by admin » Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:49 am
[Volume 1]
Chap. XII.
From February 7th, 1746, to March 16th, 1746
Portuguese ship St. Louis arrives — Pursued by English vessels — Cause of this — English anchor off fort — One of their ships departs for Fort St. David — Precautions against attack — Cargo of St. Louis — Governor directs letter to be sent to chief dubash, Fort St. David — Mahfuz Khan desires to visit Governor — Deputation goes out to receive him — Outrages by force at Tavalakuppam — Governor of Fort St. David arranges for reprisals — English ships arrive off Pondichery — Make attempt in boats to attack batteries — Retire to ships— Force at Tavalakuppam moves to Ariyankuppam — English squadron threatens night attack — Precautions taken — Return of deputation sent to Mahfuz Khan — Another pays ceremonial visit — Returns and reports to Governor — Appearance and manners of Mahfuz Khan — Reception by him of deputation — Return of troops from Ariyankuppam — Departure of the English ships — Mahfuz Khan requests same honours as Nawab — Governor consents — State entry with Governor — Value of presents made to him — Death of chief dubash Kanakaraya Mudali — Wife personally reports his illness to Madame Dupleix — Who visits the sick man — Wife claims the whole estate — Enlists, by insinuating language, support of Madame Dupleix— Who speaks to her husband on the subject — House, etc., of deceased placed under seal — The funeral — Marks of respect shown by Governor and others — Period of service of Kanakaraya Mudali — Male relatives of deceased visit Governor to express their grief — Propriety of Governor making presents suggested to diarist — He submits this — Governor gives orders to procure broad-cloth — Presents it to party and dismisses it — Diarist accompanies Chinna Mudali home— Summoned by Governor regarding disputed succession to estate of deceased — Reference to heads of castes ordered — These assemble — Arbitrators selected — The instructions given to them — Hear either side — Arguments adduced— Reply of Chinna Mudali — Arbitrators find that he is lawful heir — Record formal opinion as to treatment of widow, etc. — Make personal report to Governor — He questions them as to certain points — Directs formal award in accordance with their opinion — Approved and signed by Governor — Memorial service for Kanakaraya Mudali— Meeting of Council — Small force marches southward— Object of this — Governor sends for diarist —Referring to his indebtedness to Company, asks what he does with his money -- He defends himself — Governor suggests payment of certain money -- Diarist denies receipt of this — Questioned as to permitting a certain family to quit Pondichery — Again defends himself — Governor desires him to recall the party— Diarist urges that inquiry should be made into report against him — Governor turns the conversation— Diarist presses for inquiry — Governor still avoiding the subject, gives orders regarding other matters — Rascality of one Venkatakrishnan — His story to Appu regarding large loan to Minakshi Ammal— Connection of Madame Dupleix with attempt to recover this sum — Questions asked by Governor assigned to this — Moralisations on what has occurred.
[Monday], 7th February 1746, or 29th Tai of Krodhana. — The events of this day have been the following: —
At noon, the Portuguese ship St. Louis, captain, M. Antonio-de-Caetan, arrived here from Madras, cast anchor, and fired three guns to salute the vessels in the roads: these were returned by a like number. Seven guns were then fired by the St Louis, in compliment to the fort, which replied with a similar salute. Four English sail came in pursuit of this ship. Having caught sight of her, they hove to at a distance. The captain inquired why they were following him. It appears that when the St. Louis was on her way from Chandernagore, the English sailors at Madras seized and detained her in the roads there. When inquiry was made as to her nationality, the reply was she was Portuguese ... * [Perished in the original] Those in charge of her were asked to sell all the merchandise that was on board, and to buy goods there in exchange. They agreed to this, pretended to bargain, deceived the English, set sail, and escaped during the night. The St. Louis was therefore pursued on the following morning. Such was the explanation given. The three ships and the sloop which chased her arrived in the roads between 3 and half-past 4 in the afternoon, and cast anchor on the north-eastern side of the fort. Two others came from Fort St. David, and anchored to the south-east. Of the four vessels which came from the north, one fired a gun, and then started southwards for Fort St. David, bearing news to that place. When she arrived abreast of the anchorage, the Governor went to the fort, summoned all the soldiers who were there, distributed them in the batteries on the beach, directed them to load all the guns and mortars that were in these, and to keep ready powder, shot, shells, and grenades; in short, he made all the necessary preparations, and then, at half-past 5, proceeded home. The inhabitants of the town who went to watch this strange sight numbered 10,000. The Governor noticing all these people, said to them: “You have been looking at this long enough; you now had better go home.” I also went, and saw what was going on. The goods which were brought in the Portuguese ship St. Louis were wheat, rice, and candles; it is said that there were also some sundry goods from Chandernagore. This cargo was being unloaded by boats until 2 in the morning.
