Borrow had yet to learn the idiom of Earl Street, which he showed himself most anxious to acquire. He clearly recognised that the Bible Society required different treatment from the Army Pay Office, or the Solicitor of the Treasury. It was accustomed to humility in those it employed, and a trust in a higher power, and Borrow’s self-confident letters alarmed the members of the Committee. How thoroughly Borrow appreciated what was required is shown in a letter that he wrote to his mother from Russia, when anticipating the return of his brother. “Should John return home,” he warns her, “by no means let him go near the Bible Society, for he would not do for them.”
Borrow’s reply to the Literary Superintendent’s kindly worded admonition was entirely satisfactory and “in harmony with the rule laid down by Christ himself.” It was something of a triumph, too, for Mr Jowett to rebuke a man of such sensitiveness as Borrow, without goading him to an impatient retort.
The meeting of the General Committee that was to decide upon Borrow’s future was held on 22nd July, and on the following day Mr Jowett informed him that the recommendation of the Sub-Committee had been adopted and confirmed, at the same time requesting him to be at Earl Street on the morning of Friday, 26th July, that he might set out for St Petersburg the following Tuesday. On 25th July Borrow took the night coach to London. On the 29th he appeared before the Editorial Sub-Committee and heard read the resolution of his appointment, and drafts of letters recommending him to the Rev. Wm. Swan and Dr I. J. Schmidt, a correspondent of the Society’s in St Petersburg and a member of the Russian Board of Censors. Finally, there was impressed upon him “the necessity of confining himself closely to the one object of his mission, carefully abstaining from mingling himself with political or ecclesiastical affairs during his residence in Russia. Mr Borrow assured them of his full determination religiously to comply with this admonition, and to use every prudent method for enlarging his acquaintance with the Manchu language.” { 104}
The salary was to date from the day he embarked, and on account of expenses to St Petersburg he drew the sum of £37. The actual amount he expended was £27, 7s. 6d., according to the account he submitted, which was dated 2nd October 1834. It is to be feared that Borrow was not very punctual in rendering his accounts, as Mr Brandram wrote to him (18th October 1837):—“I know you are no accountant, but do not forget that there are some who are. My memory was jogged upon this subject the other day, and I was expected to say to you that a letter of figures would be acceptable.”