Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v5.c83: Chapter LX. The English Traders in India.

History of Aurangzib, Based on Original Sources v5.c83

Language
English

Contents

Chapter LX. The English Traders in India.

§ 1. The beginnings of English trade with Bengal.

v5.c83.s1.1

The English nation established their first trade factory at Surat in 1692 and exchanged goods with Agra and Delhi by the land route. From Agra attempts were made in 1620 and 1632 to open up trade at Patna in Bihar, but the cost of land transport from Surat all the long way across the Indian peninsula to Agra and thence to Patna was prohibitive, especially for bulky goods like saltpetre, and this project was wisely abandoned.*

v5.c83.s1.2

In 1633 the English agent at Masulipatam on the Madras coast sent a commercial mission to Orissa. The Mughal subahdar received them very kindly at Cuttack and gave them permission to trade in that province without molestation or duty (5th May.) The result was that an English factory was opened at Balasore and another at Hariharpur, 25 miles south-east of Cuttack. A little later, in 1640, the building of Fort St. George was begun at Madras, on a piece of land bought from a Hindu Rajah of the Vijaynagar dynasty, and thus "the English established their first independent station in India." It lay, however, outside the Mughal empire.

v5.c83.s1.3

∗ Except when otherwise stated, this chapter is based on C. R. Wilson's *Early Annals of the English in Bengal*, vol. i.

v5.c83.s1.4

But at this time the trade and industry of the Madras coast steadily declined for several years in consequence of famines and wars between local dynasties. In Bengal, on the other hand, there was going on a rapid growth of prosperity and production on account of the long peace which Jahangir's final suppression of the local Afghan chiefs and rebel zamindars and Shah Jahan's strong and beneficent rule had given to the people. So, in 1651 the English opened their first commercial house in Bengal at Hughli on the Ganges, 24 miles north of Calcutta. Their chief exports were saltpetre (brought down in boats from Singhia or Lalganj, north of Patna), silk and sugar. Prince Shuja was then governor of Bengal, and an English surgeon named Boughton was high in his favour. This doctor used his influence to secure from the prince a trade license and freedom from official exactions for his countrymen. In 1652 Shuja granted them a *nishan* (or prince's order) by which the English were allowed to trade in Bengal on payment of Rs. 3,000 a year in lieu of all kinds of customs and dues.

v5.c83.s1.5

The beginning of the Hughli factory was very unpromising. The English suffered much loss in the first few years chiefly in consequence of the dishonesty and carelessness of their local agents. Balasore, too, languished on account of its being "distant, unhealthy, and dangerous," though it continued for several years as the place for loading and unloading Europe-going ships.

v5.c83.s1.6

But in 1658 the Home authorities reorganised the English establishments in India. All the Company's factories were to be subordinate to the President and Council of Surat, besides which there were to be chief agencies at Madras and Hughli, with out-agencies at Balasore, Qasimbazar and Patna, under the agent of Hughli.

§ 2. Rapid growth of English trade in Bengal.

v5.c83.s2.1

The trade with Bengal was very prosperous. Raw silk was abundant; the taffetas were various and fine; the saltpetre was cheap and of the best quality; the gold and silver sent from England were eagerly taken up by the Indians. Such was the happy prospect in 1658. But the war of succession which broke out in that very year disturbed the country's peace and unsettled the administration everywhere, and most of all in a frontier province like Bengal. The viceroyalty of Mir Jumla (1659-1663) was entirely occupied by a series of campaigns which left him no time to settle the country and restore the civil government. Local officials began to make illegal exactions from the English traders, fearing no punishment for violating their former master's charter. Then followed the rule of a temporary acting viceroy*, which only increased the disorder and oppression, till Shaista Khan, the permanent subahdar of Bengal, arrived in March 1664.

v5.c83.s2.2

∗ Of the disorders of this interregnum a graphic picture

v5.c83.s2.3

In 1661 further changes were made in the government of the English factories in India; all the Bengal establishments were made subordinate to the Presidency of Madras, which now became of equal rank with Surat. The Bengal trade continued to grow rapidly: in 1668 the Company exported from the province goods worth £34,000, in 1675 the value rose to £85,000, in 1677 to £100,000, and in 1680 to £150,000. Subordinate factories were opened at Dacca in 1668, and at Malda in 1676. In addition to buying local manufactures, the English sent out European dyers to Bengal to improve the colour of the silk cloth bought locally, and they also inaugurated the Bengal Pilot Service for navigating the Ganges from Hughli to the sea (1668). The first British ship sailed up the Ganges from the Bay of Bengal in 1679.

§ 3. Friction between the English traders and the Mughal officials in Bengal.

v5.c83.s3.1

In 1681 the Hughli agency was made independent of Madras, and placed under a Governor and Council. William Hedges, the first governor and agent of Bengal, arrived at Hughli on 24th August, 1682. But the Directors changed their policy soon

v5.c83.s3.2

has been drawn by Talish in his Continuation. (Bodleian MS. 589.)

v5.c83.s3.3

afterwards, and in 1684 the Bengal establishments were again placed under Madras. In the meantime, the differences between the English traders and the local Mughal officers had come to a head. "When Hedges reached Hughli in 1682, he found that the general trade there was almost at a standstill...... 'The several affronts, insolences, and abuses daily put upon us by Balchand (the superintendent of customs at Hughli) being grown insufferable, the Agent and Council made use of divers expedients for redress of their grievances ; but all means proving ineffectual it was agreed in consultation that the only expedient now left was for the Agent to go himself in person to the Nawab and Diwan at Dacca,...to make some settled adjustment concerning the customs.' "

v5.c83.s3.4

Arriving at Dacca on 25th October, Hedges spent a month and a half in negotiations and returned with promises from Shaista Khan, the *subahdar*, that he would procure a *farman* from the Emperor in favour of the English, take off the claim to 5 p.c. duty on all the treasure imported since 1679, and remove the interdiction of English trade throughout Bengal. But nothing practically resulted from this mission. The local officials at Hughli continued to stop the Company's boats and seize their goods. In vain Hedges offered large sums of money in order to be excused the payment of customs.