Tuesday, 8th February 1746, or 30th Tai of Krodhana. —... * [Perished in the original.] under that assumed name. They also said that the youngest son of one Fidelgue, formerly a resident of this town, had been appointed captain, and sent off.
The English ships which arrived yesterday are yet in the roads. They have not moved.
To-day, the Governor sent for me, and desired me to write a letter to Rangappa Nayakkan, the dubash of the Governor of Fort St. David. I accordingly did so, and kept a copy. "When a reply is received, I shall refer to it.
This day, Mahfuz Khan, the son of Nawab Anwar-ud-din Khan of Arcot subah, went to Arcot, met his father, who was unwell, and departed, intending to return to Trichinopoly. He was anxious to pay a visit, on his way, to the Governor of Pondichery, to whom he wrote to this effect. The report is that the Governor ordered a letter to be sent inviting Mahfuz Khan to visit him. He directed Chinna Mudali, the younger brother of Kanakaraya Mudali, and Madananda Pandit, to go out, and receive him. Accordingly, at 4 in the afternoon, Chinna Mudali, Madananda Pandit, and twenty peons, left for this purpose.
This afternoon, inquiry has elicited the following information regarding the doings of the force which went to Tavalakuppam choultry, and its leaders. Having encamped at that place, their practice was to set out as though on a march, advance as far as the boundary of Marikrishnapuram, and waylay and ill-treat any persons whom they met. They even attacked the [English] Company’s post runners at Nallam Bspu Reddi’s choultry, and told them to inform their masters of what they had done. The Governor of Fort St. David, who came to hear of this, communicated the news to the commander of the men-of-war, supplied him with some Europeans and Carnatic sepoys, as well as three large boats, and instructed him to retaliate. He accordingly came with four ships. Anchoring in proximity to the coast, he despatched two or three native craft, each carrying a party of 100 men composed of Europeans and natives. These first approached the St. Louis battery, to the north of the fort, and there twenty of the men disembarked, but when they saw a gun in the battery trained upon them, they retired to their boats, and moved to the south of the fort, opposite to the St. Lawrence battery, where they again landed. On seeing however a gun there, too, aimed at them, they again took to their boats, and returned to the ships. What may take place to-night is not known. The object of the English in acting as they have done is to imitate the course followed by the French near Fort St. David, who made but a show of warlike operations, and in this respect they have outdone them.
The troops which went to Tavalakuppam choultry some time ago, and the officers and factors, moved to Ariyankuppam. The latter alone came to Pondichery this evening. It is not known whether the force at Ariyankuppam will remain there, or depart thence.
Wednesday, 9th February 1746, or 1st Masi of Krodhana. — The news of this Wednesday is as follows: Last night, at about three Indian hours after sunset, the English squadron, completely lit up, stood inshore for a while, and then moved back to its former position. The Governor, who was apprised of this, set out at once for the beach, having previously ordered the lights to be extinguished. He cautioned the soldiers and gunners there to be on the alert, and then returned home. He afterwards supped, and went to bed. This became known in the morning.
At noon this day, Tanappa Mudali and Madananda Pandit, who had been to see Mahfuz Khan, the son of the Nawab, returned, and reported to the Governor that they had visited him near Vazhudavur, and that he had halted at Kadirampillaiyar Koyil — called also Vira Reddi’s choultry — situated on the other side of Saram. At 4, the Governor deputed M. Miran and M. Barthelemy, together with Chinna Mudali and Madananda Pandit, and musicians, on another visit of honour to Mahfuz Khan. These paid their respects to him at his camp, and returning, reported to the Governor that they had done so. He informed them that he would invite Mahfuz Khan to visit him on the following day, and told them to go home; they then retired.
