Part 2 of 2
According to Ranga Pillai, night being at hand, La Bourdonnais waited for the morning to engage the enemy. 'When the day dawned, however, no English ships were to be seen.' On August 18 the French squadron appeared before Madras 'and fired on the Princess Mary, which was returned from the ship and from the fort Each ship gave a broadside as she stood to the northward and another as she returned, and then stood to the southward again. We are since informed they had two motives for this expedition. One was to make a plea with the country government that the English had committed the first hostility ashore and the other to see if Captain Peyton would come to our assistance or not.' The inhabitants of Madras anxiously watched for the appearance of the English squadron on which their safety depended, and they were struck with consternation when they heard 'that on the 23rd Captain Peyton with his squadron stood into Pullicat Road, where he sent his lieutenant, Mr. Weeims, on board a vessel in the Road, who was there told of all the circumstances of their attacking the Princess Mary, and of their then being between Madras and Pondicherry, on which he disappeared and has never since been heard of,1 [ Orme states: 'They proceeded to Bengal; for the 60-gun ship was now so leaky, that it was feared the shock of firing her own cannon would sink her if she should be brought into an engagement.— Vol. i. p. 67.] or from, by any of the English, though there has been no cost or pains spar'd for that Purpose as may easily be imagined from the since Mellancholly situation of affairs on the Coast. The last letter that was receivd from anyone belonging to the squadron was from Captain Payton to Governor Morse dated the 4th August when he was just come out from refitting. This unhappy con- duct of his so animated our enemys that they determined on attacking Fort St George. We call it unhappy because it has truly proved so in its consequences, though what reasons Captain Payton may have had for this Proceeding we know not.'
Morse, the governor of Madras, now called on the Nawab of the Camatic to fulfil his promise of restraining the French from committing hostilities against them by land. But he omitted to forward a present of money, and consequently the Nawab took no steps to prevent them from attacking Madras. When war became imminent, the French governors, Dumas and Dupleix, made all possible preparations for the struggle; the English, according to a well-established custom, did nothing. The day after news reached them that war had been declared they chose a safe site for a powder magazine. But it was never built. The fort was entirely unfit to stand a siege.
'The principal officer among the garrison was one Peter Eckman, an ignorant, superannuated Swede, who had been a common soldier, and now bore the rank of a first lieutenant; he was assisted by two other lieutenants and seven ensigns. To all which may be further added, that though the garrison had near 200 pieces of cannon, yet they wanted men that were capable of playing them; besides that the want of military stores was equal to the paucity of military men.'1 [Despatch from Fort St. David, October 17, 1746.] Long before the war with France, the English Company had promised to augment the garrison of Madras to 600 Europeans, 'exclusive of the gun-room crew,' but they never sent the recruits. The time had now come when European soldiers were sorely needed.
On August 24, 1746, Ranga Pillai enters in his diary, 'The eight ships comprising M. de la Bourdonnais' fleet came to an anchor in the roads last night. A salute of fifteen guns was fired by only the commanding officer's ship, the Achille. M. de la Bourdonnais, who was ill with fever and diarrhoea, wrapped himself up in his dressing gown, covered his head with a cap, and in this costume came ashore. On landing, he was put into a closed palanquin and conveyed to the house of the Governor who had previously ordered that it should be cleared of every one, and guarded by armed soldiers, who were posted in the streets running to the west and east of the building.' . . . 'The palanquin carrying M. de la Bourdonnais was brought to the residence of the Governor, into whose presence he was, on alighting, supported by two men, one on either side. The Governor came forward to meet him, embraced him, and took him into a room where they had a conference, in which M. Paradis took part'.1 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 233.]
On August 29, M. Desmares, a merchant, met Ranga Pillai on his way to the Governor's house and informed him what had taken place at the conference.
'The Governor asked why the expedition against Madras had been delayed. M. de la Bourdonnais replied: "The orders which I have received from the Company, and from the Government, are that I should attack the English ships wherever I might fall in with them at sea. My instructions do not extend to fighting on shore. I therefore cannot undertake a land attack. If you desire me to do so, I will; but I must first have the written order of your Council to that effect." "Was it not at your desire, expressed in writing," the Governor exclaimed, "that I made all these preparations for the expedition? I cannot understand why you now demand the Council's orders." High words then ensued between them. The Councillors were next summoned, but they declined all responsibility, stating that the Governor and M. de la Bourdonnais had not consulted them when they first planned the undertaking. The whole amount expended up to the present on this may, perhaps, have to be borne by the Governor himself. It is not known how it will end. M. Dupleix tried very hard to have Paradis appointed Commander in the place of M. de la Bourdonnais who is now ill; but the latter would not assent to this.'
Dupleix, who told La Bourdonnais that the capture of Madras was 'so necessary to the honour of the King and the welfare of the Company, that if you are prevented from carrying it out this season you must attempt it next January,' was naturally vexed at the vacillation and delay. He was a man of violent temper, and gave reins to it in his conversation with Ranga Pillai on September 4. He again abused La Bourdonnais in unmeasured terms.
'"La Bourdonnais was an utterly petty-minded man and one utterly regardless of the blow which the honour of the French has sustained." ..." He is, however, an artful man. Although he was a party to the arrangements, he has made me alone bear the whole expense, and has thus impoverished and ruined me. On his arrival he was but a pauper bringing nothing with him but the woollen coat which he wore. Did you not then see him with your own eyes? You are a shrewd man, and there is scarcely anything of which you are not aware." He added, "The Ministers of the King of France are the cause of all this."'
