« PreviousContinue »
But still he seemed to carry weight,
With leathern girdle braced; For all might see the bottle necks Still dangling at his waist.
Thus all through merry Islington,
And here he threw the Wash about,
Or a wild goose at play.
At Edmonton, his loving wife
From the balcony spied
Her tender husband, wondering much
To see how he did ride.
"Stop, stop, John Gilpin! Here's the house!"
They all at once did cry;
"What news? what news? your tidings tell,
Tell me you must and shall
Or why you come at all?"
Now Gilpin had a pleasant wit,
In merry guise, he spoke :
"I came because your horse could come;
My hat and wig will soon be here, -
The calender, right glad to find
But to the house went in;
Whence straight he came with hat and wig
A wig that flowed behind,
A hat not much the worse for wear,
He held them up, and in his turn,
"But let me scrape the dirt away
Said John," It is my wedding day,
So turning to his horse, he said,
"I am in haste to dine;
"Twas for your pleasure you came here,
You shall go back for mine."
Ah! luckless speech, and bootless boast,
And all and each that passed that way
Did join in the pursuit.
And now the turnpike gates again
Flew open in short space;
That Gilpin rode a race.
And so he did, and won it too,
Nor stopped till where he had got up
He did again get down.
Now let us sing Long live the King,
And Gilpin, long live he;
And when he next doth ride abroad,
MISCHIEFS OF THE ANTI-USURIOUS LAWS.
BY JEREMY BENTHAM.
(From the "Defence of Usury.")
[JEREMY BENTHAM, a great English jurist and social philosopher, was born at London in 1748; graduated from Queen's College, Oxford; was called to the bar, but gave up practice for literature, inheriting a fortune in 1792 which enabled him to work independently. His working out of utilitarianism has had enormous influence on all later speculation and much practical legislation. He wrote, among other things, "Fragment on Government" (1776), "Defence of Usury" (1786), "Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation" (1789), “Rationale of Judicial Evidence" (1827), “The Constitutional Code" (1830).]
IN THE preceding letters, I have examined all the modes I can think of, in which the restraints imposed by the laws against usury can have been fancied to be of service.
I hope it appears by this time, that there are no ways in which those laws can do any good. But there are several, in which they cannot but do mischief.
The first I shall mention, is that of precluding so many people altogether from the getting the money they stand in need of, to answer their respective exigencies. Think what a distress it would produce, were the liberty of borrowing denied to everybody; denied to those who have such security to offer,