Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus

CAMBIRE means the same as to change; yet not every change of some thing is called Cambium; as if you were to change a horse for clothes, you would not be said to cambire except broadly: But this contract is most usual among Merchants, and Changers, inhabitants of different cities; and is most apt for carrying money hence and thence: yet its bond binds principally the Campsor and Campsarius, of whom below. It differs indeed from sale, because the latter claims money for a thing of another species; it differs also from a loan, because that is made in things of diverse nature, as in wheat, wine, and the like; but Cambium demands money for money, as will appear from its definition below.

What CAMBIUM is, and of how many kinds.

Cambium IS DEFINED: It is an exchange of different moneys: Or an exchange of money for money.

CAMBIUM is twofold, one Real, one Dry. The Real, which is called true Cambium, is a legitimate exchange of money for money: But the Dry is that which is not true Cambium, but covered with the cloak of a loan, and true usury, because merely on account of the delay of time, or an expected payment, or when it is feigned that the payment is to be made elsewhere, and it is made in the same place, something is received beyond the principal, and therefore it is called Dry, and sterile for producing legitimate profit; for the distance of place, required in it for true Cambium, is converted into an expectation of payment, because the money is truly to be paid in that place in which it is received.

The real CAMBIUM is divided into Minute, and Locale: Minute is, when one gives greater moneys for lesser, or the contrary; or old coin is exchanged with new; native with foreign; golden with silver; or silver with copper.

THIS Cambium is also wont to be called Manuale, because the money being counted from hand to hand is wont to be completed at the same time and place. Locale Cambium is when present money is exchanged with absent, which is also wont to be called Cambium per litteras, because letters are wont to be sent to the place where the money is to be received or paid.

Whether in a MINUTE exchange it be licit to receive something above the value of the coin defined by law.

This Cambium is very USEFUL to the Republic, and because men often need lesser moneys for contracts, or need to transfer moneys to remote places, and indeed to exchange lesser and inferior ones restored into greater.

But there are MANY causes for which in this Cambium it is licit to receive profit.

The FIRST is by reason of the office of Changing, on which the burden lies of gathering moneys from different Principalities, that he may distribute them; to hire the shop; to count at the customs-house, etc. Which is understood not only in a public, but also in a private Campsor, as Molina teaches disput. 399. Bassaeus V. Cambium, num. 4. and others at his side.

The SECOND is lucrum cessans, which the Campsor would otherwise have received. See Bassaeus num. 5.

The THIRD by reason of the purity of the material, as one changing coins of gold of Ophir, with copper ones.

The FOURTH by reason of the commodity for transporting, as double crowns, or Zechini, which are valued more than little coins.

YOU WILL SAY. The Prince in these coins, having regard also to the metal, etc. set the tax e. g. that Zechini be worth two ounces of silver coin, and as much as 200. dipondii. Therefore it is not licit to receive anything beyond these.

IT IS ANSWERED, this was taxed by the Prince as he is the measure of vendible things, but not according to the conditions and circumstances adduced above. See elsewhere in Casas disp. 6. sect. 1. For these are to be estimated by the Campsor, as D. Bonavent. notes quaest. 4. to be allegatus. But the profit ought to be moderate, and less in a private Campsor, as Bassaeus says. Bassaeus notes num. 8. that it is to be estimated by the judgment of the upright, warning that falsities in the coin, in the value, etc. be warded off.

Whether in a LOCALE Cambium, or by letters, when the Campsor first receives, that he may restore elsewhere, he can gain something.

IT MUST BE ASSERTED, with the common opinion, that such a Campsor can receive something.

IT IS PROVED, because there two legitimate titles to profit intervene. One is virtual, or equivalent; as the translation of money to the place where he has correspondents. The second is assurance, because he takes upon himself the peril.

NOTE first, that the distance of places and the greater perils make it possible to receive greater profit. Similarly that a real translation is to be valued at more than a virtual one. Thus the DD. at Bonacina disput. 3. quaest. 5. and Bassaeus num. 10.

