Book Title: Indian Antiquary Vol 61
Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications
________________
146
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ JULY, 1932
At Calicut, as in the previous year, expenses were incurred on account of the ship and bills were drawn by Robert Adams, the Chief, on John Hill in Bombay. From Calicut the Amity sailed to Surat, where she must have arrived before 25 March, when there is an account of Rs. 580 for " what supplyed ”her there.
In Surat the crew was paid off and discharged, the wages bill, up to 20 April 1715, amounting to Rs. 2672. Immediately after, Scattergood probably left for Bombay, for we find him there early in the following month. The Duke of Cambridge had preceded him at that place, where she arrived on 18 April, and her commander at once sent a protest against his supercargoes to the Council (Bombay Public Consultations). This protest set forth that by the terms of his charterparty Captain Edward Arlond should have been despatched for England by 31 January 1714/15 and that he held the Council at Bombay answerable for all losses the Company might incur by the delay in India.
Captain Arlond's action placed the Council in a difficulty, since the ship had been let on easy terms for her voyage to China and several members of the body were shareholders in the venture. After deliberation, a reply was drafted stating that demurrage was due to the ship" to the time of her dispatch," that the Company would be answerable for all damages" that may happen by reason of her detainure" and that a cargo for Europe would speedily be ready.
After a further debate it was decided, in view of the late arrival of the Duke of Cambridge " and her now proceeding to Surat barr to unlade her China cargo," to detain her and her consort, the Thistleworth, until after the monsoon. Two days later, the supercargoes, Wm. Phipps and Wm. Sterling, also sent a protest to the Council, complaining that Captain Arlond had disregarded their orders to proceed directly for Surat, and that now he "refused going up to the barr, alledging it to be hazardous to the safety of his ship which would be a very great detriment to the freighters in loosing the sale of their cargo." In consequence, the captain was ordered to proceed to Surat " without delay," but if he found his situation dangerous it was left to his discretion to leave "the barr" although "his China cargo be not unladen," and this is exactly what happened, for on 7 May 1715 the ship " imported from Surat barr not having delivered all her cargo," and Phipps and Sterling sent in a second protest for the loss sustained on this account. In August 1715 Captains Arlond and Small were directed to get their ships (the Duke of Cambridge and Thistleworth) in readiness for lading for England, but when the ships sailed, in November, they had but "pitiful cargoes."
We have no means of knowing what Scattergood thought of the disastrous voyage to Amoy since nothing on the subject has survived among his Papers beyond references to the settlement of the accounts of the ship. His chief concern while in Bombay seems to have been connected with the brigantine Elizabeth which he had purchased at Surat, but had left the subsequent sale of the ship and her cargo of damar (pitch) in the hands of Thomas Wiltshire, Chief of the Factory. From the documents in this connection, we learn that the Amity had been disposed of at Surat and some of her crew transferred to the brigantine." The dividend on the former ship, payable to William Aislabie and Bernard Wyche respectively (two of her Bombay owners), was Rs. 29516 and Rs. 17709.
Before the end of May Scattergood sailed for Madras, having left a consignment of tea in the charge of M. A. Crommelin, a factor, who wrote on 24 May that he had disposed of a portion to Captain Daniel Small of the Thistleworth. It was probably in the Dolben or Bouverie, in both of which he was interested and both of which reached Madras on 2 June 1715 (Fort St. George Diary) that Scattergood took his passage. Here he found his wife's cousin Douglas Burniston and a fourth daughter, Frances, born in the previous February. His younger step-brother John Trenchfield also arrived from England a month later. On the 8th of June he wrote to Thomas Wiltshire about his concerns at Surat, and by that time he had fully decided to return to England, as is shown from the following letter to his attorneys there, containing directions regarding the false dealing of Captain Lytton.