On the morning of September 12, the French fleet, having on board the troops, artillery and stores intended for the siege of Madras, sailed from Pondicherry. A letter from Madras dated October 17, 1747, states: 'They came in sight the 2nd. Nine Sail, and landed 800 Europeans at Covalong, marched to Thome, there landed more.' The neighbourhood covered with country houses was given up to pillage, and the French Commissary-General states that La Bourdonnais and his brother La Villebague harassed the town of St. Thome for loot. On September 17 the French 'began to play their mortars being 1 5 in number from behind the garden house, 10 and 5 from across the Bar: their strength on shore I compute 2,000 Europeans, Seapiahs, and 300 Coffrees: they have when all on board about 3,000 Europeans, 600 of which were Pondicherry troops: their intent was to have stormed us by escalade which we were in no condition to prevent, 1,000 Bombs having prevented our sleeping for 3 days and Nights. Yet we had more to dread from our own disorder within and want of Government and Council than from the enemy without.' On September 29, William Monson, ensign, and John Hallyburton, ensign, were sent as deputies to treat with La Bourdonnais. He received them with all courtesy, and, after a consultation, he offered them the following conditions; that the town should be delivered up, and all the English remain prisoners of war; that the articles of capitulation being settled, those of the ransom should be regulated amicably; that the garrison should be conducted to Fort St. David, and the sailors sent to Cuddalore. The deputies pressed for a more explicit explanation as to the ransom being regulated in a friendly manner. La Bourdonnais replied, 'Gentlemen, I do not sell honour: the flag of my King shall fly over Madras, or I will die at the foot of the walls. In regard to the ransom of the town, and in everything that is interesting, you shall be satisfied with me'; (and, taking the hat of one of the deputies, he said) 'here is nearly the manner how we will regulate matters: this hat is worth six rupees, you shall give me three for it, and so of the rest.' The capitulation was signed the next day, and in the afternoon La Bourdonnais, at the head of a large body of troops, marched to the gates, where he received the keys from the governor. The French flag was immediately hoisted and the boats of the French squadron took possession of the Company's ships. The letter from Madras adds that 'The French hitherto have been extremely civil with respect to the Inhabitants, and have come to a Treaty with the Govemour and Council for the ransom of the place at eleven Laack of Pagodas, payable in 3 years half in India and half in Europe; they to carry off all the Company's Goods and J the Cannon and Warlike Stores: but here's to be a Garrison of 400 ''french till January and I dont much trust to their faith.' The value of the Company's goods was about four laack of pagodas in silver, broadcloth, etc., and 'it is generally believed that Monsr. L Bourdonnie in Diaminds, Jewells, etca., Screwed Us a Purse of about 150,000 Pagodas, so Altogether makes up the Sum of 1,650,000, One million six hundred and fifty thousand Pagodas,1 [Grose states: 'The Governor and Council settled the price of the ransom with the French Commodores at 1,100,000 pagodas, or 421,666£ sterling.] for security of which hostages were to be delivered to Monsr. L Bourdonnie, the Governor's two Children, Mr Stratton and family, Mr Harris and wife, and Messrs Strake and Walsh. The first capitulation was according to the above terms, and the town was to be delivered the English on the 1st October.'
The terms did not suit Dupleix. He had agreed with La Bourdonnais that they should levy a large sum from Madras, either before the assault or in case the French were too weak to hold it But a few days after the squadron set sail for Madras, Dupleix learnt that a squadron of three large vessels of the French Company had touched at Mahe. This reinforcement would enable him to hold both Madras and Pondicherry against any attacks made by the English, and he at once declared that the arrangement of restoring it on the payment of a ransom must be altered. He determined to keep the town or have it at his mercy. He, however, had to consider the native power.
On September 9, three days before the fleet sailed Dupleix received a letter from the Nawab of the Carnatic which was to the following effect:
'"In spite of our explicit instructions that you should forbear from attacking Madras, you have despatched an expedition thither. We are therefore not disposed to allow Pondichery to continue in your possession. We accordingly propose to advance against your town. You transgress all bounds; this is improper."
'The letter was couched in these harsh terms. The Governor directed the despatch of a reply as below: — "The captains of the ships of war of France are bound by the orders of their King; and will not care to listen to the counsels of others."'2 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 291.]
On the following day a letter was despatched to Nawab Anwal-ud-din Khan enclosing a copy of another addressed to Nizam-ul-mulk. The purport of the communication was as follows — 'the King of France has been informed that the English at Madras have unjustly seized French ships, and that they have taken another, bound for Manilla, which bore the name and flag of Muhammad Shah Emperor of Delhi, and was carrying a cargo consigned to him. The insult offered to the Emperor, by thus capturing a ship bearing his name and flag, has exceedingly enraged the King of France, his most faithful friend. He is therefore resolved that the city of Madras, which belongs to the English, shall be seized, and that the British flag which now flies there shall be torn down, and replaced by that of the French. He has accordingly despatched a few men-of-war to take Madras and to hoist the white flag over it. We are carrying out the royal mandate, and you should help us in whatever way you can.'1 [Ranga Pillai's Diary, vol. ii. p. 292.]