Being questioned regarding their interview, Chinna Mudali and Madananda Pandit said as follows: “When we visited him, he did not know how to treat us; he is incapable of making himself respected; his skin is exactly the colour of a Lubbay’s, black and ugly; manners are unknown to him; even our peons are orderly, decent, and wear clean cloths and turbans; he is worse than they; you can judge of him to-morrow when he comes here.” When they paid their respects to Mahfuz Khan, what happened was this: M. Miran and M. Barthelemy offered him their compliments. He bade them give his to the Governor, and said: “I have not brought any cloths. I came away in a hurry. I therefore have none ready to offer you. To-morrow, I will send presents to you, and to the Governor.” With these words, and in a beggarly fashion, he let them go. His desire was that the Governor should receive him at the town-gate — as he did the Nawab — and that all the marks of honour bestowed on him should be the same as were offered to that potentate. He requested Chinna Mudali and Madananda Pandit to convey this wish to the Governor, and they did so. We will see what is going to happen.
This evening at two Indian hours after sunset, the force which was at Ariyankuppam, and its leaders, came to Pondichery; without the knowledge of any one. What will occur hereafter is unknown.
All the English ships which were off the coast set sail at one Indian hour after sunset, and stood to the southward. Whether they will return to-night, or quit this neighbourhood, is uncertain. This will be seen to-morrow.
Thursday, 10th February 1746, or 2nd Masi of Krodhana. — When the Nawab came here some time ago with Mir A’zam, who had married the niece of Mir Ghulam Husain, he pitched his camp outside the town-gate, and tokens of respect were offered to him. Mahfuz Khan sent word to the effect that the same honours should be bestowed on him also. This was reported to the Governor, who consented to show him the attentions requested. Accordingly, a camp was erected near the Vazhudavur | gate, at the spot where tents are usually pitched for the reception of the Nawab. The Governor repaired to this, along with the members of Council, accompanied by kettle-drums and other emblems of state. He thence deputed Chinna Mudali, Madananda Pandit, and M. Miran, to meet Mahfuz Khan. It was 2 in the afternoon when they escorted him to the Governor, who went as far as the doorway, and there received him. After sitting for half an Indian hour in the tent, the Governor, Mahfuz Khan and Saiyid Jalil, entered a coach drawn by six horses: M. Miran accompanied them to act as interpreter, and the vehicle moved on. Some other influential men followed in carriages. All the guns in the two batteries were then discharged. Prior to this, and as the Nawab entered the fort gate, salutes were likewise fired. All the marks of respect which were accorded to Nawab Anwar-ud-din Khan, on his arrival here, were adhered to on this occasion. Presents were made to the extent of 800 pagodas. I will hereafter record the details of these. Some were given privately; some publicly. I will mention the particulars bye and bye.
Saturday, 12th February 1746, or 4th Masi of Krodhana. — This morning at daybreak, at 5 precisely, Kanakaraya Mudali, the chief dubash of Pondichery, departed this life.
On the afternoon of yesterday, the Mudali was very ill, and almost unconscious. His wife sent word of this to the wife of the Governor, and she went also in person, and reported the matter to her. She further went to the Mudali, and said to him: “You are so ill and broken, why do you remain away from your house? Please come home.” As he was displeased with her, he replied: "I will come; you had better go"; and he sent her away. The Governor’s wife came, and spoke soothing words to him, took him into her carriage, brought him to his residence, and put him in his bed chamber. Then Nakahatram, the wife of Kanakaraya Mudali, told the Governor’s wife of the misunderstanding existing between herself and her husband, and alluding to the steps which he had been taking for the bequest of his property to his brother and his sister’s children, — a fact which, she said was within the knowledge of Madame Dupleix -- she observed that his brother could have no concern in the estate; that after their father’s death, a division had been made between them, and that therefore Chinna Mudali had no claim whatever; that if he had had issue, the case would have been different; but that as he had none, he had no right of any sort to the property, and that she was the sole heiress to the whole of it. She then told the Governor’s wife, in insinuating language, that if she put her in possession of all the property, she would act in accordance with her wishes. She further said to Madame Dupleix: "After my husband shall have breathed his last, if you only seal his house and effects, we will see later on what can be done.” The Governor’s wife returned home, and having in view the prospect of gain held out, she minutely detailed to her husband all that had happened, and took the requisite steps to ensure the safety of the estate. This is what took place to-day.
Sunday, 13th February 1746, or 5th Masi of Krodhana. — The events which occurred at Pondichery this day have been as follows: After Kanakaraya Mudali expired yesterday, Saturday, at two Indian hours before daybreak, the King’s Attorney, Councillor M.... ,* [Blank in the original.] and the greffier M. Desmarets, came by order of the Governor, sealed the house and other property of the deceased, set a guard over them of eight peons and an accountant of the court, named Ranga Pillai, and went away.
