European Fortifications and the Nawabs of Bengal
The European trading companies (the English, the French and the Dutch) began the construction of 'fortified' settlements in Bengal during the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century, chiefly as a measure of security against possible political disorders in the country. The English also believed that such a "show of power” was "the best way to keep the English in India free from the Natives’ Insults and will most effectually keep off Piscashes [presents] the Consequence of most quarrells”. [Extract from General Letter from the Court to Bengal, 4 Febtuaty,1709. C. R. Wilson, Old Fort William in Bengal, I, p. 76.]
There were two matters which troubled the Court. One was the difficulty which so often occurred with the native ruler, who governed the country round Madras in the name of the King of Golconda. He was called the Nawab and was a most rapacious individual, always looking for presents, (or piscashes) for himself, which were nothing more than bribes. At the same time he demanded increased rent and customs for his sovereign. When his demands were refused, he seized upon the supplies of food and merchandise going into the Fort, half starving the Company's servants with a kind of blockade, and paralyzing trade. The old account books of Fort St. George are studded with items of piscashes given to grasping natives, who were too strong to be resisted. The Directors grudged the expenditure over bribes even more than over fortifications. But it was impossible for the President to assure an independent front with no army at his back. There were actually at that time not enough men to man the guns on the walls; and, much against the grain, conciliatory measured had to be used, when the President would fain have tried the effect of powder and shot.
-- Fort St. George, Madras: A Short History of Our First Possession in India, by Fanny Emily Penny
As a precaution against the repercussions of the political troubles during the Persian incursion of 1738-39, the Maratha incursions into Bengal from 1742 onwards, and the wars in the Deccan, the Court of Directors and the Council in Calcutta thought it highly necessary to strengthen their fortifications in Bengal. In June 1748 the Court sent instructions to the Council in Calcutta "an Order to put the Company’s Possessions and Estate in Bengal in as perfect a State of Security” as possible. They expressed their desire to "have such necessary Works set about in the most Expeditious and Frugal manner that can be conveniently done’’ [C.R. Wilson, Old Fort William in Bengal, p. 206.] and particularly instructed the Council in Calcutta to make all possible efforts to convince the Nawab that these additional fortifications in Calcutta were "calculated only for Self-Defence” and "Security against European Enemys”. [Ibid I, p. 207.] In case the Nawab objected to the construction of the new fortifications, the Council in Calcutta were to let him know that they were acting under the orders of the Court of Directors, that they would stop issuing “any Money for Trade” to the prejudice of his revenues and the trade of the province in general, and that the King of England "having the Protection of the Company greatly at heart, as they may perceive by the Strong Force he hath sent to the East Indies, to chastise the French for their Insolence at Madrass, His Majesty will support the Company in whatever they think fit to do for their further Security.” [C.R. Wilson. op. cit., I, p. 208. "The Strong Force” refers to the expedition under Rear-Admiral Boscawen, who reached Fort St. David on 29 June 1748. Orme, The History of Military Transactions of the British Nation in Indostan, I pp. 98-100.] It was also suggested that if after all precautions were taken the Nawab still attempted to “Attack or Disturb” the construction then the English would immediately “stop all Navigation upon the River” to the utmost of their “Power in every Branch, Suffering no Vessel or Boat to stir whether Laden or Empty, except such as belong to European Settlements who have a right to give Dusticks [dostaks] or Passes for the River”. [Ibid I, p. 210.]
The Court of Directors were sanguine that on the adoption of these measures the Nawab would “soon come to reason”. But in this they had made an incorrect estimate of Alivardi’s character. As has already been noted, during the Anglo-French conflicts in southern India, Alivardi closely watched the movements of the Europeans so that they might not interfere in the field of politics in Bengal as they had done in the Deccan. Thus, on hearing that the French and the English had begun adding to their fortifications in Chandernagore and Calcutta respectively, he immediately asked them to discontinue these works. He often said to the French and the English vakils, “You are merchants, what need have you of a fortress?” [S.C. Hill, Bengal in 1756-57, III, p. 161.]
Such a view was not acceptable to the English, but practically nothing was done for the time being about fortifications or buildings in Calcutta because the Court of Directors had ordered the Council in Calcutta to form suitable plans for fortifications in consultation with Major Mosman. [He was appointed Major of the Garrison of Fort William on 25 F.] Mosman reached Calcutta in March 1749, but died of fever on 30 April. In December 1749 the Court of Directors deputed Benjamin Robins as their Engineer-General in India, furnishing him with necessary instructions about the fortifications in Calcutta. Robins reached Calcutta on 11 March 1751, and on the 21st asked the Council to supply him with the materials required for the works with which he had been entrusted. The Council were trying to meet his requirements when he died at Fort St. David on 29 July 1751. In December 1752 the Court of Directors appointed Caroline Frederick Scott their Engineer-General in the East. Though he was to look after all the principal English settlements in the East, the “primary object” of the Court of Directors in appointing him Engineer-General was to arrange for the effective defence and security of Fort William. They ordered on 24 January 1753 that the President of Fort William, the Chief of the English factory at Kasimbazar and Colonel Scott should form a Committee to adopt proper measures for securing permission of the Nawab's government in this respect. To make persuasion more effective, they empowered the Committee to offer presents to the persons in authority in the Nawab’s Court to the maximum of about one hundred thousand current rupees.
Colonel Scott reached Calcutta in September 1753. He drew up a comprehensive plan of fortifications to be implemented over a period of several years, as well as a short-term plan for immediate defence. The Council in Calcutta approved of the latter; so did the Court of Directors, who ordered its execution as soon as possible. The chief features of Scott’s second plan were the completion of the Maratha Ditch, erection of two large redoubts at Perrin’s and Surman’s gardens, that is, the northern and the southern extremities of the British settlement, and the building of stronger defences on the river front of the Fort.
