Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

[admin]

Part 1 of 4

Louis Barthelemy [Barthelemi] [Bartelemy]
from various sources

"In relation to his Translation, it was made by the orders of Mr. Barthelemi, First Counselor in Pondicherry. Having a great number of interpreters for him, he had them translate some Indian works with all possible accuracy: but the wars of India & the ruin of Pondicherry resulted in the loss of all that he had gathered on these objects: and only the last translation of Zozur, of which only one complete copy remains, between the hands of M. Teissier de la Tour nephew of M. leConsr. Barthelemy. It's certain the one that we made the copy that we have in the Library of His Majesty, and which no doubt had not had time to complete when M. de Modave embarked to return to Europe."

I have not been able to gather any information on Tessier -- or Teissier -- de la Tour. Louis Barthelemy is much better known; although his career in India runs parallel to that of Porcher des Oulches, of the two he is the more prominent one and holds the highest offices. His name appears repeatedly in the official documents of the French Company. He was born at Montpellier, circa 1695, came to India in 1729, and stayed there until his death at Pondicherry, on 29 July 1760. He served at Mahe, was a member of the council at Chandernagore, and was called to Pondicherry in 1742. His duties at Pondicherry were twice interrupted in later years: in 1748 he was appointed governor of Madras, and in 1753-54 he preceded Porcher as commander of Karikal. He rose to the rank of "second du Conseil Superieur," and in the short period in 1755, between the departure of Godeheu and the arrival of de Leyrit, Barthelemy's name appears first on all official documents. It should perhaps be mentioned, first, that on 22 February 1751 Barthelemy represented the father of the bride at the wedding of Jacques Law -- Dupleix was the witness for the bridegroom --, and second, that on 8 August 1758 he was godfather of Jacques Louis Law. These two entries seem to suggest that he was indeed close to the Law family, whose interpreter has been given credit for the translation of the EzV (see p. 28). It should also be pointed out that Barthelemy died more than half a year after Maudave -- and the EzV -- reached Lorient on 2 February 1760.

-- The Ezourvedam Manuscripts, Excerpt from Ezourvedam: A French Veda of the Eighteenth Century, Edited with an Introduction by Ludo Rocher

Louis Barthelemy [b. 1695; d. 1760] was the son of a Montpellier merchant. He entered the Company’s service in 1728, and at this time he was of the Pondichery Council, after serving in Bengal. In 1746 he was second at Madras under d’Espremenil, and, when the latter retired to Pondichery, became chief there; but refused to remain when he was superseded by Paradis. He married a daughter of Dulaurens. Etat general des Employes en 1750 (Ministere des Colonies, C2 15); Weber, pp. 466, 467 ; Cf., infra under date July 15.

-- The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, translated from the Tamil by Order of the Government of Madras, edited by H. Dodwell, M.A., Curator, Madras Record Office, Volume 4, 1916

An entry dated 13 January 1770 in the registers of the minutes of the Council’s decisions describes a case concerning an inheritance dispute among the members of a family of pariah Christians. The opening lines of the entry introduce the crux of the dispute and the litigants involved:

[T]he request presented at the Chaudrie Tribunal by Antique, attorney for Dominique, Georges and Antoine of Pariah caste dressed as topas, fraternal nephews, claiming to be legitimate heirs of the deceased [Michel] Dragam, a Pariah, holds that Marie André, a Pariah dressed as a topassine, daughter of Francisca Demonte [Dragam’s daughter], Pariah dressed as a Malabar, is falsely claiming the succession of the said Dragam. [The request states that,] as a Pariah, she is subject to Malabar laws where women have no right to inherit when there are male relatives from the paternal line and that this case [should] be sent for adjudication to the Maganattars, judges for caste disputes, [and] then be decided by the Chaudrie Tribunal.66 [G. Diagou (ed.), Arrêts du Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry, vol. 2 (13), pp. 174–78.]

Besides giving us the main cause of dispute, these lines also bring to the fore another level of cultural appropriation that serves to highlight the shifting and flexible nature of the legal categories. All members of Michel Dragam’s family were Christians of the pariah caste. Equally important, all members except Francisca Demonte (i.e. Dragam’s daughter) were dressed à la topas. In other words, these were Indians who had not only converted to Christianity, but had also adopted European dress like the topas, and, in doing so, had also claimed a different social identity. However, as the nephews’ claim shows, their legal identity was still a matter of debate: notwithstanding the change in attire, the nephews requested that the dispute be settled according to Malabar laws. Thus, by dressing as topas and yet claiming for the jurisdiction of Malabar laws as pariah Christians, such actors further proliferated jurisdictional complexity and defied being categorized simply as pariah Christians or as topas.

The nephews’ claim for the application of Malabar laws, as presented by Antique, evidently stemmed from the advantage these laws provided for men in matters of succession.67 [The role of these earliest Indian pleaders or ‘attorneys’, predecessors of the nineteenth-century Indians, trained formally as lawyers, still remains to be mapped. For a study of Indian lawyers as transcultural agents in the nineteenth- century Anglo-Indian judiciary, see the contribution by Verena Stellar in this special issue.] Like many other personal laws that discriminate(d) explicitly on the basis of sex, Malabar law prescribed that the estate of a deceased man passed on to his male descendants. 68 [J. Nair, Women and Law in Colonial India: A Social History, Bangalore 1996, p. 10. Indeed, as Nair points out, because personal laws are often considered to have a basis in religion, reforming them and redressing the explicit gender bias has been a long and hesitant enterprise.] Indeed, in matters relating to inheritance, male members of the family frequently used this claim to prevent female relatives from inheriting, possessing, or disposing of any property independently of male control beyond that allocated to them as caypencourou. 69 [Lazaro Modeliar vs Natchattiramamal, 20th March 1747, G. Diagou (ed.), Arrêts du Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry, vol. 1 (13), pp. 178–181; Canagarayen and Cheganivasa vs Velavendren, 19th December 1766, Folder 233, Chaudrie Jugements; Sandaye vs Arlapean and others, 30th September 1774 in J.-C. Bonan, Jugements du tribunal de la Chaudrie (13), pp. 69–71. Nonetheless, there were exceptions to this practice; Poullé Mouttapoullé vs Gnanamoutamal, 20th February 1767, Folder 223, Chaudrie Jugements; Pogamalle vs Vinayagapoullé et Vedaguirypoullé, 2nd August 1774 in J.-C. Bonan, Jugements du tribunal de la Chaudrie (13), pp. 67– 68; Pragachen vs Canagapen, 2nd September 1774, no. 349, Folder 224, Chaudrie Jugements.] Even in the absence of a direct male heir, as in this case, an indirect male heir rather than a direct female heir was the prime contender for the inheritance.70 [ F.N. Laude, Manuel de droit Hindou (50), p. 120.] n fact, it was on this point, concerning collateral descendants that, compared to the Custom of Paris, Malabar laws provided a significant advantage to the nephews. Unlike Malabar laws, the Custom of Paris prescribed that, among the four kinds of successors, direct descendants took precedence over collateral descendants.71 [See the opening lines of the section on succession in Duplessis’ treatise on the Custom of Paris, in C. Duplessis, Traités de Mr. Duplessis, ancien avocat au Parlement, sur la Coutume de Paris, Paris 1754, p. 191. Similarly, Bourjon’s commentary on the succession laws in the Custom of Paris declares that ‘the law summons collateral descendants only when there are no children ....’ F. Bourjon, Le droit commun de la France et la Coutume de Paris réduits en principe, vol. 1, Paris 1770, p. 935.] Thus, by staking a claim to Malabar laws, the nephews, as collateral descendants, hoped to and could exploit the gender bias in their favour and gain their uncle Dragam’s inheritance.

Claude Sof, a European, husband and attorney to Marie André, presented several reasons why the nephews’ claims should be dismissed. Firstly, they were contesting an issue that had already been settled almost twenty years earlier. The Chaudrie judge at that time, M. Bartélemy, had dismissed their claims and divided the inheritance between Francisca Demonte and Marie André, in accordance with Dragam’s testament.72 [G. Diagou (ed.), Arrêts du Conseil Supérieur, vol. 1 (13), p. 176. Given that Chaudrie judgments started to be registered only in 1766, the earlier verdict is not available in the Chaudrie registers. However, I have been able to confirm the existence of the judge, M Bartélemy. This was Louis Barthélemy, who had been in the Company’s service since 1728. He served as a counsellor on the Provincial Council of Chandernagore from at least 1739 to 1742. He was a councillor at the Sovereign Council in Pondicherry between 1745 and 1759 and died in 1760. A. R. Pillai/H. Dodwell (ed.), The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, from 1736 to 1761, vol. 8, Madras 1922, p. 27; G. Diagou (ed.), Arrêts du Conseil Supérieur, vol. 1 (13), pp. 60, 99, 139,324, 358.] They now made the same request again because Michel Dragam’s testament had recently been destroyed in a house fire. Secondly, Sof targeted the discrepancy created by the nephews’ claim to Malabar laws and their topas identity expressed by the adoption of European dress:

Michel Dragam’s nephews are falsely claiming pariah laws in their favour, for it is a custom among all European nations established in India that the said laws do not affect the people of the hat who are entirely subject to the laws of the Europeans under whose pavilion they reside, through privileges whose origins the petitioner [Claude Sof ] does not know but which have passed into laws…73 [‘Les dits neveux de Michel Dragam réclament mal à propos en leur faveur les lois des Paréas, étant de coutume parmi toutes les nations Européennes établies dans l‘Inde que les dites lois ne touchent point les gens à chapeau qui sont soumis en tout, aux lois des Européens sous le pavillon des quels ils résident, par des privilèges dont le suppliant ignore l‘origine mais qui sont passés en lois.’ [Google translate: The said nephews of Michel Dragam badly claim in their favor the laws of the Pareas, being customary among all the European nations established in India that the said laws do not affect people with hats who are subject in everything, to the laws Europeans under the flag of which they reside, by privileges of which the supplicant does not know the origin but which are passed into law.] G. Diagou (ed.), Arrêts du Conseil Supérieur, vol. 1 (13), p. 176.]