The Mudali’s body, handsomely dressed, girt with the laced sash which M. Dumas had sent from Europe, and adorned in many other ways — exactly as a king when coming out of his palace — was then put in a coffin; and the corpse was brought out at 7 in the evening. A stately horse, followed by forty soldiers, bearing arms, was led in front of the procession; the drums beat a funeral march; forty European boys studying in the mission college marched along in two lines, on either side of the cortege; and the priests of the church of the Capuchins and that of St. Paul went along reciting prayers, according to the rites prescribed by their religion. Then the Councillors and the ladies of their families, numbers of the European gentry of both sexes, natives, Muhammadans, and other people, including women, came out to look at the procession. There was no one in the crowd who did not feel sorry for this death. As the corpse was in this wise being borne along from the house to the burial ground, amidst general mourning, the Governor, his lady, and some of the Councillors, came, and waited near the Kalatti Iswaran temple. When the coffin approached, the Governor and those with him stood up, holding candles in their hands, according to the rites of the Christian religion; and after it had passed them, they gave these away, entered their palanquins, and went home. When the corpse reached the cemetery, the coffin was lowered into the vault wherein the body of the Mudali’s son was buried; the soldiers then discharged a volley, and eleven guns were fired from the fort. After the deceased had been thus interred, the people departed. The regret and sorrow felt and expressed by the younger brother of the dead man cannot be described. When the mourners returned, those who had come to condole took leave, and went home.
The Mudali entered on his duties on Friday [15th September 1724], the 3rd Purattasi of Krodhi, being the twelfth lunar day, or Dwadesi, when the constellation was Magha. It was when in the employment of the Company that he died. He served twenty-one years, five months, and a few days. Scarcely has it been the lot of any one else to live without interruption in the same style, for so long a period.
Tuesday, 15th February 1746, or 7th Masi of Krodhana. — This morning at 8, Chinna Mudali, Jaganivasa Mudali, the latter’s younger brother Malaiyappa Mudali, and Asarappa Mudali, repaired to the residence of the Governor, and expressed to him their grief at the demise of Kanakaraya Mudali. He, and the Deputy Governor who was then there, told them that it was the lot of all mortals, and remained silent. Vasudeva Pandit then suggested to me that it would be improper if presents were not made to them by the Governor, and said that the slight would be imputed to me. Thereupon, taking Seshachala Chetti with me, I stood before the Governor. On his inquiring what we wanted, I told him that Seshachala Chetti desired to submit that Chinna Mudali and Malaiyappa Mudali should respectively be given four, and two yards, of broad-cloth. He accordingly ordered that six yards of this should be procured from the storehouse in the fort, as also betel, nut, and rose-water. These were accordingly brought, and this was reported to the Governor. He thereupon summoned Chinna Mudali and Malaiyappa Mudali, presented them with the articles mentioned, and bade them pray to God with all their heart. They then took leave of him, and returned to their residences. On the way, they called at the house of the Deputy Governor, who promised to do what he could for them. They thanked him, and went home. The Company’s merchants, I, and a few others, accompanied Chinna Mudali, and sat in the verandah of his house, where he presented us with betel and nut. We then took leave of him, and came away.
Tuesday, 1st March 1746, or 21st Masi of Krodhana. — At 10 this morning, the Governor summoned Karuttambi Nayinar and me, in connection with a difference between Chinna Mudali and Malaiyappa Mudali regarding the estate of the deceased Kanakaraya Mudali. He said that the dispute called for settlement by a reference to the leading members of the different castes, ordered Karuttambi Nayinar to convene a meeting of these next morning, and told him that he would afterwards give further instructions. The Nayinar accordingly sent the necessary intimation, through some of the peons of the Company, to the men concerned.
Wednesday, 2nd March 1746, or 22nd Masi of Krodhana. — The leading castemen assembled this morning, and were in attendance. This being reported to the Governor, he stepped into the great hall of his residence, and summoned them thither. They accordingly went in, and greeted him. He looked them over, and selected the following twenty as arbitrators, to adjudicate on the matter in dispute: —
Ananda Ranga Pillai.
Lakshmana Nayakkan.
Sankara Aiyan.
Adi Varaha Chetti.
Chidambara Chetti.