A redoubt (historically redout) is a fort or fort system usually consisting of an enclosed defensive emplacement outside a larger fort, usually relying on earthworks, although some are constructed of stone or brick. It is meant to protect soldiers outside the main defensive line and can be a permanent structure or a hastily constructed temporary fortification. The word means "a place of retreat". Redoubts were a component of the military strategies of most European empires during the colonial era... A redoubt differs from a redan in that the redan is open in the rear, whereas the redoubt was considered an enclosed work...
From 1715 onwards, the Order of Saint John built a number of redoubts in Malta, as part of an effort to improve the coastal fortifications of the islands. They were built in the middle of bays to prevent enemy forces from disembarking and outflanking the coastal batteries.
The design of the redoubts was influenced by ones built in the French colonies. In all, eleven pentagonal redoubts and a few semi-circular or rectangular ones were built....
Four tour-reduits were also built. These were redoubts built in the form of a tower, with rows of musketry loopholes.
-- Redoubt, by Wikipedia
But Scott had to leave Bengal for Madras in response to a request of Saunders and his Council on 18 March 1754, and died there on 12 May. According to the directions left by him, Lieutenant Wells was engaged to carry on his work in Bengal. But Wells died on 18 August 1755, whereupon Bartholomew’ Plaisted was entrusted with the work jointly with O’Hara, an assistant engineer. Haisted was soon dismissed from the Company’s service and O’Hara and Simpson, a subaltern in the army, were employed as engineers. Under their supervision the redoubt at Perrin’s garden was completed and something was done to repair the line of guns on the river front of the Fort, though the fortifications were not made sufficiently strong.
The Court of Directors reiterated in one of their letters to Bengal, dated 29 November 1754, their instructions about securing the permission of the Nawab’s government to fortify Fort William without any obstructions or impediment.” They again suggested the offer of pecuniary inducements to the Nawab or other suitable persons to the maximum of one hundred thousand rupees, and hoped that their efforts would be "attended with success” because of the advanced age of the Nawab and the depleted condition of his exchequer. The Council in Calcutta communicated the suggestions of the Court of Directors to William Watts, Chief at Kasimbazar, in their letter dated 6 August 1755, and asked him for his opinion, which he duly forwarded.
There are some striking points in the Calcutta-Kasimbazar correspondence. We notice therein a strong inclination on the part of the Chief at Kasimbazar and the Council in Calcutta to ignore the instructions of the Court of Directors. They claimed that they had a right to strengthen the fortifications of Calcutta on the strength of an imperial farman [Firmaun, Phirmaund: Order, mandate; an imperial decree, a royal grant, or charter] and that the permission of the Nawab’s government was therefore unnecessary. There is also a clear reference in Watts’ letter to the '“golden” means of bribing a high officer of the Nawab’s government to prevent any possible obstruction to their work. It further says that the Nawab had never “taken the least notice of the ditch cut round Calcutta” or “any other works since carried on there.” But as has been already pointed out, the Nawab was not indifferent to the building of fortifications in Calcutta. He had tolerated the construction of the Maratha ditch and the fortifications at Kasimbazar because of the repeated Maratha inroads into his province. He would not acquiesce in any violations of his authority after the Maratha menace had passed away.
Watts’ contention that the Company had a right to strengthen the fortifications in Calcutta on the basis of an imperial farman [Firmaun, Phirmaund: Order, mandate; an imperial decree, a royal grant, or charter], evidently that granted by Farrukhsiyar in 1716-17, is not supported by the said farman. The fortification of Calcutta after Shova Singh’s rebellion (1696-97) had been carried out with the permission of the then Nawab of Bengal. But the troubles of Alivardi in 1755-56, of which it was quite possible for Watts to be cognisant from the proximity of his residence to Murshidabad, encouraged Watts, and at his suggestion the Council in Calcutta, to express and maintain a point of view which undoubtedly amounted to a defiance of the Nawab’s authority. It is unintelligible why Mr. Holwell regrets, in his letter to Court dated 30 November 1756, that “the favourable moment,” when "everything was in confusion and both parties [Sirajud Daulah and his rivals] were employed on their own schemes and designs”, had not been suitably utilised by the English in Calcutta for the building of fortifications. In fact, during Alivardi’s illness both the French and the English began, without any concealment, to repair and strengthen their fortifications. [S. C. Hill, Bengal in 1756-57, I, xivi.] The Bengal Council wrote to the Court of Directors on 21 February 1756 “of the redoubt at Perrins being nigh completed."
The dying Nawab could not naturally take proper notice of these and Sirajud Daulah must have been occupied in checkmating the ambitious designs of his kinsmen on the subahdarship of Bengal. On receiving information from the Court of Directors of the possibility of the renewal of Anglo-French hostilities, the English in Calcutta “began to put the settlement", as Holwell writes, “into as good a posture of defence as we could" [Holwell’s Letter to Court, 30 November 1756, para 9.] in May 1756.
Military Establishments and Appointments
To meet the exigencies of war or other political troubles the English not only strengthened their defences but also improved their military establishments in India in certain ways. Determined to make the artillery of the three Presidencies much more efficient than before, the Court of Directors issued a circular letter on 17 June 1748, ordering, the formation of a company of artillery in each Presidency on the model of that in the royal service. The offices of the Gunner and of all attached to the Gun-room were abolished. A military store-keeper was appointed to be in charge of the stores which had been so long looked after by the Gunner. A new military establishment was also started at the same time in Calcutta and regulations were framed for the administration of both. On 25 February 1748 James Mosman was appointed Major of the garrison at Fort William in Bengal by the Court on the same terms as Major Lawrence at Fort St. David. The Council in Calcutta informed the Court of Directors on 24 February 1749 that the army in Calcutta would be regulated according to their directions on the arrival of Major Mosman. On coming to Calcutta in March 1749 Mosman took his seat as the third of the Council in Calcutta according to the orders of the Court of Directors, and inspected the Gun-room crew, who were dismissed on 15 March because of the formation of the company of artillery. Mr. Roger Drake took charge of the office of the Military Store-Keeper on 20 March and on the same day the Council in Calcutta directed the commanding officers at Kasimbazar and Dacca to send to the Major a statement of the names of the military officers and a list of ordnance at their respective stations.