NOTE, that in a Cambium by letters, the first Campsor giving, that he may receive elsewhere, can gain something, either from the virtual transportation of money, or from a greater estimation of the money. See Casas sectione 4.

Whether EXCHANGE is licit, when the Banker's Agent responds on behalf of the Banker with the Banker's own moneys.

UNDERSTAND that in Exchange by letter, four parties intervene, that the Exchange may be perfect. The first is the Banker: the second the Banker's correspondent: the third the Banker's Respondent: the fourth the Respondent of the correspondent. The Banker therefore gives money to the correspondent, and from him in turn receives a promise that it be paid elsewhere. He assigns this obligation to his Respondent, so that he may receive the money there; and likewise the correspondent writes to his respondent, that he pay it; the payment having been made, the Exchange is perfect; and about this there is no controversy, whether it be licit; for there is a true permutation, transfer, and payment of money. But often the correspondent has no respondent in the place of payment, and so he has recourse to a merchant, who writes to his agent dwelling in that city, say Rome, that he pay such money to the agent, or respondent, of the Banker who has advanced it in this city, say Brescia. This too is licit, provided three other conditions intervene. The same must be said if the payment there is made through a servant out of the moneys of that same servant.

THE CONTROVERSY is in the case in which the Banker has no respondent in that place, but a servant, and the Banker writes to him, that out of the Banker's own proper moneys he pay to himself on behalf of the correspondent that money which he received in another province.

THIS Exchange they proclaim to be usurarious: Sotus de Iust. lib. 6. quaest. 10. art. 1. and quaest. 13. art. 1. Comitol. lib. 3. quaest. 15. and 16. Molina tract. 2. disp. 404. Mercatus de contract. lib. 4. cap. 7. Tanner. 2. 2. disp. 4. quaest. 7. dub. 5. num. 149. and 150. Roderic. lib. 3. de annuis redditibus, quaest. 5. num. 27. Romoaldus Coli Tract. de Cambiis, cap. 22. Palacius lib. 3. de contract. cap. 3. Rebell. 2. lib. 11. quaest. 6 concl. 3. Iustinianus in tract. de Cambiis, Lupus in cap. ult. Naviganti, §. 2. sub num. 29. Tom. 7. Cavata tract. de Cambiis, tit. de Usura, V. quaero Campsores. fol. 242. and very many others, among whom Faber de restit. in 4. disp. 47. cap. 9. num. 292.

YET the opposite opinion he judges probable: Azor part. 3. lib. 10. cap. 9. quaestio 2. Megala 1. 2. lib. 2. cap. 16. quaest. 3. Naldus verb. Cambium, Author consil. 31. among the consilia, Navar. tract. 2. lib. 5. tit. de usuris, Salas Tract. de Cambiis, disp. 17. Lessius de iustitia, lib. 2. cap. 23. dub. 7. num. 71. Sà verb. Cambium, Homobonus de exam. part. 2. Tract. 9. cap. 17. quaest. 56. Salvatorius de Cambiis, part. 3. num. 5. Filliucius Tom. 2. tract. 35. part. 2. cap. 8. num. 436. Batthol. a S. Fausto in speculo, disp. 16. quaest. 22. num. 2. Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 8. dub. 5. Salon de iustitia, Tom. 2. quaest. 4. de Cambiis, art. 2. controv. 12. Thomas Boninsignus cap. 7. de Cambiis, num. 7. and 9. Scortia in constit. Pontif. epitome 107. Theorem. 291. and an anonymous Theologian in a tract de Cambiis, published at Milan, apud Bidellum in the year 1623. where he cites Marinus Fornarius, and Cosmas Stella of the Society of Jesus. Diana p. p. Tract. 8. resol. 2. who asserts that very many of his own Religion, and of the Society of Jesus, hold this; Caspensis tract. 19. sect. 5. who says it does not seem damnable, since it is practiced by all the Merchants in Spain, France, Italy, and the Low Countries, with the supreme Pontiffs knowing, or at least the Ordinaries of the places, who would not permit it if the contract were usurarious.

IN St. Bonaventure I find nothing, except sermon 4. on several holy martyrs; where he says the office of money-changers is to test gold, or silver, or whatever metal struck into denarii.

