CAPITULO V - PREVENCION, DETECCION Y EXTINCION DE INCENDIOS Y EQUIPO CONTRAINCENDIOS
Regla 92 Cuestiones diversas( 22 )
The seizure of Mir Jumla*s junk was undoubtedly a challenge to his authority. The English believed that, on their capture of the vessel and its contents^Mir Jumla ■would come to a satisfactory agreement with them. But Mir Jumla was not the type of person to descend to such a
humiliating compromise. The dispute over Mir Jumla*s junk however was not settled in
1658
, for an additional elementof complexity was introduced into the episode by Agrangxib1s appointment of Mir Jumla to Bihar and Bengal to conduct the war
— t
against Shuja.
1. Jagadish Narayan Sarkar, Life of Mir Jumla. p* 1U1. 2. Ibid, p. 1U2*
163.
While the Bengal factors regarded themselves as free from any responsibility for the actions of those of the Coromandel coast, Mir Jumla fastened the responsibility on the East India Company as a whole. Consequently the
English could not procure saltpetre from Bengal. Chamberlain, the English factor at Patna, met Mir Jumla on 21st February 1659? with a present worth RS.600.^* Mir Jumla refused
to accept it, describing the English as no better than pirates
2 —
and robbers. * Chamberlain tried to make Mir Jumla believe that the Bengal factors were private people who had no
connection with the coast and that there was no reason why they should suffer for the fault of others. But to Mir Jumla the English were all the same. On the other hand saltpetre
3
'was so important an article of trade of the East India
Company that at last Chamberlain promised to return Mir Jumla*s junk and his earnest appeal to the Agent at Fort St. George through the Balasore factors led Mir Jumla to grant the English a licence to trade in Patna. But the Madras factors^
1. Factors at Balasore to the Madras factors quoted in EFI (1655-60), p. 280.
2. Ibid. p. 281.
3. See Infra, section II.
164.
rejecting Chamberlain’s pleas and refusing to agree to the return of the junk, sought to re-open the issue of a trade permit for Patna through Ion Ken (sic), the chief factor of Kasimbazar, who was ordered to offer to Mir Jurnla the usual presents, which he did in May 1659. The presents and the request were hoth sternly refused hy 1.1 ir Jumla,
who demanded the return of the junk and RS. 40,000 hut agreed to wait for two months.'1'* The Balasore and Hugli ■ factors decided to present him with RS.25*000 as a
compensation. Early in June Ion Ken had an interview with Mir Jumla, Y/ho granted his dastak (pass) to
the English for their trade, provided they gave him a written pledge to make good all his damages within ahout a month. * But the English, taking advantage of Prince Muhammad Sultan’s desertion of the imperial army which was under Mir Jumla’s leadership, had not settled the
junk incident even hy the middle of June.
As the outcome of the struggle between Mir Jumla and Shuja appeared uncertain, Jonathan Trevisa, the second Agent at Plugli, followed a policy of "wait and see", as
advised hy the §urat authorities. Subsequently Mir Jumla ordered the faujdar of Balasore in 1659 to send up Trevisa
R.O.C., vol. 26, Letter No. 2765. 2. Ibid, Letter No. 2764.
to Hugli and to levy a duty of
b%
on all English trade, besides anchorage duties ofl their ships.On 1st December 1659? Trevisa, together with Ken, left Hugli to negotiate with Mir Jumla. They came to an agreement on the condition that the junk was returned to Mir Jumla together with all captured articles. In
consequence,on 9th February 1660, Mir Jumla granted trevisa his parwaha confirming the privileges previously granted
^
— __ — -c 2.to the English^Shah Jahan and Shah S_huja. Before leaving Balasore Trevisa sent a strong remonstrance to the Madras Agent about the possible mischief occuring
from the delay in satisfying Mir Jumla. The English trade, "the rising trade in India", was almost at a standstill in Bengal. * Though the Surat authorities had already on 3rd June 1659 ordered the Madras factors to make full
and immediate restitution to Mir Jumla for his losses,
to restore the junk and to pay Mir Jumla out of the salary of Greenhill, the Agent of the Coromandel coast, the Madras authorities still refused to act, holding that it would encourage him to advance fresh demands, for he would never
1. Ibid. Letter no. 2833-
vol. 26, Letter Ho. 2827. R»O.C., vol. 26, Letter No. 2828.
166*
"be contented."^*
However the Madras authorities did ask their colleagues in Bengal to find out the maximum demands of the nawah as a necessary preliminary to a final settlement. The demands made on the part of the >t1a?;a'b were, according to a letter of 19th May 1660 from Masulipatam to Bantam, "upwards of
2
20,000 pagodas, "besides the denying of payment of
32,000
pagodas which he owes the Company." ^ The Surat
authorities were not prepared to accept At last they
b
wrote to Trevisa*, "if Meer Jumla will "be satisfied with the
a
return of his vessaile as shee is now, well repaired and made fashionable at the expense of much money it shall "be delivered ... if the Nabob will not be satisfied with
this ... we may proceed against the Moors in another manner of language.H ^
In the meantime, while there was a tug of war between the English Company and the ifawab, a new problem arose due to customs duties. On 28th June 1660, the Surat authorities enquired of the Bengal factors whether
£4
Ibid, Letter No.2873
.2. Gold coins, one pagoda was equivalent to RS. 3 to 3-8 as. 3. R.0.C . , vol. 26, Letter No. 28U7.
167.
exemption from payment of customs had "been granted hy Shah Jahan or whether it was a matter of courtesy on the part of the subadar. They were determined not to pay any anchorage duties as none were demanded in any port in the Mughal empire or anywhere else in the world where the
English traded, and they regarded it as an unworthy custom* Of course, they knew that ’’though payment of anchorage
duties might have b e m u s u a l in the period of open trade, the East India Company stood in a different footing.” ^ A letter from Trevisa of Uth July 1660, acquainted the
President and Council at Surat with the fact that Mir Jumla, dissatisfied with the result of the conference at
2