On September 19, a camel-express brought a letter from Nawab-ud-din Khan to the governor. The Nawab expressed his surprise that, in defiance of his remonstrances, the French should have despatched an expedition against the English, and trusted that they would in future refrain from affording ground for similar complaint. 'When this letter was read to the Governor, he, with a grimace, ordered me to send a reply couched in the following courteous terms: — "No harm will be done to the merchants of Madras, and any offender found guilty of wrong doing will be punished by the Commander-in-Chief of the French fleet." A letter to this effect was despatched by the camel courier.' Dupleix fully realised the necessity of conciliating the Nawab. He wrote to La Bourdonnais — 'I believe I have found the means of keeping him quiet by telling him we will give him up Madras, you understand, on the condition that we think suitable. This warning should induce you to press the attack briskly and not to listen to any propositions for ransoming the place after it is taken, as this would be deceiving the Nabob and causing him to unite with our enemies. After all, when you are master of this place, I do not see where the English can find the means to pay the ransom. I beg of you to reflect suitably on this subject.'
Dupleix was determined to build up solidly a French dominion in India, but in order to do that Madras, the rival of Pondicherry, must be destroyed. He would sack the town, dismantle the fortifications, and hand the place over to the Nawab. But La Bourdonnais clung obstinately to the first project of a ransom. On September 23, two days after the capitulation, he wrote to Dupleix a long letter in which he announced his intention of carrying off the goods taken, And making the English pay first a ransom for the town, and second for the pillage he had stopped. The first of these two contributions was to be for the Company, the second for the soldiers. He asked advice from the council as to whether he should seize the goods of the Armenians and Malabars. On the 24th he wrote again to Dupleix, asking him to send a scheme of how he thought Madras should be treated. All this time he was acting as if he were independent of any control. He was accompanied on the expedition by two commissioners. Messieurs d'Espremesnil and Bonneau, who were charged with the duty of taking over the captured property. The former was appointed by Dupleix, the latter by La Bourdonnais. D'Espremesnil was the head of the supreme council and second in authority only to Dupleix. On entering Madras La Bourdonnais received all the keys of the shops and the counting-houses, which he states he handed at once to the two commissioners. D'Espremesnil wrote the same day at 9 P.M. to Dupleix: 'I have already spoken to the Admiral and to M. Bonneau many times that they should let us attend to our duties. I had no answer, and if I had not spoken strongly as I did, we should not now have the keys of the Treasury, which had been given to M. Villebague, I hope with no evil design. I have declared to M. de la Bourdonnais that I will sleep at the door of the Treasury, if he does not order the key to be delivered to me, and that if he refuses I will institute a proces-verbal. At last the keys are come.' Espremesnil, hearing La Bourdonnais state that he would not give an account to anyone, told him that such a course of action would not redound to his credit. Seeing that La Bourdonnais intended to act as if he were sole master in Madras, Espremesnil asked Dupleix to come himself to Madras, the town being in his government.
Dupleix did not go to Madras. But in a letter, written on September 23, he informed La Bourdonnais that in whatever concerned Madras he must give an account to the supreme council. On the 24th Ranga Pillai enters in his diary — 'At 4 this afternoon M. Dulaurens embarked for Madras to manage the financial affairs of that place.' He also states that M. Barthelemy was nominated to assist him in council. A letter was sent to La Bourdonnais announcing the departure of the two councillors, and stating they were to form with four other persons1 [MM. d'Espremesnil, Bonneau, Desforges, and Paradis, all Pondicherry men.] an auxiliary council at Madras under the presidency of La Bourdonnais. On the 25th La Bourdonnais announced that he had appointed as commissioners his own brother. La Villebague, and a certain Desjardins to superintend the loading of the vessels. 'At the observation that this was an irregular proceeding he became very angry. However d'Espremesnil learnt that they were loading by night the Marie Gertrude, whose captain, La Gatinais, was in the pay of M. La Bourdonnais, and that long-boats loaded to the water's edge were carrying the spoil from the town.'
On the 25th Dupleix, replying to the letter in which La Bourdonnais had asked the advice of the council, boldly put to him the question whether he recognised the superior authority of the supreme council and of the governor-general of the Indian settlements, which were founded on the permanent orders of the king passed before the special letter that La Bourdonnais received conferring on him the naval command. Dupleix added that the promise of a ransom was a decoy, and that the governor's bills would never be paid. La Bourdonnais promptly replied that he had never been forewarned of the supremacy of the council, that he had come to Madras as a man in full authority, and as a man possessed of full authority he must keep to the terms of his engagement. From this position he would not depart: 'Whether I am right or wrong,' he said, 'I believe myself to be acting within my powers in granting a capitulation to the Governor of this place. I have pledged my honour to the English deputies that I will treat favourably the ransom of the fort and the city.' On the 30th Ranga Pillai informs us all the Europeans at Pondicherry went to the governor's house and made the following representation to him:
'We live under the flag of the French King, and are bound to uphold his honour. The English have done us many wrongs and have even insulted us. You have now by the capture of Madras lowered the English pride, and have established for ever the fame of the King of France, and this will reach the ears of the Emperor of Delhi. The fall of Madras is due to your superior skill, and forethought; and it was not possible for anyone else to have achieved the success which you have. Now we hear that M. de la Bourdonnais is treating with the English for the return of Fort St. George to them. If he has restored it, we dare not show our faces in this Muhammadan kingdom. All our glory will have departed. What does he mean by making restitution of Fort St. George, which was captured only after a severe struggle, and the taking of which has greatly added to our reputation? We have come to you to protest against his proceedings.'