In 1751 the ‘regular military establishment’ of the English Company in Calcutta probably consisted of five companies of infantry and one company of artillery. As a precaution against apprehended Maratha onslaughts on Calcutta, the Council had formed on 24 April 1742 a regular militia of the local European, Armenian and Portuguese inhabitants and the Court of Directors had duly approved of these measures. On 16 January 1752 the Court sent orders for the training of the militia and ordered their formation into two companies. A body of militia was soon, formed in Calcutta with Col. Cruttenden as Commander. [Letter to Court, 1 January 1753, para 14.] Some inhabitants of Calcutta having absented themselves from the militia, the Council in Calcutta decided on 27 November that a list of their names should be affixed at the Fort gates and a notice given that for “non-attendance in future they may expect to meet with proper resentment’’. [ Long, Selections from Unpublished Records of Government I, p. 39.] In 1753 the militia mustered 200 men. Evidently the militia had not been formed according to the instructions sent to the Council in Calcutta by the Court of Directors in their letter dated 16 January 1752, and the latter asked the former on 11 February 1756 to establish a regular militia “for the better defence of the settlement." In his letter to the Court of 30 November 1756, Holwell complained strongly of the inefficiency of the Company’s militia in Calcutta at the time of its capture by Sirajud Daulah.
Military officers with superior commissions were sometimes sent by the Court of Directors from England to India. But the subaltern officers in Bengal soon remonstrated against this practice of sending out annually from Europe gentlemen with military commissions superior to their own; and in February 1755, the Council in Calcutta forwarded their remonstrances to the Court for their favourable consideration. [Letter to Court, 3 February 1755, para 16.] The Court observed in their letter of 11 February 1756 that in view of the complaints of the military officers in the Company’s service regarding their supersession they would not send out anyone that season above the rank of ensign unless circumstances created a real necessity.
Anxious for the safety of the Company’s settlements in India in case of a renewal of conflicts with the French and also as a measure of precaution against any injury to their interests by country powers, the Court of Directors not only sent occasional reinforcements for the Company’s army in the different settlements but also advised the respective Councils to tap useful sources of recruitment in India. The district of Shahabad in Bihar was one such important area of recruitment. The Rajputs settled there were recruited for police and militia duties both by the Nawab’s government in Bengal and the English East India Company and they are referred to in contemporary records as Buxuries (Baksaris).
In 1754 Colonel Scott suggested the recruitment of Rajputs of Bihar. [Letter from Court, 29 November 1754, para 55.] The Court of Directors recommended its careful consideration by the Council in Calcutta and the Bihari Rajputs began to contribute from this time not an inconsiderable quota to the ranks of the East India Company’s Indian troops.
The Squadron of Admiral Watson
Not long after the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, the English and the French in India entered into another period of conflict as allies of the rival candidates for succession to the governments of the Deccan and the Carnatic.
Celebration of the Peace, by Jacques Dumont
The 1748 Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, sometimes called the Treaty of Aachen, ended the War of the Austrian Succession, following a congress assembled on 24 April 1748 at the Free Imperial City of Aachen.The 1740 to 1748 War of the Austrian Succession (German: Österreichischer Erbfolgekrieg) was the last Great Power conflict with the Bourbon-Habsburg dynastic conflict at its heart, and marked the rise of Prussia as a major power. Related conflicts include King George's War, the War of Jenkins' Ear, the First Carnatic War, as well as the First and Second Silesian Wars.
While the pretext was Maria Theresa's right to inherit from her father Emperor Charles VI, in reality France, Prussia and Bavaria saw an opportunity to challenge Habsburg power. Maria Theresa was backed by Britain, the Dutch Republic, and Hanover, collectively known as the Pragmatic Allies. As the conflict widened, it drew in other participants, among them Spain, Sardinia, Saxony, Sweden and Russia.
There were four primary theatres of the war: Central Europe, the Austrian Netherlands, Italy, and on the seas. Prussia occupied Silesia in 1740, then repulsed Austrian efforts to regain it, while between 1745 and 1748, France conquered most of the Austrian Netherlands. Elsewhere, Austria and Sardinia defeated Spanish attempts to regain territories in Northern Italy, while by 1747, the British naval blockade was crippling French trade.
The Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748) reflected this stalemate; the commercial issues that led to the war were left largely unresolved and many of the signatories were unhappy with the terms. Despite nearly bankrupting the state, Louis XV of France withdrew from the Low Countries for minimal benefit, to the dismay of the French nobility and populace. The Spanish considered their gains in Italy inadequate, had failed to recover Menorca or Gibraltar, and viewed the reassertion of British commercial rights in the Americas as an insult.
Although Maria Theresa was acknowledged as her father's heir, she did not consider this a concession and deeply resented Britain's role in forcing her to cede Silesia to Prussia. For British statesmen, the war demonstrated the vulnerability of George II's German possession of Hanover to Prussia, while many politicians considered they had received little benefit from the enormous subsidies paid to Austria.
The result was the realignment known as the Diplomatic Revolution, in which Austria aligned itself with France, marking the end of their centuries-old enmity, and Prussia became an ally of Britain. These new alliances would fight the 1756 to 1763 Seven Years' War.
-- War of the Austrian Succession, by Wikipedia
The two main protagonists in the war, Britain and France, opened peace talks in the Dutch city of Breda in 1746. Agreement was delayed by British hopes of improving their position; when this failed to occur, a draft treaty was agreed on 30 April 1748. A final version was signed on 18 October 1748 by Britain, France, and the Dutch Republic.
The terms were then presented to the other belligerents, who could either accept them, or continue the war on their own. Austria, Spain and Sardinia had little choice but to comply, and signed separately. The Duchy of Modena, and Republic of Genoa joined together on 21 January 1749.