Arunachala Chetti.
Kalatti Chetti.
Ezhuttukkara Bhiman.
Kondi Chetti.
Nallatambi Mudali.
Tillai Mudali.
Pavazhakkara Uttira Peddu Chetti.
Peddachi Chetti.
Sungu Mutturama Chetti.
Sungu Seshachala Chetti.
Salatu Venkatachala Chetti.
Vira Chetti.
Ariyappa Mudali.
Chinnadu Mudali.
Karuttambi Nayinar.
These twenty persons were directed to hold an inquiry as to whether the brother of Kanakaraya Mudali, or the widow of the latter, was the rightful owner; and on whom the inheritance devolved. They were required to hear the pleadings of either side, and to conscientiously state their individual opinions. The garden-house which is at present the property of the Company, but which formerly belonged to M. Dumas, was assigned to them in order to hold sittings there for the prosecution of their investigations. The twenty arbitrators specified above made their obeisances to the Governor, took leave of him, and departed ... * [Perished in the original.]
Thursday, 3rd March 1746, or 23rd Masi of Krodhana. — The arbitrators assembled this morning in the Company’s garden-house, summoned Chinna Mudali, the brother of the deceased Kanakaraya Mudali, on the one side, and Jaganivasa Mudali and Malaiyappa Mudali, the brothers of Nakshatram Ammal, the widow of the deceased, on the other; and they were asked to state their cases. The former asserted that he was the legal heir to all the effects of the deceased, and that none other had any claim to these. The adverse party urged that the ancestral property of the family had been divided amongst the brothers, sisters, and their mother, and consequently that the partition which had been made precluded Chinna Mudali from preferring any claim to the estate of his brother. They moreover pointed out that in the year Siddharti [1739], when he was dangerously ill, he willed away all his property to his wife. They argued that he would not have done this, but for the existence of a previous partition between the brothers, and that his brother would not have agreed to such a disposition of property had matters been otherwise. They stated that in the absence of a joint interest in his estate, Kanakaraya Mudali allowed his brother to bequeath it as he chose, and raised no objection. The rejoinder of Chinna Mudali to this was as follows: “Of what weight, as proof, are these hearsay words? I, also, can say ten thousand things such as this. Is there written evidence, or partition deed, or are there eye-witnesses, to establish the division between my brother and me. Let them produce any such proof, and I will abandon my claim.” The arbitrators then asked him how he could account for the will alleged to have been executed by him during his illness. His answer was: "At the time that I was seriously indisposed, I sent for Sankara Aiyan, Adi Varaha Chetti, Chidambara Chetti, Vira Chetti, merchants of the Company, and two or three others, and requested them to represent to my brother that all my earnings would, as I had always been under his protection, amount to no more than 1,000 or 1,500 pagodas; that this amount would be less than his expenditure for a month; and that I admitted that I had no undivided right to my property, but if he permitted me to dispose of it as I wished, would bequeath it between my sister’s children, and my wife. I pointed out also that in comparison with his estate and gains mine were infinitely small. My brother thereupon gave me the required permission. Upon this I drew up a testamentary document to the foregoing effect, and forwarded it to him for attestation. I do not know by whose influence he was subsequently swayed, but he refused to set his signature to it. I then sent... * [Perished in the original.] Mudali once more, to make a suitable representation to him. My brother became incensed, asked what authority I had to will away my property, and declined to affix his signature to the instrument. His wife came, and exclaimed: 'What right has his wife to the estate? She is only entitled to food and clothing, and to nothing else. A will executed by him is of no validity.’ So saying, she began to take possession of my house. But the will of God was otherwise. In about four Indian hours, I urinated freely, and gradually recovered my health. What does this incident betoken? Is it not irrebuttable evidence in support of my statement that no partition has taken place? I am therefore the legitimate heir to the estate of the deceased. I challenge the production of an iota of evidence in disproof of this.” Chinna Mudali made a statement to the foregoing effect, and said many irrelevant things which I refrain from recording here. The arbitrators then asked Jaganivasa Mudali and Malaiyappa Mudali if they could produce any written document, deed of partition, or eye-witness, to corroborate their statements. They replied that they were unable to do so, but said that they would swear to the fact of the division. The arbitrators, however, told them that so long as they could not substantiate their allegations by material evidence, their cause must fail; but gave them a day’s time to consider further, and ascertain if any testimony was forthcoming on their behalf. In the course of the inquiry many unbecoming accusations and recriminations were exchanged by the parties; Chinna Mudali indulging freely in talk of this kind. I abstain, however, from chronicling all this rubbish.
