Usury, Interest and the Reformation (review)

An Empty Shell? Rethinking the Usury Laws in Medieval Europe

“…57 Records from medieval English church courts show that those prosecuted had levied excessive charges for lending. 58 This might be so in practice since interest rates were easily verifiable and so immoderate levels served as a good rough guide to the intentions of the transactors. Nevertheless, canon law did not make any distinction between high and low rates, 59 and instead ruled out, as a principle, all gains from lending that were unjustified.…”

“…Considering that most diocese courts dealt with 100 or so cases each year, usury was a 'distinctly minor' part of ecclesiastical court business. 85 The bulk of cases pursued in English church courts had to do with sexual improprieties, marriage and religious misdeeds. There were very few recorded secular crimes involving theft, murder and assault; even among these the number of usury prosecutions was negligible.…”

“…By themselves, court records are insufficient to show that the overall incidence of usury was low, since they could be due to the ineffectiveness of ecclesiastical enforcement. 96 They are however incompatible with a situation of a high incidence of usury and effective enforcement, leaving only three other possibilities: high incidence and ineffective enforcement; low incidence and ineffective enforcement; low incidence and effective enforcement.…”

“…This broke the collusive relationship the debtor and lender might have and enabled the prosecution of usurers who were otherwise shielded by the complicity, fear or weakness of the debtors. 99 Further authority was given to religious judges in 1311, including the power of discovery under which the suspect had to hand over his account books. Since these were recognized as private documents, they were enough to convict the accused but were insufficient to clear him.…”

“…Laymen representatives, who served as the community's grand jury, acted as church police and had specific responsibilities to report any public usurers. 101 Enforcement was also beefed up by measures aimed at isolating the usurer. From the mid-twelfth century, the penalty of denying communion was extended to include all church services, in effect cutting the usurer off from all intercourse with the faithful.…”