THEREFORE this Exchange is proved licit by them first from the letter of Pius V. to the Bolognese, where he speaks thus: Che ogni persona possa dar danari a Cambio, e che le lettere syno recapitate sopra essi datari, e cosi tener li suoi Cambii sino che saranno imborsati da chi havera preso i danari. There the Pontiff speaks absolutely, without distinction of a proper or another correspondent; of one's own, or another's money.

THIS same was thus declared by the Sacred Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals to the Archbishop of Palermo, in the year 1574. the matter having been referred to the Most Holy Gregory XIII.

THEY also strive to prove this Exchange by reasons, because it suffices for a real Exchange that in the place where the exchange is made the correspondent have money in very truth, actually or in credit: but the correspondent, in this second manner, there has money, because there the Banker lends it: Therefore. It is confirmed, for if the servant were to lend his credit, which he has with the Banker, he could pay him, and so forth.

I CONFESS that these, or other reasons, do not move me; for in that place the correspondent has not real money, but fictitious money from the Banker. For what credit does he have with the Banker? Nay rather it seems express simulation; for an Exchange requires a diversity of moneys, a diversity of persons; but here there is one true person, that is, the Banker, who feigns that he is also the correspondent, and pays to himself. It is also one money, the Banker's. It is confirmed: Contracts of permutation require real permutations; but permutation is of several, and of one with another, that it may be proved whether commutative equality be present; and therefore the holy Doctor says that the money-changer, by his office, if he be a true money-changer, is to test the variety, and diversity of money, and to examine whether a true permutation intervene in the price, etc.; otherwise what comparison of the same with itself?

NOR let them say, with Diana loco cit. Caspensis num. 28. Lessius num. 63. Scauia de commerciis, et Cambio, §. 6. that the Banker's servant represents two persons, namely the Banker's and the correspondent's; such Metaphysical subtleties often vanish in moral matters; for Persons are multiplied insofar as they contract, and are dealers in moneys; not, however, as they run about, as they are men; for in this they are too much materially constituted. Thus formally they are several, inasmuch as they are contracting; but there is no commutative contract, unless there is a real permutation. Let them tell me, where indeed is the permutation of the Banker's money with the Banker's money? Granted that it were carried even by many beasts of burden, promised by a herd of menservants and maidservants, etc.

I REVERE the decree of the supreme Pontiff, if it existed; but this which they adduce does not concede this manner of Exchange, but only a real Exchange, che possano dar danari a Cambio, but where indeed is the exchange of denarii in this case? See Iustinianus.

AS TO the Sacred Congregation, I say that it declared only that this Exchange is not contained in the things forbidden by Pius V. in the Extravagant, in which three kinds of Exchange are condemned. The first, in which the letters are not sent. The second, in which they are sent, but return empty. The third, when payments are made in the same place: whether it be licit is not declared by the Sacred Congregation.

THIS opinion therefore I judge dangerous, as even Diana confesses, and therefore this Exchange is not to be praised, or recommended, whether by counsel, or by persuasion. The same confess Filliucius num. 438. Caspensis num. 29. and others with Tanner num. 147.

I urge this, however, by the argument of St. Bonaventure in the speculum animae, cap. 2. §. tertius principalis fructus iniustitiae.

LET US DEAL, my money-changers, sincerely, and in friendship, and let us doff the cloak, and search the naked exchange down to the Anatomy. You surely do not pursue this most frequent contract out of CHARITY, but for gain: Therefore you give most frequently, and of set purpose, for gain, so that it be restored in the same place, and thus you intend to take gain from the delayed payment. This you seriously intend; the rest are childish rattles, and comic, as when a servant plays the parts of the correspondent and the Banker too, distinct by merely Scotist formalities. I exhort you therefore earnestly that you come to your senses, and seriously weigh the salvation of your souls; for God cannot be deceived.

This then is that Exchange called cum La Ricorsa, which almost coincides with the Exchange of continuation, in which the re-exchange is multiplied; it smells ill.

Whether the said Recambes are licit only by reason of lucrum cessans, or of damnum emergens.