-- Between Saree and Skirt: Legal Transculturality in Eighteenth-Century Pondicherry, by Gauri Parasher

Louis Galliot of La Touche
• Born February 9, 1673 - Ste-Croix parish, Vannes (56)
• Deceased May 26, 1739 - Pondichéry (French India), at the age of 66 years old
• Buried on May 26, 1739 - ND des Anges, Pondichéry (French India)
Parents
o Mathurin Galliot from La Touche

Mathurin GALLIOT de la TOUCHE
• Born in 1650
• Deceased
Spouses and children
o Married to Estiennette BARBOT 1650- with

o Estiennette Barbot

Estiennette BARBOT
Born in 1650
Deceased
Spouses and children
Married to Mathurin GALLIOT de la TOUCHE 1650- with

Union (s) and child (ren)
• Married February 13, 1703, Pondichéry (French India), to Françoise Le Bon with
 Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-

Francoise Le Bon
Parents
o Germain Le Bon

>>>>>Germain Le Bon
>>>>>Union (s) and child (ren)
>>>>>o Married to Sébastienne de Coelho with

o Sébastienne de Coelho
Union (s) and child (ren)

>>>>>Sébastienne de Coelho
>>>>>Union (s) and child (ren)
>>>>>o Married to Germain Le Bon with
>>>>> Françoise Le Bon

• Married February 13, 1703, Pondichéry (French India), to Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739 with

o Married 5 May 1712, Pondichéry (French India), to Barbe Audibert de Boutteville 1694-1753 with
 Catherine Galliot de La Touche 1713-1754
o Louis François Galliot de La Touche 1715-
o Michel Galliot de La Touche 1716-
o Pierre Benoit Galliot de La Touche 1717-
o Louis Nicolas Galliot de La Touche 1717-
 Rosa Galliot de La Touche 1719-
o N Galliot de La Touche 1720-1720
o Marie Agnès Galliot de La Touche 1721-1738
o Jacques Galliot de La Touche 1723-

Marie Galliot of La Touche
• Born in 1707
• Deceased
Parents
• Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
• Françoise Le Bon
Union (s) and child (ren)
• Married February 3, 1723, Pondichéry (French India), to Jacques Baleine du Laurens ca 1699-1749 with
o Magdeleine Barbe Baleine du Laurens 1723-1766
 Jacques Joseph Baleine du Laurens 1725-1779
o Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens 1727-1758
• Marie Brigitte Agnès Geneviève Baleine du Laurens 1728-
• Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens 1729-1775
 Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1732-1775
Half-brothers and half-sisters
On the side of Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o with Barbe Audibert de Boutteville 1694-1753
 Catherine Galliot de La Touche 1713-1754
o Louis François Galliot de La Touche 1715-
o Michel Galliot de La Touche 1716-
o Pierre Benoit Galliot de La Touche 1717-
o Louis Nicolas Galliot de La Touche 1717-
 Rosa Galliot de La Touche 1719-
o N Galliot de La Touche 1720-1720
o Marie Agnès Galliot de La Touche 1721-1738
o Jacques Galliot de La Touche 1723-

"Catherine" GALLIOT de la TOUCHE
• Born 22 March 1713 (Wednesday) - Pondichéry (Inde Française), , , ,, , , ,
• Deceased 20 February 1754 (Wednesday) - Pondichéry (Inde Française), , , ,, , , ,, aged 40 years old
• Buried 20 February 1754 (Wednesday) - Pondichéry (Inde Française), , , ,, , , ,
Parents
• Louis GALLIOT de la TOUCHE 1673-1739
• Barbe AUDIBERT de BOUTTEVILLE 1698-1753
Spouses and children
• Married to "Clair François Dominique" DESPLATS de FLAIX 1701-1736 with
 Geneviève Barbe Charlotte DESPLATS de FLAIX 1733-1761

"Clair François Dominique" DESPLATS de FLAIX
• Born 15 December 1701 (Thursday) - Fontainebleau (Seine et Marne), , ,, , , ,
• Deceased 1 October 1736 (Monday) - Pondichéry (Inde Française),, , , ,, aged 34 years old
• Buried 2 October 1736 (Tuesday) - Pondichéry (Inde Française),, , , ,
Parents
• "Charles Dominique" des PLACTZ 1668-1701
• "Marie Marguerite" THIROUX 1675-
Spouses and children
• Married to "Catherine" GALLIOT de la TOUCHE 1713-1754 with
 Geneviève Barbe Charlotte DESPLATS de FLAIX 1733-1761

Geneviève Barbe Charlotte DESPLATS de FLAIX
• Born 4 November 1733 (Wednesday) - Chandernagor (Inde Française), , , ,, , , ,
• Deceased 11 February 1761 (Wednesday) - Pondichéry (Inde Française), ,, , , ,, aged 27 years old
• Buried 12 February 1781 (Monday) - Pondichéry (Inde Française), , , ,, , , ,
Parents
• "Clair François Dominique" DESPLATS de FLAIX 1701-1736
• "Catherine" GALLIOT de la TOUCHE 1713-1754
Spouses and children
• Married to Pierre Jean FIGEAC 1720-1756 with
 Marie Joseph Paul Roch Gilbert Dit La Fayette FIGEAC 1720-1756
• Married to Hilaire Polycarpe BOURGINE de BEAUCHÊNE 1723-1781

Louis François Galliot de La Touche
• Born in 1715
• Deceased
Parents
• Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Barbe Audibert de Boutteville 1694-1753
Siblings
 Catherine Galliot de La Touche 1713-1754
o Michel Galliot de La Touche 1716-
o Pierre Benoit Galliot de La Touche 1717-
o Louis Nicolas Galliot de La Touche 1717-
 Rosa Galliot de La Touche 1719-
o N Galliot de La Touche 1720-1720
o Marie Agnès Galliot de La Touche 1721-1738
o Jacques Galliot de La Touche 1723-
Half-siblings
On the side of Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Louis Galliot de La Touche 1702-
• with Françoise Le Bon
 Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-

Michel Galliot de La Touche
• Born in 1716
• Deceased
Parents
• Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Barbe Audibert de Boutteville 1694-1753
Siblings
 Catherine Galliot de La Touche 1713-1754
o Louis François Galliot de La Touche 1715-
o Pierre Benoit Galliot de La Touche 1717-
o Louis Nicolas Galliot de La Touche 1717-
 Rosa Galliot de La Touche 1719-
o N Galliot de La Touche 1720-1720
o Marie Agnès Galliot de La Touche 1721-1738
o Jacques Galliot de La Touche 1723-
Half-siblings
On the side of Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Louis Galliot de La Touche 1702-
• with Françoise Le Bon
 Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-

Pierre Benoit Galliot de La Touche
• Born in 1717
• Deceased
Parents
• Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Barbe Audibert de Boutteville 1694-1753
Siblings
 Catherine Galliot de La Touche 1713-1754
o Louis François Galliot de La Touche 1715-
o Michel Galliot de La Touche 1716-
o Louis Nicolas Galliot de La Touche 1717-
 Rosa Galliot de La Touche 1719-
o N Galliot de La Touche 1720-1720
o Marie Agnès Galliot de La Touche 1721-1738
o Jacques Galliot de La Touche 1723-
Half-siblings
On the side of Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Louis Galliot de La Touche 1702-
• with Françoise Le Bon
 Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-

Rosa Galliot de La Touche
• Born in 1719
• Deceased
Parents
• Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Barbe Audibert de Boutteville 1694-1753
Spouses and children
• Married 3 February 1740, Pondichéry (Inde Française), to Jean-François Nicolas de Calnois de Forancis 1715- with

Jean-François Nicolas de Calnois de Forancis
• Born in 1715 - Saint-Nicolas des Champs, Paris (75)
• Deceased
• conseiller au Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry [adviser to the Superior Council of Pondicherry]
Parents
o Antoine Nicolas

Antoine Nicolas
• Secrétaire de la Compagnie des Indes [Secretary of the East India Company]
Spouses and children
o Married to Elisabeth Rousseau with
 Jean-François Nicolas de Calnois de Forancis 1715-

o Elisabeth Rousseau

 Jacques Nicolas de Forancis 1740-
o Alexandre Antoine Nicolas Nicolas 1742-
 Michel Nicolas de Calnois 1745-1786
o Louis Pierre Nicolas de Sainte-Foy 1748-1777
• Jean Guillaume Nicolas de La Merlière 1749-
Siblings
 Catherine Galliot de La Touche 1713-1754
o Louis François Galliot de La Touche 1715-
o Michel Galliot de La Touche 1716-
o Pierre Benoit Galliot de La Touche 1717-
o Louis Nicolas Galliot de La Touche 1717-
o N Galliot de La Touche 1720-1720
o Marie Agnès Galliot de La Touche 1721-1738
o Jacques Galliot de La Touche 1723-
Half-siblings
On the side of Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Louis Galliot de La Touche 1702-
• with Françoise Le Bon
 Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-

N Galliot de La Touche
• Born in 1720
• Deceased in 1720
Parents
• Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Barbe Audibert de Boutteville 1694-1753
Siblings
 Catherine Galliot de La Touche 1713-1754
o Louis François Galliot de La Touche 1715-
o Michel Galliot de La Touche 1716-
o Pierre Benoit Galliot de La Touche 1717-
o Louis Nicolas Galliot de La Touche 1717-
 Rosa Galliot de La Touche 1719-
o Marie Agnès Galliot de La Touche 1721-1738
o Jacques Galliot de La Touche 1723-
Half-siblings
On the side of Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Louis Galliot de La Touche 1702-
• with Françoise Le Bon
 Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-

