Fort William-India House Correspondence and Other Contemporary Papers Relating Thereto
Vol. I: 1748-1756
Edited by K. K. Datta, M.A., Ph.D., Professor of History, Patna University, Patna
Published for the National Archives of India by the Manager of Publications, Government of India
1958
[PDF HERE]
GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACE
In the words of Grant Duff the records of the East India Company are the best historical material in the world. Research scholars working in various parts of the country would undoubtedly like to have this raw material in a readily accessible form. But to bring the voluminous records within easy reach of scholars would be a superhuman task. While that task has not been attempted, the Government of India has, on the recommendation of the Indian Historical Records Commission, accepted a scheme which envisages publication of the correspondence between the Court of Directors of the East India Company in London and the Fort William Council in Calcutta. This correspondence forms a very small part of the records of the Government of India but its value and importance are without question. While it does not give the detailed story of every action or every policy, for which one has to go to the discussions, minutes, decisions etc., available in the proceedings of the Board, it nevertheless gives a bird’s-eye view of the Company’s activity in all its aspects, which enables the reader to form a clear idea of the history of the time. This series of records was considered suitable for in extenso reproduction. Since the Company’s records of the period earlier than 1748 are not available in the National Archives of India, except for some stray documents, the series was started from that date. As a first instalment it was decided to publish the records of the period between 1748 and 1800 in 21 volumes as follows:
Volume / Nature of records / Period
I / Home Department / 1748-56
II / Do. / 1757-59
III / Do. / 1760-63
IV / Do. / 1764-66
V / Do. / 1767-69
VI / Do. / 1770-72
VII / Do. / 1773-76
VIII / Do. / 1777-81
IX / Do. / 1782-85
X / Do. / 1786-88
XI / Do. / 1789-92
XII / Home, Separate (Revenue) / 1793-95
XIII / Home, Separate (Legislative) / 1796-1800
XIV / Secret, Select Committee / 1752-81
XV / Foreign, Secret / 1782-86
XVI / Secret & Separate / 1787-91
XVII / Foreign, Political & Secret / 1792-95
XVIII / Do. 1796-1800
XIX / Military Department / 1787-92
XX / Do. / 1792-95
XXI / Do. / 1796-1800
These volumes were to be edited by scholars working in Universities and learned institutions under the general editorship of the Director of Archives, Government of India. Apart from the individual editor’s introduction accompanying each of the 21 volumes, there is to be a general Prefatory Note to be written by the General Editor covering the entire series. It was felt that a knowledge of the period prior to 1748 when the series starts would be indispensable to a proper appreciation of the history of the succeeding period. The note is therefore to give a general survey of the Company’s history and activities from its establishment up to 1748. In addition, it will highlight the trends of the Company’s policy as unfolded in the letters now being published, in order that they may be appreciated more easily. The original intention was to include this review in the Prefatory Note in Volume I of the series. But the idea has been given up and it is now proposed to have a small separate volume for the purpose. For one thing, Volume I has become quite bulky and further addition to its bulk was considered undesirable. Secondly, as the Preface is to survey also the period 1748-1800, it was felt that the preparation of the Preface might conveniently await the completion of the editorial work of all the volumes in this series.
The present volume, though fourth in order of publication, is the first of the series. It had been sent to the press as early as 1952, but in view of other urgent work its printing was given a relatively low priority. The unfortunate delay in publishing the volume and the comparatively low standard of production are regretted.
The General Editor is grateful to the Commonwealth Relations Office, London, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, for permission to publish certain portraits and paintings from among their collections, and to the Director General of Archaeology, Government of India, for supplying photographic copies of some of the illustrations included in the volume.
T. Raychaudhuri
Director of Archives
Government of India
National Archives of India, New Delhi, 27 August 1958
CONTENTS [PDF HERE]
• General Editor's Preface
• Contents
• List of Illustrations
• Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the East India Company, 1748-56
• Directors of the East India Company, 1748-56
• Governors of the Presidency of Fort William, Bengal, 1748-56
• Members of Board, Fort William, Bengal, 1748-56
• Governors of the Presidency of Fort St. George, 1748-56
• Governors of the Presidency of Bombay, 1748-56
• Introduction
• LETTERS FROM COURT
• 1. 28 November 1753 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 319-23)
• 2. 19 December 1753 (Home Public : Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 324-30)
• 3. 23 January 1754 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp. 2-43)
• 4. 23 January 1754 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp. 44-45)
• 5. 15 February 1754 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp.47-50)
• 6. 2 March 1754 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp. 51-59 )
• 7. 15 March 1754 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp, 60-61)
• 8. 15 March 1754 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, I754-55 pp. 62-67)
• 9. 29 November 1754 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp. 75-95)
• 10. 29 November 1754 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp. 96-99)
• 11. 31 January 1755 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 17S4-55, pp. 106-07)
• 12. 31 January 1755 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1755-58, pp. 1-51)
• 13. 14 February 1755 (Home Public : Vol. I, 1755-59, p. 52)
• 14. 26 March 1755(Home Public: Vol. I, 1755-58, pp. 53-57)
• 15. 16 April 1755 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, p. 146)
• 16. 10 October 1755 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1755-58, pp. 59-64)
• 17. 3 December 1755 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1755-58, pp. 67-69)
• 18. 19 December 1755 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1755-58, pp. 69-74)
• 19. 11 February 1756 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1755-58, pp. 75-125)
• 20. 29 December 1756 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1755-58, pp. 127-34)