THEY ASSERT: Lessius lib. 2. cap. 23. dub. 9. numero 82. Salas de Cambiis disp. 22. Fillicius tomo 2. tract. 35. part. 2. cap 10. num. 471.

YET Diana resol. 5. with Scortia in Bulla Pontif. epist. 107. Theor. 189. teaches that these recambes are licit, not only by reason of lucrum cessans, and damnum emergentis, but also licit by the nature of Exchange itself, because they are new exchanges, and repeated purchases, and sales.

IT SEEMS to me that the holy Doctor, ad cap. 2. Ioannis, stands for the first opinion; for, explaining those words: Eiecit nummularios, namely those lending money under caution; for it was forbidden to give at usury, and that for this very reason: because even if they were not certain that so much gain would accrue to them from the delay, yet they exacted those gains under caution; which the second opinion admits, and the first denies; as is seen in Fillucius, and Caspensis.

Whether the provisions, and stipends which money-changers take are licit.

BY the name of provisions I understand, with Lessius dub. 8. and Caspensis sect. 8. the fee, and gain, which money-changers, and bankers deduct from money to be counted, by reason of the work they render in writing, counting deposited money, keeping it, obliging themselves for another; and managing the business of another.

By immemorial custom in the provision of Exchanges there is due to money-changers a third part of a scudo for every hundred scudi, according to the money on which the exchange is paid, or the assignment made. So Molina disp. 408. Caspensis sect. 8. Boninsignus de Cambiis, cap. 7. Romoald. Cod. de Cambiis, cap. 21. Scaccia de commerc. §. 3. Gloss. 3. num. 12. Scortia in Bullas Pontific. Epitome 107. Theor. 291. Fillincius tom. 2. tract. 33. part. 2. cap. 10. num. 475. and others with those whom Diana reports resol. 6.

THEREFORE a money-changer, or money-broker may take a just fee for the custody of money, and the obligation of returning it. For these things are estimable in price. But if in the name of the depositor he disburses, and counts to another, let him still receive a fee from him in whose name he pays, and whom he serves. So Nauar. cap. 17. numero 293. Caspensis loco cit.

IT IS PROVED by Valentia puncto 3. because the whole is for the benefit of him by whose order the payment is made. Advert, however, that this exaction is licit if it has been stipulated, or if custom obtains. Say the same of the respondents of the money-changer, and of the correspondent, for the same reason.

THERE is a great controversy: Whether this third part of a scudo per hundred is just also in the provisions which are taken in recambes, and continuations.

SOME allege it, because it is taken in all the fairs of the world. So Boninsignus, tract. de Camb. cap. 7. num. 23. and others with Diana resol. 7.

FOR Justice, or injustice of the provisions, one must stand by the judgment of merchants.

BUT others deny it to be licit. So Coli de Camb. cap. 21. Malder. 2. 2. tract. 5. c. 4. disp. 7. and thus Diana counseled the Merchants.

THE REASON is, because provisions are due for labor: but the labor in recambes, and continuations is not the same as in real Exchanges: Therefore.

SOME answer that the money-changers ought not on that account to desist, because they would labor in other new Exchanges, if the correspondents paid.

OTHERS answer, that gain is due also by reason of the peril of losing the principal; and it can happen that the perils are greater in the continuation, because with the passage of time the correspondent can become worse off, and at last go bankrupt. Therefore the provisions ought to be unequal.

NOR does Scortia satisfy, saying that an equal provision can be taken for unequal perils, because the perils are uncertain.

But I suppose that uncertainty must be computed; but uncertainties are unequal. Moreover there are some perils that are certain; and therefore I add too, that a greater quantity makes a greater peril, and so one to be paid for.

IT SEEMS that the holy Doctor, ad cap. 2. Ioan. in ea verba: Invenit in Templo nummularios, etc. reprobates these receipts, which he proves from that Ezech. 22. Usuram, et superabundantiam non accipies. The reasons indeed adduced prove so to me.

BUT Romoaldus Coli warns gravely in tract. de Cambiis, cap. 21. that two provisions must not be received, one in the place where the Exchange is made; another at the fairs, for the agent himself.