v5.c83.s3.5

At last the English traders lost all patience with the Mughal Government. "Experience soon showed that treaties were of no avail against the lawlessness of the local officials. It was not that the Mughal Government would not protect the foreign merchants against oppression and wrong. It could not. Whatever control it had, it was gradually losing." The Company, therefore, decided to protect itself by force, break with the Indian rulers, and seize and fortify some convenient place on the Indian coast where their trade would be safe from molestation. This war actually broke out in 1686.

v5.c83.s3.6

§ 4. The grievances of the English traders examined.

v5.c83.s3.7

The complaints of the English traders against the local agents of the Mughal Government were three:—

v5.c83.s3.8

(i) The demand of an *ad valorem* duty on the actual merchandise imported, instead of the lump sum of Rs. 3,000 per annum into which it had been commuted during the viceroyalty of Prince Shuja, and also the enhancement of the rate of duty from time to time. The English also claimed that Aurangzib's *farman* of 15th March 1680 entitled them, on the payment of a consolidated duty of 3½ p. c. at Surat to import goods and to trade absolutely free of customs and other exactions at all other places in the Mughal empire, even though these goods had not been imported *via* Surat and therefore not taxed at all.

v5.c83.s3.9

(ii) Exactions by local officers under the name of *rahdari* (road patrol charge or internal transit duty), presents (*peshkash*), writer's fee, and *farmaish* (supplying manufactures to order of the governor for which it was not customary to take the price.)

v5.c83.s3.10

(iii) The practice of high officials (such as Shaista Khan and Prince Azim-ush-shan, subahdars of Bengal),—a practice sometimes resorted to by local faujdars also,—to open the packages of goods in transit and take away articles at prices capriciously fixed by them far below the fair market price, or what the English records call "opening and forcing goods." Even this unfairly low price could not always be realised from these great men. Some governors (notably Azim-ush-shan) tried to enrich themselves by seizing goods at low prices and then selling them in the market at normal prices,—a practice called *sauda-i-khas*.

v5.c83.s3.11

As for the first of the above grievances, the question will become clear to us if we bear in mind the principles of taxation followed by Aurangzib during his reign. The general rule was to levy a duty of 2½ p. c. on the value of all goods imported. But evidently different rates were followed at different places, and so on 10th April 1665 the Emperor issued an order that in all provinces there would be two uniform rates for customs in future, namely 2½ p. c. for Muslims and 5 p. c. for Hindus. A little later, the merchandise of Muslim importers was declared to be duty free from 9th May 1667 onwards.

v5.c83.s3.12

In addition to this import duty, a poll-tax called *jaziya* was imposed on non-Muslims from 2nd April 1679. The Christians, both European and Armenian, objected to this last impost, but the Quranic law does not exempt Christians and Jews from it, though they are *ahal-i-kitab* or believers in the Old Testament like the Muhammadans. The Mughal Government seems to have found it difficult to assess and levy the *jaziya* per head from the Europeans in the same manner as from the Hindus, and consequently it seems to have offered them a compromise by turning the *jaziya* into an addition to the import duty on their goods, raising the latter to 3½ p.c. [Farman of 15 March, 1680 in Stewart's *Bengal*].

§ 5. The Mughal rules of taxation of merchandise.

v5.c83.s4.1

Now, for the fiscal relations of the Mughal Government with the English traders. In 1664, the gallantry displayed by the English (and Dutch) merchants of Surat in defending their factories against Shivaji and thereby saving the houses of some of their Indian neighbours, was rewarded by the Emperor who ordered a reduction of half a per cent on the normal import duty on the goods of these two nations for an undefined period in future, i.e., they had to pay 2 p.c. instead of 2½ p.c. customs. This concession* was withdrawn in 1679.

v5.c83.s4.2

∗ Granted by a *hasb-ul-hukm* dated 14th March 1664, the

v5.c83.s4.3

In 1665, a very reasonable order was passed that the goods of "the Feringis and the Dutch" in Ahmadabad city were not to be taxed as they had already paid the duty at Surat. [Mirat, 279.]

v5.c83.s4.4

A *farman* of Aurangzib, dated 26th June 1667, informs the officials at Surat that in future the English traders there should pay only 2 p.c. *ad valorem* duty on all goods imported by them to that harbour, and that the governors, captains of guards, lieutenants of countries (i.e., *faujdars*), guards of passes and highways (*rahdars*)...should not stop on the way the merchandise which the English purchased in Bengal Agra and other provinces and transported by way of Burhanpur and Ahmadabad for sale in the port of Surat, on the pretence of taking *rahdari* or other duties and *abwabs* abolished by the Emperor. This concession was granted at the prayer of the English merchants, backed by a letter from Ghiyas-ud-din Khan, the governor of Surat, to the wazir Jafar Khan, recommending the English as deserving of imperial favours. [Forrest, Select. Bombay, Home Series, i. 213.]

v5.c83.s4.5

In the second Maratha sack of Surat, 1670, the three European nations, English, Dutch, and French, were suspected of having come to a secret understanding with the raiders, instead of resisting them,

v5.c83.s4.6

language of which shows that the popular belief that the reduction was by one per cent is wrong. Its withdrawal was in Nov. 1679. Foster's Eng. Factories, xi. 314-315.

v5.c83.s4.7

Hence no privileges were given to them this time. In 1679 the *jaziya* or poll-tax was revived, and the Christians were asked to pay it in the form of an addition of one per cent to the custom duty, at the same time that the reduction of ½ p.c. made in 1664 was withdrawn,—i.e., they were subjected to a 3½ p. c. import duty.