• 21. 29 December 1756 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1755-58, pp. 139-42)
• LETTERS TO COURT
• 1. 10 January 1747/48 (Home Public: Bengal Letters from the Coast and Bay, Vol. XIII, 1747-48)
• 2. 24 February 1747/48 (Home Public: Letters from the Coast and Bay, Vol. XIV, 1748, pp. 1-67)
• 3. 26 July 1748 (Home Public: Bengal Letters from the Coast and Bay, Vol. XIV, 1748, pp. 68-69)
• 4. 19 November 1748 (Home Public: Bengal Letters from the Coast and Bay, Vol. XlV, 1748, pp. 70-91)
• 5. 22 December 1748 (Home Public: Bengal Letters from the Coast and Bay, Vol. XIV, 1748, pp. 91-102)
• 6. 27 January 1748/49 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1748-49, pp.1-11)
• 7. 11 February 1748/49 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1748-49, pp. 13-18)
• 8. 24 February 1748/49 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 1-13)
• 9. 10 August 1749 (Home Public: Vol. I, 1748-49, pp. 21-43 )
• 10. 22 August 1749 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, p. 14)
• 11. 13 January 1749/50 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp.15-70)
• 12. 8 February 1749/50 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 71-80)
• 13. 25 February 1749/50 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp.81-91)
• 14. 24 August 1750 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 92-144)
• 15. 30 December 1750 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 145-55)
• 16. 12 January 1750/51 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 156-62)
• 17. 4 February 1750/51 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 163-205)
• 18. 18 February 1750/51 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVl, 1749-51, pp. 206-10)
• 19. 19 February 1750/51 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 211-15)
• 20. 24 February 1750/51 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 216-24)
• 21. 20 August 1751 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 225-79)
• 22. 2 September 1751 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVI, 1749-51, pp. 280-86)
• 23. 2 January 1751/52 (Home Public: Vol. II, 1751-52, pp. 61-95)
• 24. 16 January 1751/52 (Home Public: Vol. II, 1751- 52, pp. 96-104)
• 25. 31 January 1751/52 (Home Public: Vol. II, 1751- 52, pp. 105-13)
• 26. 17 February 1751/52 (Home Public: Vol. II, 1751-52, pp. 114-20)
• 27. 23 February 1751/52 (Home Public: Vol. II, 1751-52, pp 121-26)
• 28. 18 September 1752 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 68-115)
• 29. 1 January 1753 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 130-47)
• 30. 15 January 1753 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 149-57)
• 31. 29 January 1753 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 168-74).
• 32. 11 February 1753 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 175-201)
• 33. 1 March 1753 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 227-42)
• 34. 3 September 1753 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 247-307)
• 35. 17 September 1753 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVII, 1752-53, pp. 308-09)
• 36. 31 December 1753 (Home Public: Vol. III, 1753-54, pp. 1-3)
• 37. 4 January 1754 (Home Public: Vol. III, 1753-54, pp. 5-67)
• 38. 17 January 1754 (Home Public: Vol. III, 1753-54, pp. 68-72)
• 39. 18 January 1754 (Home Public : Vol. III, 1753-54, pp. 74-79)
• 40. 28 February 1754 (Home Public: Vol. III, 1753-54, pp. 81-99)
• 41. 6 September 1754 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp. 70-73)
• 42. 9 September 1754 (Home Public: Vol. III, 1753-54, pp. 100-30)
• 43. 7 December 1754 (Home Public: Vol. III, 1753-54, pp. 132-205)
• 44. 20 December 1754 (Home Public: Vol. III, 1753-54, p. 206)
• 45. 22 December 1754 (Home Public: Vol. III, 1753-54, pp. 208-09)
• 46. 9 January 1755 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp. 108-13)
• 47. 30 January 1755 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, p. 114)
• 48. 3 February 1755 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII 1754-55, pp. 115-31)
• 49. 1 March 1755 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. XVIII, 1754-55, pp. 132-45)
• 50. 3 September 1755 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 1-11)
• 51. 11 September 1755 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 12-31)
• 52. 28 September 1755 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 32-42)
• 53. 24 November 1755 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 43-44)
• 54. 8 December 1755 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 45-120)
• 55. 5 January 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 141-44)
• 56. 26 January 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 121-23)
• 57. 17 February 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 124-25)
• 58. 21 February 1756 (Home Public Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 126-40)
• 59. 23 February 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV,1755-57, pp. 145-69)
• 60. 26 February 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 170-75)
• 61. 4 March 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 176-80)
• 62. 16 July 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 193-210)
• 63. 17 July 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 181-92)
• 64. 17 July 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 211-14)
• 65. 18 July 1756 (Home Public: Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 215-21)
• 66. 17 September 1756 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 222-31)
• 67. 25 October 1756 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 232-39)
• 68. 30 November 1756 (Home Public: Copies of Records obtained from India Office, Vol. IV, 1755-57, pp. 240-331)
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index
• Corrigenda
• Facsimile of a letter from two members of the Board at Fort William to the Court of Directors, 26 February 1756, From the original in the National Archives of India
• Plan of the territory of Calcutta when attacked and taken by Sirajud-Daulah on 18 June 1756, Courtesy of the Survey of India.
• J. Z. Holwell, Reproduced from Curzon of Kedleston's British Government in India, published by Cassell and Company Ltd., London. Copyright reserved by the publishers.
• Motijhil, Murshidabad, Courtesy of the Department of Archaeology, Government of India.
CHAIRMEN AND DEPUTY CHAIRMEN OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY* 1748-56
Year / Chairman / Deputy Chairman
1748 / Chauncey, Richard / Braddyll, Dodding**
1749 / Baker, William / Chauncey, Richard
1750 / Chauncey, Richard / Gough, Harry
1751 / Drake, Roger (Sr.) / Baker, William
1752 / Baker, William / Chauncey, Richard
1753 / Chauncey, Richard / Drake, Roger (Sr.)