Dupleix told them that he would forthwith send a letter to La Bourdonnais forbidding him to proceed further. Ranga Pillai adds that, 'having written a despatch to M. de la Bourdonnais on the lines suggested by the deputation (Dupleix) directed M. Paradis, M. de Bury, M. Desmareis the greffier (record-clerk) and M. Bruyeres to proceed by ship to Madras. They set sail at 4 in the evening.' On the 4th Ranga Pillai enters in his diary:
'This evening letters from MM. d'Espremenil, Dulaurens, and their party, arrived from Madras. These contained the following particulars. M. Paradis, M. de Bury, and those with them who quitted Pondichery on Friday, 18th Purattasi (30th September), arrived at Mylapore on Saturday, 19th idem (1st October). They had a talk with M. d'Espremenil, and his companions, who had betaken themselves there in displeasure at the conduct of M. de la Bourdonnais. On Sunday, 20th Purattasi (2nd October), they all proceeded to Madras, and asked M. de la Bourdonnais to explain why he had restored it to the English. He replied that he did so as he had been authorized in writing by the Council at Pondichery to exercise his discretion. M. d'Espremenil, Dulaurens, and other officials, explained that the order to which he referred gave him full discretionary powers in the conduct of the siege of Madras alone, and did not invest him with any authority to interfere thereafter, either in the administration of the fort, or in that of the town. M. de la Bourdonnais replied that he had restored the town to the English, because the capture of Madras was planned and effected by them all, without any authority from the King of France to wage war on land, and also because he had seized all the treasure that he found in the fort, and had settled with the English for the payment of eleven lakhs of pagodas, as a condition of restoring the fort to them. The Frenchmen, who came to remonstrate with him, now declared that the new order issued by the Council at Pondichery conferred the supreme authority on M. d'Espremenil, and cancelled the powers of M. de la Bourdonnais. They, thereupon, drew their swords, and called upon the ships' crews, the officers, the captains, and all others, to swear fealty to the King of France, and to take an oath of allegiance to M. d'Espremenil. The order of the Council at Pondichery was next read, and proclaimed. M. de la Bourdonnais was called upon to surrender his sword and to take the oath. They threatened that, if be did not, he would in accordance with the instructions which they said that they had received, be taken into custody. The captains and officers of the ships remained silent M. d'Espremenil took charge of the keys of the fort, and issued his orders. Mr. Morse, the Governor of Madras, and the other English- men, were next summoned and were informed that they were prisoners, and that the restoration of the fort to them was cancelled.'
On October 7, Ranga Pillai states:
'I asked M. de la Touche to tell me why a Council sat yesterday, from sunrise until 6 in the evening, and again until noon to-day, and why the Governor appeared depressed. He replied to me as follows: "M. de la Bourdonnais, in celebration of his Saint's day, ordered guns to be fired at Madras, at sunrise, on the 21st and 22nd Purattasi (3rd and 4th October). He then invited M. d'Espremenil, M. Dulaurens, M. de Bury, M. Paradis, M. Barthelemy, M. de la Tour, and other distinguished men, to dine with him in the fort at midday. When the guests were seated at table, M. de la Bourdonnais addressed them and said, 'I have received a report that English ships are approaching. You must permit me to embark all the soldiers from Pondichery on board my fleet.' 'No, no,' cried M. de Bury, M. Paradis, and their companions. M. de la Bourdonnais frowned on them, and ordered twenty-four of his men, who were under arms, to seize M. de Bury, M. Paradis, and M. de la Tour, and to keep them in custody. He deprived M. d'Espremenil of his authority, and assumed the sole power. He next ordered that the soldiers be embarked on board his ships, and directed that the merchandise in the fort and town should be conveyed on board."'
La Bourdonnais was most anxious to put an end to his quarrel with Dupleix and to set sail with his ships for France. He had in former years traded on the coast, and he knew well the danger of remaining in the Madras roadstead when the northern monsoon burst, which it does about October 15. He, however, did not wish to leave until his treaty had been ratified by the superior council at Pondicherry. He therefore opened negotiations with Dupleix and informed him of the conditions on which he would leave Madras. The principal ones were that Madras should be restored to the English, at the latest at the end of January, that it should not be attacked by either nation before that period, and that as long as it should remain in the hands of the French the roadstead should be accessible to the ships of both nations. On October 14 the superior council replied as follows:
'M. Dupleix has communicated to us your letter of the 12th with some articles which we have examined very attentively. Many reasons prevent us from being able to accede to them. The time to which you limit the evacuation of the place is not sufficient to enable us to make a division of the Artillery, rigging and the supplies and to take them away. All that we can promise you, is to work as promptly as possible. . . .
With respect to the hostages, letters of exchange and bills, we are very willing to engage to receive them on the understanding that this acceptance on our part does not pass for an acquiescence in the articles which relate to them. . . . The roadstead of Madras cannot be open to the English during the division of the prize property; the English squadron has only to come there with five or six ships from Europe as well as from India and disembark their crews gradually. It would thus be very easy, as you will see, for the English to take possession of Madras, at least to concentrate there a force of 2,000 Europeans. It is for this reason that we have inserted a paragraph that the roadstead of Madras must not be open to the English.'
Ranga Pillai informs us that on the night of the 13th 'the north wind blew, accompanied by lightning and a little rain.' The following morning, as the wind was blowing and the rain was falling, he did not go to the house of the governor, 'who was suffering from two boils on the neck.'
