arise concerning a loan. If the value of money should alter between the time of borrowing and the time of paying, it may be asked, whether the payment is to be made according to the value of the money at the time of borrowing, or according to its value at the time of paying.

Before we can answer this question, it must be made a little more determinate than it is in this manner of stating it. Let us state the question thus:-Suppose I have lent a certain number of pieces of any particular denomination, and before the time of payment, those pieces change in their price, or in their relative value, when compared with pieces of some other denomination; as suppose, for instance, that I lend a hundred guineas, which, at the time of lending them, are each of them worth twenty-two shillings; but that, before the time of payment, guineas are each of them worth no more than twenty-one shillings; would it be a sufficient payment if the borrower was to return the same number of pieces of the same denomination, that is, to return me a hundred guineas again.

Here it would be necessary to know whether the intrinsic or the extrinsic value of the pieces in question had been changed, so as to make this alteration in the price of them. Certainly if their price had been altered by a change in their intrinsic value, there would be no reason to think it a sufficient payment.

The intrinsic value of guineas, or of any other pieces of money, can be made less only by making them of baser metal, or by putting a less quantity of pure metal into them. Suppose, then, that I lend a man a hundred guineas of a purer sort of metal; it seems to be self-evident that, if before the time of payment the guineas have been lowered in their intrinsic value, by making them of baser metal, he does not pay me what he borrowed by returning a hundred guineas made of this baser metal. I lend a man a hundred pieces of gold, which are called guineas: no one could think that he would make a full payment by returning an equal number of pieces of brass of the same shape and stamp. And it would be as plainly no full payment, if the pieces returned were a mixed metal of half gold and half brass: for what I lent was all gold, and what I receive is but half gold. You might say, indeed, that these are counters and not guineas. But this is not the true reason why I am not fully paid. It is not the denomination which gives the value to money, but its weight and fineness. The payment is short, not because what I lent were called guineas, and what I receive are called counters; but because the weight and fineness of what I receive is not the same with the weight and fineness of what I lent.

The second way of debasing the coin, is by making a greater number of pieces of the same denomination out of the same weight of pure

metal. Thus, if a pound of gold makes forty guineas, and I lend forty such guineas; it would be a short payment, if I was to receive only forty guineas of such a size, that threescore of them would weigh no more than a pound. In this rate of payment, the number, and the denomination, and the fineness both of the pieces that I lend, and of the pieces that I receive, would be the same; and yet I should receive but two-thirds of my debt: because the weight of these forty guineas is only two-thirds of the weight of what I lent.

In reckoning money we are apt, where the denomination and number is the same, to consider the value as the same too; without considering that the way of estimating the quantity of money by the number of pieces is quite accidental. This way of reckoning proceeds upon a supposition, that all pieces of a certain denomination, with such a certain stamp upon them, have a certain degree of fineness and a certain weight. Upon this supposition, counting the number of pieces, comes to the same in the end as weighing them. But whenever this supposition has been taken away by keeping the denomination or stamp and changing the fineness or the weight of the pieces; those who are not forced to do otherwise by positive laws, will take the money by tale no longer; but will adjust its fineness, and estimate its weight, in order to determine the quantity of pure metal that they receive.

Where the intrinsic value of the pieces is the same, their extrinsic value in comparison of any other pieces, as of shillings, for instance, may be altered, either, first, by debasing the metal out of which those shillings are made; or secondly, by lessening their weight without debasing the metal; or thirdly, by the accidental variations in the quantity of silver and gold that are current. But naturally these alterations in the extrinsic value of gold, or of guineas made of gold, are of no account: because, naturally, gold is lent as gold, without any reference to silver. It is only civil institution which has given it this reference, by considering all the current coin of a nation as if it was of the same species; by considering, for instance, shillings as parts of a guinea, and halfpence as parts of a shilling, without regarding the difference of the metal that these several coins are made of. But naturally, if I lend a hundred guineas, each of which, in reference to silver, is then worth twenty-two shillings, and am to be paid again when, in the same reference, each is worth no more than twenty-one shillings; I shall be fully paid if a hundred guineas are returned me. The gold that passes between me and the borrower is to be estimated only by its weight and fineness, and not by its value in comparison with silver, any more than by its value in comparison with any thing else. It would be readily seen to be a very strange question, supposing I was to lend a guinea when it would buy five bushels of wheat, and was to be paid again when it would only buy four, whether a guinea would be full payment? And it is in the nature of the thing as strange a question, supposing lend a guinea, when it would buy me twenty-two pieces of silver, and am to be paid again when it would only buy twenty-one such pieces, whether this is full payment? What has made us see the strangeness of the former question more readily than of the latter is, that guineas and wheat are considered by us as different species of things; so that in estimating the value of the one we do it without any necessary or customary reference to the other. But guineas and shillings in a na

tion where both of them are current coin, are looked upon as things of the same species, and as differing only as a part differs from the whole: by which means we are led to estimate the value of the one by the proportion which it bears to the value of the other. Suppose I lend two pounds and a half of gold in bullion, which compared with silver is at that time worth two thousand two hundred shillings: it would, I imagine, be thought full payment, if I received two pounds and a half of bullion again; though, perhaps, at the time of payment, it might be worth no more in silver than two thousand one hundred shillings. For the natural rule is, that in such things as are estimated by number, weight or measure, it is a full payment, if we return the same species in equal number, weight or measure. The coining these two pounds and a half of bullion into a hundred guineas before I lend it, would make no real difference in the two cases: for all that is done by coining is to denote by a certain stamp upon each piece into which the bullion is divided, what is the weight of that piece. Coining the bullion might indeed make such an imaginary difference as has occasioned all the difficulty in this question: the bullion being then changed into gold coin, we might by that means be led to consider it as of the same species with silver coin, and to judge of its value, not by its weight, but by its relative value in comparison with silver coin.

This reference of gold coin to silver coin in determining its value, as if they were of the same species, and differed from one another only as greater and less, is kept up in civil reckonings by referring both of them alike to some common and settled denomination: which denomination is so far imaginary, that it is quite accidental whether there are any pieces coined which answer to the several terms of such denomination or not. Thus, in England, our civil way of numeration is by pounds, shillings and pence. All our coin, in reckoning money, whether it is gold, or silver, or copper, is referred to this standing denomination; which is in itself only an imaginary one. There are, indeed, such pieces as shillings, which answer to one term in this common denomination: but it is quite accidental that there are such pieces: this term in the denomination was not taken from the coin which is called a shilling, but was itself the occasion that such pieces should be coined. And it is plain that this term might, in reckoning money, be as readily made use of as it is now, though there was no such coin as a shilling; since another term in the same denomination, the term of pounds, is well understood, and easily applied; though there is in fact no such coin as a pound.

As far as the civil law, for the sake of making all the coin that is in a nation circulate alike, requires it in all loans and all payments to be reduced to such a common standing denomination, the state of the question now before us would be changed, and the determination upon it must be changed accordingly. If I lend a man a hundred guineas when the value of each guinea is one pound two shillings; the sum that I lend is not to be called a hundred guineas, for guinea is no term in the national way of reckoning; it must be called one hundred and ten pounds. Here, if it be asked whether a hundred guineas, when each is reduced to the value of one pound one shilling, would pay me, the answer will be clear; if we consider what sum, according to the national way of reckoning money, a hundred such guineas would make.