v5.c83.s4.8

§ 6. *The Mughal Government's position explained.*

v5.c83.s4.9

Next, the claims of the English in Bengal (*a*) to escape the duty on the actual value of their imports by a fixed annual payment of Rs. 3,000 (as conceded by Shuja in 1656) and (*b*) to trade absolutely free in all other parts of India on payment of customs at Surat (in virtue of Aurangzib's *farman* of 1680), are both false and indefensible on any reasoning.

v5.c83.s4.10

Shuja was merely a provincial governor. He could, as he pleased, let off some favoured body of merchants on easy terms during his own viceroyalty, but his grant (*nishan*) could not bind his successors in office, unless it was confirmed by the Emperor and turned into an imperial charter (*farman.*) According to the practice of the Mughal times, every charter (even when issued by a king or Emperor) had to be renewed by his successor on the throne, otherwise it would lose its validity,—though the renewal, in most cases, followed as a matter of course, on the payment of the customary presents of congratulation at the accession of the new monarch.* A fixed sum of Rs. 3,000 a year might have satisfied Shuja; it was his personal lookout to take the legal amount of duty or less; and English trade in Bengal was of too small a volume in his days. There was no reason why later governors of Bengal should be content with such a small sum and not levy the legal rate of 2½ p.c. on the goods, especially when the volume of English imports into Bengal had multiplied several times since Shuja's days.

v5.c83.s4.11

The English interpretation of Aurangzib's *farman* of 1680 was equally wrong. Payment of duty on the goods landed at Surat could, by no exercise of ingenuity, exempt from duty a different cargo that had come from Home or China not through Surat but directly to Bengal, and which, therefore, could not have paid any duty at Surat. The English traders in Bengal had no reason to claim exemption from a law of the land, which merchants of all other nations had to obey. If at a later date (in Ibrahim Khan's viceroyalty, 1691) Aurangzib's representative in Bengal was content to accept a fixed annual payment of Rs. 3,000 from the English, instead of 2½ p. c. on the actual value of their imports, it was the result of a definite contract to that effect authorised by the Emperor.

v5.c83.s4.12

∗ The old Marathi grants for village headmanship of which thousands have been printed, prove that it was the custom in those days to question the validity of an old grant unless it was renewed by the new king or governor. At every change of authorities, the right of the grantee had to be established and a new order for respecting it had to be taken from the new governor.

v5.c83.s4.13

There was another element, too, in this dispute. Judging from the fraudulent use of the right of issuing passes ("sale of *dastak*") to cover other people's goods under the English flag, which was notoriously practised by the E. I. Co.'s servants in Bengal in the 18th century, we shall be justified in supposing that, with the relaxation of the Mughal administration in Bengal during Aurangzib's absence in the Deccan (1680-1707), the English factors tried to evade the payment of the lawful duty. Hence their frequent collisions with the local revenue officers, who tried to prevent this fraud on the Exchequer.

v5.c83.s4.14

§ 7. Exaction of illegal perquisites was universal though condemned by Emperor.

v5.c83.s4.15

As for the second and third grievances of the English, we must remark that the exactions here complained of had been declared illegal by Aurangzib and were practised only in disregard of his orders. *Rahdari* had been abolished in the second year of his reign, while "benevolences" and forced presents were condemned in the general order abolishing *abwabs* issued on 29th April 1673.* The "forcing of goods" by his grandson Azim-ushshan for his private trade called forth Aurangzib's sternest censures, when it was brought to his ears (about 1703). He sarcastically called the practice *sauda-i-kham* or 'very crude plan' instead of *sauda-i-khas* or 'the prince's own business' which title Azim had given it, and he ended his letter by calling the prince a fool and a tyrant for practising such "plunder of the people." [Riyaz-us-salatin, Eng. tr. 246; I.O.L. MS. 3021 folio 53a.]

v5.c83.s4.16

∗ *History of Aurangzib*, iii. ch. 28, *Mughal Adm.* ch. 5.

v5.c83.s4.17

But the traders thus wronged by the local officers could have redress on those rare occasions only when their cries reached the ears of the old Emperor in the far-off Deccan, and the redress was merely an order on paper. As even the Indian historians of the age admit and as is illustrated by many instances cited in the Court bulletins and Aurangzib's letters,—in many places the local officers levied the forbidden cesses and presents, whenever they felt themselves sufficiently distant from the Emperor or backed by influential ministers at his Court, or if their victims had not sufficient influence and courage to convey their complaints to the Emperor's ears.

v5.c83.s4.18

Purity of administration was impossible in a society devoid of public spirit and accustomed to submit helplessly to every man in power in public life as well as private. The Emperor could not look at everything; he could not be present everywhere; he had to act through agents, and these did not share his integrity and regard for his subjects. The quality of the administration is determined by the character of the official class and the intelligence, spirit, and power of union of the governed.*

§ 8. The English sack Hughli, 1686.

v5.c83.s5.1

We shall now proceed to the history of the contest between the Mughal Government and the English traders in Bengal. The Indian merchants and brokers employed by the E. I. Co. at Qasimbazar (Bengal) made a large claim against Job Charnock, the chief of the factory there and his colleagues. The Indian judge of the place decreed the sum of Rs. 43,000 against the Englishmen (1684-85). On appeal the judgment was confirmed by the provincial governor, who, in default of payment, summoned Charnock to appear before him at Dacca. As Charnock refused to comply with the order, his factory was invested by Mughal troops (August 1685). But in April next, he escaped to Hughli and took the chief direction of English affairs in Bengal. The war began in six months' time from this event.