1754 / Drake, Roger (Sr.) / Chauncey, Richard
1755 / Drake, Roger (Sr.) / Godfrey, Peter
1756 / Godfrey, Peter / Payne, John
DIRECTORS OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY 1748-56
Baker, William** / 1741-52
Barwell, William / 1753-59, 1761-64, 1766
Benyon, Richard** / 1745-48
Bootle, Capt. Robert / 1741-49, 1752-53, 1755-56
Boulton, Henry Crabb / 1753-61, 1763-65, 1767-70, 1772-73
Boyd, John / 1753-61, 1763-64
Braddyll, Dodding** / 1728-48
Braund, William / 1745-54
Burrow, Christopher / 1735-58, 1760-61
Chambers, Charles / 1755-57, 1763-66, 1768
Chauncey, Richard / 1737-55
Creed, James / 1749, 1755-58, 1761
Cutts, Charles / 1749-54, 1758-61, 1763-66
Dorrien, John / 1755-58, 1760-63
Drake, Roger (Sr.) / 1738-58
Ducane, Peter / 1750-54
Feake, Samuel** / 1733-51
Fonnereau, Abel** / 1749-52
Fonnereau, Zachary Philip / 1754-55
Godfrey, Peter / 1710-17, 1734-57, 1759-60
Gough, Charles / 1749-57, 1759-62
Gough, Capt. Harry (Sr.)** / 1730-33, 1736-51
Gough, Harry (Jr.) ** / 1735- 51
Hope, John** / 1738-41, 1744-52
Hudson, Capt. Robert** / 1721-29, 1732-34, 1745-48
Hume, Alexander** / 1737- 48
Impey, Michael / 1736- 57
Jones, Robert / 1754-57, 1765-68
Law, Stephen / 1746-56
Linwood, Nicholas / 1754- 55
Mabbott, William / 1741-55
Manship, John / 1755- 58, 1762-65, 1767, 1769-77, 1779-82, 1784-87, 1789-92, 1794-97, 1799-1802, 1804-07, 1809 Newnham, Nathaniel (Jr.) / 1738- 58
Payne, John / 1741- 57
Phipps, Thomas / 1742- 58
Plant, Henry / 1745-58
Raymond, Jones / 1734- 58
Rider, William / 1738-54
Rous, Thomas / 1745-53, 1755, 1757-58, 1760-62, 1764-67, 1770-71
Savage Henry / 1755-58, 1760-62, 1764-67, 1770- 77, 1779-82
Snell, William** / 1742-,64, 1767-69
Steele, William** / 1742-48
Sulivan, Laurence / 1755-58, 1760-61, 1763-64, 1769, 1771-72, 1778-81, 1783-85
Thornton, John** / 1749- 50
Tullie, Timothy / 1750- 58, 1760-63
Turner, Whichcott / 1742-56
Walpole, Thomas / 1753-55
Western, Maxmilian / 1755-58
Wilberforce, William (Jr.) / 1753-55
Willy, William / 1746-55
Winter, James / 1754
*The lists are based on the following sources: the text of the letters published in this volume; C. C. Prinsep’s Records of Services of the Honorable East India Company's Civil Servants in the Madras Presidency, 1741-1858 (London, 1885); the Alphabetical List of Directors of the East India Company from 1758 to 1858, compiled by C.H. and D. Philips and published in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, October 1941; and the List of the Heads of Administrations in India and of the India Office in England (Imperial Record Department, 1939).
**These names do not occur in the letters but have been included on the basis of C. C. Prinsep’s Records of Services of the Honourable East India Company's Civil Servants in the Madras Presidency, 1741-1858 (London, 1885).
GOVERNORS OF THE PRESIDENCY OF FORT WILLIAM, BENGAL 1748-56
Barwell, William / 18 April 1748 — 17 July 1749
Dawson, Adam / 17 July 1749 — 5 July 1752
Fytche, William / 5 July 1752 — 8 August 1752
Drake, Roger (Jr.) / 8 August 1752—22 June 1758
MEMBERS OF BOARD, FORT WILLIAM, BENGAL 1748-56
Amyatt, Peter / 1756-58
Barwell, William / 1748-49
Becher, Richard / 1751-60, 1766-71
Bellamy, Humffreys / 1748-50
Blachford, James / 1750-52
Boddam, Thomas / 1756-59
Burrow Thomas / 1749-52
Collet, Mathew / 1753-58
Cruttenden, Edward Holden / 1748-55
Dawson, Adam / 1748-52
Drake, Roger (Jr.) / 1748-58
Eyles, Edward / 1748-49
Eyre, Edward / 1753-56
Forster, John / 1748
Frankland, William / 1752-59
Fytche, William / 1748-51
Hollond, John / 1750-51
Holwell, John Zephaniah / 1752-60
Kempe, William / 1748-49
Killpatrick, James / 1756-57
Mackett, William / 1752-59
Manningham, Charles / 1750-59
Pattle, George / 1748-49
Pearkes, Paul Richard / 1751-52, 1754-58
Rooper, Samuel / 1749-50
Watts, William / 1749-52, 1756-58
*The years mentioned against the names of the Members do not necessarily indicate the entire terms of their membership but merely show that they were members during the period stated as verified from the Correspondence.
GOVERNORS OF THE PRESIDENCY OF FORT ST. GEORGE 1748-56
Floyer, Charles / 16 April 1747—21 August 1749
Boscawen, Edward / 21 August 1749— 11 October 1749
Lawrence, Stringer / 11 October 1749—6 December 1749 (Deputy Governor)
Prince, Richard / 6 December 1749—19 September 1750 (Deputy Governor)
Saunders, Thomas / 19 September 1750—14 January 1755
Pigot, George / 14 January 1755—14 November 1763
GOVERNORS OF TOE PRESIDENCY OF BOMBAY 1748-56
Wake, William / 26 November 1742—17 November 1750
Bourchier, Richard / 17 November 1750—28 February 1760
INTRODUCTION
The correspondence in this volume covers the years from 1748 to 1756 A.D., which form a significant period in the history of India. The disappearance of political unity and administrative order which followed the rapid decline of the Mughal Empire generated various disintegrating forces which accelerated India’s decay in all respects and contributed to make European penetration into her politics bolder, quicker, and deeper than before. A careful and comprehensive study of these forces is an indispensable prerequisite for a correct understanding of the genesis of the political revolutions in India, and her rapid economic decline during the 18th century.