Marie Agnès Galliot de La Touche
• Born in 1721
• Deceased in 1738, aged 17 years old
Parents
• Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Barbe Audibert de Boutteville 1694-1753
Siblings
 Catherine Galliot de La Touche 1713-1754
o Louis François Galliot de La Touche 1715-
o Michel Galliot de La Touche 1716-
o Pierre Benoit Galliot de La Touche 1717-
o Louis Nicolas Galliot de La Touche 1717-
 Rosa Galliot de La Touche 1719-
o N Galliot de La Touche 1720-1720
o Jacques Galliot de La Touche 1723-
Half-siblings
On the side of Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Louis Galliot de La Touche 1702-
• with Françoise Le Bon
 Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-

Jacques Galliot de La Touche
• Born in 1723
• Deceased
Parents
• Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Barbe Audibert de Boutteville 1694-1753
Siblings
 Catherine Galliot de La Touche 1713-1754
o Louis François Galliot de La Touche 1715-
o Michel Galliot de La Touche 1716-
o Pierre Benoit Galliot de La Touche 1717-
o Louis Nicolas Galliot de La Touche 1717-
 Rosa Galliot de La Touche 1719-
o N Galliot de La Touche 1720-1720
o Marie Agnès Galliot de La Touche 1721-1738
Half-siblings
On the side of Louis Galliot de La Touche 1673-1739
o Louis Galliot de La Touche 1702-
• with Françoise Le Bon
 Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-

-- geneanet.org

[admin]

Part 2 of 4

Jacques BALEN du Laurent
(Jacques BALEN)
• Born about 1630
• Deceased
• Cuisinier de la duchesse de Nemours [Cook of the Duchess of Nemours, Marie de Nemours, Marie d'Orléans-Longueville (1625–1707), was Princess of Neuchâtel from 1694 to 1707. She was the daughter of Henri II d'Orléans, duc de Longueville and Louise de Bourbon. After the death of her brother Jean Louis Charles d'Orléans-Longueville in 1694 she succeeded him as sovereign Princess of Neuchâtel, although she remained a prominent member of the French royal court.]
Spouses and children
o Married to ? ? [Magdeleine Monnay] with
 Jacques BALEINE du LAURENS 1699-1749

Jacques Baleine du Laurens
• Born around 1699 - Saint-Eustache Parish, Paris (75)
• Died October 29, 1749 - Pondichéry (French India), at the age of about 50 years
• Arrived in India in 1722, Secretary of the Superior Council of Pondicherry in 1722, Provision of adviser to the CSP on 12/30/1738
• secretary of the Superior Council of Pondicherry
Parents
o Jacques Baleine du Laurens
o Magdeleine Monnay
Union (s) and child (ren)
• Married February 3, 1723, Pondichéry (French India), to Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707- with
o Magdeleine Barbe Baleine du Laurens 1723-1766
 Jacques Joseph Baleine du Laurens 1725-1779
o Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens 1727-1758
• Marie Brigitte Agnès Geneviève Baleine du Laurens 1728-
• Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens 1729-1775
 Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1732-1775

Magdeleine Barbe Baleine du Laurens
• Born in 1723
• Deceased in 1766, aged 43 years old
Parents
• Jacques Baleine du Laurens ca 1699-1749
• Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-
[MARRIED???]
Siblings
 Jacques Joseph Baleine du Laurens 1725-1779
o Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens 1727-1758
• Marie Brigitte Agnès Geneviève Baleine du Laurens 1728-
• Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens 1729-1775
 Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1732-1775

Jacques Joseph Baleine du Laurens
• Born in 1725
• Deceased in 1779, aged 54 years old
• Employé de la Compagnie des Indes, conseiller au CSP 1/4/1764, cdt pour le roi à Madras
• conseiller au Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry
Parents
• Jacques Baleine du Laurens ca 1699-1749
• Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-
Spouses and children
• Married in 1753 to Agnès Brigitte Catherine du Casse 1737- with
• Marie Agnès Brigitte Baleine du Laurens 1762-
Siblings
o Magdeleine Barbe Baleine du Laurens 1723-1766
o Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens 1727-1758
• Marie Brigitte Agnès Geneviève Baleine du Laurens 1728-
• Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens 1729-1775
 Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1732-1775

Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens
• Born in 1727
• Deceased in 1758, aged 31 years old
• conseiller au Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry
Parents
• Jacques Baleine du Laurens ca 1699-1749
• Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-
Siblings
o Magdeleine Barbe Baleine du Laurens 1723-1766
 Jacques Joseph Baleine du Laurens 1725-1779
• Marie Brigitte Agnès Geneviève Baleine du Laurens 1728-
• Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens 1729-1775
 Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1732-1775

Marie Brigitte Agnès Geneviève Baleine du Laurens
• Born in 1728
• Deceased
Parents
• Jacques Baleine du Laurens ca 1699-1749
• Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-
Spouses
• Married in 1771, Pondichéry (Inde), to Raymond de Rivalz de Gincla 1728-1777
Siblings
o Magdeleine Barbe Baleine du Laurens 1723-1766
 Jacques Joseph Baleine du Laurens 1725-1779
o Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens 1727-1758
• Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens 1729-1775
 Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1732-1775

Raymond de Rivalz de Gincla
• Born 20 October 1728 - Carcassonne (11)
• Deceased 24 September 1777 - Virampatnam (Inde), aged 48 years old
• Officier des troupes de l'Inde
Parents
• Raymond de Rivalz de Gincla 1705-1783
o Marie de La Poterie
Spouses
• Married in 1771, Pondichéry (Inde), to Marie Brigitte Agnès Geneviève Baleine du Laurens 1728-

Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens
• Born in 1729
• Deceased in 1775, aged 46 years old
Parents
• Jacques Baleine du Laurens ca 1699-1749
• Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-
Spouses
o Married in 1746 to Jean Baptiste Berthelin
Siblings
o Magdeleine Barbe Baleine du Laurens 1723-1766
 Jacques Joseph Baleine du Laurens 1725-1779
o Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens 1727-1758
• Marie Brigitte Agnès Geneviève Baleine du Laurens 1728-
 Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1732-1775

Jean Baptiste Berthelin
Spouses
• Married in 1746 to Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens 1729-1775

Memoir for Sieur Berthelin, merchant in Pondicherry; against the Count of Lally, formerly commanding His Majesty's troops in India.
Author: Denis Louis Pasquier; Benoiment, M. de.
Publisher: In Paris: From the Imprimerie de Chardon, rue Galande, opposite that of Fouarre, to the Golden Cross, MDCCLXVI [1766]
Subjects
Berthelin, Jean-Baptiste.
Lally, Thomas-Arthur, - Earl of, - 1702-1766.

Antoine François Baleine du Laurens
• Born in 1732
• Deceased in 1775, aged 43 years old
• Avocat au Parlement de Paris, conseiller au CSP 20/2/1769, greffier-notaire à Tranquebar
• conseiller au Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry
Parents
• Jacques Baleine du Laurens ca 1699-1749
• Marie Galliot de La Touche 1707-
Spouses and children
o Married in 1757 to Anne Marie Jeanne Desjardins with
o Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1758-
 Jean Baptiste Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens 1759-
• Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens ca 1765
Siblings
o Magdeleine Barbe Baleine du Laurens 1723-1766
 Jacques Joseph Baleine du Laurens 1725-1779
o Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens 1727-1758
• Marie Brigitte Agnès Geneviève Baleine du Laurens 1728-
• Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens 1729-1775

Anne Marie Jeanne Desjardins
Spouses and children
• Married in 1757 to Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1732-1775 with
o Antoine François Baleine du Laurens 1758-
 Jean Baptiste Louis Charles Baleine du Laurens 1759-
• Marie Françoise Baleine du Laurens ca 1765

-- geneanet.org

Henry [Henri] Alexandre de LARCHE
• Born 4 January 1720 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde)
• Conseiller du Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry.
Parents
• Jean Marie Henry de LARCHE †1730
• Marie ROLLAND 1702-1722
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
o Married 27 May 1743, Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde), to Marguerite Madeleine ELIAS, born 16 April 1728 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde), deceased 8 April 1754 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde) aged 25 years old with
 Joachim Henri Alexandre de LARCHE 1748-1816 Married to Julie Angélique Joannis SINAN 1749-1797 with
 Charles Augustin de LARCHE 1773-1848 Married to Marie Jacqueline Félicité Le NORMAND du GOULLANOU 1777-1848 with:
 Félicité Marie Alexandrine Angélina de LARCHE 1806-1872

Marguerite Madeleine ELIAS
• Born 16 April 1728 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde)
• Deceased 8 April 1754 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde), aged 25 years old
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married 27 May 1743, Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde), to Henry Alexandre de LARCHE, born 4 January 1720 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde),
Conseiller du Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry.
(Parents: Jean Marie Henry de LARCHE †1730 & Marie ROLLAND 1702-1722) with
 Joachim Henri Alexandre de LARCHE 1748-1816 Married to Julie Angélique Joannis SINAN 1749-1797 with
 Charles Augustin de LARCHE 1773-1848 Married to Marie Jacqueline Félicité Le NORMAND du GOULLANOU 1777-1848 with:
 Félicité Marie Alexandrine Angélina de LARCHE 1806-1872

