Indian Antiquary Vol 59

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 154

140
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JULY, 1930
Rustamji as a reward for using his influence with the Mughal Governor to keep Sir John Gayer in prison. Rustamji circulated his grievances amongst the servants of the English Company at Surat, and this action greatly annoyed Sir Nicholas. At the time of his dismissal the Pârsi broker also claimed a large sum from the Company for various transactions.
The representatives of the English Company at Surat, who were hostile to Sir Nicholas Waite, took the opportunity to conspire with Rustamjî and reported against the former to the Court of Directors, bringing various charges against him, some of which were based on information from Rustamjî. They rightly maintained that great loss would accrue to the Company's trade and business at Surat if Rustamjî were not restored to his former position, seeing how great was his intluence with the merchants and local Mughal officiale, while they also called attention to the irregularities practised by Sir Nicholas Waite in deficnce of the rules laid down by the Court of Directors.16
Rustamjî was perfectly justified in claiming the sum promised him by Sir Nicholas Waite, and there is no room for doubt that the latter used him as an instrument for keeping Sir John Gavar in prison. If Rustamji was dismissed on that ground alone, his dismissal was undoubtedly an unjustifiable act on the part of Sir Nicholas Waite and the betrayal of a trust reposed on him. There is no doubt that the Company was indebted to Rustamji for a very large sum at the time of his dismissal, and that the Company's servants at Surat and Bombay tried their utmost to secure the rejection of the broker's claim. But the latter's claim for sume expanded by him in securing Sir William Norris' pardon from the Mughal may well be considered to have been an afterthought. He did not, however, live to see his claims admitted by the Company, dying in 1721, but the three song-Framjî, Bomanji and Naurojiwho succeeded him as brokers in the Company's service, fought hard to substantiate their father's claims.
Nauroji was deputed by his brothers to proceed to England to state a case before the Court of Directors. Accordingly he presented a petition in May 1724 on behalf of himself and his brothers, praying that justice might be done them in relation to the demands made by them on the Company. The case was referred to the Committee of Correspondence for the purpose of being examined with regard to the allegations contained therein. The Committee, after carefully considering the demands made by Naurojî, and having examined the accounts contained in the Company's books, decided that the matter should be submitted to arbitration. After nine months, the arbitrators gave their award in favour of Nauroji, his two brothers, and of their deceased father Rustamjî Mânak with regard to the sum of money due to them from the Company " in their own right or as representatives of their said father five hundred forty six thousand three hundred and ninety rupees which the Company are to pay." The whole sum was ordered to be paid to them by instalments within the next two years. His other complaints against the Company's servants at Surat and Bombay were also placed before the Directors, and were all satisfactorily settled by the Court. His business now being concluded, Naurojî returned to India in the Wyndham, taking with him ten brass guns and provisions for himself and his twelve servants free of freight.17
The decision of the Court in favour of Naurojî was received by the Company's servants at Surat and Bombay with some dismay, but they had no choice but to carry out the orders of the Court. The three brothers each received a sar u på, and in addition a horse was given to Naurojí. In a despatch sent to the Court of Directors, the Company's servants pointed out that Rustamji Månak and his family were considered as of no importance at Surat before they joined the Company's service, but that thereafter their fortunes were assured. Though some wrong, they admitted, had been done to Rustamji's family and the decision had been
18 See vol. IEI, pp. 595-6, 619 of Bruce's Annals. 17 See Court Book 51, I. O.