Alivardi
Alivardi was the subahdar of Bengal, Bihar and Orissa during this period. He seized the masnad of Bengal after defeating and slaying his patron’s son and his own master Sarfaraz at Giria, near Rajmahal, on 10 April 1740, and occupied it till his death on 9 (or 10) April 1756. Southern India was then distracted by the evil effects of the bitter conflicts between the English and the French trading companies and the civil wars among the rival claimants to the rulerships of the Deccan and of the Carnatic. By considerable vigilance and tact Alivardi was able to keep his province immune from the pernicious effects of the southern wars. But Bengal suffered much from the repeated onslaughts of the triumphant Maratha imperialism of the time and from the insurrections of the Afghans, both of which caused a tremendous strain on its government, traders and common people. The government of Alivardi was only partially successful in combating these evils. His death was, however, followed by general disorder which emboldened the European trading companies to interfere in the politics of Bengal just as they had been doing in southern India during the preceding few years.
Economically the period was brighter than what was to follow after Plassey. But the signs of the coming change had already appeared and the main lines of economic decline resulting from the prevailing political troubles were discernible; the situation after 1757 only hastened the process.
Bengal, rich in varied resources, naturally excited the cupidity of the Marathas who were then invading and plundering different parts of India. When the ambition of Raghuji Bhonsle I of Berar, virtually an independent chief, to dominate the affairs of his master, Shahu, at Satara, had been foiled by the superior tactics and ability of Baji Rao I, his eyes fell upon Bengal as a very suitable sphere for the extension of his influence and for acquisition of wealth by the imposition of chauth. His general Bhaskar Pant invaded Bengal at the head of a large army in the spring of 1742. Alivardi heard of this near Midnapur, on his way back from the Orissa campaign, and marched to Burdwan in April to oppose the Marathas who had already reached that town. But taken unawares by a surprise Maratha attack on his camp at dead of night, he retreated towards Katwa, 35 miles to the north-east of Burdwan, his troops fighting their way through the enemy ranks and suffering acutely from lack of even ordinary shelter and food. Not only important cities like Murshidabad, Hooghly, Burdwan and Katwa, but also several localities in the interior of the province were plundered by the Marathas, and their inhabitants put to unspeakable tortures. In the course of two or three months, the whole of West Bengal and part of Orissa passed under Maratha control. Only north and east Bengal and the city of Murshidabad remained under the Nawab’s authority. The English in Calcutta anxiously watched the movements of both parties and took precautions for their own safety. The Nawab’s Government, however, made effective arrangements to prevent Maratha advance into east Bengal and succeeded in driving them beyond the Chilka Lake in December 1742.
The first Maratha raid was thus warded off. But in the meantime early in December 1742 Safdar Jang, the subahdar of Oudh, had marched into Bihar, ostensibly to befriend Alivardi under the orders of Emperor Muhammad Shah but with the ulterior motive of adding Bihar to his dominions. Disgusted with Safdar Jang’s domineering conduct at Patna, Alivardi managed to secure imperial orders for his recall, and Safdar Jang left Bihar by the middle of January 1743.
There was, however, no relief for Bengal from Maratha incursions. With ambition unsatiated Bhaskar Pant instigated Raghuji Bhonsle to invade this province at the head of a large army in February 1743. Himself reduced to complete political [un]importance and incapable of prompt action, the Emperor sought to counteract this menace by persuading Raghuji’s great rival, Peshwa Baji Rao, to march into Bengal to oppose him there. Alivardi met the Peshwa in a conference at Plassey on 31 March 1743 and secured his alliance against Raghuji by agreeing to pay chauth for Bengal to Shahu and by presenting him with 22 lacs of rupees and some costly articles. By the end of May 1743 the allies forced Raghuji to leave Bengal with heavy losses, after which the Peshwa also returned to Poona.
The baffled Nagpur chief did not remain idle for long. Early in March 1744, he deputed his generals, Bhaskar Pant and Ali Bhai Qarawwal, [He was “one of the Maratha leaders who had embraced the Muhammadan faith and was surnamed Ali Bhai”. Ghulam Husain Salim, Riyazus Salatin (English Tr. A. S. B.), p. 347.] to invade Bengal. Realising that the exhaustion of his army and of his treasury would make an open encounter with the enemy risky, Alivardi now took recourse to finesse and stratagem to frustrate Maratha designs. Plying Bhaskar Pant with sweet messages and presents, the Nawab persuaded the Maratha general to meet him, without any military escort, at Mankarah on 31 March 1744, and had him assassinated. A large number of the leaderless Maratha soldiers were thereafter massacred by the Nawab’s Afghan troops while the rest took to their heels.
This perfidy naturally roused a desire for revenge in Raghuji’s mind. Next year the rebellion of Mustafa Khan, the foremost among Alivardi’s Afghan generals, afforded him a suitable opportunity to strike again. Raghuji, in fact, allied himself with the distressed followers of Mustafa Khan in Bihar after the latter had been slain by the Nawab’s troops near Jagdishpur on 20 June 1745. A number of engagements were fought between the Marathas and the Nawab’s army at different places in Bengal and Bihar, till finally Raghuji was defeated near Katwa in December 1745 and returned to Nagpur. But practically the whole of Orissa remained under the control of his deputy Mir Habib, and roving bands of Maratha soldiers were still scattered in different parts of Bengal.
Alivardi’s attempt to recover Orissa in 1746-47 failed, largely owing to the treachery of his generals Mir Jafar Khan and Ataullah Khan. Meanwhile Mir Habib had been reinforced by a large army under Janoji, son of Raghuji, which entered the districts of Burdwan and Murshidabad. But undaunted by these difficulties, Alivardi, though an old man of seventy-one, took the field against Janoji, defeated him near Burdwan and compelled him to flee to Midnapur, which remained the eastern limit of the territories under Maratha control during 1747.