Friday, 4th March 1746, or 24th Masi of Krodhana. — The twenty arbitrators resumed their inquiry this day, at the Company’s garden-house, in view to determining whether Nakshatram Ammal, the widow of the deceased Kanakaraya Mudali, or his brother, was entitled to his estate. The following is the substance of the resolution at which, after further investigation, they arrived:
"Whereas both the parties were heard yesterday and the day before, and were examined to-day also, in order to obtain further evidence regarding the points at issue; and whereas Jaganivasa Mudali and Malaiyappa Mudali declared that they had nothing to add to the representations already made by them, and Chinna Mudali likewise affirmed that his statement of yesterday was final; we, the twenty arbitrators appointed to inquire into the merits of the claims of the two parties, do, after investigation and careful consideration, unanimously pronounce that the person who has the legal and valid title to the estate of the deceased Kanakaraya Mudali is his brother Chinna Mudali, and not Nakshatram Ammal the widow of the deceased. But at the same time, we adjudge that the lady shall be assigned in the family the position of an elderly matron, shall be given every comfort as regards food and apparel, and must be granted such an allowance as will enable her to distribute all reasonable charities. But, should her continuing in the family not be feasible, a sum of money sufficient for her maintenance and expenses, and for those of her daughter-in-law, shall be made over to these two. The order of the Governor being merely to determine the right of ownership to the effects of the deceased, the opinion of the arbitrators, as recorded above, will be communicated to him. If he desires to be furnished with their views as to what would be a suitable charge on the estate, on account of maintenance, this point will be further inquired into, and reported upon. Or if he will himself, after examination of the assets, fix and intimate to the arbitrators the amount to be provided for the ladies, they will announce his proposals to them, and communicate to him any representation which the parties may have to make.”
In pursuance of the foregoing resolution, the twenty arbitrators proceeded to the house of the Governor, after he had dined, and reported as follows: "The estate of Kanakaraya Mudali devolves on his brother Tanappa Mudali, who is also liable for the debts of the deceased. But as the widow had a grown-up son who died, and as she was the partner during his life of one who lived like a prince — a gentleman and a man of wealth — it would not be fair to allot to her a maintenance allowance such as is usually assigned to ordinary widows. A suitable proportion of the estate, enough to maintain her and her daughter-in-law in ease and comfort, and in a style becoming their position, should be apportioned to them.” The Governor thereupon said: "How did you deal with the allegation that a partition had already been effected between the deceased Kanakaraya Mudali, and his brother?” The arbitrators communicated to him all the circumstances connected with the transaction as explained by the opposite party, which those alleging the contrary had been unable to contradict by means of any evidence. He then observed: "Very well; then you say that the brothers have not effected a division between themselves, and that the survivor has therefore become entitled to the whole property. Supposing that the partition had been made; how would this affect his position?" They replied: "Even then, as Kanakaraya Mudali had no son, and as Chinna Mudali was his brother, the latter had a right to the estate of the deceased. Even if there had been no brother, and if he had had only a cousin, this cousin could claim the property.” The Governor then ordered the arbitrators to cause an award to be drawn up in the handwriting of the town accountant, and to bring it to him, with their signatures appended thereto. They said that they would do this on the following morning, and departed.