v5.c83.s5.2

By October 1686 the English forces at Hughli had increased to nearly 400 men,—Englishmen, Portuguese half-breeds, and Rajput mercenaries, with two men-of-war and two frigates. Shaista Khan, the governor of Bengal, on his part, had not been negligent. He had concentrated 300 horse and 3,000 foot at Hughli to guard the town from any surprise by the English, whose assembling of force had become known. Abdul Ghani, the faujdar of the town, stopped the trade of the English, forbade the supply of provisions to them, and placed the local market out of bounds for English troops. On the 28th of the month, three English soldiers, in trying to enter the market in defiance of this order, were wounded and carried prisoner to the faujdar. An advance made by Captain Leslie from the English factory (near Golghat) to rescue them was beaten back with loss, and the thatched huts surrounding the factory were set on fire to arrest their progress. The Mughal battery, midway between the faujdar's residence and the factory, opened fire on the enemy's shipping in the river. But reinforcements soon arrived from the English camp three miles down the river, took the battery spiking the guns, and advanced further, sacking and burning the faujdar's house and the town lying beyond it. In the evening the English ships came abreast of Hughli, captured a ship of the Mughal's, and "kept firing and battering most part of the night and next day, and making frequent sallies on shore, burning and plundering all they met with." Long before this the faujdar had fled away in disguise in a boat.

v5.c83.s5.3

∗ In England at that very time (reign of William III.) the highest officers, including the Attorney-General (Seymour) and the prime minister (Leeds) took bribes. But they were punished when detected, while in Mughal India the receiving of presents and perquisites was considered legitimate. [Macaulay's History, iv. ch. 20 and 21.]

v5.c83.s5.4

without making any attempt to defend the panic-stricken city or save the people from outrage. On the Indian side sixty soldiers were killed and four or five hundred houses burnt down together with a great number of barges and boats.

v5.c83.s5.5

The Hughli faujdar sought the mediation of the Dutch (whose factory was at Chinsura) and opened negotiations with the English in order to gain time for the arrival of reinforcements. The English agreed, and made use of this truce to pack their store of saltpetre and prepare for evacuating the place with all their officers and stores. But they continued to seize Mughal ships at sea and made an alliance with the Muslim zamindar of Hijli, who was in rebellion against the Delhi Emperor.

v5.c83.s5.6

Shaista Khan, on hearing of the sack of Hughli by the English, decided to crush these disturbers of public peace. Vast detachments of cavalry were sent to Hughli and the English factors at Patna were ordered to be seized. On 20th December, the English withdrew from Hughli with all their property, and falling 24 miles down the river halted at Sutanati (modern Calcutta), and from that base continued their negotiations with the subahdar at Dacca for securing land for a fortified trade-settlement and an imperial order allowing them to carry on their commerce free of duty! Shaista Khan temporised, and used the month's time thus gained to complete his armed preparations, and then threw off the mask.

v5.c83.s5.7

§ 9. The English renew war and seize Hijli, 1687.

v5.c83.s5.8

The war was renewed in February 1687. The English burnt down the imperial salt-warehouses near Matiaburuj and then stormed the forts at Thana (modern Garden Reach, south-west of Calcutta). Sailing down the river they seized the island of Hijli, on the east coast of the Medinipur district (Contai sub-division),—a swamp of deadly malaria, but rich in fruits corn and game, and the seat of salt manufacture by evaporating sea-water. At the end of February the English were established in this island, the local Mughal commandant having evacuated the fort without a blow. Here all the English land and sea forces in the Bay of Bengal were assembled.

v5.c83.s5.9

Next March a body of 170 English soldiers and sailors landed at Balasore, took the Mughal fort, and burnt the two towns called Old and New Balasore, after looting them for two days. The Indian shipping in the docks were burnt, and two vessels belonging to Prince Azam and Shaista Khan were seized as prizes.

v5.c83.s5.10

About the middle of May 1687, Abdus Samad, a lieutenant of Shaista Khan, arrived before Hijli with 12,000 men to expel the English. The invaders had been daily losing men from disease, both on land and in the ships, during the trying months of March and April, and their provisions had now run very short. From the mainland in the west the heavy Mughal batteries began to fire across the Rasulpur river upon the English position in the island and drove the English ships from their anchorage. On 28th May a body of 700 Mughal cavalry and 200 gunners crossed the river three miles above Hijli town, suprised an English battery on the island, and pushing further south seized that town itself and set it on fire. The English held only the small weakly-walled fort. Their losses in the meantime had been terrible: 200 soldiers had perished and only a hundred, weakened by fever, survived, the forty officers had sunk to five only. Yet, for four days they held the fort, and the two batteries guarding the road to the landing place, against overwhelming odds, and in spite of their being hemmed round on all the three landward sides. On 1st June their reinforcements arrived, and next day they made a successful sortie, beating the enemy back from their guns.

v5.c83.s5.11

On 4th June Abdus Samad sued for peace. On the 11th the English evacuated Hijli fort, carrying off all their ammunition and artillery, their drums beating and their banners flying. But the indemnity and fresh commercial privileges which they had demanded and Abdus Samad had promised, were refused by the subahdar of Dacca. On 16th August Shaista Khan issued a letter in which he rebuked the English for their recent acts of violence, but permitted them to build a fort at Uluberia (about 20 miles south of Calcutta) and renew their trade at Hughli. So, Charnock returned with his ships and halted at Sutanati (September 1687), where the first buildings of Calcutta were projected.

v5.c83.s5.12

But in the meantime the English had also made war on the Mughal shipping on the Bombay Coast. Shaista Khan, on hearing of this fresh provocation, felt himself no longer bound to observe the terms which he had recently offered to Charnock. He ordered the English to return to Hughli, forbade any building at Sutanati, and demanded large sums as war-compensation. Charnock, however, sent an embassy to Dacca, seeking permission to remain at Sutanati and to buy land there for an English factory.