 Aurèle LATOUR de VINAY 1798-1869 Married 14 April 1825 (Thursday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Félicité Marie Alexandrine Angélina de LARCHE 1806-1872 with
• Joseph Charles Volcy VINAY 1828-1880 Married 8 January 1851 (Wednesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Louise Lavinia PERNON 1834-1870
 Marie Javotte Noémie VINAY 1829-1864 Married 22 September 1845 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to John Félix PHILIPPS 1821- with:
 Lawrence Charles PHILIPS
 William Barnett PHILIPS
o Esther Marguerite PHILIPS
 Angélina Lucie PHILIPS
o Alexandre VINAY-PHILIPS
 Marie Emilie Polymnie dite Poly VINAY 1832-1907 Married 30 March 1853 (Wednesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Henri Charles Jacques de CLOSETS 1828-1902 with:
 Marie Françoise Philomène de CLOSETS 1862-1942
o Volcy Joseph Claude de CLOSETS 1865-1891
 "Henri" Aurèle Amédée de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1868-1940
 Lucie Angelina Noémie Luce de CLOSETS 1874-1953
o Charles Emile Alcide Laurent VINAY 1835-
 Frédéric VINAY ?1839-1879 Married 12 January 1863 (Monday), Karaikal, (Karical, Inde Française) Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Marie Perrine Amélie COËT MORVEN /1848-1879/ with :
• Marie Francoise Mathilde VINAY 1863-
o Marie VINAY
o Julie VINAY
 Xavier Joseph Emile "Laurent" VINAY 1868-
o Albert Edouard VINAY 1841-
o Aurèle Edouard VINAY 1842
o Henry Adolphe Auguste VINAY 1843-
 Félix Gustave Philibert "Edouard" VINAY 1845- Married 24 June 1873 (Tuesday), Ceylan, SRI LANKA, to Sophie YOUNG 1850-1924 with:
o Marie Anne Françoise Angélina Noémie VINAY
o Geneviève VINAY
o Joseph Annet Pierre VINAY
o Madeleine VINAY
 Jeanne Marie Josèphe VINAY 1881

Joachim Henri Alexandre de LARCHE
• Born 28 March 1748 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde)
• Deceased in 1816, aged 68 years old
Parents
• Henry Alexandre de LARCHE 1720 (Conseiller du Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry.)
o Marguerite Madeleine ELIAS 1728-1754
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married to Julie Angélique Joannis SINAN, born 5 May 1749 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde), deceased 7 June 1797 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde) aged 48 years old (Parents: Coja Joannis SINAN ca 1711-1767 & Catherine ELIAS) with
 Charles Augustin de LARCHE 1773-1848 Married to Marie Jacqueline Félicité Le NORMAND du GOULLANOU 1777-1848 with
 Félicité Marie Alexandrine Angélina de LARCHE 1806-1872 Married 14 April 1825, Pondichéry, Tamil Nadal (Inde), to Aurèle [LATOUR DE] VINAY 1798-1869 with:
 Marie Emilie Polymnie VINAY 1832-1907
 Félix Gustave Philibert Edouard VINAY 1845

Julie Angélique Joannis SINAN
• Born 5 May 1749 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde)
• Deceased 7 June 1797 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde), aged 48 years old
Parents
• Coja Joannis SINAN ca 1711-1767 (Négociant arménien à Pondichéry)
• Catherine ELIAS
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married to Joachim Henri Alexandre de LARCHE, born 28 March 1748 - Pondichéry, Tamil Nadu (Inde), deceased in 1816 aged 68 years old (Parents: Henry Alexandre de LARCHE 1720 & Marguerite Madeleine ELIAS 1728-1754) with
 Charles Augustin de LARCHE 1773-1848 Married to Marie Jacqueline Félicité Le NORMAND du GOULLANOU 1777-1848 with
 Félicité Marie Alexandrine Angélina de LARCHE 1806-1872 Married 14 April 1825, Pondichéry, Tamil Nadal (Inde), to Aurèle VINAY 1798-1869 with:
 Marie Emilie Polymnie VINAY 1832-1907
 Félix Gustave Philibert Edouard VINAY 1845
Siblings
 "Jeanne" Madeleine Joanis SINAN 1746-
 Julie Angélique Joannis SINAN 1749-1797
o Jacques Anne Joanis SINAN 1756-1837
• Marie Catherine SINAN 1760-
 Brigitte SINAN 1761-

Marie de LARCHE
• Deceased 30 March 1756 - Pondichéry - Pondichéry, IND, Indes
Parents
o Henri Alexandre de LARCHE, born 4 January 1720 - Pondichery, IND, Indes, deceased,
Conseiller au Conseil Supérieur
Married 27 May 1743, Pondichery, IND, Indes, to
• Marguerite Madelaine ELIAS, deceased 8 April 1754 - Pondichery, IND, Indes
Siblings
 Joachim Henri Alexandre de LARCHE 1748- With Julie Angélique Joannis SINAN
o Marie de LARCHE †1756
o Louis de LARCHE 1751-1756
• Jean Baptiste Joséphine de LARCHE 1752-1773 Married 24 October 1767, Madras, IND, Indes, to Augustin BEYLIE

Louis de LARCHE
• Born 23 January 1751 - Pondichery, IND, Indes
• Deceased 26 March 1756 - Pondichéry - Pondichéry, IND, Indes, aged 5 years old
Parents
o Henri Alexandre de LARCHE, born 4 January 1720 - Pondichery, IND, Indes, deceased,
Conseiller au Conseil Supérieur
Married 27 May 1743, Pondichery, IND, Indes, to
• Marguerite Madelaine ELIAS, deceased 8 April 1754 - Pondichery, IND, Indes
Siblings
 Joachim Henri Alexandre de LARCHE 1748- With Julie Angélique Joannis SINAN
o Marie de LARCHE †1756
o Louis de LARCHE 1751-1756
• Jean Baptiste Joséphine de LARCHE 1752-1773 Married 24 October 1767, Madras, IND, Indes, to Augustin BEYLIE

Jean Baptiste Joséphine de LARCHE
• Born 21 September 1752 - Pondichery, IND, Indes
• Deceased 28 August 1773 - Pondichery, IND, Indes, aged 20 years old
Parents
o Henri Alexandre de LARCHE, born 4 January 1720 - Pondichery, IND, Indes, deceased,
Conseiller au Conseil Supérieur
Married 27 May 1743, Pondichery, IND, Indes, to
• Marguerite Madelaine ELIAS, deceased 8 April 1754 - Pondichery, IND, Indes
Spouses
• Married 24 October 1767, Madras, IND, Indes, to Augustin BEYLIE (Parents: Jacques BEYLIE & Françoise BARDE)
Siblings
 Joachim Henri Alexandre de LARCHE 1748- With Julie Angélique Joannis SINAN
o Marie de LARCHE †1756
o Louis de LARCHE 1751-1756
• Jean Baptiste Joséphine de LARCHE 1752-1773 Married 24 October 1767, Madras, IND, Indes, to Augustin BEYLIE

-- by geneanet.org

Louis Joseph Jacques LATOUR de VINAY
(Louis Joseph Jacques VINAY)
(Louis Joseph Jacques LATOUR de VINAY)
• Born 25 July 1746 (Monday) - Valence, 26362, Drôme, Rhône-Alpes, France
• Deceased 11 March 1802 (Thursday) - Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, aged 55 years old
• Commissaire de la Marine, administrateur de Karikal [Commissioner of the Navy, administrator of Karikal]

Karaikal (/kʌdɛkʌl/, French: Karikal /kaʁikal/) is a town of the Indian Union Territory of Puducherry. Karaikal became a French Colony in 1674 and held control, with occasional interruption from the British and Dutch, until 1954 (de jure in 1956), when it was incorporated into the Republic of India, along with Chandernagore, Mahé, Yanaon, and Pondichéry.

-- Karaikal, by Wikipedia

Parents
o Laurent Marcellin VINAY, born possibly in 1720 - Grenoble, 38, Isère, Rhône-Alpes, France,
Avocat au Parlement de Grenoble
Married to
o Marie Aimée MAURIN
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married 1 November 1782 (Friday), Gondelour, Tamil Nadu, INDE, to Geneviève de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE, born 21 August 1767 (Friday) - Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, deceased 21 August 1825 (Sunday) - Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS aged 58 years old (Parents: Pierre Paul Joseph Ferdinand de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE, chevalier de Boistel de Romainville 1730-1785 & Anne GALLET 1751-1784) with
o Claude Ange Joseph LATOUR de VINAY 1783-
 Laurent LATOUR de VINAY 1784-1846 Married 10 April 1822 (Wednesday), Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, to Françoise Fanny PIGEOT de SAINT VALLERY †1861 with
o Saint Valéry VINAY
 "Renée Malcy" Laurent VINAY 1825-1871 Married 23 February 1846 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Amédée Charles Alexandre PIERRE de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1817-1891 with:
 Lucien Amédée dit LENOIR de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1856-
 Inès Malcy Alexandrine de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1857-
o Ernest Henri Léopold de CLOSETS de JENTVILLE 1859-
o Anna Laure Fanny de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1861-
o Adrien Paul René de CLOSETS d'AMBREVILLE 1862-
 Louis Charles Emile de CLOSETS de JORTS 1864-1940
o Mauricia Aimée Angélique de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1867-
• Albert VINAY 1826- Married 4 June 1863 (Thursday), Bombay, INDE, to Héléna COUSENS
o Frédéric VINAY
• Amanda VINAY Married to James HAYES
 Jacques Joseph Julien François René LATOUR de VINAY 1785- Married to x POUGET de SAINT-ANDRÉ with
o Armand LATOUR de VINAY
o Juliette LATOUR de VINAY
Jacques Joseph Julien François René LATOUR de VINAY 1785- Married to Marie Françoise Caroline de COLONIA
 David Désiré LATOUR de VINAY 1785-1844 Married to Marie Louise VICTOIRE with
 Alphonse VINAY Married to Marie Hermine VERNON with:
 Marie Victoire Noémie VINAY 1857
o Louis Jules VINAY
o Marie Alphonsine VINAY †1859
o Louis David VINAY 1850
o Marie Estella VINAY 1855-1857
o Marie Louise "Lolotte" VINAY
o Alphonsine VINAY
o Zélie VINAY
o Jules VINAY
 Edouard LATOUR de VINAY ca 1787- Married to N AMELINE with
o Aline LATOUR de VINAY †1844
o Philippine LATOUR de VINAY ca 1788-1856
• Angélique LATOUR de VINAY ca 1790- Married to Christophe Aimable FRUCHARD †/1822
 Aurèle LATOUR de VINAY 1798-1869 Married 14 April 1825 (Thursday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Félicité Marie Alexandrine Angélina de LARCHE 1806-1872 with
• Joseph Charles Volcy VINAY 1828-1880 Married 8 January 1851 (Wednesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Louise Lavinia PERNON 1834-1870
 Marie Javotte Noémie VINAY 1829-1864 Married 22 September 1845 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to John Félix PHILIPPS 1821- with :
 Lawrence Charles PHILIPS
 William Barnett PHILIPS
o Esther Marguerite PHILIPS
 Angélina Lucie PHILIPS
o Alexandre VINAY-PHILIPS
 Marie Emilie Polymnie dite Poly VINAY 1832-1907 Married 30 March 1853 (Wednesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Henri Charles Jacques de CLOSETS 1828-1902 with:
 Marie Françoise Philomène de CLOSETS 1862-1942
o Volcy Joseph Claude de CLOSETS 1865-1891
 "Henri" Aurèle Amédée de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1868-1940
 Lucie Angelina Noémie Luce de CLOSETS 1874-1953
o Charles Emile Alcide Laurent VINAY 1835-
 Frédéric VINAY ?1839-1879 Married 12 January 1863 (Monday), Karaikal, (Karical, Inde Française) Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Marie Perrine Amélie COËT MORVEN /1848-1879/ with:
• Marie Francoise Mathilde VINAY 1863-
o Marie VINAY
o Julie VINAY
 Xavier Joseph Emile "Laurent" VINAY 1868-
o Albert Edouard VINAY 1841-
o Aurèle Edouard VINAY 1842
o Henry Adolphe Auguste VINAY 1843-
 Félix Gustave Philibert "Edouard" VINAY 1845- Married 24 June 1873 (Tuesday), Ceylan, SRI LANKA, to Sophie YOUNG 1850-1924 with:
o Marie Anne Françoise Angélina Noémie VINAY
o Geneviève VINAY
o Joseph Annet Pierre VINAY
o Madeleine VINAY
 Jeanne Marie Josèphe VINAY 1881

