________________
DECEMBER, 1914.) ANGLO-INDIAN WORTHIES OF TE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY 269
which I am greatly disappointed. I heare hee hath two of my Europe Letters in his custody, which hee sends not, nor have I received any answer to any Generall or perticular sent him this five months; I understand not the meaning of it." The remainder of the letter refers to Edward's own affairs and to their mutual trade-"I am sorry you are like to come to a losse for your trouble in packing the Company's goods, but glad to heare of your advance in Sallary and place, in which wish you much happinesse and prosperity... I have at laste sold our Pepper at 19 rupees, a poore prioe, feare there will bee Little or noe proffet. As soone as I have opportunity, shall remitt your mony with your lace eto, here, which I intended to have carried with mee if had gone last Shipping. Your Successe as well as mine is bad in tradeing here; the swords believe will ly as long as the Pepper, here being many arrived." From the above it seems that Smith had intended to leave Dacca in 1671. but there is no record of any request to that effect. On the 31st March, 1672, he again wrote officially to his chief about investments that could be made at Dacca, adding, “This is the only place for Cossaes (khâssa), Adathees (adhotar, dhoti) and Hummums (hammam)."22 Meanwhile, Clavell's enquiries had convinced him that Smith was mismanaging affairs with the officials at the darbár, and he consequently dispatched James Price, who had had previous experience, to act as the Company's vakil at Dacca. Edwards sent a timely warning to his friend, and Smith, who either would not, or dared not, brook investigation into his methods at Court, refused to allow the vakil to carry out his orders, alleging that most of the "troubles" were ended before his arrival. The following extract of Smith's reply to Edwards shows that the charge, made later, of his high-handed treatment of Price was not unfounded .Dacca 20 June 1672.23 “By James Price received a letter from you and thank you very kindly for your advice concerning him; wee have used him accordingly and never imployed him in a Cowryworth of service; wee doe this day dispeed him with a Letter .. and your Brother [?brother-in-law] J. V. (John Vickers) hath been honourd with another. Thank God wee have now ended most of our troubles and got two Phirwannas (parwana), which will send in a few days; hope shall now please them all. If you hear of James, as 'tis like he will, that he ended this business, doe mee the favour to tell him from mee that hees a lying Rogue and never was imployed."
On the 24th June, 1672. Smith reported his success in his negotiations with the Court officials, and stated that "Malik Consum" (Malik Kasim) had promised to pay what he forced from the English.'24 This letter did not modify Clavell's opinion of Smith's incapacity, but still no steps were taken against him until the following year. He continued to trade on his own account, and in November, he sent a consignment of cloth to his friend Edwards.25
However, on the 17th January 1673, Robert Elwes, then at Patna, was ordered forthwith to repair to Daoca, "Sundry causes having moved us to dismiss Mr. John Smith from his Imployment and to constitute you in his place."28 Writing to the Agent at Fort St.George on the 16th March, the Council at "the Bay" detail these "sundry causes" as follows:27 “Having many just reasons to complain of the slackness of Mr. John Smith in 22 Factory Records, Miscellaneous, vol. 3. p. 125.
20. O. No. 3652. 54 Factory Records, Miscellaneous, vol. 3, p. 126.
25 0. C. No. 3701. 16 Factory Records, Hugli, vol. 4.
?Factory Records, Hugli, vol. 4.