The second Afghan insurrection in 1748, more serious than the first, the reappearance of the Marathas in different parts of west Bengal and their alliance with the Afghan insurgents in Bihar greatly embarrassed Alivardi. Some Maratha troops advanced up to Thana fort (near Matiaburuz, Calcutta), many reached the vicinity of Murshidabad and some tried to proceed towards east Bengal. The Dacca factors ["factor": a company agent in the service of the East India Company] informed the Council in Calcutta on 4 March 1748 of “the utmost confusion in that city on news of the Marathas coming by the way of Sunderbund". [Letter, to Court, 19 November 1748, para 80.] Many important centres of trade and manufacture were plundered and some goods of the English East India Company in charge of Ensign English were lost. The allied Maratha and Afghan armies were, however, completely defeated by the Nawab at Ranisarai (or Kala Diara) on the south bank of the Ganges 26 miles east of Patna on 16 April 1748. At this juncture Janoji heard of his mother's death and withdrew precipitately to Nagpur. Mir Habib, however, remained at Midnapur at the head of the major portion of the Maratha troops and continued to exercise control over Orissa.
In March 1749 Alivardi marched into Orissa and recovered it from the Marathas during the third week of May. He appointed a cavalry officer Abdus Subhan Khan as deputy governor and started back for Murshidabad. But within a week of his departure, the Marathas came out of their forest retreats and re-occupied Cuttack. The Nawab fell seriously ill as a result of the hardships of the distant campaigns. His illness continued till the middle of October 1749 and the Marathas were left free to plunder different parts of Orissa. They even threatened the English factory at Cuttack. Towards the end of the year a Maratha detachment reached the neighbourhood of Calcutta. On recovering from his illness Alivardi proceeded to Midnapur in December 1749 and forced the Marathas to retreat. But soon he had to come back to Bengal as “a body of several thousand Morattoes had passed him (early in March 1750) and plundered the country as far as Rajamaul.” Mir Habib, with 12,000 cavalry, advanced within four miles of Murshidabad and in a skirmish with Mir Jafar's troops “obliged them [Mir Jafar’s troops] to retreat nearer the city... the two armies were then encamped near each other and the Morattoes were daily sending out parties to burn and plunder all round them." [Letter to Court, 34 August 1750, para 164.] The raiders then retreated to Midnapur and the Nawab again went there determined to stay there for some time so that he might take effective steps to stop forever the Maratha incursions into Bengal. But an ill-advised attempt on the part of Sirajud Daulah in June 1750 to seize the government of Bihar by removing the Nawab’s agent Janki Ram compelled Alivardi to march to Bihar at once. Old and in poor health the Nawab got no rest or peace owing to the continuance of Maratha inroads during the remaining few months of the year 1750 and the beginning of 1751.
Sorely tried by the hard campaigns of about eight years both the parties considered it advisable to come to a settlement and signed a treaty in May or June 1751. According to its terms the Bengal Government was to pay to the Marathas twelve lacs of rupees a year as chauth of the Bengal Subah “on condition that the Marathas would never set their foot again" within its boundaries. The Marathas agreed not to march beyond the river Subarnarekha near Jalesar, which was fixed as the boundary of the Bengal Subah. Mir Habib was left as Deputy Governor of Orissa under Alivardi and as his employee. But Mir Habib’s days were numbered. Jealous of his elevation to a high position his enemies poisoned Janoji's mind against him. When Janoji came to Orissa in 1752 as his father’s deputy in charge of the Maratha infantry kept there for defence, Mir Habib was murdered by Janoji’s troops.
The repeated Maratha inroads produced some significant consequences. They not only embarrassed Alivardi’s government but also proved to be a terrible calamity to the province of Bengal with adverse effects on the economic life of its people in all respects. There was no opportunity for the country to repair the economic damage as it was soon confronted with other baffling problems.
While the Maratha inroads were a severe strain on Alivardi, he was faced with a grave internal danger. His Afghan soldiers, who had previously rendered him valuable services, rebelled against him for various reasons about five years after the commencement of his subahdarship. Their alliance with the Marathas added to the gravity of the situation. Their first insurrection in 1745 under the leadership of Mustafa Khan was suppressed after they had been defeated by Zainuddin Muhammad Khan, nephew of Alivardi and naib nazim of Bihar, near Jagdishpur (18 miles south-west of Arrah town, Bihar) on 20 June 1745. Soon after this, Mustafa Khan was slain by an officer of Zainuddin. Mustafa’s son and his followers fled to the village of Magror, 14 miles west of Chainpur on the bank of the river Karamnasa. On account of the intrigues of the Afghan rebels with the Maratha chief Raghuji Bhonsle, who had invaded Bihar in September 1745, the Nawab formally dismissed them all from his service, whereupon they returned to their respective habitations in Darbhanga.
The Afghan generals rose against the Nawab once more in 1748. This formidable insurrection indeed cost Alivardi much. The Insurgents killed his nephew Zainuddin, tortured his brother Haji Ahmad to death on 30 January and made the members of their families captive. They usurped Patna and held it for three months, subjecting the people to acute miseries.
The news of these heart-rending mishaps reached Alivardi on 30 January 1748. He soon recovered from the first shock and made a firm resolve to recover Patna from the hands of the Afghans. He started from his camp at Amaniganj near Murshidabad on 29 February 1748 and completely defeated the allied Afghans and Marathas at Ranisarai on 16 April. By the first week of May, he found himself completely relieved of the Afghan menace. [Letter to Court, 19 November 1748, paras 84-85.] The European traders in Bengal and Bihar too suffered some losses on account of the Afghan insurrections. In January 1748 the insurgents plundered the Dutch factory at Fatwa, near Patna, and Shamshir Khan, their leader, demanded “a general tax from the 3 European nations [the English, the French, the Dutch] of 40 or 50,000 Rupees.” [Ibid., para 81.]
