Note 433 — Chapter XII · THE SENTENCE.

Molinier, op. cit. pp. 299-302.—Arch. de l’Inq. de Carcassonne (Doat, XXXIV. 5. It is perhaps worthy of note that Ripoll, in printing this bull of Boniface VIII., T. II. p. 61, discreetly suppresses the details of inquisitorial wrong-doing).—Grandjean, Registres de Benoît XI. No. 169, 509.—Chron. Girardi de Fracheto Contin. ann. 1303 (D. Bouquet, XXI. 22-3).—Articuli Transgressionum (Archiv. für Litt. u. Kirchengeschichte, 1887, p. 104).—C. 1, § 4, c. 2 Clement, v. 3.—Bernard. Guidon. Gravamina (Doat, XXX. 118-19).—Coll. Doat, XXXV. 113.—Ripoll, VII. 61.—Archivio di Firenze, Riformagioni, Classe XI. Distinz. I. No. 39.—Villani, Cronica, XII. 58.—Alvar. Pelag. de Planct. Eccles. Lib. II. art. vii.—Eymeric. Direct. Inq. p. 332.—Decamerone, Giorn. I. Nov. 6.—Archives administratives de Reims, III. 641.

The strictness with which the canons against usury were construed is illustrated in a case decided by the University of Paris in 1490. The Faculty of Theology was consulted as to the righteousness of a contract under which a certain church had bought for three hundred livres an annual rent of twenty livres arising from certain lands, with the right of recalling the purchase-money after two months’ notice; while by a separate agreement the land-owner had the right of redemption for nine years. This is doubtless a specimen of the means adopted of evading the prohibition of interest payment, which must have grown frequent with the development of commerce and industry. The contract ran for twenty-six years before it was questioned and referred to the University. A commission of twelve doctors of theology was appointed, who discussed the subject thoroughly, and reported, eleven to one, that the contract was usurious, and that the annual payments must be computed as partial payments on account of the purchase-money (D’Argentré, Collect. Judic. de nov. Error. I. II. 323).