YOU WILL ASK first. Whether one provision is due for an Exchange great, and small. Diana resolves this resol. 10. Caspensis num. 40. wishing a greater to be given for a greater Exchange.

I WONDER that this is debated, given those things taught before, namely that by immemorial custom it is observed that a third part of one per hundred be given. Therefore Scortia says epit. 107. Theor. 291. that if the sum of the Exchange be one million, the gain of the provisions will be 3333. This pleases Coli tract. de Camb. cap. 21. Scavia de commer. §. 3. Gloss. 3. num. 471.

YET Diana urges against it, because Notaries too, in drawing up a deed of the same labor for a great sum, receive a greater stipend. Some add that it is due by reason of the peril, which is greater in a greater sum of money exhibited.

YOU WILL ASK secondly: Whether the custom of the money-changers of not accepting payment of the principal, unless at the same time the damages of the Exchanges be paid, be licit.

Diana answers resol. 12. asserens, adducing Lessius lib. 2. cap. 23. dub. 10. num. 87. Salas tract. de Camb. disp. 65. Filliucius tom. 2. tract. 35. part. 2. cap. 10. num. 472. Malderum 2. 2. tract. 5. cap. 4. dub. 10. Therefore a money-changer, to whom by chance ten are due as principal, but three for interest, and provisions; when in the computation he receives three, may take them in satisfaction for the interest, and provisions, and is not bound to deduct the three from the principal.

You will ask thirdly: Whether a money-changer, who in good faith gave Peter money to be paid by exchange at Rome, thinking him to have money in such a place, and afterwards discovers that he had it not; can exact as much gain as he would have received, if the correspondent had paid at Rome.

I suppose, that if he did this in bad faith, it would be usurarious, because with no title except the delay would he exact a premium.

To the question Lessius answers affirmatively dub. 7. num. 69. Molina disp. 404. and Diana resol. 14. and Caspensis judges it probable sect. 8. num. 41.

You will ask fourthly: Whether a money-changer can stipulate from the beginning with the correspondent a certain, and determined interest, even in the case of non-payment.

Filliucius tom. 2. tract. 35. part. 2. cap. 7. num. 424. Homob. de exam. part. 2. tract. 9. cap. 15. quaest. 4. and others deny it, Pius V. forbidding it.

But indeed, since the Bull is founded on the presumption of usurarious fraud, it will avail in the forum of conscience, if it be morally certain that that interest is morally just. So Lessius lib. 2. cap. 33. dub. 11. num. 90. Reginald. tract. 2. lib. 25. cap. 34. num. 467. and others.

But whether in such a case the money-changer sins mortally. Salas disp. 13. Rebell. part. 2. lib. 11. quaest. 13. num. 5. affirm it; but Diana resp. 14. Granado part. 2. contr. 7. tract. 3. puncto 15. sect. 2. Sà verbo Cambium. deny it. The Authors of the first opinion are founded on the decree of Pius V. which does not cease to bind, the fraud ceasing, because it was enacted to remove occasions of sinning, which indeed remain, if liberty be given not to observe it. But others say it does not bind, because when the reason of the law ceases in the particular, the law ceases to bind in that particular.

I will relate the conditions required by Pius V. for an exchange to be licit: First indeed he condemns all dry exchanges, such as those in which, by the intention of the contracting parties, payment is made in the same place; because the one has not money elsewhere. Then in a real exchange he requires these conditions.

The first, that the money-changer stipulate for no gain by reason of the delay. And that this be usury the Doctors assert with St. Bonaventure in the speculo animae, cap. 2. §. tertius fructus principalis.

The second is, that from the beginning, or afterwards, no certain interest be stipulated, even in the case in which payment would not be made at the due time.

The third condition is, that real exchanges not be made by letters otherwise than for the next fair, or, if the fair be not held; the next terms, according to the usage of places; otherwise they will be usurarious. Hence exchanges to the second fair with greater gain are forbidden, not with an equal one, or to the second one by force of the first Exchange. So the Doctors with Bassaeum num. 17.