Laurent Marcellin [LATOUR DE (The Tower Of)] VINAY
(Laurent Marcellin VINAY)
• Born possibly in 1720 - Grenoble, 38, Isère, Rhône-Alpes, France
• Avocat au Parlement de Grenoble [Lawyer at the Parliament of Grenoble, France]
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
o Married to Marie Aimée MAURIN with
 Louis Joseph Jacques LATOUR de VINAY 1746-1802 Married 1 November 1782 (Friday), Gondelour, Tamil Nadu, INDE, to Geneviève de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE 1767-1825 with
o Claude Ange Joseph LATOUR de VINAY 1783-
 Laurent LATOUR de VINAY 1784-1846 Married 10 April 1822 (Wednesday), Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, to Françoise Fanny PIGEOT de SAINT VALLERY †1861 with:
o Saint Valéry VINAY
 "Renée Malcy" Laurent VINAY 1825-1871
• Albert VINAY 1826-
o Frédéric VINAY
• Amanda VINAY
 Jacques Joseph Julien François René LATOUR de VINAY 1785- Married to x POUGET de SAINT-ANDRÉ with:
o Armand LATOUR de VINAY
o Juliette LATOUR de VINAY
Jacques Joseph Julien François René LATOUR de VINAY 1785- Married to Marie Françoise Caroline de COLONIA
 David Désiré LATOUR de VINAY 1785-1844 Married to Marie Louise VICTOIRE with :
 Alphonse VINAY
o Alphonsine VINAY
o Zélie VINAY
o Jules VINAY
 Edouard LATOUR de VINAY ca 1787- Married to N AMELINE with:
o Aline LATOUR de VINAY †1844
o Philippine LATOUR de VINAY ca 1788-1856
• Angélique LATOUR de VINAY ca 1790- Married to Christophe Aimable FRUCHARD †/1822
 Aurèle LATOUR de VINAY 1798-1869 Married 14 April 1825 (Thursday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Félicité Marie Alexandrine Angélina de LARCHE 1806-1872 with:
• Joseph Charles Volcy VINAY 1828-1880
 Marie Javotte Noémie VINAY 1829-1864
 Marie Emilie Polymnie dite Poly VINAY 1832-1907
o Charles Emile Alcide Laurent VINAY 1835-
 Frédéric VINAY ?1839-1879
o Albert Edouard VINAY 1841-
o Aurèle Edouard VINAY 1842
o Henry Adolphe Auguste VINAY 1843-
 Félix Gustave Philibert "Edouard" VINAY 1845-

Geneviève de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE
(Geneviève de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE)
• Born 21 August 1767 (Friday) - Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS
• Deceased 21 August 1825 (Sunday) - Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, aged 58 years old
Parents
• Pierre Paul Joseph Ferdinand de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE, chevalier de Boistel de Romainville, born 5 September 1730 (Tuesday) - Phalsbourg (57), deceased 22 June 1785 (Wednesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 54 years old,
Gouverneur de Gondelour et de Karikal
Married 10 April 1765 (Wednesday), Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, to
• Anne GALLET, born in 1751, deceased in 1784 aged 33 years old
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married 1 November 1782 (Friday), Gondelour, Tamil Nadu, INDE, to Louis Joseph Jacques LATOUR de VINAY, born 25 July 1746 (Monday) - Valence, 26362, Drôme, Rhône-Alpes, France, deceased 11 March 1802 (Thursday) - Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS aged 55 years old,
Commissaire de la Marine, administrateur de Karikal
(Parents : Laurent Marcellin VINAY ?1720 & Marie Aimée MAURIN) with
o Claude Ange Joseph LATOUR de VINAY 1783-
 Laurent LATOUR de VINAY 1784-1846 Married 10 April 1822 (Wednesday), Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, to Françoise Fanny PIGEOT de SAINT VALLERY †1861 with
o Saint Valéry VINAY
 "Renée Malcy" Laurent VINAY 1825-1871 Married 23 February 1846 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Amédée Charles Alexandre PIERRE de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1817-1891 with:
 Lucien Amédée dit LENOIR de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1856-
 Inès Malcy Alexandrine de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1857-
o Ernest Henri Léopold de CLOSETS de JENTVILLE 1859-
o Anna Laure Fanny de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1861-
o Adrien Paul René de CLOSETS d'AMBREVILLE 1862-
 Louis Charles Emile de CLOSETS de JORTS 1864-1940
o Mauricia Aimée Angélique de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1867-
• Albert VINAY 1826- Married 4 June 1863 (Thursday), Bombay, INDE, to Héléna COUSENS
o Frédéric VINAY
• Amanda VINAY Married to James HAYES
 Jacques Joseph Julien François René LATOUR de VINAY 1785- Married to x POUGET de SAINT-ANDRÉ with
o Armand LATOUR de VINAY
o Juliette LATOUR de VINAY
Jacques Joseph Julien François René LATOUR de VINAY 1785- Married to Marie Françoise Caroline de COLONIA
 David Désiré LATOUR de VINAY 1785-1844 Married to Marie Louise VICTOIRE with
 Alphonse VINAY Married to Marie Hermine VERNON with :
 Marie Victoire Noémie VINAY 1857
o Louis Jules VINAY
o Marie Alphonsine VINAY †1859
o Louis David VINAY 1850
o Marie Estella VINAY 1855-1857
o Marie Louise "Lolotte" VINAY
o Alphonsine VINAY
o Zélie VINAY
o Jules VINAY
 Edouard LATOUR de VINAY ca 1787- Married to N AMELINE with
o Aline LATOUR de VINAY †1844
o Philippine LATOUR de VINAY ca 1788-1856
• Angélique LATOUR de VINAY ca 1790- Married to Christophe Aimable FRUCHARD †/1822
 Aurèle LATOUR de VINAY 1798-1869 Married 14 April 1825 (Thursday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Félicité Marie Alexandrine Angélina de LARCHE 1806-1872 with
• Joseph Charles Volcy VINAY 1828-1880 Married 8 January 1851 (Wednesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Louise Lavinia PERNON 1834-1870
 Marie Javotte Noémie VINAY 1829-1864 Married 22 September 1845 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to John Félix PHILIPPS 1821- with :
 Lawrence Charles PHILIPS
 William Barnett PHILIPS
o Esther Marguerite PHILIPS
 Angélina Lucie PHILIPS
o Alexandre VINAY-PHILIPS
 Marie Emilie Polymnie dite Poly VINAY 1832-1907 Married 30 March 1853 (Wednesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Henri Charles Jacques de CLOSETS 1828-1902 with:
 Marie Françoise Philomène de CLOSETS 1862-1942
o Volcy Joseph Claude de CLOSETS 1865-1891
 "Henri" Aurèle Amédée de CLOSETS d'ERREY 1868-1940
 Lucie Angelina Noémie Luce de CLOSETS 1874-1953
o Charles Emile Alcide Laurent VINAY 1835-
 Frédéric VINAY ?1839-1879 Married 12 January 1863 (Monday), Karaikal, (Karical, Inde Française) Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Marie Perrine Amélie COËT MORVEN /1848-1879/ with :
• Marie Francoise Mathilde VINAY 1863-
o Marie VINAY
o Julie VINAY
 Xavier Joseph Emile "Laurent" VINAY 1868-
o Albert Edouard VINAY 1841-
o Aurèle Edouard VINAY 1842
o Henry Adolphe Auguste VINAY 1843-
 Félix Gustave Philibert "Edouard" VINAY 1845- Married 24 June 1873 (Tuesday), Ceylan, SRI LANKA, to Sophie YOUNG 1850-1924 with :
o Marie Anne Françoise Angélina Noémie VINAY
o Geneviève VINAY
o Joseph Annet Pierre VINAY
o Madeleine VINAY
 Jeanne Marie Josèphe VINAY 1881
Siblings
• Joseph Ferdinand Anasthase de BOISTEL 1766-1829 Married in 1794 to Marie Louise BREISTROFF
 Geneviève de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE 1767-1825 Married 1 November 1782 (Friday), Gondelour, Tamil Nadu, INDE, to Louis Joseph Jacques LATOUR de VINAY 1746-1802
 Anne Victoire de BOISTEL 1769- Married in 1783 to Etienne Edouard PERICHON de VANDEUIL
• Angélique de BOISTEL 1774- Married 26 May 1790 (Wednesday), Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, to Nicolas Paul Alexis de CHASTEL d'AUTRECOURT
• Christian Marie de BOISTEL 1776- Married in 1805 to Marie Josèphe Brigitte PERICHON de VANDEUIL
• Anne Perrine Félicité de BOISTEL Married to Gigismond HAAS
Anne Perrine Félicité de BOISTEL Married to N van SLOBEN
o Eugénie de BOISTEL
o Louise de BOISTEL 1783-1786
o Anne de BOISTEL 1784-
 Anne Etienne dite Nanon de BOISTEL 1784-1830 Married to Marie François Xavier BELLIER de MONTROSE 1766-1846
o Louise de BOISTEL †1786
Paternal grand-parents, uncles and aunts
 Joseph Ferdinand de BOISTEL, chevalier de Saint Louis ca 1693-1751
 Marie Anasthasie de BELLIVET 1702-1779
• Antoine Henri de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE 1728-1796
(1776)
1 child
• Pierre Paul Joseph Ferdinand de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE, chevalier de Boistel de Romainville 1730-1785
(1765)
11 children
Maternal grand-parents, uncles and aunts
 Gilles Jean dit Desroches GALLET 1710-1779 (1743)
o Geneviève DESCHAMPS ?1720-1795
• Anne GALLET 1751-1784
(1765)
11 children
• Thomas GALLET 1762-1819
(1789)
1 child
• Jean Baptiste GALLET 1764-1816