The treaty largely failed to resolve the issues that caused the war, while most of the signatories were unhappy with the terms. Maria Theresa resented Austria's exclusion from the talks, and blamed Britain for forcing her to accept concessions, while British politicians felt they had received little benefit for the financial subsidies paid to her. The combination of factors led to the strategic realignment known as the Diplomatic Revolution, and the outbreak of the Seven Years' War in 1756.
-- Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle (1748), by Wikipedia
The Seven Years' War (1756–1763) was a global conflict, "a struggle for global primacy between Britain and France," which also had a major impact on the Spanish Empire. In Europe, the conflict arose from issues left unresolved by the War of the Austrian Succession, with Prussia seeking greater dominance. Long standing colonial rivalries between Britain against France and Spain in North America and the Caribbean islands valuable for sugar were fought on a grand scale with consequential results. In Europe, the war broke out over territorial disputes between Prussia and Austria, which wanted to regain Silesia after it was captured by the former in the previous war. Britain, France, and Spain fought both in Europe and overseas with land-based armies and naval forces, while Prussia sought territorial expansion in Europe and consolidation of its power.
In a realignment of traditional alliances, known as the Diplomatic Revolution of 1756, Prussia became part of a coalition led by Britain, which also included long-time Prussian competitor Hanover. At the same time, Austria ended centuries of conflict by allying with France, along with Saxony, Sweden, and Russia. Spain aligned formally with France in 1762. Spain unsuccessfully attempted to invade Britain's ally Portugal, attacking with their forces facing British troops in Iberia. Smaller German states either joined the Seven Years' War or supplied mercenaries to the parties involved in the conflict.
Anglo-French conflict over their colonies in North America had begun in 1754 in what became known in North America as the French and Indian War, a nine-years war that ended France's presence as a land power. It was "the most important event to occur in eighteenth-century North America". Spain entered the war in 1761, joining France in the Third Family Compact between the two Bourbon monarchies. The alliance with France was a disaster for Spain, with the loss to Britain of two major ports, Havana in the Caribbean and Manila in the Philippines, returned in the 1763 Treaty of Paris between France, Spain and Great Britain. In Europe the large-scale conflict that drew in most of the European powers was centered on Austria's desire to recover Silesia from Prussia. The Treaty of Hubertusburg ended the war between Saxony, Austria and Prussia, in 1763. Britain began its rise as the world's predominant colonial and naval power. For a time France's supremacy in Europe was halted until after the French Revolution and the emergence of Napoleon Bonaparte. Prussia confirmed its status as a great power, challenging Austria for dominance within the German states, thus altering the European balance of power...
In India, the outbreak of the Seven Years' War in Europe renewed the long running conflict between the French and the British trading companies for influence on the subcontinent. The French allied themselves with the Mughal Empire to resist British expansion. The war began in Southern India but spread into Bengal, where British forces under Robert Clive recaptured Calcutta from the Nawab Siraj ud-Daulah, a French ally, and ousted him from his throne at the Battle of Plassey in 1757. In the same year, the British also captured Chandernagar, the French settlement in Bengal.
In the south, although the French captured Cuddalore, their siege of Madras failed, while the British commander Sir Eyre Coote decisively defeated the Comte de Lally at the Battle of Wandiwash in 1760 and overran the French territory of the Northern Circars. The French capital in India, Pondicherry, fell to the British in 1761; together with the fall of the lesser French settlements of Karikal and Mahé this effectively eliminated French power in India.
-- Seven Years' War, by Wikipedia
A contemporary, Edward Ives, tells us that “the French had a far superior number of European troops, and had been so artful as to form connections with the most powerful princes of the country; with these advantages they made so considerable a progress, as greatly to alarm the whole of the English settlements and to fill them with apprehensions, lest the day might come, when Mons. Dupleix’s ambition might be gratified in its utmost extent’’. [Edward Ives, A Voyage from England to India, p. 2.] Even after Dupleix's recall, the prospect of the success of the negotiations between the English and the French East India Companies for a convention with a view to “restoring union between them and putting an end to the troubles on the coast of Choromandel [Coromandel]’’ [Letter from Court, 2 Match 1754, para 17.] was uncertain. As a matter of fact, the English apprehended a quick recrudescence of hostilities with the French. The settlements of the English East India Company in India, therefore, “sent repeated accounts of their disagreeable situation" to the Court of Directors in England, who in their turn petitioned His Majesty’s Government for military help to safeguard the Company’s interests in India. [Ives, op. cit. p. 2.]
In response to this appeal, His Majesty was “most graciously pleased to order a squadron of his ships with a body of land forces on board to proceed to the East Indies’’. [Letter from Court, 2 Match 1754, para 2.] The squadron, commanded by Charles Watson, Rear Admiral of the Blue, was composed as follows:
Ships / Commanders / Guns
Kent / Henry Speke / 64 [70 according to Ives.]
Eagle / George Pocock / 60
Salisbury / Thomas Knowle / 50
Bristol / Thomas Latham / 50
Bridgwater / William Martin / 24
Sloop Kingfisher / Best Mighel / 16
The land forces, placed under the command of Colonel John Adlercron, comprised “815 men, officers included” of his regiment of infantry and a detachment of 78 men from the Royal Train of Artillery, the latter being under the command of Lieutenant William Hislop. [Letter from Court, 2 March 1754, para 3.]
Although the destination of the squadron and the land forces was Coromandel Coast, yet considering that there might be occasions for their presence at other settlements of the English, the Court issued suitable instructions for their reception. They instructed the Council in Calcutta on 2 March 1754 to behave properly towards all belonging to His Majesty’s squadron and the land forces and to give them “all necessary help and assistance” in the matter of money, stores, provisions and accommodation. [Ibid., paras 5-12.]