On account of all these troubles the Bengal masnad did not prove to be a bed of roses for Alivardi. Still, by acting with tact and prudence he maintained an efficient administrative system, and exerted his authority in all quarters. The European traders in Bengal (the English, the French and the Dutch companies and the Danes, the Prussians, and the Portuguese) had to acknowledge it, and he did not tolerate any infringement of the laws. At the same time these traders were not unduly harassed. They had to make financial contributions to the Nawab only when the latter was called upon to meet extraordinary needs occasioned by the Maratha raids and the Afghan insurrections. Fully alive to the necessity of promoting the economic interest of his province, he encouraged in all possible ways the different classes of traders. All the European traders sought to conciliate him as best as they could, though they occasionally murmured or complained when impeded. In some of their despatches the Court of Directors emphasized that maintenance of friendship with the Nawab’s government would be a prudent course.
The firm attitude of Alivardi towards the Europeans and his constant vigil of their movements in southern India saved Bengal from being converted during his lifetime into one of the theatres of hostility among them. In July 1745 Alivardi issued a parwana enjoining upon the Europeans the observance of neutrality in his dominions from Point Palmyras. [Point Palmyras is a promontory and a small town on the coast of the Bay of Bengal to the south of Balasore.] This neutrality was once violated when towards the end of 1748 the French at Chandernagore forcibly took possession of the Dutch Company’s garden at Chinsura, situated in the centre of Fort Augustus. The Dutch and their allies, the English, protested, and the garden was restored to the Dutch in April 1749, after the close of the War of the Austrian Succession.
The Relations between the European Powers
Thereafter the European powers in India were apparently friendly to one another till the echo of the Seven Years' War reached this land and caused a recrudescence of hostilities. On 23 December 1754, Godeheu had signed a provisional treaty with Saunders, the validity of which depended on its final ratification by the respective home authorities.
The Second Carnatic War (1749-54) was a struggle for power between various Indian claimants to power in southern India, each supported by the French or the British. The First Carnatic War had been a direct conflict between the two European powers, but in the Second Carnatic War both of them officially acted in support of rival local claimants in Hyderabad and the Carnatic.
The war was triggered by a succession struggle in Hyderabad. Here the Nizam was officially the viceroy of the Mughal Emperor, but he was increasingly able to act as a semi-independent Nizam of Hyderabad. The incumbent, Nizam-al-Mulk, died in 1748, nominating his grandson Muzaffar Jang as his heir. This appointment was confirmed by the Emperor, but was contested by Nizam-al-Mulk's second son Nasir Jang. Nasir Jang was able to take possession of Hyderabad, while Muzaffar Jang travelled in search of allies. In the upcoming struggle the British supported Nasir Jang, while the French supported Muzaffar Jang.
Further south there were also two candidates for the Nawabship of the Carnatic, a subsidiary post officially dependent on the Nizam.
Anwar-ud-Din had only been appointed Nawab of the Carnatic in 1743, after Nizam-ul-Mulk had been forced to intervene to restore order in the province. Anwar-ud-Din was one of the Nizam's officers, and so the death of his protector left the Nawab vulnerable. Anwar-ud-Din would be killed early in the war, leaving his son Mohammed Ali to claim the Nawabship.
Chanda Sahib was the son-in-law of a previous Nawab of the Carnatic, Dost Ali (1732-39). He had been an effective ally to the French, before in 1741 being besieged in Trichinopoly by the Marathas. After a three month long siege he was captured and imprisoned, although his family remained safe in Pondicherry.
While travelling in search of allies Muzaffar Jang met the imprisoned Chanda Sahib. The French agreed to pay his ransom, and provided him with 2,000 Sepoys and 400 European soldiers. Muzaffar Jang and Chanda Sahib then advanced towards Arcot, the capitol of the Carnatic. Anwar-ud-Din met them at Ambur (3 August 1748), southwest of Arcot, where he was defeated and killed. Muzaffar Jang and Chanda Sahib entered Arcot, and Chanda Sahib became the de facto Nawab of the Carnatic. The allies then moved to Pondicherry, before wasting a significant amount of time besieging Tanjore. This siege lasted into December 1750, but had to be lifted when Nasir Jang appeared on the scene at the head of a large army.
By the end of March 1751 the two main armies were facing each other near Gingee. Nasir Jang had his own forces, as well as 600 European troops provided by the British East India Company and a larger force under Mohammad Ali. He was facing the combined armies of Muzaffar Jang and Chanda Sahib, with a French contingent.
The two armies faced each other for the next two weeks. During this period the French position appeared to collapse. The French troops mutinied, weakening the entire army. Muzaffar Jang was so worried about the situation that he surrendered to Nasir Jang. Dupleix restored his position with a dramatic night attack on Nasir Jang's camp (12 April). This was so successful that Nasir Jang retreated back to Arcot. With their main ally gone, the British retreated to Fort St. David, leaving Mohammed Ali isolated.
The French decided to take advantage of their enemy's setbacks by occupying a strong position at Tiruvadi, dangerously close to Fort St. David. Both Nasir Jang and the British reinforced Mohammad Ali, who then launched an attack on the French position. This ended in defeat (first battle of Tiruvadi, 30 July 1750). In the aftermath of this defeat the British argued with Mohammad Ali and returned to Fort St. David, leaving him dangerously exposed to attack. The French took advantage of this, and on 1 September inflicted a second defeat on him (second battle of Tiruvadi). Mohammad Ali's army retreated to the strong fortress of Gingee, where it suffered yet another defeat (battle of Gingee, 11 September 1750).
In the aftermath of this disaster, Nasir Jang decided to advance from Arcot, but no battle resulted. Instead the two armies settled down into a two-month long deadlock close to Gingee. Nasir Jang soon entered into negotiations with Dupleix, but on 16 December he was killed by some of his own supporters. Muzaffar Jang, who had been with Nasir Jang's army, was acclaimed as Nizam. The French supported candidates were now in power in Hyderabad and the Carnatic.