Saturday, 5th March 1746, or 25th Masi of Krodhana. — The arbitrators met in the garden-house of M. Dumas, and drew up an award in the following terms: —
"Dated 5th March 1746, corresponding to 25th Masi of Krodhana. Tanappa Mudali, the brother of the late Kanakaraya Mudali, and Kakshatram Ammal the widow of the latter, having preferred petitions before M. Dupleix, the Governor and Agent for the affairs of the Company at Pondichery, each laying claim to the estate of the deceased— Jaganivasa Mudali and Malaiyappa Mudali, the younger brothers of Nakshatram Ammal, appearing on behalf of their sister — the Governor listened to their statements, and sent for the following Mahanattars, or caste headmen; i.e., (1) Lakshmana Nayakkan, (2) Sankara Aiyan, (3) Ananda Ranga Pillai, (4) Sungu Mutturama Chetti, (5) Sungu Seshacliala Chetti, (6)Adi Varaha Chetti, (7) Chidambara Chetti, (8) Salatu Venkatachala Chetti, (9) Viraragava Chetti, (10) Ariyappa Mudali, (11) Chinnadu Mudali, (12) Peddu Chetti, (13) Peddachi Chetti, (14) Nallatambi Mudali, (15) Tillaiyappa Mudali, (16) Arunachala Chetti, (17) Kalatti Chetti, (18) Kondi Chetti, (19) Bhimanna Mudali, (20) Karuttambi Nayinar, and said to them as follows: ‘Please hear impartially the statements of both parties, and in consonance with the customs and usages of your caste, and your sastras,* [Precepts of the religious code.] decide as to who is the rightful heir to the estate of Kanakaraya Mudali, and report your decision to me.’ As directed, these twenty headmen met, and heard the statements of either side; when Tanappa Mudali deposed: ‘I am the sole heir to all the property acquired by my elder brother, the late Kanakaraya Mudali.’ Jaganivasa Mudali and Malaiyappa Mudali, said: ‘As a division was made between Kanakaraya Mudali and Tanappa Mudali of the property acquired by their father, our elder sister alone is entitled to the estate of Kanakaraya Mudali, and Tanappa Mudali has no right whatever to it.’ The headmen asked them if there was any written testimony, partition-deed, or eye-witness, to prove the alleged division of the father’s estate between the two brothers. They said they had none; whereupon the headmen decided that as there was no such evidence on this point, they could not recognise the claim of the widow; that Tanappa Mudali alone was the legal heir to the whole estate of Kanakaraya Mudali; and that as the widow and daughter-in-law of the deceased were entitled to be maintained from the estate, they ought to be treated with consideration.”
This decision was written by the court and town accountant, Muttaiya Pillai, and attested by Suriyan, accountant; and was approved and signed by the Governor, M. Dupleix.
Wednesday, 9th March 1746, or 29th Masi of Krodhana.—A. service was held this morning in memory of Kanakaraya Mudali, at the church of the Capuchins in the fort, which was attended by the Governor. A sitting of the Council was held at 9, and it rose at 10. Nobody knows what formed the subject of the deliberations of the meeting. Fifty-five Mahe sepoys, with two officers, set out this evening, and marched in a southerly direction. Whither they were bound is not known. Conjectures varied: some guessed that their destination was Karikal, and others that it was Porto Novo.
To-day, Appatambi, the son of Surappa Mudali, formerly an accountant of the court, expired. His remains were interred in the cemetery this evening.
Thursday, [10th March 1746, or] 1st Panguni of Krodhana. — Inquiry has elicited that the object of the despatch of the Mahe sepoys was to escort to Pondichery two brass cannon sent by Mahfuz Khan from Trichinopoly, for fear that when in the neighbourhood of Fort St. David, the English or others might waylay them. The two officers and the sepoys marched as far as Tiruvendipuram, where they fell in with the guns, and accompanied them hither this day.
Saturday, 12th March 1746, or 3rd Panguni of Krodhana. —
[Note. — The pages containing the diary of this date are in a very dilapidated state, and are for the most part not decipherable. Ranga Pillai seems to have recorded in them certain circumstances which point to his having suspicion that the partisans of the widow of Kanakaraya Mudali were compassing his death.] * * * *
Wednesday, 16th March 1746, or 7th Panguni of Krodhana. — I was at home this morning at 8, when a Company’s peon came, and stated that the Governor desired to see me. In obedience to the summons, I at once repaired to his house. He took me to his office-room, where no one else was present, and said: “You owe a good deal to the Company; you are in arrears. What do you do with all your money? What interest do you charge, when you lend it?" I replied: "Your money has not been embezzled. I have not squandered it in gambling. I have not expended it in vain. I have invested my funds in trade — in commercial enterprises beyond sea and in the manufacture of goods locally, as well as at places in the interior, such as Lalapettai. This is how my money has been laid out. My assets are double of my liabilities. The goods which I have on board ships, and the arrears which I have to recover locally, will be a sufficient security for what I owe the Company.” He rejoined: "I do not say that you are not worth the amount, or that you cannot meet your liabilities, but if you pay to the Company the 10,000 pagodas which you have received from the Brahman of Trichinopoly who has come here, it will be wise on your part.” I answered: "Sir, please summon the person who gave you this information, and also the individual said to