Swiss Companies and Captain Polier
During the wars in Peninsular India the Court of Directors had sent to India four companies of Swiss troops, each composed of 100 men. Their services were utilised particularly against the French. Orme refers to the arrival at Madras in 1752 of two Swiss companies commanded by Swiss captains. [Orme, A History of the Military Transactions of the British in Indostan I, p. 255.] When the French had reached the proximity of Fort St. David in 1752, a company of the Swiss under Captain Schaub was sent on boats from Madras to intercept them. But they were captured by some Frenchmen sent by Dupleix on a vessel from Pondicherry and were detained there as prisoners of war. Immediately on hearing this news, Major Lawrence embarked for Fort St. David with another party of Swiss troops under Captain Gaupp. [Lawrence, A Narrative of the War on the Coromandel Coast, p. 34.]
Captain Paul Philip Polier was the commander of one such company. The services of his company were for some time transferred from Madras to Bengal, most probably in 1752. [Letter to Court, 11 February 1753, para. 61.] On 11 January 1753 he presented himself before the Council in Calcutta and informed the members that his men were daily deserting that place, and that sixteen of them, some belonging to his own town and enjoying his greatest confidence, had already gone. He observed that the French (at Chandernagore) seduced them by indirect means and sent them to Pondicherry, the "open situation” of Calcutta making it impossible for him to prevent their flight. He proposed to take back his officers and men to the southern coast, where he hoped to take effective steps against such occurrences and to render better service to the English Company. [Letter to Court, 15 January 1753, para 4.] Polier joined Major Lawrence with 100 soldiers on 1 April 1753. With this reinforcement Lawrence wished to storm the French camp at Trivadi, but on arriving at Trichinopoly on 6 May 1753 found that, among others, one sergeant and fifteen men of a Swiss company had deserted his detachment. But Polier and his party remained faithful, though, they unknowingly committed a tactical military blunder. On 12 May 1754 Polier commanded some British troops as well. While he was trying to assist one detachment under Captain Caillaud, the French “disabled one of his field pieces” as also one of Caillaud’s. Polier’s battalion served in the army under Colonel Alexander Heron during its march from Madura towards the end of May 1755. Advised by the Madras Council to return to Arcot, the Nawab of the Carnatic left Trichinopoly for his capital on 9 July 1755, accompanied by an escort of 300 Europeans and 1,000 sepoys under the command of Polier. Towards the end of 1755, the Court of Directors decided to stop the recruitment of men from Switzerland for the four Swiss companies and to put them on an equal footing with the English companies in all respects, except that a Swiss company was to be limited to 140 men. Captain Polier, being the oldest of the Swiss military officers in India, was given a new commission investing him with the seniormost rank among them. [Letter from Court, 11 February 1756, para. 113.]
THE REVOLT OF THE TROOPS: OCTOBER 1759
The troops who were protecting Pondicherry revolted. It was not one of those stormy mutinies which begin without reason and end in the same way. Necessity seemed to cast them into it: it was the only way left to them to get paid and have enough to eat. “Give us" they said, “our bread and our pay, or we shall go and ask the English for it.” The soldiers in the corps wrote to the General that they would wait for four days, but that, at the end of that time, all their resources being exhausted, they would leave for Madras...
Whatever the case may be, it was necessary to find money: in India, sedition is not appeased by words. The Director of the Treasury, named Boyelau, gave up the little gold and silver that remained with him. The Chevalier of Crillon lent four thousand rupees; M. de Gadeville the same amount. Lalli, who happily had fifty thousand francs with him, gave them, and even persuaded the Jesuit, Lavour, his secret enemy, to lend thirty-six thousand pounds in silver, which he was keeping for his own use or for his missions, the whole being repayable by the Company when it was in a position to do so. They owed the troops six months' pay, and the pay was high: it amounted to more than a crown per day for every horseman and thirteen sous a day for the soldiers. These may be small details, but we believe that they are necessary.
22ND JANUARY 1760
The revolt was only quietened at the end of seven days, and the good-will of the soldiers was weakened by it. The English came back to the fatal spot, Wandewash: they waged a second battle there which they won completely. M. de Bussi, the man who was the most indispensable to the colony and the army, was taken prisoner there, and then everyone despaired.
ANOTHER REVOLT
After this defeat, the cavalry revolted again, and wanted to go over to the side of the English, preferring to serve the victors, who were sure to pay them, rather than the vanquished who still owed them a large part of their pay. The General brought them back a second time with his money but he could not prevent the desertion of a number of horsemen. [What is the reason of this mad desire to desert? Does love of one’s country get lost the further away one travels? The soldier, who yesterday fired on his enemies, tomorrow fires on his compatriots. A new duty has arisen: to kill other men or be killed by them. But why were there so many Swiss in the English troops, and not one in the French? Why was it that, among these Swiss, united to France by so many treaties, were found so many officers and soldiers who had served the English against France in the same way in America and Asia? What is the reason that in Europe, even during peace time, thousands of French have deserted their flag to take this same foreign pay? The Germans also desert, but the Spaniards only rarely; the English hardly at all. It is unheard of for a Turk or a Russian to desert. During the retreat of the Hundred Thousand, in the midst of the greatest dangers and the most discouraging hardships, not one Greek deserted. They were only mercenaries, officers as well as soldiers, who had sold themselves to the young Cyrus, to a rebel and a usurper. It is the task of the reader, and above all of the enlightened military, to find the cause and the remedy of this contagious malady, commoner to the French than other nations for many years, both in peace and war. (V.)]
-- Voltaire Fragments on India, Translated by Freda Bedi, B.A. Hons. (Oxon.)