'At 8, as the stormy weather continued, the Governor did not put on his ordinary dress, but clothing himself in his night costume — loose trousers, a shirt, a waist-coat and a cap— he entered the travelling coach of Madame Dupleix, went to the beach, watched the ships tossing on the waves, and listened to the roaring of the sea; and having ascertained from the fishermen— who said that the northeast wind had subsided, and the south-west was blowing, there was no ground for fear — that the gale and rain would soon cease and no danger to the shipping need be apprehended, he, so it is reported, went home.'
On October 13 the weather at Madras, Orme tells us, was remarkably fine and moderate all day.
'About midnight a furious storm arose and continued with the greatest violence until the noon of the next day. Six of the French ships were in the roadstead when the storm began, and not one of them was to be seen at day-break. One put before the wind and was driven so much to the southward that she was not able to gain the coast again: the 70 gun ship lost all her masts: three others of the squadron were likewise dismantled and had so much water in the hold, that the people on board expected every minute to perish, notwithstanding they had thrown overboard all the cannon of the lower tier; the other ship during the few moments of whirlwind which happened in the most furious part of the storm, was covered by the waves and foundered in an instant, and only six of the crew escaped alive. Twenty other vessels belonging to different nations were either driven on shore, or perished at sea.'
La Bourdonnais' fleet was destroyed. He was no longer able to face the English or to continue on the coast of Coromandel. On October 21 a treaty, which he asserted had been assented to at Pondicherry, was signed by him and Governor Morse and five of the English council. All the merchandise, part of the military stores to the East India Company, all the naval stores belonging to the Company or private persons became the property of the French Company. La Bourdonnais gave it up to the English and the other inhabitants all the effects and merchandise belonging to them except the naval stores. It was agreed that the French should evacuate the town before the end of the ensuing January, after which the English were to remain in possession of it without being attacked by them again during the war. Upon these conditions the governor and council of Madras agreed to pay the sum of 100,000 pagodas, or 440,000 l. sterling. Of this sum 240,000 l. were to be paid at Pondicherry, by six equal payments before the month of October in the year 1749: and for the remaining 200,000 l. bills were drawn on the East India Company in London, payable a few months after they should be presented. The English gave hostages for the performance of this treaty.
On October 23, having made over the governorship of Madras to the senior member of council sent by Dupleix, La Bourdonnais sailed for the roads of Pondicherry. He anchored there the following day, but did not land. After an angry discussion with the Pondicherry council he acquiesced in their desire that the fleet, consisting of seven ships, should proceed to Acheen in Sumatra. For that port he accordingly set sail; the three ships which arrived last from Europe with another that had escaped from the storm made good their destination in spite of a contrary wind; but La Bourdonnais' seventy-gun ship and two others which had suffered in the storm were forced to give way and sail before the wind to the island of Mauritius, where they arrived; in the beginning of December. Here he was placed in charge of a squadron and directed to proceed to France, taking Martinique on the way. Owing to a storm which he encountered, he put in for shelter at St Paul de Loando, the Portuguese colony. As I have stated, he had been some time in the Portuguese service in India, and it was reported at Madras that he meant to send gold, silver, diamonds and merchandise to Goa. At St. Paul he chartered a small vessel, which carried his wife, his children (and, it was stated, the riches that he had gotten), to Brazil and thence to Lisbon. He reached Martinique with only four of his ships. He now found that his home- ward voyage was barred by English cruisers. He proceeded to St Eustache, one of the islands forming the colony of Curacoa, lying north from the coast of Venezuela, and took a passage to France in a Dutch ship. War, however, had now been declared between France and Holland, and the Dutch vessel was forced into an English harbour. La Bourdonnais was recognised and made a prisoner. Grose states: 'The ship was taken by an English privateer, and carried into Falmouth in December 1747. But the Commodore's lady, with most of the jewels, arrived in a Portuguese ship at Lisbon.'1 [A Voyage to the East Indies, began in 1750, with Observations continued [illegible] 1764, by John Henry Grose (second edition), vol. ii. p. xxi.] He adds, 'The Commodore was confined some days in Pendennis Castle, from whence he was conducted to London in the custody of two messengers. He was treated with the utmost politeness and afterwards sent to France.' As you all know on reaching France he was imprisoned in the Bastille and remained there for three years in the most rigorous confinement. He was charged, in addition to his political offences, with corruption, embezzlement and extortion, but was at length acquitted by a Committee of the Privy Council to whom his case was referred.
The chief accusation brought against La Bourdonnais is that he received a large sum of money from the English to conclude an unauthorised treaty for the ransom of Madras. Professor Cultru in his most interesting and useful work on Dupleix remarks — 'We have not the positive proof that La Bourdonnais did receive money from the English but there are signs that point to this.' He adds — 'Only a study of La Bourdonnais' case, and of the English documents, if there are any, can show if these suspicions of La Bourdonnais are founded on facts.' It is strange that a writer whose work is based on considerable research should not have learnt that in the archives of the India Office there are some important documents bearing on the case. He himself draws attention to the important fact that in 1750 a pamphlet in the form of a letter was published in England, which distinctly accused La Bourdonnais.1 [A Letter to A Proprietor of the East India Company, London: Printed for T. Osborne in Grays Inn, mdccl.] The pamphlet contained a letter from Governor Morse, written from Pondicherry, January 18, 1747, to The Secret Committee for Affairs of the United Company of Merchants of England, trading to the East Indies, in which he stated: 'I take this Occasion to advise you apart, that in that Transaction we were under a Necessity of applying a further Sum beside that stipulated by the Articles; which Affair, as it required Privacy, was by the Council referred to myself and Mr. Monson to negotiate: As therefore that Gentleman, who presents you this, is by that Means well qualified to give you the fullest view of that Matter, I believe we shall stand excused by you, that the Explanation of it with its Circumstances, its Consequences, and our Reasons, is thus referred to him, rather than committed to Paper.' No action was taken in the matter until December 15, 1748, when at a court of directors it was
'Resolved, that Mr. Monson be desired to give an Account in Writing to the Court of Directors, of the Matter referred to by Mr. Morse, in his letter to the Secret Committee, dated January 18, 1746-7, and also of the several Sums of Money taken up on Bond, or otherwise, after the Surrender of Madras to the French, and to explain the same, with the Circumstances relating thereto, together with the Reasons for the same, and that he be acquainted he may lay any Thing else before the Court he thinks proper, and desired to give in such Account by Wednesday next.'