have paid the money to me, as he is here; and hold a judicial inquiry. If it comes to light that I have received even a single cash, I will submit without demur to any penalty that the Company may choose to impose upon me. On the other hand, if it be proved that the allegation is false and unfounded, your informant must be held liable to the same punishment.” The Governor thereupon exclaimed: "Why, then, did you permit the wife and children of the Brahman to depart from Pondichery.” I replied: “Did you authorise me to detain them if they wished to go? On the contrary, at the outset, when you found that he had not come, you ordered that they should not remain at Pondichery. Being however of opinion that he should not be suffered to depart, I made of my own accord another attempt to detain him, though I was not confident of success. As I was thus instrumental in keeping him here, what need is there for me to answer this charge? I however set a watch over him, to make sure that he did not quit Pondichery without my knowledge. His son came here twenty times, and his wife twice or thrice. They had no particular object in visiting this. I invited them hither at my own expense. My motive in doing so was the feeling that if two or three families such as this could be persuaded to settle here, it would prove highly advantageous to you; and that my action in this respect would greatly commend itself to you, and induce you to become more warmly attached to me. Did I do anything connected with this matter at your bidding? Kindly consider matters in the light of my remarks.” He then replied: "Very well; tell him to recall his wife and children. If he will not, let him return the lease which I granted to him.” I rejoined: "So be it, sir; I will tell him this.” I however continued: "I beg to be pardoned for making another observation. Did I not tell you, sir, when they first came here, that to all appearances they had brought very little with them, for they were, to meet their expenses, disposing of the property which they had with them?” He remained silent. I then added: "Unless you summon your informant, and make inquiries, how are you to be convinced which of us is the liar? The whole town speaks ill of me, saying that I interest myself too much in your service. Some even watch for opportunity to attack and kill me. In spite of calumnious language such as this, and of attempts on my life, I have, with singleness of purpose, ever aimed at meriting your favour. This I have considered a sufficient reward, and have never cared to benefit myself pecuniarily.” To record my whole speech on this occasion would occupy about five or six pages. But in all essential points it was as I have already mentioned. The Governor then, to turn the conversation, asked me how the accounts of Sunguvar and those of the elephant dealers stood. I again said: “Is it not necessary for you to ascertain whether I am honest or dishonest? It is only after you have done this that I shall be restored to peace of mind, and that you will be relieved of any suspicions against me.” After I had continued in this strain for some time, he again changed the conversation, and directed me to despatch 100 rupees to the master of the ship at Alambarai, and to keep a careful account of it. When I was about to retire, he said: "Do not trust natives. How many letters have been received from men in the interior, asserting that the note which has been the cause of Tiruvengada Pillai’s imprisonment is a forgery? On seeing all those communications, Pedro declared that no confidence should be placed in natives. As you will succeed him, it will devolve on you to inquire into the case. I dare say that they will adduce several items of evidence in view to inducing you to change your mind. You had better go soon; write a palmyra-leaf letter to Alambarai, and send off the lascar.
Venkatakrishnan, the nephew of Konappaiyan of Trichinopoly — rascal that he is — has for the past two or three years been eking out a livelihood in this town, by dishonest practices. This fellow informed Appu, in the month of Margazhi [December] last, that Minakshi Ammal [This was the last ruler of Trichinopoly, who after, it is said, a gallant defence, was captured by Chanda Sahib in 1736, and by him thrown into prison, where she died of grief.] had borrowed of a Rajput at Trichinopoly the sum of 50,000 pons; that Kottaikattu Venkatachala Aiyan had stood security for the loan; and that there was documentary evidence in proof of the transaction. He further told him that in the event of the recovery of the amount, he would pay one-fourth of it to the Governor, and something to him also. Appu, at the time, made me acquainted with this. As owing to illness he is at present confined to his bed, this fellow has now pitched on Narayanan, the young dubash of Madame Dupleix; and this individual, in complicity with a Brahman from Madras, and another Tattuvadi Brahman, has offered to propitiate her with a quarter of the amount if she will take steps to recover the debt. Madame Dupleix has instigated her husband to take notice of the complaint. The question put to me by the Governor relative to the Brahman from Trichinopoly must have originated from this very source. Truth is truth, and what is false is false. In these days the mendacious seem to thrive. But truth will eventually establish itself, and falsehood can never hold its ground. Some uneasiness of mind is caused for the time being, but no permanent evil can ensue, for nothing is in the dark to the Omniscient, and what is true must endure.