Pierre Paul Joseph Ferdinand de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE
(Pierre Paul Joseph Ferdinand de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE)
chevalier de Boistel de Romainville
• Born 5 September 1730 (Tuesday) - Phalsbourg (57)
• Deceased 22 June 1785 (Wednesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 54 years old
• Gouverneur de Gondelour et de Karikal
Parents
• Joseph Ferdinand de BOISTEL, chevalier de Saint Louis, born about 1693, deceased in 1751 aged about 58 years old,
Lieutenant provincial de l'artillerie de France, commandant de la place de Phalsbourg, brigadier des Armées de sa Majesté
Married to
• Marie Anasthasie de BELLIVET, born in 1702, deceased in 1779 aged 77 years old
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married 10 April 1765 (Wednesday), Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, to Anne GALLET, born in 1751, deceased in 1784 aged 33 years old (Parents : Gilles Jean dit Desroches GALLET 1710-1779 & Geneviève DESCHAMPS ?1720-1795) with
• Joseph Ferdinand Anasthase de BOISTEL 1766-1829 Married in 1794 to Marie Louise BREISTROFF
 Geneviève de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE 1767-1825 Married 1 November 1782 (Friday), Gondelour, Tamil Nadu, INDE, to Louis Joseph Jacques LATOUR de VINAY 1746-1802 with
o Claude Ange Joseph LATOUR de VINAY 1783-
 Laurent LATOUR de VINAY 1784-1846 Married 10 April 1822 (Wednesday), Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, to Françoise Fanny PIGEOT de SAINT VALLERY †1861 with :
o Saint Valéry VINAY
 "Renée Malcy" Laurent VINAY 1825-1871
• Albert VINAY 1826-
o Frédéric VINAY
• Amanda VINAY
 Jacques Joseph Julien François René LATOUR de VINAY 1785- Married to x POUGET de SAINT-ANDRÉ with:
o Armand LATOUR de VINAY
o Juliette LATOUR de VINAY
Jacques Joseph Julien François René LATOUR de VINAY 1785- Married to Marie Françoise Caroline de COLONIA
 David Désiré LATOUR de VINAY 1785-1844 Married to Marie Louise VICTOIRE with :
 Alphonse VINAY
o Alphonsine VINAY
o Zélie VINAY
o Jules VINAY
 Edouard LATOUR de VINAY ca 1787- Married to N AMELINE with :
o Aline LATOUR de VINAY †1844
o Philippine LATOUR de VINAY ca 1788-1856
• Angélique LATOUR de VINAY ca 1790- Married to Christophe Aimable FRUCHARD †/1822
 Aurèle LATOUR de VINAY 1798-1869 Married 14 April 1825 (Thursday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Félicité Marie Alexandrine Angélina de LARCHE 1806-1872 with:
• Joseph Charles Volcy VINAY 1828-1880
 Marie Javotte Noémie VINAY 1829-1864
 Marie Emilie Polymnie dite Poly VINAY 1832-1907
o Charles Emile Alcide Laurent VINAY 1835-
 Frédéric VINAY ?1839-1879
o Albert Edouard VINAY 1841-
o Aurèle Edouard VINAY 1842
o Henry Adolphe Auguste VINAY 1843-
 Félix Gustave Philibert "Edouard" VINAY 1845-
 Anne Victoire de BOISTEL 1769- Married in 1783 to Etienne Edouard PERICHON de VANDEUIL with
o Edouard Etienne PERICHON de VANDEUIL †1829
• Angélique de BOISTEL 1774- Married 26 May 1790 (Wednesday), Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, to Nicolas Paul Alexis de CHASTEL d'AUTRECOURT
• Christian Marie de BOISTEL 1776- Married in 1805 to Marie Josèphe Brigitte PERICHON de VANDEUIL
• Anne Perrine Félicité de BOISTEL Married to Gigismond HAAS
Anne Perrine Félicité de BOISTEL Married to N van SLOBEN
o Eugénie de BOISTEL
o Louise de BOISTEL 1783-1786
o Anne de BOISTEL 1784-
 Anne Etienne dite Nanon de BOISTEL 1784-1830 Married to Marie François Xavier BELLIER de MONTROSE 1766-1846 with
 Marie Clémentine BELLIER 1805-1838 Married 30 September 1824 (Thursday), Saint-Denis, 97411, La Réunion, France, to Jules Henri MAINGARD 1800-1877 with :
o Xavier Jules MAINGARD 1825-1891
o Paul Josselin MAINGARD 1827-
o Marie Julie MAINGARD 1829-1891
o Ernest Pierre MAINGARD 1832-
o Maurice Jean MAINGARD 1835-
o Manon Henriette MAINGARD 1837-
 Adrien Martin BELLIER MONTROSE 1806-1891 Married 20 November 1827 (Tuesday), Saint-André, 97409, La Réunion, France DOM, to Marie Louise Clémentine de HEAULME 1809-1869 with :
 Marianne Elisènne BELLIER de MONTROSE
o Adrien BELLIER de MONTROSE
o Gabriel BELLIER de MONTROSE
o Augustine BELLIER 1808-1809
o Victoire Oreillie BELLIER 1809-
o Louise de BOISTEL †1786
Siblings
 Antoine Henri de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE 1728-1796 Married 13 August 1776 (Tuesday), Charenton-le-Pont, 94018, Val-de-Marne, Île-de-France, France, to Anne Victoire KEMPFER von PLOBSHEIM 1746-1831
 Pierre Paul Joseph Ferdinand de BOISTEL de ROMAINVILLE, chevalier de Boistel de Romainville 1730-1785 Married 10 April 1765 (Wednesday), Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, to Anne GALLET 1751-1784
Paternal grand-parents, uncles and aunts
 Simon de BOISTEL †1724
o Anne-Sophie de SCHMALE
• Joseph Ferdinand de BOISTEL, chevalier de Saint Louis ca 1693-1751
2 children
Maternal grand-parents, uncles and aunts
o Pierre François de BELLIVET 1663 (1699)
o Anne Marie BRUNCK
• Marie Anasthasie de BELLIVET 1702-1779
2 children
• Marie Claire de BELLIVET ?1710
(1728)
1 child

-- geneanet.org

[admin]

Part 3 of 4

Jean-Jacques Duval d'Eprémesnil
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 8/1/21

Louis Barthelemy [b. 1695; d. 1760] was the son of a Montpellier merchant. He entered the Company’s service in 1728, and at this time he was of the Pondichery Council, after serving in Bengal. In 1746 he was second at Madras under d’Espremenil, and, when the latter retired to Pondichery, became chief there; but refused to remain when he was superseded by Paradis. He married a daughter of Dulaurens. Etat general des Employes en 1750 (Ministere des Colonies, C2 15); Weber, pp. 466, 467 ; Cf., infra under date July 15.

-- The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, translated from the Tamil by Order of the Government of Madras, edited by H. Dodwell, M.A., Curator, Madras Record Office, Volume 4, 1916

Engraved portrait of Jean-Jacques Duval d'Eprémesnil

Jean-Jacques Duval d'Eprémesnil (5 December 1745 – 22 April 1794), French magistrate and politician, was born in India at Pondicherry, his father being a colleague of Joseph François Dupleix.[1]

Returning to France in 1750 he was educated in Paris for the law, and became in 1775 conseiller in the parlement of Paris, where he soon distinguished himself by his zealous defence of its rights against the royal prerogative. He showed bitter enmity to Marie Antoinette in the matter of the diamond necklace, and on 19 November 1787 he was the spokesman of the parlement in demanding the convocation of the states-general.[1]

When the court retaliated by an edict depriving the parlement of its functions, Eprémesnil bribed the printers to supply him with a copy before its promulgation, and this he read to the assembled parlement. A royal officer was sent to the palais de justice to arrest Eprémesnil and his chief supporter Goislard de Montsabert, but the parlement (5 May 1788) declared that they were all Eprémesnils, and the arrest was only effected on the next day on the voluntary surrender of the two members.[1]

After four months imprisonment on the island of Ste Marguerite, Eprémesnil found himself a popular hero, and was returned to the states-general as deputy of the nobility of the outlying districts of Paris. But with the rapid advance towards revolution his views changed; in his Réflexions impartiales ... (January 1789) he defended the monarchy, and he led the party among the nobility that refused to meet with the third estate until summoned to do so by royal command.[1]

In the Constituent Assembly he opposed every step towards the destruction of the monarchy. After a narrow escape from the fury of the Parisian populace in July 1792 he was imprisoned in the Abbey of Saint-Germain-des-Prés, but was set at liberty before the September Massacres. In September 1793, however, he was arrested at Le Havre, taken to Paris, and denounced to the Convention as an agent of Pitt. He was brought to trial before the revolutionary tribunal on 21 April 1794, and was guillotined the next day.[1]

D'Eprémesnil's speeches were collected in a small volume in 1823. See also Henri Carré, Un Précurseur inconscient de la Révolution (Paris, 1897).[1]

References

1. One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Éprémesnil, Jean Jacques Duval d'". Encyclopædia Britannica. 9 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. p. 708.