Mr. Monson in his reply to this resolution (London, December 21, 1748) states that 'he did hope' that the secret committee 'would have given me an Opportunity to have explained it before themselves only; for as there is a Sort of Faith, which ought to be preserved, even with one's Enemies, I cannot help saying, it is a Thing which chagrins me exceedingly, to be called upon now to do it, in a Manner so much more public. However, as your Commands have fixed an indispensable Obligation on me to comply therewith, I am to acquaint you, that in treating for the Ransom of the Place, we were soon given to understand, that a further Sum was necessary to be paid, beside that to be mentioned in the Public Treaty. You will easily imagine from the Nature of the Thing, that it required to be conducted with some Degree of Secrecy; there was, however, a Necessity of acquainting the Council with it, though for Form Sake, and to preserve Appearances with the Person treated with, it was referred to Mr. Morse and myself to settle the Matter with him: I can nevertheless with great Truth assure you, that all the Gentlemen of the Council were constantly and faithfully acquainted with every Step that was taken in that Matter, except Mr. Edward Fowke, who, from the Beginning of the Treaty about the Ransom, declared, that he would not join with us in any of those Measures, which by all the rest were thought absolutely necessary at that Juncture.'
Mr. Monson adds: 'Having said thus much, it remains for me to acquaint you, that we had no Possibility of raising the Money, but by giving the Company's Bonds for it; and this Negotiation was not kept secret from those who supplied the Money on this Occasion, as they were to a Man informed of the Use it was borrowed for before they lent it; and thought by lending it, they did a meritorious Piece of Service to the Company: Bonds were accordingly given for so much as we could borrow, under the Company's Seal, and signed by Mr. Morse, and all the Council except Mr. Edward Fowke; a List whereof, I mean such only as were not mentioned in our general Advices,1 [Only a bill of exchange for 3,000 pagodas.] I add here.2
['To Mr. Morse / a Bond for Pagodas / 10,000
Mr. Salomons / a Bond for Pagodas / 40,000
Mess. Jones and Moses / a Bond for Pagodas /15,000
Mr. Heyman / a Bond for Pagodas / 10,000
Mess. Edw. and Jos. Fowke / a Bond for Pagodas / 5,400
Mr. Peter Baillieu / a Bond for Pagodas / 5,000
The Church Stock / a Bond for Pagodas / 2,000
The Mayor's Court (Mr. Monson made a mistake; the Mayor's Court lent 4,368 pagodas, and he omitted the bonds for smaller sums.) / a Bond for Pagodas /2000]
'Having gone thus far, and acquainted you with the Engagements we were under, I submit it to your further Consideration, whether you will insist upon my mentioning in this publick Manner the Sum agreed for; what Part was paid in Consequence thereof; and to whom: For the rest of what was borrowed in this Manner, over and above what was actually paid to the Person treated with, it was disbursed in defraying the Charges of the Garrison, till the French broke the Capitulation, and turned us out of the Town.'
'The Minister of Foreign Affairs in France ordered, in his letter of June 20, 1750, that Messrs. Monson and Straton, Councillors of Madras, should come to Paris, to give their evidence in the affair of La Bourdonnais. All their expenses were to be paid.' This shows that the Foreign Minister attached importance to the publication.
The documents in the archives of the Indian Office are the three folios relating to the Law Case No. 31, March 3, 1752. The case arose from the objection of the Court of Directors of the East India Company to meet the bonds on which the sum required for the ransom of Madras was raised on the ground that in part at least the bonds had been given not to save the Company's property, but the private property of the governor and his council. Attention was first drawn to these papers by Colonel Malleson in his History of the French in India.
Sir George Birdwood, in his most interesting and useful report on 'The Old Records of the India Office,' gives some copious extracts from these papers. In them we find the letter of Governor Morse, dated January 18, 1748; the letter of Mr. Monson, dated December 21, 1748. In the letter of Monson, as given in folio 3, we are told that * bonds were given for so much as we could borrow under the Company's seal, and signed by Mr. Morse and all the rest of the Council except Mr. Fowke. Part of the money thus borrowed was actually paid to the person treated with, and the rest was disbursed in defraying charges of the garrison until the French broke the capitulations and turned us out of the town.' In folio 4 there is another letter from Monson, dated May 3, 1749, who, after excusing himself from declaring to whom . . . this money . . . was given, says: — 'I hope I shall stand excused if I declare no further than that part of the money was appropriated to pay six months' salary and two months* diet to your covenant servants, with a month's arrear to the garrison, besides sundry disbursements to the officers and sailors of the Princess Mary, to your officers and military that were going to Cuddalore, and some little advances we judged necessary towards our future reestablishment, the rest of the money, with the diamonds, was actually and bona fide applied to the purpose already mentioned' (the payment of 'that person'), 'which, in the opinion of those who were concerned in this business, would have redounded very much to the honour, the credit, and the real advantage of the Company.'
