would receive from the rates if he could establish a claim. "Surely," he once said to the wife of a sick labourer in Sussex," your husband should have joined a benefit club when he was in good health, that he might have had some means of support now." "No," she replied, "I don't approve of sick clubs. My husband did join one, but I persuaded him to leave it. Why should a poor man pay 1s. 6d. a week just to screen the parish? We get as much allowed now from the parish as we should have had from the club,and the same person is both club doctor and parish doctor, and will attend as well one way as the other. If he comes from the parish, he can order wine or meat from the parish, if he thinks it is wanted; but if he comes from the club, we must buy it ourselves, or go without. We know very well why the gentry and farmers try to get up sick clubs, but poor people here know better than to spend their money just to save the rates." On the other hand, the rate-payers do all in their power to prevent any one obtaining a settlement. It occasionally happens in the southern counties that the churchwardens and overseers of a parish will, at the approach of winter, issue a formal address to the ratepayers, requesting them to employ no men during the dull season, but such as have already a settlement. The result is a species of serfdom, the labourers being tied to the district in which alone they are sure of support. In manufacturing and mining districts, where wages are higher, parish relief does act in some degree as a punishment for improvidence. Still even there, many prefer idleness and assistance to wages and work. The chief remedies he proposed were to grant relief in the shape of loans, as the Poor Law Board recommends; or, in the case of the able-bodied, in the shape of low wages for task work; and to make the workhouse a healthy but unpleasant place to all but orphans, the imbecile, and the disabled, mere old age not being deemed entitled to the same consideration.

EXCESSIVE USURY.

Mr. GEORGE HURST, of Bedford, read a paper "On the Evil Effects of the Modern Practice of Usury." Lending money, he remarked, at usurious interest, is now practised to an extent that has become most mischievous in its effects. Cash is commonly advanced at various enormous rates of interest to needy and improvident individuals at 30, 60, 100, and even sometimes considerably beyond cent. per cent. Loans contracted at these rates are chiefly for small sums, and therefore the humble classes of society are especially made the victims of this species of extortion. It may seem strange that people can be found foolish enough to borrow at exorbitant rates of interest, when the applica. tion of a little common sense would show them how dearly they must pay for the afforded accommodation. But this will not be so surprising when it is considered that there is a large majority of fools in the world, and among them the usurer finds full employment for his capital, so as to enable him with a very moderate amount of money to realise a very comfortable income. The practice of usury

has prevailed in all ages in civilised communities, but until recently taking excessive interest was always considered a disreputable proceeding. In England, from the time of King Henry VIII. to the reign of Queen Anne, various enactments were passed for restraining, but the law that remained in force, until a recent period, was the Act Anne 12, which restricted the amount of interest to be taken to 5 per cent.; but at various times this received many modifications. The Act of 2 & 3 Vict., c. 37, and a subsequent one, 17 & 18 Vict., c. 90, empowering money to be lent on landed security, at any rate of interest, have given entire freedom to the trade in money. From the passing of these Acts the loan business at excessive interest has been continually on the increase, until the distress and embarrassment it has occasioned has become an evil of fearful magnitude. People who borrow at extravagant rates of interest commonly do so under an illusive notion that they shall be enabled to repay the sum advanced in a short time, so that, although the rate be high, the period for which the money will be required being limited, the amount of interest will be unimportant. Without any reliable circumstance in their favour, they rest upon the vague hope "that something will turn up," or "that some friend will assist them," and with such empty expectations plunge themselves into engagements that become a lasting trouble and inconvenience. He then recounted some instances that had come to his own knowledge, showing the ruin that frequently results from borrowing at heavy rates of interest, and gave an account of the delusions practised and mischief occasioned by loan offices, in which, under an appearance of moderation, the interest actually paid was from 30 to 40 per cent. per annum. He commented also upon the folly and distress occasioned by people allowing themselves to become security at such places. After commenting at some length upon " Bentham's Defence of Usury," he came to the conclusion that limiting interest, under every circumstance, to 5 per cent. was an absurdity, and that the price of money, like that of any commodity, should be left to the regulation of supply and demand; and that, beyond the fair market value of the use of money, something like an extra 5 or 6 per cent. might be allowed by law to accommodate peculiar circumstances; but beyond this, he contended, the propriety of the transaction was subject to grave suspicion, and not unfrequently was a postponement of insolvency. With pawnbrokers there is a legal limit to the rate of interest that can be received, the law allowing them only 20 per cent. per annum. Why should the pawnbroker be so restricted, while the usurer is allowed to extort any rate of interest for which he may stipulate? Either one is placed unfairly under legal restrictions, or the other is permitted an undue advantage. The trade of money at a fair or ordinary rate of interest, may be conducted at a moderate risk; but when extreme rates are taken and demanded, it may be considered as a species of gambling. A certain risk is incurred in order to obtain a considerable profit, but it is like the risk of the professional gambler, whose skill and knowledge render the chances

very much in his own favour. Then why not place the gambler and the usurer in a parallel position? The law gives no protection to the one; why should it protect the exactions of the other? It can scarcely be denied that charging an extreme rate of interest for money is equally wrong with exacting an extravagant price for any commodity. In each case it is truly a bargain between individuals, in which it is a matter of option to transact or otherwise; but also, in each case, it is one man obtaining an undue advantage of another, which it is somewhat difficult to justify. Then taking into account the misery occasioned by unrestricted usury-the advantage it gives keen and unscrupulous persons-the facility it affords to imprudence-the blight it frequently casts upon the prospects of young, thoughtless, and inexperienced individuals-its close approximation to sheer gambling-ought it not to be left without legal protection? And, as in the case of gambling debts, ought not both principal and interest to be left entirely to the honour of the borrower?

INDEX.