In mid December 1750 Muzaffar Jang was officially proclaimed as Viceroy of the Deccan, in a lavish ceremony held in a splendid tent in the central square of Pondicherry. Dupleix sat alongside the new Nizam, and was seen to share in his power. Dupleix was appointed Nawab of the area south of the River Krishna, down to Cape Comorin, while Chandra Sahib was recognised as Nawab of the Carnatic. The French was also granted new possessions close to Pondicherry, and a vast amount of money.
The only remaining obstacle to French dominance in southern India was Mohammad Ali, who had taken shelter at Trichinopoly. Early in 1751 negotiations began between Mohammad Ali and Dupleix, and it looked to only be a matter of time before the issue was resolved. When Muzaffar Jang asked for French soldiers to accompany him on his return to Hyderabad, Dupleix was thus happy to agree, sending Bussy with 300 Europeans and 2,000 Sepoys. The journey north ended disastrously for Muzaffar Jang, who was killed in a clash with the same people who had earlier betrayed Nasir Jang. Bussy retrieved the situation, and Muzaffar Jang's uncle Salabat Jang was appointed as the next Nizam. The new Nizam and his French allies reached his capital of Aurangabad on 29 June 1751, and with Bussy's aid Salabat Jang became firmly established.
Dupleix had misjudged Muhammad Ali. He now made it clear that he would not surrender Trichinopoly, and began to openly cooperate with the British. At first this appeared to be only a minor nuisance. The British and Mohammed Ali were defeated at Volkondah (19-20 July 1751) and forced to retreat into Trichinopoly, where they were besieged by the French and their allies. Most British troops in southern India were now trapped, although Robert Clive, who had been at Volkondah, returned to Fort St. David. If Trichinopoly fell, the French would have been triumphant in Southern India, and the British restricted to their tiny footholds on the coast.
The British position was partly restored by Robert Clive's first major success. After getting a convoy into Trichinopoly he returned to Fort St. David, where he suggested a dramatic way to distract Chanda Sahib. He believed that Chanda Sahib's capital of Arcot would be weakly defended and could be captured with the limited forces available on the coast. The plan was approved, and Clive was given 500 men. With this tiny force he captured Arcot, and then successfully defended it against a counterattack led by Chanda Sahib's son Raju Sahib (siege of Arcot, September-November 1751). This success restored British prestige in southern India, badly damaged over the previous years, and began to erode support for Dupleix.
After the siege Clive pursued Raju Sahib, inflicting a defeat on him at Arni (3 December 1751). He then captured Conjeveram (16-18 December 1751), before returning to Fort St. David.
Conjeveram was soon retaken by Raju Sahib, who then threatened Madras. Clive was forced to abandon his preparations to lift the siege of Trichinopoly, and instead moved to Conjeveram. This time no siege was required, for Raju Sahib had already moved towards Arcot. Clive followed, but in his eagerness to prevent the fall of Arcot fell into an ambush. The resulting battle of Kaveripak (28 February 1752) was a hard fought battle that ended as a British victory. Clive was then recalled to continue with the relief of Trichinopoly, although command of the army passed to Stringer Lawrence, who had returned after a visit to England.
In late March the British relief force successfully entered Trichinopoly, eluded a series of French attempts to intercept them. Law, the French commander at Trichinopoly, effectively abandoned the siege and retreated onto the island of Srirangam. The tables were now turned, and the French were besieged on Srirangam (April-13 June 1752). A French relief force surrendered at Volconda, and on 13 June Law surrendered. Chanda Sahib surrendered on terms, but was then murdered by order of the commander of the Tanjore force, and his head sent to Mohammad Ali, who for a brief spell was the uncontested Nabob of the Carnatic.
After their success at Trichinopoly, the British moved north into the Carnatic, but they were soon forced to return after Mohammad Ali fell out with his Maratha and Mysorean allies. The British left a stronger garrison in the city. Their campaign in the Carnatic was thus hampered by the reduced size of their army, although Tiruvadi was captured on 17 July. Stringer was then forced back to Fort St. David by illness, as was Clive, leaving the less able Swiss officer Gingen in command. The British then weakened their own position by attempting to capture Gingee (6 August 1752), but this attack ended in failure and a costly defeat.
Dupleix took advantage of the arguments between Mohammad Ali and his allies. The Mysoreans and Marathas agreed to change sides, although only if the main British army could be distracted. Dupleix responded by sending a force towards Fort St. David. The British gathered a similar sized army at Madras, and moved to block the French, They withdrew towards Pondicherry. Once they were on French territory, Dupleix's men were safe, for the British were under orders not to cross the border. The British then retreated in apparent disorder, and the French followed. The British then turned back and attacked the French, winning a significant victory over them at Bahur (6 September 1752).
The British made the next move. Mohammad Ali asked them to capture the French-held fortresses of Covelong and Chingleput, around thirty miles to the south of Madras. Governor Saunders agreed, but had limited resources available. Clive volunteered to take command of this army, and successfully captured Covelong in September and Chinglapet in October. After these successes Clive's poor health forced him to return to England to recuperate, leaving Lawrence as the key British commander in the last years of the war.
The last two years of the war were dominated by a renewed French siege of Trichinopoly, and by a series of battles fought close to the town. Dupleix spent the last months of 1752 trying to detach Britain's Maratha and Mysore allies, and by the end of the year he had succeeded. The British at Trichinopoly found themselves blockaded by their former Mysorean allies on Srirangam, and by the Maratha cavalry elsewhere. For much of the next two years the British appeared to be on the back foot, often short of supplies and penned in around Trichinopoly, although they normally had a field army in the area (commanded by Stringer Lawrence), and the blockade was often broken. Three significant battles were fought outside the besieged city during the year. The first battle of Trichinopoly, or battle of the Golden Rock (7 July 1753) saw the French fail to take Lawrence's main stronghold outside the city, the Golden Rock. The second battle of Trichinopoly (18 August 1753) saw Lawrence successfully return to the city with reinforcements and supplies. The third battle of Trichinopoly or battle of Sugar Load Rock (2 October 1753) saw Lawrence attack the French camp, capturing the French commander M. Astruc. Despite these British successes the siege dragged on. A French assault on the city on 9 December nearly succeeded, and supplies began to run very short during the spring of 1754. In May the British won another victory, allowing another convoy to reach the city. The danger finally ended when Lawrence returned with a sizable army in August, and pushed the French back to Srirangam. In the same month Dupleix was recalled to France, where his failures at Trichinopoly had fatally undermined his position.