The Company’s Servants
The Company’s servants in Bengal were paid low salaries. [In 1712 their salaries, as given by Wilson in his Early Annals of the English in Bengal Part I, pp. 82-83, were as follows: — President and Governor Rs. 1,600 per annum; Senior Merchant Rs. 320 per annum; Junior Merchant Rs. 240 per annum; Factor Rs. 120 per annum; Writer Rs. 40 per annum.] But they made large fortunes through private trade, and indulged in various luxuries and extravagances to which the Court of Directors were strongly opposed. With a view to maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the public services the Directors sought to regulate the conduct of their servants in all respects. In 1749-50 they complained of the “spirit of gaming” that was reported to prevail among their servants in Bengal. To this the Council in Calcutta replied in February 1750 that had they “ever observed the least appearance of this vice” they would have "suppressed it in its infancy” and assured the Court that they would henceforth punctually obey their orders in this respect. [Letter to Court, 25 February 1750, para 8.] The Court of Directors suspected the prevalence of other kinds of abuses also among their servants in Bengal. Thus in their letter of 24 January 1753 they accused them of being “underhand concerned in the contracts for the Investment.” The Council in Calcutta pleaded that this charge was based on false reports of a “malicious nature” and assured the Court that they would do their utmost to check “extravagant and expensive” ways of living among the servants, whose high expenses were due to the dearness of all kinds of provisions and not to “uncommon extravagancies”. They also observed that they would regard it as an act of the “greatest favour” on the part of the Court if the latter took into consideration the “small allowances” received by their servants and did whatever appeared to them to be just in that matter. [Letter to Court, 3 September 1753, paras 61 and 70.] Whatever might be the pleas of the members of the Council in Calcutta to screen themselves and their subordinates, there is no doubt that their ways of living were in certain respects not above reproach. Early in 1754 the Court of Directors sent to the Council a strong note reiterating their previous warning against “prevailing licentiousness” among their servants in Bengal, and also forwarded to them some positive commands for the regulation of their “morals and manner of life.” [Letter from Court, 23 January 1754, paras 80-81.] As a luxurious style of living still prevailed among their servants of all ranks in Bengal, the Court asked the Council to take proper steps to check and prevent it. The remittance of large sums of money to England by the commanders of ships through bills of exchange on the Company led the Court to suspect that these were the ‘produce of illicit trade’ and so the Council in Calcutta were asked to take an oath from each commander to the effect that his money was earned through legitimate means. [Letter from Court, 31 January 1755, paras 100 and 111.]
In 1757 the salaries were:
President and Governor Rs. 1,600 per annum
Member of Council Rs. 320 per annum
Senior Merchant Rs. 320 per annum
Junior Merchant Rs. 240 per annum
Factor Rs. 120 per annum
Doctor Rs. 288 per annum
Writer Rs. 40 per annum
All but the Doctors and the Writers also got gratuities in various capacities. They had other sources of income such as perquisites and profits of private trade. (Long, Selections from Unpublished Records, pp. 101-03).
The Court also complained that an “unaccountable negligence appears to have taken strong possession of almost all our servants” and attributed to this the omission on the part of the latter "to send the usual and necessary books and papers”. [Letter from Court, 23 January 1754, para 94.] They again observed in 1755 that the accounts were not "exact and methodical”. Suspecting that it was a common practice at all the subordinate factories to present wrong accounts, and to conceal the real amount of allowances granted to the chiefs and other important officers, the Council in Calcutta directed each factory in 1754 to specify "in the plainest manner and under their real heads in their accounts all disbursements, allowances, and charges whatever” for their inspection and approval. [Letter to Court 7 December 1754, para 142.] They agreed to pay the Sub-Accountant and the Accountant-General 250 sicca rupees each per annum and considered payment to the Registrar of the Mayor’s Court at the same rate, on his representation that the new regulations for receiving deposits in the Company’s treasury had increased his work.
At the end of January 1755, the Court of Directors emphasized the need of the “utmost attention” to the conduct of their servants at the subordinate factories whom they suspected of being "unfaithfully” interested in investments at the cost of the Company. For due control over these servants, the Court ordered the immediate formation of a Supervising Committee consisting of the President, Charles Manningham, Richard Becher, and John Zephaniah Holwell. This Committee was to "enquire into the manner of making the investments and the management in general at the subordinate settlements” and into the conduct of their servants employed at those places. [Letter from Court, 31 January I755, paras 56-61.] Taking into consideration the necessity of entrusting the management of the Company’s affairs at the subordinate factories to men of experience, the Court made it a standing rule that there should be among their servants at Kasimbazar two members of the Council and at least one senior merchant, at Dacca one member of the Council and a senior merchant, and at Jagdia or wherever the Jagdia settlement was shifted one of the "best qualified” servants next below the rank of a member of the Council. [Ibid, para 63.] The Court also ordered the formation of a Committee of Accounts "to prevent any frauds and irregularities which are and may be covered or unobserved by this loose manner of passing accounts.” They, however, felt that for due enforcement of all their rules and directions, and for effective management of their affairs, it was necessary to invest the President with sufficient powers as the “general inspector and supervisor of the whole machine” and so asked the Council to attend properly to whatever the President proposed to do for controlling the servants of all ranks and for management of the Company’s affairs. The directions communicated by the Court were to apply to all the subordinate settlements. [Letter from Court, 31 January 1755, paras 101-03.]
The Court at the same time favoured the encouragement by due rewards of such of their servants as proved themselves worthy by virtue of their “abilities, integrity and zealous endeavours to serve the Company”. [Ibid, para 95.] Thus Charles Manningham, who discharged his duty as Export Warehouse-keeper greatly to their satisfaction, was granted by them a personal allowance of four thousand current rupees a year “in lieu of all fees, rewards or perquisites whatsoever as Export Warehouse-keeper” besides his salary as a member of the Council. [Ibid, para 92.]
Early in 1754 the Court of Directors sent some writers to the Bengal establishment, and to put a stop to what they considered the “pernicious custome of employing black people” in writing business, directed the Council in Calcutta to ensure that all their servants were “regularly and constantly employed in their respective stations particularly the younger sort”. [Letter from Court, 23 January 1754, paras 75-7.] The Council in Calcutta instructed the heads of their several offices to insist on their assistants attending to their respective duties from 9 to 12 in the forenoon and also, when necessary, in the afternoon as well as evening. [Letter to Court, 7 December 1754, para 143.]
