________________
DECEMBER, 1914.] ANGLO-INDIAN WORTHIES OF THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY
then if they arrive not shall put forward for Hugly. If you think I may meet with any afraunt, pray advise me, and how to avoid it."34 The last sentence is written in a simplecypher, which, from this time, Smith frequently employed in his correspondence with Edwards. The reply to the above letter does not exist, but it seems probable that Smith was advised not to break his journey nor to come in contact with Matthias Vincent, the Chief at Kâsimbâzár, for, on the 28th June 1673, Clavell wrote to Dacca that Mr. Smith had lately arrived" at Balasor, and that they should "now suddainely" examine his accounts. He had been told of the "difference in broad cloth," but attributed the mistake to Elwes.35
271
For three months there is no mention of Smith and his affairs. On the 27th September he was still at Balasor, writing in cypher to Edwards, 36 "I am sorry you are out, and E. L. [Edward Littleton] made third; we have had noe words of my going to Decca; when goe about that must go through quick." This seems to imply either that he expected reinstatement, or was hoping to return to Dacca to settle his own concerns. Finding himself mistaken and in ill odour with the authorities in the Bay," Smith decided to appeal to headquar ters, and on the 12th October 1673, he voiced his grievances in a letter to Nathaniel Herne, then Governor of the East India Company. He wrote,37 that he "had served the Company in Dacca nearly five years and eight months," and that Vincent had sought his ruin because he was unsuccessful in a private matter he undertook for him. Further, he stated that Vincent had been heard to declare he would not rest till he had ruined him "tho' it cost him half his fortune," and to Vincent's influence with Clavell be attributed his recall from. Dacca. He complained that the time limited was insufficient for him to settle his affairs and that, consequently, he was practically ruined, but he left the Company in ignorance of the fact that he had taken three months instead of the allotted ten days in which to arrange for his departure. He objected to the appointment of Hervy at Dacca on the ground that he was his avowed enemy and a "known atheist." With regard to the large peshkash given to the Nabob in 1672, for which he was blamed by Clavell, Smith pretended that no such bribe would have been necessary had not Clavell most injudiciously neglected to pay a ceremonial visit to the Governor of Hûgli before he started for Dacca. Finally, Smith accused Vincent of forcing money unjustly from some of the native servants at Kâsimbâzâr and of being answerable for the death of Raghu the poddûr, an affair which cost the Company Rs. 13,000. He concluded by assuring the Court of Committees of his faithful service and by begging to be restored to his chiefship at Dacca in order to secure the Company's estate, and, as a secondary consideration, his own, for Clavell was detaining some of his goods at Balasor as security for debts which he repudiated.
This letter does not appear to have been sent to England until late in the following year, for, on the 20th August 1674, the Council at Fort St. George wrote to the Company, enclosing "papers from Mr. John Smith late chief of Decca, who complaines, of much injustice done him; we have sent Coppies thereof to the Chief and Factors there, desiring them to cause things to be duly examined, which is all that we can do at present untill we can send some person to enquire into these matters. In the mean time your honours great prudence will be pleased to give us your sense and directions upon the premisses."38
(To be continued).
34 O. C. No. 3803. 36 O. O. No. 3860.
35 Factory Records, Hugli, vol. 4.
37 Factory Records, Miscellaneous, vol. 3, p. 153.
380. O. No. 3992.