v5.c83.s5.13

These new negotiations spread over a year after the landing at Calcutta in September 1687. Next year Captain Heath arrived from England, replacing Charnock as Agent in Bengal. The new chief decided to withdraw from Bengal proper, and on 8th November 1688 sailed away from Sutanati with all the men and property of the Company, while the officers of the branch-factories in the interior of Bengal were abandoned to their fate.

v5.c83.s5.14

§ 10. English atrocities at Balasore, 1688.

v5.c83.s5.15

Sailing to Balasore with 300 soldiers, Captain Heath, on 29th November, stormed the Mughal fortification (called Point of Sand) at the easternmost point of Old Balasore, capturing its artillery and stores. Next day he seized New Balasore (further inland, to the west) and committed great excesses, ill-treating Christians and non-Christians, men and women alike. But before this the merchants and servants of the English factory, in the heart of New Balasore, had been seized and removed far inland by the Mughal faujdar, and Heath could not rescue them. After some time spent in indecision and halting peace talk, the Captain sailed away on 23rd December. Arriving before Chatgaon about 18th January 1689, he planned to wrest that fort from the Mughal officers and make it the safe and independent base desired by the English for their trade in Bengal. A council of war dissuaded him from this mad project, and at last in utter disgust Heath sailed away for Madras (17th Feb.), abandoning all his Bengal projects.

§ 11. Negotiations with the Mughal Government.

v5.c83.s6.1

We now turn to the action of the imperial Court during these years, 1687—1689. The sack of Hughli (28 Oct. 1686) and the seizure of Hijli (Feb. 1687) by the English had been duly reported to Aurangzib, then engaged in the siege of Golkonda. The next provocation by the English had been the attack on his shipping in the Western Sea by the Bombay fleet (under the directions of Sir John Child.) The Emperor had immediately ordered the arrest of all the Englishmen, the occupation of their factories all over his dominions, and the prohibition of all trade or other intercourse with the audacious foreigners by his subjects. But the English were supreme at sea, and could stop the journey of pilgrim-ships to Mecca. The loss to his customs revenue through stoppage of their trade was also serious. Therefore, after a time he was inclined to come to terms with them. Shaista Khan had been removed from Bengal early in 1688, and his temporary successor, Khan-i-Jahan, sent (through the governor of Cuttack, on 1st Sep. 1688) a letter to the President at Madras "complaining much of Agent Charnock's irregular proceedings there and desiring some discreet person to be sent to treat with him, promising all just and courteous usage."

v5.c83.s6.2

This letter was received by the Madras Council on 3rd January 1689, and they replied to it on 25th February, offering to re-establish the English factory in Bengal. Meantime, on 12th February, Henry Stanley and James Ravenhill, the imprisoned factors of Balasore, wrote to Madras, complaining of the ill-usage to which they were subjected by the Mughal faujdar in retaliation for the injury done by Heath's squadron and begging the Madras Council to try for their release soon, as otherwise they would be sent to Dacca in chains, under orders of the subahdar.

v5.c83.s6.3

A few months later Ibrahim Khan,[*] a friend of the English, came to Bengal as permanent viceroy, and on 2nd July he wrote a letter to Madras (which was received there on 7th October), inviting the English to return to Bengal. Charnock praised the Khan (whom he had long known when governor of Patna), as a mild man of friendly disposition, whose word could be relied on, and he counselled the Madras authorities to re-establish the Bengal factory.

v5.c83.s6.4

∗ "The new Nawab was a man of peace. Without military abilities, he desired to administer justice with strict impartiality and to encourage agriculture and commerce." (E. Annals, i. 123.)

v5.c83.s6.5

§ 12. Emperor again permits the English to trade, 1690.

v5.c83.s6.6

In the meantime, the English prisoners lately set free by Ibrahim Khan had again, under new orders from the Emperor, been placed under restraint. But in this the subahdar had merely made a show of harshness, to please his master.* At last in February 1690, peace was finally concluded between the Mughal Government and the English on the West Coast. As Aurangzib wrote on 22nd Feb. 1690, "The English [of Surat] having made

v5.c83.s6.7

∗ "The Nawab has forborne to execute the Emperor's severe orders for extirpating the English in this country and demolishing their factories in Bengal. He had lately released the English captives and said, 'The late subahdar [Shaista Khan] wrote many stories against you [to the Emperor.]... You have many enemies, esp. the Dutch.'" [Letter from Bengal dated 25 Nov. 1689, recd. at Madras 23 Jan. 1690.]

v5.c83.s6.8

On 13 Sep. 1689, under the general orders of Aurangzib, his local officer in Telingana had seized the English factory at Vizagapatam, killing three of the factors and carrying off the rest to Chicacole. A little later, their Masulipatam factory was also seized. [Fort St. George Diary, 2, 7 and 10 Oct. 1689.]

v5.c83.s6.9

a most humble, submissive petition,...and [promised] that they would present the Emperor with a fine of Rs. 150,000,...and behave themselves no more in such a shameful manner,...His Majesty hath pardoned their faults and agrees...that they follow their trade as in former times."

v5.c83.s6.10

After this settlement, the Emperor also wrote to Ibrahim Khan, on the 23rd April following, to let the English trade freely in Bengal as formerly, without giving them any further trouble. [Stewart's *Bengal*, App. vii and vi.]

v5.c83.s6.11

On 25th July the Madras Council decided to send Charnock back to Bengal as Agent, and he arrived once more at Sutanati on 24th August. This was the foundation of Calcutta and of the British Power in Northern India. Ibrahim Khan's subordinates respected the traders, and on 10th February 1691 an imperial order (*hasb-ul-hukm*) was issued by the grand wazir to the diwan of Bengal, allowing the English to carry on their trade in that province without molestation on paying Rs. 3,000 a year in lieu of all custom and other dues. In the terms of this imperial rescript, Ibrahim Khan issued a circular letter (*parwana*) to all revenue and other officers in Bengal to "take, instead of custom, but Rs. 3,000 of the English yearly, and in their buying and selling take not a pice more ;...that ye assist their gumashtas in their lawful and just business upon all accounts ; and that no one, upon the account of *rahdari*, *jamadari* or *farmaish* &c., be suffered to defraud or molest them, it being forbidden by the Emperor.'' [Ibid, App. viii and ix].

v5.c83.s6.12

This was the final settlement of the English in Bengal.