In folio 5, 'Mr. Edward Fowke . . . speaking [letter of December 25, 1746] of the ransom . . . says: " In regard to ransoming of the town, afterwards when Monsieur La Bourdonnais told us we might march out with our swords and hats, I thought it' [going out with swords and hats] 'much more to your interest than to accept the terms that were agreed upon. ... I could have consented so far as five or six lacs. . . . Madras is but a tributary town . . . therefore for your Honours to be loaded with such a monstrous sum, and the Native Government not to feel any part of so severe a blow, would, I am afraid, in future have a very bad effect, especially with a little money laid out among the great men, which the French pretty well know how to place.'
Again, March 3, 1748: 'I can assure you, gentlemen, notwithstanding I may have appeared so lukewarm in defence of your town . . . I would rather have sacrificed my life than to have acceded to those terms of agreement, I thought them as directly opposite to your interest, honour, and credit, as others thought them for it.' In the same letter he says one of the bonds was brought to him to sign, and he wrote on it: 'I acknowledge Mr. George Jones to have brought me the above-mentioned bond to sign, but as I do not approve the ransom, nor do I know whether I am now legally authorised ' (being a prisoner of La Bourdonnais) 'to take up money on the Company's account, I refuse to sign it.'
It is important, however, to remember that Mr. Fowke said, in his answer to the interrogatories, that though he was a stranger to the payment he did not doubt the money being paid.
We have also the evidence of the bond creditors, who in answer to the interrogatories stated: 'That they heard and believe that the then President and Council of Fort St George did after the 10th September, 1746, agree to give and pay to Monsieur de la Bourdonnais 88,000 pagodas, but that they did not know or believe that the said 88,000 pagodas, or any part thereof, were so agreed to be paid in order to free or exempt the goods and effects of the merchants and inhabitants . . . and particularly the goods and effects of the said Govemour in Council, or the said Solomon Solomons' [one of the bondholders] 'in their private capacity, from being seized, taken, or plundered, but that the same was agreed to be given or paid to the said Monsieur de la Bourdonnais, as a douceur or present on behalf of the said East India Company, with a view to reduce the amount or value of the ransom insisted on by the said Monsieur de la Bourdonnais.'
And the same further say (folio II): 'They do believe in their consciences that . . . the same and said present of 88,000 pagodas, as agreed to be given to the said Monsieur de la Bourdonnais, was entered into for the benefit and interest of the East India Company.'
Folio 12, 'Francis Salvadore, executor to Jacob Salvadore, says: " He don't know, but hath heard and believes that the said President and Council did, after the said 10th day of September 1746, agree to give or pay to or to the use of the said Monsieur de la Bourdonnais the sum or value of 88,000 pagodas, as a present, but whether ... in order to exempt or free the goods and effects of the merchants or inhabitants . . . and particularly of the proper goods and effects of the said Govemour and Council, in their private capacity, or the said Edward and Joseph Fowke, or the said Jacob Salvadore, . . . he don't know nor has been informed."'
In 1749 Monson was unwilling to declare the name of 'that person,' but in 1753 he declared, in answer to certain interrogatories, that 'he the said Mr. Monson heard from Monsieur de La Bourdonnais that they must pay him down 100,000 pagodas if they expected performance of the agreement, he communicated such his information to the Council, who after deliberation agreed to pay it, but says this money was not demanded for granting the fifteenth and sixteenth Articles.' He also states, 'No receipt was taken or required for the money privately paid, nor could any be insisted on in such a transaction, nor was any agreement made for returning the 88,000 pagodas in case the treaty was rejected by the Governour and Council of Pondicherry; and can't say whether the Governour and Council of Pondicherry were ever informed of this private transaction.'
Dupleix, who had little doubt of the guilt of La Bourdonnais, had his grave suspicions confirmed by an important witness. When I was in Pondicherry a learned French lawyer, who took most patriotic interest in the history of his countrymen in India, told me that there was in the archives some important evidence as to La Bourdonnais having taken a bribe. He also with the characteristic generosity of his race gave me the following authenticated copy of the document. The translation was made by Mr. Markheim, Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford, whose death deprived that University of one of her brilliant sons.
'21 August 1747. This day, twenty-first of August 1747, at four o'clock in the afternoon, I was summoned by Mr. Dupleix to act as interpreter between him and Mr. Savage, formerly Councillor at Madras and now ready to leave on parole for Ceylon. Mr. Savage asked me to make his best thanks to the Governour for all the civilities which he had received from him, and on his own part to assure him of his everlasting gratitude. The Governour after making response to this compliment, requested him as a proof of friendship to tell him how much Mr. Morse and the Madras Council had given privately to Mr. de La Bourdonnais, and to declare to him there and then, in a friendly way, and in secrecy, how the business had been done. Mr. Savage, very much surprised by this unexpected request, appeared to hesitate in his answer. I consented, he said, to all that was done, and I signed. What will Mr. Dupleix think of me, if I myself reveal operations at which I should be the first to blush. Never mind, replied Mr. Dupleix, anybody would have done the same in your place; you did your best to extricate yourself, and to get out of the hands of the victor whose overtures you were obliged to accept, however inconsistent they might appear to you with straightforwardness and with your honourable sentiments which are known to me.