External links

• Media related to Jean-Jacques Duval d'Eprémesnil at Wikimedia Commons

Family Tree Owner:
Hello on the tree of Chantal ANNIC and Jean Louis BUSSIERE
You are welcome on this family tree where you will travel between the country of Auray for the Breton branch (ANNIC, LORHO, TOSTEN, GUEGAN), the combrailles Creusoises for the Auvergne and Limousine part (BUSSIERE, BARNONCEL, CROUZOL, MAZET, PAUFIQUE , RENARD, MOURLON, etc ...) with, depending on marriages and cousins, a large branch around Pondicherry (PERNON, de CLOSET, LE FAUCHEUR [THE GRIM REAPER]), and the Compagnie des Indes [East India Company] (therefore Ile de France and Ile Bourbon), cousins ​​from Burgundy and elsewhere (from SERCEY, from VAUGELAS), and a branch of Chinese mandarins (WU, MENG))! Do not hesitate to point out any errors, confusions or additions and thank you in advance to all the contributors who made it possible to exchange useful information thanks to this formidable Génanet tool.

****************************

Genenet.org

Nicolas Olivier LE FAUCHEUR
• Born 21 November 1685 (Wednesday) - Rennes, 35238, Ille-et-Vilaine, Bretagne, France
• Deceased 2 March 1739 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 53 years old
• Agent Supérieur de la Compagnie des Indes, Chef du comptoir de Mazulipatam [Senior Agent of the Compagnie des Indes, Head of the Mazulipatam counter]
Parents
• Hyacinthe LE FAUCHEUR, seigneur de Saint Mamert, born in July 1654 - Rennes, 35, Ille-et-Vilaine, Bretagne, France, deceased 26 January 1686 (Saturday) - Rennes, 35, Ille-et-Vilaine, Bretagne, France aged 31 years old
Married to
• Pétronelle ARMANDE
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married 29 October 1723 (Friday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Jeanne Julienne Michelle ARTUR, born 30 August 1709 (Friday) - Brest (29), deceased (Parents : André ARTUR 1674- & Julie JEZÉQUEL 1682-) with

Jeanne Julienne Michelle ARTUR
• Born 30 August 1709 (Friday) - Brest (29)
• Deceased
Parents
• André ARTUR, born in 1674, deceased,
Garde magasin de la Cie des Indes

André ARTUR
• Born in 1674
• Deceased
• Garde magasin de la Cie des Indes
Parents
o Claude ARTUR du CLOS, born about 1644, deceased 25 April 1695 (Monday) - Fougères (35) aged about 51 years old,
Procureur, Sergent Royal
Married to
• Marie LE DIEU, born in 1653, deceased

Married 6 February 1702 (Monday), Brest (29), to
• Julie JEZÉQUEL, born in 1682, deceased

 Marie Jeanne Julie Adélaïde LE FAUCHEUR, comtesse du Saussay 1726- Married to Charles Nicolas DESVAUX du SAUSSAY, comte du Saussay †1772 with

Charles Nicolas DESVAUX du SAUSSAY
comte du Saussay
• Born - Paris, 75056, Paris, Île-de-France, France [DATE???]
• Deceased 13 December 1772 (Sunday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
Spouses and children
• Married to Marie Jeanne Julie Adélaïde LE FAUCHEUR, comtesse du Saussay, born in 1726 - Passe Notre Dame de la Délivrance, Mazulipatarn, Andhra, India, deceased (Parents: Nicolas Olivier LE FAUCHEUR 1685-1739 & Jeanne Julienne Michelle ARTUR 1709-) with
o Nicolas André Joseph DESVAUX du SAUSSAY 1752-

o Nicolas André Joseph DESVAUX du SAUSSAY 1752-
Marie Jeanne Julie Adélaïde LE FAUCHEUR, comtesse du Saussay 1726- Married to Simon LAGRENÉE de MÉZIÈRES, chevalier de Saint Louis 1730-1800

Simon LAGRENÉE de MÉZIÈRES
chevalier de Saint Louis [knight of saint louis]
• Born 5 June 1730 (Monday) - Saint-Paul, 97415, La Réunion, France DOM
• Deceased 30 June 1800 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 70 years old
• Lieutenent Général de Police, puis Président de l'Assemblée Coloniale à Pondichéry [Lieutenant General of Police, then President of the Colonial Assembly in Pondicherry]
Parents
o François Melchior LAGRENÉE de MÉZIÈRES, born in 1699, deceased in 1735 aged 36 years old,
Commis Agent de la Compagnie des Indes

François Melchior LAGRENÉE de MÉZIÈRES
• Born in 1699
• Deceased in 1735, aged 36 years old
• Commis Agent de la Compagnie des Indes [Clerk Agent of the East India Company]

Married to
o Rose DUHAMEL, born in 1710, deceased in 1736 aged 26 years old

Rose DUHAMEL
• Born in 1710
• Deceased in 1736, aged 26 years old

o Nicolas André Hyacinthe LE FAUCHEUR 1728-
 Joseph François Nicolas Olivier LE FAUCHEUR 1731-1782 Married 27 April 1765 (Saturday), Negapatam, (Présidence de Madras, Inde Anglaise), INDE,[Presidency of Madras, British India, INDIA]

Joseph François Nicolas Olivier LE FAUCHEUR
• Born in 1731 - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
• Deceased 23 February 1782 (Saturday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 51 years old
• Agent Supérieur de la Compagnie des Indes, Trésorier-général du comptoir de Pondichéry, Grand-Voyer du Roi de Pondichéry [Senior Agent of the Compagnie des Indes, Treasurer-General of the Pondicherry Counter, Grand-Voyer of the King of Pondicherry]

to Thérèse Michèle LE BUREL 1746-1824 with

Thérèse Michèle LE BUREL
• Born 16 March 1746 (Wednesday) - Karaikal, (Karical, Inde Française) Tamil Nadu, INDIA
• Deceased 22 June 1824 (Tuesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 78 years old
Parents
o Pierre LE BUREL,
Maître cannonier [Master cannonier]
Married to
o Marguerite COUESTE

o Jeanne Marie Josèphe LE FAUCHEUR 1766-1781
o Marie Thérèse LE FAUCHEUR 1769-1777
 Brigitte Simone LE FAUCHEUR 1770-1806 Married about 1788 to Joseph Jacques Amédée WHITE †1818 with :
• Etienne François WHITE 1794-
 Marie Thérèse Odon LE FAUCHEUR 1772- Married 31 January 1788 (Thursday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Jean Bernard de VIENNE 1756-1819 with:

Jean Bernard de VIENNE
• Born 27 June 1756 (Sunday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France
• Deceased 19 January 1819 (Tuesday) - Port-Louis, Île Maurice, MAURITIUS, aged 62 years old
• Receveur des Domaines, Capitaine d'Infanterie, Greffier en Chef de la Cour d'Appel de l'Ile Maurice, Propriétaire Terrien à Moka [Receiver of Domains, Infantry Captain, Chief Registrar of the Mauritius Court of Appeal, Landowner in Moka]
Parents
• Jean Paul François de VIENNE, born 31 January 1730 (Tuesday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France, deceased before 8 December 1798, Capitaine de Dragons, Trésorier de la ville d'Auch, Président du Bureau des finances d'Auch (1766), Président au Conseil du Bureau des Trésorier de France, Premier Consul et Maire d'Auch (1782-1789) [Captain of Dragons, Treasurer of the city of Auch, President of the Finance Office of Auch (1766), President of the Council of the Treasurer's Office of France, First Consul and Mayor of Auch (1782-1789)]

Jean Paul François de VIENNE
• Born 31 January 1730 (Tuesday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France
• Deceased before 8 December 1798
• Capitaine de Dragons, Trésorier de la ville d'Auch, Président du Bureau des finances d'Auch (/1766), Président au Conseil du Bureau des Trésorier de France, Premier Consul et Maire d'Auch (1782-1789)
Parents
• François Marie de VIENNE, born 10 May 1691 (Thursday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France, deceased 4 December 1752 (Monday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France aged 61 years old, Avocat, Premier Consul d'Auch (1727-1728), Procureur du Roy au Bureau des Finances de la Généralité d'Auch [Lawyer, First Consul of Auch (1727-1728), King's Prosecutor at the Finance Office of the Generalitat of Auch]

François Marie de VIENNE
• Born 10 May 1691 (Thursday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France
• Deceased 4 December 1752 (Monday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France, aged 61 years old
• Avocat, Premier Consul d'Auch (1727-1728), Procureur du Roy au Bureau des Finances de la Généralité d'Auch
Parents
o Claude de VIENNE
Married to
o Jeanne de DOLS

Married 30 January 1720 (Tuesday), Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France, to
• Thérèse de SEISSAN de MARIGNAN, born 2 June 1701 (Thursday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France, deceased 17 August 1733 (Monday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France aged 32 years old

