Machiavelli "TO FRANCESCO VETTORI, FLORENCE, DECEMBER 10, 1513"
And Frosino in particular sent for a number of loads without telling me anything, and on payment wanted to hold back ten lire from me, which he said he should have had from me four years ago when he beat me at cricca at Antonio Guicciardini's. I began to raise the devil and was on the point of accusing the driver who had gone for it of theft; but Giovanni Machiavelli came between us and brought us to agree.
Mansfield employed the letter as an appendix to his translation of "The Prince".
I guess Machiavelli might be joking that the driver had stolen something (wood? lire?). Why was it expressed in that way?
I mistook the bold part as a whole. It should be "accuse sb of sth". Then "who had gone for it" means:
1 who had run the transport business, i.e. "it" refers to delivering the cargo;
2 who had disappeared because he/she feared his/her wrong-doing, i.e. "it" refers to the thieving.
I incline to the second, am I right?
At first, I hold the first understand, but then I thought "Tim may have gone to get milk or may not", whereas a driver is normally, even if not definitely, someone who does such business, so only "the driver" is enough. Thus to make the attributive clause not superfluous, I figured out the second meaning. However, the right expression to the latter one should be "who was gone for it", according to my humble knowledge. Therefore I'm not sure. Perhaps I think too much.