'This answer cleverly given reassured Mr. Savage. After several long-winded compliments, he required of Mr. Dupleix his word of honour that he would not mention the matter and made the same request of me. Mr. Dupleix insinuated that he did not ask him the question with intent to use his name, but simply and solely, in order to get a clue; that he knew already a great deal but in a confused way, and without being positively sure.
'Your Madras Council must have already written to you fully about it, said Mr. Savage, for our English gentlemen of the hill have revealed to them the whole mystery. Mr. Dupleix answered that nothing had been told them. Pardon me, replied Mr. Savage, I was present when some of our gentlemen took Mr. Morse to task for this matter. They blamed him for the way in which he had practised upon them, but [added] that he would not take advantage of it, since they had revenged themselves by the expose they had made of all his secret manoeuvres to the gentlemen of the Pondicherry Council then at Madras. I am surprised, he continued that so public a matter and which has been in the mouths of so many malcontents, is not known to you in all its circumstances; you know the public treaty of the eleven lacs; the secret article was that we were to give privately to Mr. La Bourdonnais one lac down, to save the town from pillage and secure private property from aggression.
'Did he receive the whole lac, asked Mr. Dupleix.
'No, but to my knowledge he received in gold and silver as well as in diamonds eighty five to ninety thousand pagodas, and if he had but waited a day longer, the whole sum would have been paid.
'From whom was the sum levied? From the English residents? Were the Malabars made to contribute? I have not been able to clear up this point, but they complain loudly. And as to the Armenians what was extracted from them before they were let loose from prison?
'I do not believe that till then anything had been got out of them, but if the town had remained in our possession, they would have been compelled to do as the others did.
'Who were those malcontents who cried out so much against Mr. Morse and his Council?
'They were Messrs. Fawkes Junior and many others, because after contributing to the payment of this lac with their most clear and portable property, they saw by the way matters were going that their goods were going to be confiscated, nothing less than that. Don't ask me more about it, he continued, you will see all these underhand dealings in the English public papers next year; there have been so many complaints that they cannot fail to be noised about in Europe. I wish that all that has passed at Madras could be forgotten, I can only think of it with abhorrence.
'I asked him how many boxes of piastres there were in the Treasury the day when the town was taken.
'I cannot recollect the exact number, he said. But, Sir, I answered him by the minute of the deliberations, which is in your handwriting, there were in the last days of August eighteen boxes. This record goes as far as the sixth or seventh of September. Your . . . and no mention is made in it that piastres had been taken out of the Treasury. I have noticed in all this record that as soon as they were drawn, and even before, you did not fail to make an entry of it.
'Yes, he said, there must have been eighteen boxes, and no doubt they were there.
'He was much surprised when I told him that there were only six.
'This is the gist of what passed in that conversation. On leaving Mr. Dupleix asked me to put it down in writing, so that he might be the better able to remember it. Which I did as accurately as possible before seven o'clock in the evening, this twenty first of August 1747.
(Signed) Friell.
'I the undersigned certify on my soul and conscience that the contents of this document are true and were told me by Mr. Savage in English which I interpreted in French to the said Mr. Dupleix at Pondichery, at half past seven in the evening, this twenty first of this August 1747.
(Signed) Friell.
'I the undersigned Councillor in the Higher Council and commandant of Karikal, certify that the present document was presented to me by Mr. Dupleix commandant general of India at the very moment when it was completed by Mr. Friell, and that I read it after having previously given my word of honour to the said Mr. Dupleix to keep a profound silence on its contents, in consequence of the same pledge which had been required of those two gentlemen by Mr. Savage at Pondichery at half past seven in the evening, this twenty first of August 1747.
(Signed) Paradis.
Pondichery, 10 April, 1876.
(Copy) The Conservator of the Library and of the Old Records.
(Signed) de Gacon.
Stamp of the Old Records of Pondichery.'
In conclusion I would venture to suggest that little doubt can exist from the evidence I have placed before you that La Bourdonnais received a large sum of money to ransom the town of Madras. But in condemning him for the act it is necessary to consider that La Bourdonnais was a corsair of the same stuff as Drake and Hawkins. He regarded the capture of Madras as a prize in a privateering cruise, and he considered he was entitled to a share of it, as Drake did when he captured the Spanish cities and held them to ransom. It must also be remembered that La Bourdonnais was instructed not to form any new settlements, and the only alternatives in his power with regard to Madras were to restore or destroy it. The capture of Madras was but a part of his general plan to destroy the prestige and power of all the English settlements. By the capture of Madras he had dealt a severe blow to the reputation of the English, but the hurricane which destroyed his ships altered his prospects. He was no longer able to continue on the coast of Coromandel, and he had to settle with all expedition the affairs of Madras. He was obliged to leave the Indian Ocean for want of ships, but he left at Pondicherry 900 Europeans and 300 'Caffres': '1,200 disciplined men,' says Orme, who were of the utmost service to Dupleix in his future operations. Resolution, daring, and professional skill historians allow to La Bourdonnais, and he must have a place among the fighting heroes of France.1 [Orme writes: 'His knowledge in mechanics rendered him capable of building a ship from the keel: his skill in navigation of conducting him to any part of the globe: and his courage, of defending him against an equal force. In the conduct of an expedition he superintended all the details of the service, without being perplexed either with the variety or number of them. His plans were simple, his orders precise, and both the best adapted to the service in which he was engaged. His application was incessant; and difficulties served only to heighten his activities, which always gave the example of zeal to those he commanded.' — Orme, vol. i. p. 73.]