In their letter to the Council of 24 January 1753, the Court suggested the occasional transfer of the junior servants in rotation from one factory to another. The Council, however, observed in their letter of 3 September 1753 that this practice would cause serious inconveniences and decided not to take any action until further orders of the Court were received in this matter. The arguments of the Council were considered unsatisfactory by the Court who ordered them in 1755 to put into execution their previous directions relating to this affair. [Letter from Court, 31 January, 1755, para 97.] To enable all the servants to “acquire a knowledge of Investment” the Court ordered that every junior servant of the Company should be employed for some time in the kotha. [Ibid, para 96.] The Council in Calcutta accordingly directed all their servants above the rank of writers to “attend the cottah every cottah day in order to acquire a knowledge of the Investment”, constituted several committees, and transmitted to the respective factories relevant portions of the Court’s orders. They also granted the Head Assistant at the cutcherry the same salary as the Deputies of other offices, that is 500 sicca rupees per annum. [Letter to Court, 11 September 1755, para 33.]
Mayor's Court
In 1726 the British Crown established, by letters patent, Mayor’s Courts at Bombay and Calcutta, and remodelled the one at Madras. Each of these courts was to consist of a Mayor and nine Aldermen, seven of whom were to be “natural born British subjects”. These courts were to be courts of record, and were authorised “to try, hear and determine all civil suits, actions, and pleas between party and party.” [Cowell, History and Constitution of the Courts and Legislative Authorities in India, (sixth edition revised by S.C Bagchi, Calcutta (1936), pp. 14-15.] The Governor and his Council in a Presidency were to constitute a Government Court of Record competent to hear appeals from the Mayor’s Court. Appeals in cases involving sums above 1,000 pagodas lay from the Government Court to the King in Council. The Government Court was also to be a Court of Oyer and Terminer and to hold Quarter Sessions for trial of all cases except high treason. The Mayor’s Courts were authorised to give probates and exercise testamentary jurisdiction. The Court of Directors observed in their letter dated 17 February 1727: “This Charter being principally design’d for the Government and benefits of Europeans, and many of the Natives who live with you having peculiar Customs of their own, we are willing they should still enjoy them, so as they live quietly and do nothing that tends to publick disturbance or breaking into the settled Rules of the Place. You must continue to be as hitherto you have been very careful to avoid as much as possible the putting any of the Moors to Death, unless the Crime be of a very high nature such as Murther and Piracy and the proofs there of be very positive and plain ....." When the Council in Calcutta requested the Mughal Government to grant them “power to punish the Mogul’s Subjects with Death” they were told in reply that “the Company’s Charter could not extend to them who were Subjects to another Prince”. [Bengal Past and Present Vol. VIII p. 13; Ibid, p. 16.]
The Royal Charter of 8 January 1753 remodelled the Mayor’s Courts at Bombay and Calcutta in order to remove the defects of which the Company had complained. It also created Courts of Requests at these two places for the trial of cases “where the debt duty or matter in dispute should not exceed five pagodas.” This Charter of 1753 excluded from the jurisdiction of the Mayor’s Courts all suits between Indians “unless by consent of the parties” concerned. [Cowell, op. cit., p. 16.] It also transferred the power of appointing Aldermen to the President and Council. The Mayor's Courts were each to present annually two members of their body to the President and Council who were to select one of them as Mayor for the ensuing year. [Bengal: Past and Present, Vol. VIII p. 18.] Thus the personnel of the Mayor's Courts came to be composed of the nominees of the Governor and Council and were subject to their influence.
On receipt of the Court’s letter of 24 January 1753, relating to the Charter of that year, the Council in Calcutta promulgated the Charter on 5 October, and appointed twelve Commissioners for the Court of Requests. [For their names, vide Bengal: Past and Present, Vol. VIII, p. 25.] As the Charter directed that all suits under five pagodas should be tried in the Court of Requests they ordered that the “Zemindar should not take cognizance of any disputes of property under 20 current rupees, to prevent the jurisdiction of the cutcherry [Zamindar’s court] and that Court from interfering with each other and creating continual contests between them." Three members of the Mayor's Court being absent at the time the Charter reached Calcutta, the Council appointed Messrs. Valicourt, Verelst and Fullerton Aldermen in their places. [Letter to Court, 4 January 1754, paras 140-51.]
Holwell informed the Council in Calcutta on 6 May 1754 that as the Charter of 1753 had “put a stop to the application of Indian natives to the Mayor's Court in disputes among themselves" they had begun to follow the practice of assigning over their notes or bonds to European, Portuguese or Armenian inhabitants of Calcutta, which in his opinion was against the true “intent and meaning” of the said Charter and prejudiced the Company’s 'etlack' ["Under the Mohammadan government, fees paid by suitors on the decision of their causes; also a fee exacted from a defendant as wages for a peon stationed over him as soon as a complaint was preferred against him". Wilson A Glossary of Judicial and Revenue Terms, p. 346.] (itlaq) and commission. Taking all these points into consideration, the Council issued a notification that by resorting to this practice in future one would subject himself to their “severest resentment”. [Letter to Court, 9 September 1754, para 40.]
The Calcutta court was not much of a success during the first fifty years of its existence. This is apparent from a discussion on its reform in 1802. [Notes on the defects or the court of requests at Calcutta, by Sir John Austruther, Chief Justice of the Calcutta Supreme Court, Bengal Civil Judicial Consultations, 18 March 1802, No. 12.] The fundamental defect of the court as formed in 1753, arose out of its constitution by unpaid commissioners. The court's sittings were extremely laborious and prolonged, often stretching up to five hours a day. It made the commissioners reluctant to undertake this exertion for which no monetary compensation was to be had. As a result, in spite of there-being twenty-four commissioners on roll, it was always found difficult even to secure the attendance of three, the minimum required to constitute the quorum. It was only by making personal approaches to some of the younger commissioners of his acquaintance that the clerk of the court was able to procure the minimum attendance necessary to form the court. [Ibid.]
As such, commissioners who were employed otherwise by the company were unable to spare enough time for the court's business, the court gradually came to be constituted by old civilians out of employment or by young Englishmen who never had any. Devotion or responsibility towards the business of the court could be expected from neither.
