Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 10.djvu/252

 of the East Indies; published in 1727, has not a good word to say for Child. He characterises the governors of Bombay as having been ‘tolerable good’ until ‘Sir John Child spoilt it.’ In another passage he says: ‘After General Child had gotten the reins of government again into his own hands, he became more insupportable than ever.’ It seems clear that in the case of Thorburn, one of the mutineers with Keigwin, Child acted in a tyrannical manner. Thorburn, after the authority of the company had been restored, was imprisoned at Bombay for debt, and, although in bad health, was allowed no attendance, and even his wife, notwithstanding the most urgent entreaties addressed by her to Child, was prevented from visiting him until within thirty-six hours of his death. To such an extent was Child’s enmity carried in this case that the captain of an Indiaman who married Thorburn's widow shortly after her husband`s death was deprived by Child of his appointment. Anderson, in his book on the ‘English in Western India,’ attributes Child's errors to his zeal in promoting the interests of his company. Adverting to certain questionable proceedings which Child took against the native authorities at Surat, Anderson observes that ‘as their (the company’s) policy was unprincipled, he (Child) was quite ready to make it his. They had become deeply involved in debt, they owed 281,250l. to natives of Surat, and it had become inconvenient to discharge even the interest of such a sum. Instead therefore, of following the old-fashioned way, and paying, they were resolved to discover some other means of escaping from their obligations. The two Child's were the men to devise and execute such a plan. We do not see any ground for accusing Child of that selfishness and peculation in which man of the servants of the company indulged, to their lasting disgrace; not that he neglected his own interests, but that he identified them with the company's.’

Another question connected with Child, upon which there appears to be some doubt, is that of the official designation which was given to him when he was invested with authority over the other presidencies as well as Bombay. Sir George Birdwood, in the report already alluded to, describes Child’s appointment as that. of ‘governor-general,’ a title which was not subsequently given to any Indian governor until the time of Warren Hastings. In the books quoted in this article Child is called indiscriminately ‘governor’ and ‘general,’ but the term ‘governor-general’ is not used. In the despatches of the court of directors he was usually designated ‘our general.’ In the commission of his successor, Sir John Goldsborough, the term ‘governor-general’ does not occur.



CHILD, JOSIAH (1630–1699), writer on trade, the second son of Richard Child, merchant, was born in London in 1630. Beginning as a merchant's apprentice, he rapidly made his way in business, and about 1655 was engaged at Portsmouth in furnishing stores for the navy. In various documents of the time he is described as ‘victualler,’ ‘deputy treasurer of the fleet,’ and ‘agent to the navy treasurer.’ At Portsmouth he remained for many years, and became mayor of the town. His later life in London is well known from Macaulay's account of him (Hist. iv. 134 et seq.) He received a baronetcy in 1678: he had made a fortune which Evelyn in 1683 says was estimated at 200,000l.; he was a director and afterwards chairman of the East India Company, and for a time he ruled over the company as absolutely as if it had been his private business. The course of its future greatness, indeed, was in great part marked out by his ambition. Imitating ‘the wise Dutch,’ as he called them, he strove incessantly to extend its political power, and he was supported by his brother, Sir [q. v.], the military governor of the British Indian settlements, in carrying out a rigorous and not very scrupulous policy. When Sir John’s successor talkied of governing according to law, Sir Josiah is said to have declared that the laws of England were ‘a heap of nonsense, compiled by a few ignorant country gentlemen, who hardly knew how to make laws for the good government of their own families, much less for the regulating of companies and foreign commerce’ (, Account of the East Indies, ch. xix.) His despotic rule made him many enemies, who wrote very freely about him, accusing him, evidently with reason, of using his position in the company to forward unduly the interests of himself and his relatives, and of removing opposition to his policy by means of bribery. ‘By his great annual presents he could command both at court and in Westminster Hall what he pleased’ (Some Remarks upon the present State of the East India Company's Affairs, 1690). In 1673 he bought Wanstead Abbey, and went to