ジョサイア・チャイルド

ミルが言及
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30107/30107-h/30107-h.html#note_12

The English Navigation Act of 1651 is usually described as the cause of the decline of Dutch shipping. The taxation necessitated by her wars is rather the cause, as history shows it to us. Sir Josiah Child (1668 and 1690) speaks of a serious depression in English commerce, and says the low rate of interest among the Dutch hurts the English trade. This does not show that the acts greatly aided English shipping. Moreover, Gee, a determined partisan of the mercantile theory, says, in 1730, that the ship-trade was languishing. Sir Matthew Decker (1744) confirms Gee's impressions. It looks very much as if the commercial supremacy of England was acquired by internal causes, and in spite of her navigation acts. The anonymous author of “Britannia Languens” confirms this view.

1668年
ジョサイア·チャイルドが、自由貿易のありようを描きだして、輸出と同じく輸入の同等の増加を促す。

キシテイニー本より

1668年
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/trade.asp
これではない

A New Discourse of Trade (1668 and 1690). 
多分これ
https://www.hetwebsite.net/het/profiles/child.htm

• A New Discourse of Trade, wherein is recommended several weighty points relating to companies of merchants : the act of navigation, naturalization of strangers, and our woollen manufactures, the balance of trade, and the nature of plantations, and their consequences in relation to the kingdom, are seriously discussed and some proposals for erecting a court of merchants for determining controversies, relating to maritime affairs, and for a law for transferrance of bills of debts, are humbly offered, 1693. [1698 ed, 1752 ed; 1804 ed] [eebo]

https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%82%A4%E3%82%AE%E3%83%AA%E3%82%
B9%E6%9D%B1%E3%82%A4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%89%E4%BC%9A%E7%A4%BE
イギリス東インド会社（イギリスひがしインドがいしゃ、英: East India Company（EIC））は、アジア貿易を目的に設立された、イギリスの勅許会社である。アジア貿易の独占権を認められ、イングランド銀行から貸付を受けながら、17世紀から19世紀半ばにかけてアジア各地の植民地経営や交易に従事した。
…

1670年代から1680年代にかけて、イギリス経済は空前の好況が訪れた。1671年から1681年にかけて支払われた配当金は、利回りで合計240%になり、1691年までの10年間での配当利回りは合計で450%となった。背景には、イギリス国内における「キャラコ熱」と呼ばれるほどの綿製品に対する需要があった。東インド会社の株式は投機の対象となり、インサイダー取引も横行する状況でもあった。その中で登場したのが、ジョサイア・チャイルド（en:Josiah Child）である。東インド会社総裁に就任したチャイルドはインサイダー取引を駆使し、巨万の富を得たとされる。チャイルドは王室とも癒着関係を持っていた。

しかし、名誉革命により、ジェームズ2世が失脚すると、新しく国王となったウィリアム3世の命令により、1698年9月には、「東インドと貿易をする英国のカンパニー」が設立され、旧会社に付与されていた特権は、3年後に失効する形となった。その後、旧東インド会社の経営状況が改善され、1709年、新旧両会社は合同された^[6]。

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_Child

Economic philosophyEdit

Funerary monument of Sir Josiah Child(d.1699) in St Mary the Virgin Church, Wanstead.

Child contributed to the literature of economics; especially Brief Observations concerning Trade and the Interest of Money (1668),^[12] and A New Discourse of Trade (1668 and 1690).^[13] He was a moderate in those days of the mercantile system, and has sometimes been regarded as a sort of pioneer in the development of the free-trade doctrines of the 18th century. Though Child considered himself a proponent of the competitive market, he simultaneously argued for a government-controlled interest rate and restricted trade among the colonies which would benefit England. He made various proposals for improving English trade by following the Dutch example, and advocated a low rate of interest as the causa causans of all the other causes of the riches of the Dutch people. This low rate of interest he thought should be created and maintained by public authority. Child, whilst adhering to the doctrine of the balance of trade, observed that a people cannot always sell to foreigners without ever buying from them, and denied that the export of the precious metals was necessarily detrimental. Like other writers in what is commonly called the mercantilist period or tradition, he viewed a numerous population as an asset to a country and became prominent with a new scheme for the relief and employment of the poor. He also advocated the reservation by the mother country of the sole right of trade with her colonies.

In his Sir Josiah Child, Merchant Economist (1959), William Letwin considers that Child's economic thought was of little theoretical importance but notes that he was "the most widely-read of seventeenth-century economic writers".^[14]