This article presents a reinterpretation of John Locke's contribution to debates about the interest rate in the seventeenth century. It suggests that his argument that England should maintain the ‘natural’ rate, rather than impose a lower rate, was motivated by his theological, moral, and social conceptions of credit and its dependence on trust. In order to solve the endemic shortage of metal coin limiting the growth of monetary exchange in England, Locke stressed that the higher, ‘natural’ rate of interest would facilitate interpersonal borrowing and lending among neighbours, allowing currency to flow more freely around the country. By contrast, while he acknowledged that institutional creditors such as goldsmith-bankers could quicken the circulation of money by issuing debt instruments like bills of exchange, he saw institutional credit as a threat to the moral community. Not only did he question how people could rationally trust financiers without any epistemic apprehension of their personal probity, but he moreover doubted whether individuals accumulating so much money were likely to act trustworthily. Finally, using an otherwise unstudied dialogue about the Bank of England, this article argues Locke extended his criticisms about the threats posted by private banks to the country's nascent system of public credit.

本文重新诠释了约翰·洛克（John Locke）对17世纪利率辩论的贡献。它表明，他关于英国应维持“自然”利率而不是施加较低利率的观点是出于他的神学，道德和社会信用观念及其对信任的依赖。为了解决金属硬币的普遍短缺问题，限制了英国货币兑换的增长，洛克强调，更高的“自然”利率将促进邻居之间的人际借贷，使货币在全国范围内更自由地流动。相比之下，尽管他承认金匠银行家等机构债权人可以通过发行汇票等债务工具来加快货币流通，他认为机构信誉是对道德社区的威胁。他不仅质疑人们如何理性地信任金融家，而没有任何认识上的担心自己的个人诚信，而且他还怀疑，积累了这么多钱的人是否有可能采取值得信赖的行动。最后，本文使用了本来未经研究的有关英格兰银行的对话，论证了洛克对私人银行所发布的威胁对该国新生的公共信贷体系的批评。