§ 13. English traders at Surat ill-treated by Mughal officials.

v5.c83.s7.1

As in Bengal, so also on Western Coast of India, the English traders suffered from the vexatious and illegal interference and greed of the local officers of the Mughal Government, which the Emperor could not check. In addition, they were threatened with a new tax in violation of the privileges enjoyed by them in the past. Thus, on 20th April 1680 the Surat factors write, ``Not only we but the Dutch and French are grown so inconsiderable with these Moors that they fear not to push what they please upon us ; for having demanded of us to pay the poll [i.e., the *jaziya*] as other inhabitants in the country, and we refusing, the king has some few days since sent down a positive order for all the natives to pay 3½ per cent custom as formerly, which will cost the Company little less than Rs. 20,000 yearly.'' [Orme MSS. 116, Bombay letters received.]

v5.c83.s7.2

The friction continued ; the local agents of the E. I. Co. were powerless to find a remedy. The island of Bombay had not yet become so well-developed and self-supporting as to enable the English to conduct their Indian trade from this centre and to close the factory at Surat which was constantly subject to Mughal oppression.

v5.c83.s7.3

But Sir Josiah Child, the Chairman of the Company in London, was a man of fiery disposition and exceptional force of character. He decided on a policy of firmness, independence, and if necessary of reprisal, against the Mughal empire. Such a policy required three things, namely (a) the withdrawal of the English factory from Surat, which was really a "fool's paradise," (b) concentrating the Company's trade and officers in Bombay as "the Key of India," in order to be free from the intolerable restraints and indignities to which the Company's servants were subjected at Surat, and (c) seizing the Indian shipping at sea in retaliation for the oppression done to English trade in the Mughal dominions.

v5.c83.s7.4

In fact, the Home authorities of the Company decided on war and issued orders to their agents in India to carry out such a strong policy. Its unsuitability was pointed out by the Madras and Bombay officials, but the London Chairman was immovable. The war he desired was sure to end in failure in consequence of the weakness and incompetence of Sir John Child, the "General and Director in Chief" of all the Company's factories in India.

v5.c83.s7.5

We have already seen the results of this policy of aggression in Bengal and Telingana from October 1686 to November 1689. On the West Coast, Sir John Child, in obedience to orders from Home, left Surat for Bombay on 25th April 1687, in order to be beyond the reach of the Mughals. The imperial governor of Surat disliked this retreat of the English to an independent position, as he thus lost the power of intimidating and fleecing the Company. Child's departure was justly taken to be a preparation for war, and the governor put troops round the English factory, with the effect that Benjamin Harris, the chief of the Surat Council, and Samuel Annesley, his second in office, could not go outside. This greatly hampered the Company's business.

v5.c83.s7.6

§ 14. Sir John Child makes war, but submits, 1688-1689.

v5.c83.s7.7

The Mughal Government's relations with the English continued in an unsettled and undefined state for more than a year afterwards. At last, on 9th October 1688, Sir John Child appeared with a fleet before Swally and sent to the governor of Surat a list of the grievances of the English, demanding compensation for past injuries and a new charter confirming and extending their privileges. The governor gained time by drawing the negotiations out, which could be authoritatively concluded by the Emperor only. But on 26th December, his preparations being complete, he threw off the mask and began open hostility by suddenly imprisoning the English factors and their Indian brokers, placing a guard over the English factory, and sending a force to Swally to seize Child. The latter escaped, and retaliated by blockading the mouth of the river below Surat and then sailing down the coast and capturing all sorts of Indian shipping indiscriminately. His prizes included 40 large ships, 4 smaller ones, and 36 ghurabs and gallivats, mostly laden with grain oil and other country produce. [Arnold Wright's *Annesley of Surat*, 92-98, 125-127, superseding Bruce's *Annals*, iii.]

v5.c83.s7.8

The Mughal Government's reply was to put the captive Englishmen at Surat in irons, in which deplorable condition they remained for 16 months (Dec. 1688—April 1690.)* At the same time, the Siddi of Janjira, as Mughal admiral, delivered an attack on Bombay (May 1689) and landed on the island, occupying its outlying parts. Child's supine administration and neglect of defensive preparations, as well as his incapable leadership and personal timidity, led to the English garrison being driven within Bombay fort and besieged there by a daily increasing mob of Muslims. They offered a stout defence and performed prodigies of valour, but suffered terrible losses from disease and desertion, without any chance of filling up the gaps in their ranks.

v5.c83.s7.9

Governor Child, therefore, made an abject appeal for pardon, sending a mission to Aurangzib under G. Weldon and Abraham Navarro (10th Dec. 1689.) At this time the credit of the English nation in India had been shaken by exaggerated Dutch reports of the flight of James II, the landing of William of Orange, and his assumption of the crown of England.

v5.c83.s7.10

∗ "They were at times made to gratify the mob by parading the streets with chains suspended from their necks." When Sir John Child made his submission in April 1690, they were released from the jail, but closely confined to their factory until 17th Oct. 1691. [Anderson, 243.]

v5.c83.s7.11

The Mughal Court was favourably inclined towards peace. "Neither the leading Court officials, nor the Surat [Indian] merchants, wanted to see the English ruined." In Bengal, too, the new governor, Ibrahim Khan, was eager for the return of the English traders. So, the Emperor granted his pardon to them, by an order dated 25th December 1689. The *farman* was received at Surat with due ceremony on 4th April 1690, the factors having been released by the governor a day earlier. The English were restored to their old position in the Indian trade on condition of paying a fine of one-and-a half lakhs of Rupees, and restoring the goods taken from Indian ships. [Wright, 130-143.]