The fourth condition is, that in establishing the terms of payments regard be had to the distance, and nearness of the places to which payment is destined, that longer terms not be appointed than the distance requires. This Pius V. in the year 1571. with Navar. cap. 17. num. 299.

Lessius adds, however, that in a few places, or perhaps nowhere, at least as to some conditions, does this Decree bind.

You will ask fifthly: Whether the Exchange of custody be licit, by which a money-broker takes upon himself the care of keeping moneys deposited with him, and keeps an account of datum and acceptum, and is ready to restore to those asking it.

It is answered, with Valentia puncto 3. that some stipend can be received for it.

From what has been said you have the titles by which money-changers can rightly take gain in real, local exchanges.

First when the money-changer first receives the moneys, to restore them elsewhere, he can gain by the title of the translation of money, even if it be only virtual, since even there he has respondents. For this is useful to the correspondent, and estimable in price; although for this virtual one less is due to him. So Graff. p. p. lib. 2. cap. 110. Sylvius 2. 2. quaest. 78. art. 4. quaest. 3. Molina tract. 2. disp 403. Bonacina disp. 3. quaest. 5. part. unic. Reginaldus lib. 25. num. 454. et 461. Filliucius tract. 35. part. 2. num. 380. Layman lib. 3. tract. 4. cap. 19. num. 7. Malder. 2. 2. tract. 5. cap. 5. de Camb. dub. 3.

The second title is the assurance of the correspondent's money, and the peril of his own, if he has it not in that place to which it is to be transferred; but if he has it, it is a matter of his industry, or fortune, which is to be esteemed at a price. So the Doctors alleged, with whom Bassaeus subscribes num. 11.

Then, because money present, as lent, is to be esteemed at more than money absent, and the further off it is, the less to be esteemed: Navar. in manuali, cap. 17. num. 289. Azor 3. part. lib. 10. cap. 6. quaest. 4. Filliucius cit. num. 595. Bonacina cit. num. 6. Reginaldus n. 416. Toletus lib. 5. cap. 53. Valentia disput. 5. quaest. 23. puncto 4. Bassaeus num. 12.

Add that the estimation of money is greater in the place where it is given; Syluester V. Usura 4. quaest. 8. Filliucius num. 380. Lessius dub. 4. num. 34. Reginaldus num. 461. Malder. disp. 3. Layman cap. 19. num. 8. Filliucius num. 404. Lessius dub. 6. num. 55. Malder. disp. 4. add another title: the lack of money, and the peril lest it not be restored. Truly merchants esteem lacking their money six months at more than three, because meanwhile they lack the faculty of gaining by it.

Advert that Monopoly of raising the price is unjust, and obliges to restitution of the excess above the just; Toletus lib. 5. cap. 53. Filliucius cap. 7. n. 415. Navar. de usur. num. 59. Sotus de iust. lib. 6. quaest. 12. art. 3. Bonacina cit. num. 36. Salon. de Camb. quaest. 4. art. 2. contr. 23. The abettors also of a monopoly are bound to restitution in solidum, if the principals do not pay, against Molina disp. 345. Lessius lib. 2. c. 21. dub. 20. num. 151. Salon. dub. 38.

A money-changer, giving moneys to one whom he does not trust, can require security, and a pledge, Azor 3. part. lib. 10. cap. 11. quaest. 11. Lessius dub. 8. num. 77. Tolet. cap. 52. Salas disp. 21.

*A money-changer, to whom the correspondent after many ex-*changes, and recambes has handed over a part of the debt, is not bound to compute that part toward the extinction of the principal, but can compute it for interest, and gains. The reason is, because when from some principal debt other debts are born as from a root, as fruits; then if payment be made first, it is held to be made for those fruits: then if anything is left over, it is computed into the principal, as is plain from the practice in the payment of rents, and the payment of the debts of a Society. So Filliucius num. 471. Bonacina de contract. disput. 3. quaest. 5. puncto unic. Lessius dub. 10. Salas de Camb. num. 25. Bassaeus loco cit. num. 12. Which is to be attentively observed.