Dupleix was replaced by M. Godeheu, who had orders from Paris to negotiate an end to the fighting. Governor Saunders had received similar orders from London, and in late October 1754 the two men agreed to a suspension of arms. In January 1755 a conditional peace treaty was agreed, officially ending the Second Carnatic War (although it is generally considered to have ended in 1754, when the fighting stopped).
Although the war ended with a series of French setbacks, they had actually gained the most from the fighting. Their candidate held the post of Nizam of Hyderabad, and they had been rewarded with most of the Northern Circars (now the coast of Andra Pradesh, to the north-east of the Carnatic). They had also gained a significant amount of territory around Pondicherry. The British had also gained some land around Madras, but the French appeared to be the big winners.
-- The Emergence of British Power in India 1600-1784 - A Grand Strategic Interpretation, by G.J. Bryant.
But the interests of the English and the French in different quarters were then too much in conflict to admit of a cordial settlement. As a matter of fact, a war between the two powers was imminent and its formal declaration was only a question of time. The Court of Directors communicated due notes of warning and advice to the Council in Calcutta and asked them to be well on their guard. [Letters from Court, 31 January and 14 February 1755.] Some positive instructions in this respect were communicated by the Court of Directors to the Council in Calcutta in paras 7-10 of their letter dated 26, March 1755. They emphasized therein the need of mutual harmony and assistance among the three Presidencies. Apprehending that the French might exploit the confused state of affairs at Delhi, after the overthrow of Emperor Ahmad Shah in June 1754, to further their own interests at the cost of those of the English, the Court of Directors asked the Council in Calcutta in their letter dated 16 April 1755 to do the needful for the security of their “trade rights and privileges” against what they described as the “artful designs” of the French. After war had been formally declared on 18 May 1756 the Court despatched information about its course to the Bengal and Madras Councils. They asked the Bengal Council to use all “care and prudence for the future safety of our valuable settlements in Bengal” and even recommended that they should do all in their power “to engage the Nabob [Sirajud Daulah] to give you his protection as the only and most effectual measure for the security of settlement and property". [Letter from Court, 29 December 1756, paras 3, 4 and 25.] The repercussions of the Seven Years’ War on Indian politics were profound. They included two of the decisive battles of Indian history, Plassey and Wandiwash, fought in the course of it. The British capture of Chandernagore in March 1757, followed by the expulsion of the French from Bengal, deprived Sirajud Daulah of the almost certain alliance of the French against the English and thus improved the latter’s position on the eve of the crucial battle of Plassey. As for the battle of Wandiwash, it undoubtedly dealt the severest blow to French political ambitions in India.
Bengal was kept immune from the political effects of the southern wars by Alivardi. But their economic influence could not be wholly averted. The province was very often required to send assistance in the shape of provisions and funds to the south for the successful prosecution of the Company’s military activities. In fact, the needs of the Company’s southern wars were responsible for the origin about this time of one of the forms of economic drain on the resources of Bengal, which developed so much in subsequent years. In December 1748 Alexander Murray, agent for the squadron under Admiral Boscawen's command, requested the Council in Calcutta for two lacs and thirty thousand rupees for His Majesty's service. Taking into consideration their other expenses the Council advanced him only fifty thousand five hundred rupees. The “demands" on the Bengal Presidency "running so high" the Council in Calcutta directed the members of the subordinate factories in Bengal to "desist from drawing any bills of exchange" on them as they "had not money in the treasury to answer them" and also "to be as sparing as possible in their expenses in every respect particularly buildings and repairs”. [Letter to Court, 22 December 1748. paras 9-11.] In February 1749 Captain Thomas Field and Captain John Macnamara, commanders of the Company's ships the Royal George and the Rhoda, were supplied with 3,000 bags of rice each for the use of the garrison of Fort St. David. [Letter to Court, 11 February 1749, para 2.] Fort St. George and Fort St. David also secured supply of gunpowder and soldiers from Bengal. [Letter to Court, 16 January 1752, paras 5-8.] The protracted wars in the south could not but produce adverse effects on the economic condition of Peninsular India as also to some extent on that of other parts. The troubles on the south-eastern coast had "greatly detrimented if not entirely ruined the markets there” so that some goods sent there from Bengal had remained unsold for three or four years. [Letter to Court, 3 September 1753, para 87.] The owners of these goods incurred a loss of forty or fifty per cent. So the Council in Calcutta permitted the Bengal ships to touch at ports other than Fort St. George or Fort St. David, where the scarcity of boats was an additional inconvenience. In June 1755 the Council at Fort St. George complained that the practice was against a standing order of the Company issued in 1734 and that it badly affected the Company's customs. The Council in Calcutta had already requested the Court of Directors not to enforce that standing order “till the times by a more favourable turn admit” of their "complying with the tenour thereof". [Ibid.] They again requested the Court in 1755 to "take this affair once more Into serious consideration” and "to reverse the orders” they had passed prohibiting this practice. [Letter to Court, 8 December 1755, paras 100-04.]
Mutual Intercourse and co-operation among all the Presidencies in all spheres was very much needed, and frequently stressed. In fact, assistance rendered by one Presidency to another in critical moments had much to do in turning the scale in favour of the English. There are copious references in contemporary records to the frequent despatch of reinforcements in men, money and provisions from Bengal to the other Presidencies during the wars in Peninsular India.