v5.c83.s7.12

The position of the English, however, continued to be very bad during 1691, 1692, and 1693, on account of dull trade, the lack of capital, the intrusion of interlopers of their own race, and civil discord in the Bombay Council. Early in 1694 Sir John Gayer arrived as governor of Bombay and chief agent in Western India, and in the May of the same year Annesley succeeded as chief of the Surat factory, on President Harris turning mad. [*Ibid*, 153.]

v5.c83.s7.13

And then the situation was entirely changed by the appearance of a new element. The English interests in the Mughal empire were dominated for the next six years by the acts of European pirates in Asiatic waters. †

§ 15. European pirates in Indian seas, early 17th century.

v5.c83.s8.1

'European piracy in the Indian Ocean had begun with the coming of Vasco da Gama at the end of the 15th century. It excited no moral reprobation in Christendom. "To prey upon Muham-madan ships was simply to pursue in other waters the chronic warfare carried on against Moors and Turks in the Mediterranean." [Biddulph's *Pirates of Malabar*, 2.] Merchants and adventurers of all classes and nationalities flocked from Europe to the Indian seas in the 16th and 17th centuries, and with the growth of Indian trade there was a corresponding growth of piracy. In 1623 the depredations of the Dutch brought the English into disgrace; their warehouses at Surat were seized and the President and factors were placed in irons by the Mughal Government for seven months.

v5.c83.s8.2

In 1635, Cobb, the captain of a ship licensed by Charles I. of England, plundered two Mughal vessels at the mouth of the Red Sea, though one of them had a pass from the Surat factory. In 1638, Sir William Courten, under a grant from the same king, sent out four ships which robbed Indian vessels and tortured their crews. For these misdeeds of their fellow-countrymen, the innocent servants of the E. I. Co. at Surat were kept in prison for two months, and released only on the payment of Rs. 1,70,000 as compensation. [Ibid, 2-6.]

v5.c83.s8.3

In the second half of the 17th century an even more lawless race of men than the old Buccaneers appeared and extended their operations to the Indian Ocean, acting generally in single ships and plundering vessels of every nationality. "Of these men, chiefly English, the most notorious were Teach, Evory, Kidd, Roberts, England and Tew, with many others less known to fame........Roberts alone was credited with the destruction of 400 trading vessels in three years......The chief cause of their immunity lay in the fact that it was the business of nobody in particular to act against them...... Their friends on shore supplied their wants and gave them timely information of rich prizes to be looked for, or armed ships to be avoided. Officials high in authority winked at their doings, from which they drew a profit......Not only were the greater number of pirates of English blood, but pirate captains of other nationalities often sailed under English colours. The native officials, unable to distinguish the rogues from the honest traders, held the E. I. Co.'s servants responsible for their misdeeds." (Ibid, viii-x).

v5.c83.s8.4

§ 16. *Atrocities of English pirates.*

v5.c83.s8.5

In 1684, six Europeans,—four of them being English and the other two Dutch,—begged their passage in a Persian merchant's richly laden vessel bound for India. In the Gulf of Persia they killed the owner, his two wives and many other persons, including 26 lascars. Fifteen of the lascars leaped overboard and escaped in a small boat to Masqat. These pirates committed more atrocities, made their way to Goa, and cast six more lascars overboard tied hand and foot. But when they landed at Honore, they were arrested by the local governor. Their ringleader was supposed to be Terrell. [Orme MSS. 117, p. 291.]

v5.c83.s8.6

In 1688 two ships under English colours seized vessels in the Red Sea worth six lakhs of Rupees. Next year a number of sea-rovers from the West Indies made their appearance and infested the Malabar coast, hoisted the red or black flag, and robbed Indian and European vessels alike. [Madras Diary.] There were besides, other European pirates in the Persian Gulf, at the mouth of the Red Sea, in the Mozambique Channel and some lying off Achen (Sumatra.)

v5.c83.s8.7

"As pirates and interlopers alike sailed under English colours, the whole odium fell on the English. In August 1691 a ship belonging to Abdul Ghafur was taken by them near Surat with nine lakhs of cash on board." The Mughal Government immediately placed a guard on the English factory at Surat and forbade their trade in the country. But one of the pirate crew having been captured and proved to be a Dane, the embargo was removed. [Biddulph, 13.]

v5.c83.s8.8

The most famous of these pirates was Henry Bridgman, who took the alias of Evory. On 30th May 1694, while acting as the mate of an English ship hired by the Spanish Government, he overpowered the officers, renamed his ship *Fancy* and took to a life of piracy, with 46 guns and 150 fighters on board. After notable captures in the Gulf of Aden, he took off Socotra (Sep. 1695) the *Fath Muhammadi*, a richly laden ship of Abdul Ghafur, the prince of Surat merchants. A few days later he achieved his crowning feat, the capture of the *Ganj-i-sawai*. [Ibid, 16-25.]

v5.c83.s8.9

§ 17. Plunder of the Ganj-i-sawai, 1695.