Out of the irregularity and laxity in the procedure of the court arose enormous abuses which rendered it more an instrument of fraud and exploitation, than that of justice. [Ibid.] The peons, amlas and clerks of the court found it easy to indulge in all sorts of corrupt practices, much to the harassment of the parties trying to seek redress from the court. Among the many malpractices prevailing in the court that Austruther listed, were:[T]hat many (defendants) complained that actions were brought and decrees passed against them, of which they had no notice, and by plaintiffs of whom they had never heard; others (complained) that they had attended their cause from day to day to no purpose, but the instant they were gone, the decree (was) passed against them: ... still others (complained) that the causes were (actually) decided by the Amlas after the Commissioners had gone; and that nothing was to be done without bribing the peons or their mates; that summons were issued in the names of fictitious plaintiffs, which were left in the hands of the peons for an indefinite time and were used as a means for harassing persons with names similar to that of the supposed defendants, ... and that the summons contained no definite time for appearance, with the result that the party had to keep attending every day ..., till their cause was called out by the native officers of the Court, who in fictitious suits (brought either by themselves or with their connivance), always cared to have the decree passed in the absence of the defendant. [Ibid.]
Coleman, the clerk of the court, informed Austruther, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Calcutta, that of an average of about 3,000 causes instituted monthly over the preceding four years, at least one third had been entirely fictitious. [Ibid.]
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, complained that the court's decrees were of no avail, because either they were not executed in consequence of the bribe given to the peons by the debtors, or, if they were, the money obtained was fraudulently appropriated by the vakeels and peons of the court. Thus, Austruther observed:When the amount was paid into the Court, nothing was more common than for the Vakeels to impersonate the real plaintiff and receive the money, and when the real plaintiff came, the amlas were always ready to swear that they were (sic) witness to the receipt (of the decreed amount by the plaintiff) ...... [Ibid.]
-- Evolution of the Small Cause Courts in India -- 1753-1887 with Special Reference to the Presidency Court at Calcutta, by Chittaranjan Sinha, M.A., B.L. (Patna), Ph.D. (Lond.).
Clashes between the Mayor’s Court and the Zamindar’s Court in Calcutta regarding their respective jurisdictions could not always be prevented despite the Council’s efforts. One such clash occurred in May 1755 concerning a decree passed by the Zamindar’s Court on a complaint lodged with it by a European and a ‘Fringy’ against another ‘Fringy’. The matter being referred by Holwell to the Council in Calcutta, the majority there were of opinion that “as it had been the constant practice of the cutcherry to receive complaints from Europeans against natives, the Zemindar might continue to take cognizance of and decide upon causes of property where a European, Fringy or Armenian were complainant against natives as his decision by no means oblige the parties or prevent them from applying to the Mayor's Court afterwards” but that “the Zemindar had no right to determine upon matters of dispute between any Europeans, Fringys, and Armenians” as the Council “esteemed them to have the same title to the benefit of His Majesty’s Charter, as British subjects themselves while they lived under our protection”. [Letter to Court, 8 December 1755, para 141.]
The Company as Zamindar
In 1698 the English East India Company had obtained on the strength of letters granted by Prince Azimus-Shan, Subahdar of Bengal, the right of renting the three towns of Calcutta, Sutanati and Govindapur for an annual payment of about 1,200 rupees. For discharging the duties connected with the ‘Zamindar rights' thus gained, the Company appointed in 1700 a special officer known as the Collector (or the Zamindar), Ralph Sheldon being the first Collector of Calcutta. The Collector was to “gather in the revenue of the three towns and to keep them in order”, for which, in accordance with zamindari customs, he exercised till 1758 both civil and criminal justice through some zamindari courts established in Calcutta. The Collector had under him an Indian deputy, styled the ‘Black Collector'. Govindaram Mitra held this post for over thirty years till he was dismissed for some malpractices by orders of the Court dated 16 January 1752.
In January 1752 the Court of Directors appointed Holwell to the post of Zamindar or Collector of Calcutta, and he assumed charge of this office in July 1752. On 20 July, he charged Govindaram with “heavy fraude” in the management of the Company's revenues, particularly in farming out the bazars in Calcutta, and moved in the Council that he should “give good security for his appearance”. Omichand was allowed to become his “personal security” for six months. [Letter to Court, __ September 1752, paras 85-88.] On 13 and 17 August, Holwell demanded that Govindaram Mitra should be kept in “close confinement’’. This was not done but Govindaram had to pay Rs. 3,397-10-6 to the Company’s treasury. [Letter to Court, 3 September 1753, para 78.] Subsequently the farmers of the ‘gunge* (ganj) were summoned by the Council and asked whether Govindaram Mitra was ever “concerned with or under them in that farm, which they respectively declared he never was directly or indirectly”. As demanded by Holwell in his letter to the Council of 25 November 1754, Govindaram Mitra took a solemn oath on 30 January 1755 that the “accounts he had delivered in of the bazars he had farmed were just and true accounts, and that he had never farmed the gunge directly or indirectly”. He was, however, required, according to the orders of the Court of Directors, to repay with interest the profits amounting to Rs. 4,875 “which he had made on the farms he had held by his own accounts” from October 1752. [Letter to Court, 3 February 1755, para 14.]
By increasing the revenues of the Company in Calcutta to “a very considerable amount without imposing any new duties” and by discharging his duties ably Holwell earned the good opinion of the Court of Directors, who expressed their determination to support him in all his endeavours to serve the Company. The Court also urged the Council to examine, without further delay, the working of the office of Zamindar and to consider if, in view of its very complicated nature involving the discharge of various duties, it would not be advisable to divide it into several branches, each being placed in charge of one man. The Council were further required to inform the Court as to which “duties or fines” appeared to be “particularly grievous upon the poorer sort of people’’. [Letter from Court, 31 January 1755, paras 73, 75-77.]