v5.c83.s8.10

This ship belonged to the Mughal Emperor and was the largest vessel of the port of Surat. Every year it used to sail to Mokha and Jidda, carrying Indian pilgrims for Mecca and Indian goods for sale in Arabia. It had 80 guns and 400 muskets on board, but its captain, Muhammad Ibrahim, was a coward.*

v5.c83.s8.11

∗ This is the estimate formed by Khafi Khan, (ii. 422) whose description of the plunder of the ship has been used by all writers hitherto. But this captain's own description of the incident is given in I. O. L. MS.; Persian No. 150 (Ethe 370)

v5.c83.s8.12

He was returning from Mokha, at the head of an Indian merchant fleet of 24 vessels, assembled for mutual defence against pirates. Approaching the Indian coast his consorts dispersed, each to its own destination, leaving the *Ganj-i-sawai* alone. Between Bombay and Daman it was attacked by the *Fancy*, a second pirate ship and two boats. The artillery fire of the Europeans was most effective; in a short time the Mughal vessel had lost 25 soldiers killed and 20 wounded. A gun on board the *Ganj-i-sawai* burst, setting the ship on fire and killing or burning several of the crew. While the Indians were distracted by the fire and engaged in putting it out, the pirates boarded the ship from all sides. No resistance was made by the crew. The Captain hid himself in a lower cabin, after placing

v5.c83.s8.13

which I translate below. It has a Falstaffian ring and I have not been able to accept it. "We arrived in safety between Bombay and Daman. Suddenly four ships appeared in the distance... They arrived near us. Artillery and muskets were fired on both sides... For five or six hours shots were showered. During that period...the *mir-dah* of artillery and... the *mir-dah* of musketeers, and others, 25 men were slain and 20 wounded. I was hurt by two cannon balls on the back and the head. Many of the enemy were sent to hell or wounded. Just then a gun on the imperial ship burst and set the ship on fire. Some men were killed by the flying splinters of the gun and burnt. Our men were distracted in extinguishing the fire. Then the English, who numbered 1200 men, boarded our ship on four sides... They kept the ship for three days, plundering it..." (Folio 19.)

v5.c83.s8.14

swords in the hands of the Turkish slave-girls whom he had purchased at Mokha and whom he now bade to fight like men! [K. K.]

v5.c83.s8.15

For three days the pirates looted the ship at leisure, taking out of it five hundred thousand *rial* in cash, besides the property of the passengers and traders as well as the armament and instruments of the ship. As usual in such cases, the women on board, many of them belonging to the Sayyid and other respectable families, were outraged, and several of these victims committed suicide. Then Evory left the unhappy ship which was carried by its crew to Surat on 12th September.

v5.c83.s8.16

The first news of the outrage had been brought to Surat some days earlier, by a *huri* boat of the *Ganj-i-sawai* in which nine of its sailors had escaped by cutting their ropes at the first attack of the pirates. Immediately on hearing of it, Itimad Khan, the governor of Surat, had sent out the small Mughal flotilla of the port with four boats borrowed from the Dutch and the French, to assist the *Ganj-i-sawai*. They had returned to Surat without being able to find out the unhappy vessel.*

v5.c83.s8.17

When, on 12th September, the *Ganj-i-sawai* itself reached Surat and its passengers, stripped of everything, unfolded the tale of plunder and rape, the people of that port were roused to uncontrollable indignation. The attack on the Mecca pilgrims and Sayyid women gave to the act of piracy the odious colour of an outrage on the Muslim faith. The sufferers ascribed the attack to Englishmen closely connected with Bombay.

v5.c83.s8.18

∗ Piracy on the *Ganj-i-sawai*, I.O.L. MS. 150, ff. 17b-19b, 21b-23b, (best); K. K. ii, 422; A. Wright, 160.

v5.c83.s8.19

§ 18. English factors at Surat imprisoned, 1695-1696.

v5.c83.s8.20

Itimad Khan, the governor of Surat (really collector of Customs), was a friend of the English and an officer of unrivalled uprightness and purity. Amidst the popular clamour he kept his head and by his judicious measures saved the local Englishmen from being lynched by the Muslim fanatics. An excited and daily increasing crowd assembled before the English factory, threatening death to the inmates. But the governor sent a party of regular troops under his lieutenant Ashur Beg to occupy the factory (14 Sep.), and confine the merchants there pending the receipt of the Emperor's orders. Thus 49 Englishmen,—including not only President Annesley and other members of the Surat Council, but also interlopers like John Vaux and Uphill (who had been

v5.c83.s8.21

[^ *]: "All the passengers of the Ganj-i-sawai, as well as those of Mulla Abdul Ghafur's ship, agree in charging the English with the piracy, and some of them say that at the time of the plunder they recognised some Englishmen [previously known to them.]" (Surat governor's letter to Court, I.O.L. No. 26.) "During the plundering the pirates kept saying—'We are thus avenging on you the injury that [Siddi] Yaqut and other imperialists had done to us at Bombay',—and they showed the expelled from the E. I. Co.'s service) were imprisoned there. The number of captives was increased by the arrival of the Captain and some eight sailors of the Company's ship *Benjamin* seized after landing at Swally. A similar fate overtook the English traders at Broach. The arms, including 18 brass guns, found in the factory, were taken away by the governor. [*Madras Diary.*] Iron fetters were put on the feet of the captives.* Their trade was totally stopped.

v5.c83.s8.22

These harsh measures of Itimad Khan, however, saved the prisoners from a worse fate. As Annesley wrote, "We must confess our guard was no more than necessary to defend us from the rabble, for the whole mobile was raised against us, demanding satisfaction of us even to our lives. The governor

v5.c83.s8.23

wounds they had received at that time." (*Ibid*, f. 19, Captain's report.)

v5.c83.s8.24

"The people publicly in the streets [of Surat] allege that they knew several Englishmen among the pirates whom they had seen in Surat with their servants and two small vessels which they had used to see in Bombay...and that the pirates sent to the Castle of Bombay that from thence they might receive orders...The wiser sorts give no credit thereunto." [*Surat news-letter received at Madras. Mad. Diary, 8 Nov.*]

v5.c83.s8.25

∗ When a rumour came of another ship of Abdul Ghafur having been captured by a pirate in the Persian Gulf, "the English flag was struck, and the whole of the English factory, with the exception of the President, the two members of the Council, and Captain Browne, were confined in irons." [*Bruce, iii. 193.*]

First 104 of 145 passages. Read on

Linked texts (1)