Thérèse de SEISSAN de MARIGNAN
• Born 2 June 1701 (Thursday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France
• Deceased 17 August 1733 (Monday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France, aged 32 years old
Parents
• Jean Bernard II de SEISSAN de MARIGNAN, seigneur de Marignan, Lieutenant Général de la Sénéchaussée d'Auch, Juge Mage, Président de la Cour Présidiale d'Auch et de l'Election d'Armagnac [Lord of Marignan, Lieutenant General of the Sénéchaussée of Auch, Judge Mage, President of the Presidial Court of Auch and of the Election of Armagnac]
Married to
• Cécile de LA BAUME BASCOUS

Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married 9 June 1755 (Monday), Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France, to Jeanne Marie Catherine de ROUILHAN de MONTAUT, born 8 February 1737 (Friday) - Mons (32), deceased 4 Germinal year X (25 March 1802) (Thursday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France aged 65 years old (Parents : Michel Joseph de ROUILHAN, seigneur de Mons, de Piis, de Moncet, de Saint-Martin, 1702-1763 & Marie Claude DES VAULX) with

Jeanne Marie Catherine de ROUILHAN de MONTAUT
• Born 8 February 1737 (Friday) - Mons (32)
• Deceased 4 Germinal year X (25 March 1802) (Thursday) - Auch, 32013, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France, aged 65 years old
Parents
• Michel Joseph de ROUILHAN, seigneur de Mons, de Piis, de Moncet, de Saint-Martin,, born 25 March 1702 (Saturday) - Piis, 32, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France, deceased 28 February 1763 (Monday) aged 60 years old, Conseiller-Secrétaire du Roi 1729 [Advisor-Secretary to the King 1729]

Michel Joseph de ROUILHAN
seigneur de Mons, de Piis, de Moncet, de Saint-Martin,
• Born 25 March 1702 (Saturday) - Piis, 32, Gers, Midi-Pyrénées, France
• Deceased 28 February 1763 (Monday), aged 60 years old
• Conseiller-Secrétaire du Roi 1729 [Advisor-Secretary to the King 1729]
Parents
o Jean François de ROUILHAN, Conseiller Secrétaire du Roi [Advisor-Secretary to the King 1729]
Married to
o ? ?

Married to
o Marie Claude DES VAULX

 Henri de VIENNE 1790-1860
 Joseph Nicolas Denis LE FAUCHEUR 1773-1841 [President of the Chaudrie court and of the Royal court] Married 9 September 1805 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Françoise Catherine Jeanne de CHAUGY 1786-1862 with :

Françoise Catherine Jeanne de CHAUGY
• Born 23 December 1786 (Saturday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
• Deceased 25 June 1862 (Wednesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 75 years old
Parents
• Claude Alexandre de CHAUGY, born 23 May 1753 (Wednesday), deceased,
Lieutenant au Régiment d Ile de France, Conseiller au Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry,

Claude Alexandre de CHAUGY
• Born 23 May 1753 (Wednesday)
• Deceased
• Lieutenant au Régiment d Ile de France, Conseiller au Conseil Supérieur de Pondichéry [Lieutenant in the Ile de France Regiment, Advisor to the Superior Council of Pondicherry]
Parents
o Charles de CHAUGY
Married to
o Reine de LEAUTE

Married 27 July 1784 (Tuesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to
• Jeanne Catherine Augustine de SAINT PAUL, born 20 August 1768 (Saturday), deceased 9 April 1787 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 18 years old

Jeanne Catherine Augustine de SAINT PAUL
• Born 20 August 1768 (Saturday)
• Deceased 9 April 1787 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 18 years old
Parents
• Jean Baptiste Paul de SAINT PAUL, born 7 September 1728 (Tuesday) - Mézières (08), deceased 7 April 1792 (Saturday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 63 years old

Jean Baptiste Paul de SAINT PAUL
(Jean Baptiste Paul de SAINT PAUL)
• Born 7 September 1728 (Tuesday) - Mézières (08)
• Deceased 7 April 1792 (Saturday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 63 years old
Parents
• Louis Paul de SAINT PAUL, born 20 April 1684 (Thursday) - Provedoux, Luxembourg, BELGIQUE,
Entrepreneur fortifications du roy [King's fortifications contractor]

>>>>>Louis Paul de SAINT PAUL
>>>>>(Louis Paul de SAINT PAUL)
>>>>>• Born 20 April 1684 (Thursday) - Provedoux, Luxembourg, BELGIQUE
>>>>>• Entrepreneur fortifications du roy
>>>>> Parents
>>>>>• Henri de PAUL
>>>>>Married to
>>>>>o Catherine LEJEUNE

Married to
• Marie Catherine PONCIN

>>>>>Marie Catherine PONCIN
>>>>>(Marie Catherine PONCIN)
>>>>> Parents
>>>>>• Guillaume PONCIN CHARBEAU, born in 1665, deceased in 1748 aged 83 years old
>>>>>Married to
>>>>>o Jeanne MATHIEU, born in 1670, deceased in 1715 aged 45 years old

Married 27 July 1784 (Tuesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to
• Françoise QUENTIN de LA METTRIE, born 1 August 1741 (Tuesday) - Chennai, Tamil Nadu, (Madras, Inde Britanique), INDIA, deceased 24 June 1822 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 80 years old

Françoise QUENTIN de LA METTRIE
(Françoise QUENTIN de LA METTRIE)
• Born 1 August 1741 (Tuesday) - Chennai, Tamil Nadu, (Madras, Inde Britanique), INDIA
• Deceased 24 June 1822 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 80 years old
Parents
• Vincent Sanson QUENTIN de LA METTRIE, born in 1702 - Saint-Malo, 35288, Ille-et-Vilaine, Bretagne, France, deceased 7 April 1792 (Saturday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 90 years old,
Membre du conseil supérieur de Pondichéry (1741)
Married 25 July 1777 (Friday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to
• Catherine COYLE de BARNEWALL

 Joseph Jean François LE FAUCHEUR 1807-1861

Joseph Jean François LE FAUCHEUR
• Born 28 September 1807 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
• Deceased 19 January 1861 (Saturday) - Saint-Denis, 97411, La Réunion, France, aged 53 years old
• Commissaire adjoint de la Marine, Chef du Bureau de la Comptabilité Centrale des Fonds, secrétaire du Gouvernement à Pondichéry [Deputy Commissioner of the Navy, Head of the Central Fund Accounting Office, Secretary of the Government in Pondicherry]

 Thérèse Emilie Françoise LE FAUCHEUR 1808-1865

Thérèse Emilie Françoise LE FAUCHEUR
• Born 27 October 1808 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
• Deceased 23 January 1865 (Monday) - Bimlipatam, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA, aged 56 years old
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married 25 June 1827 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Charles Eugène PERNON, born 18 December 1805 (Wednesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, deceased in 1853 - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 48 years old (Parents : Eugène PERNON 1763-1807 & Jeanne Elisabeth Honorée du RHONE de BEAUVAIR 1785-1874) with

Charles Eugène PERNON
• Born 18 December 1805 (Wednesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
• Deceased in 1853 - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 48 years old
Parents
• Eugène PERNON, born in 1763 - Lyon (mairie unique), 69123, Rhône, Rhône-Alpes, France, deceased 24 March 1807 (Tuesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 44 years old, Capitaine de Port à Pondichéry [Harbor master in Pondicherry]

Eugène PERNON
(Eugène PERNON du FOURNEL)
(Eugène PERNON)
• Born in 1763 - Lyon (mairie unique), 69123, Rhône, Rhône-Alpes, France
• Deceased 24 March 1807 (Tuesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 44 years old
• Capitaine de Port à Pondichéry
Parents
• Jacques Etienne PERNON du FOURNEL PERNON, Chevalier de l'Ordre de St Louis, born 25 September 1715 (Wednesday) - Lyon (mairie unique), 69123, Rhône, Rhône-Alpes, France, deceased 10 May 1792 (Thursday) - Lyon (mairie unique), 69123, Rhône, Rhône-Alpes, France aged 76 years old,
Volontaire au regiment d'auvergne , cornette regiment du roy, capitaine rgt st simon cavalerie, major, lieutenant colonel rgt royal cavalerie, pensionne, chevalier de l'ordre de st louis
Married in 1760 to
o Marguerite de LIGNIVILLE, born between 1732 and 1742, deceased possibly in 1763

Married 22 August 1803 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to
• Jeanne Elisabeth Honorée du RHONE de BEAUVAIR, born 9 June 1785 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, deceased 21 December 1874 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 89 years old

Jeanne Elisabeth Honorée du RHONE de BEAUVAIR
(Jeanne Elisabeth Honorée du RHONE de BEAUVAIR)
• Born 9 June 1785 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
• Deceased 21 December 1874 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 89 years old
Parents
• François Barthélémy du RHONE de BEAUVAIR, chevalier de l'Ordre de Saint Louis, born 10 July 1735 (Sunday) - Saint Paul Trois Châteaux (26), baptized 18 July 1735 (Monday) - Saint Paul Trois Châteaux (26), deceased before 1803 - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, Capitaine d'Infanterie

>>>>>François Barthélémy du RHONE de BEAUVAIR
>>>>>(François Barthélémy ROUGNE)
>>>>>(François Barthélémy du RHONE de BEAUVAIR)
>>>>>chevalier de l'Ordre de Saint Louis
>>>>>• Born 10 July 1735 (Sunday) - Saint Paul Trois Châteaux (26)
>>>>>• Baptized 18 July 1735 (Monday) - Saint Paul Trois Châteaux (26)
>>>>>• Deceased before 1803 - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
>>>>>• Capitaine d'Infanterie
>>>>> Parents
>>>>>• Jean Joseph du RHÔNE, born - Saint Paul Trois Châteaux (26), deceased before 1774,
>>>>>Echevin de St Paul Trois Châteaux
>>>>>Married to
>>>>>• Marguerite de SAINT VINCENT, born - Donzère (26), baptized 6 January 1698 (Monday) - Donzère (26), deceased 27 January 1759 (Saturday) - Saint Paul Trois Châteaux (26) aged 61 years old

Married 17 January 1774 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to
• Marie Rose DUPUY, born in 1761 - Gondelour, Tamil Nadu, INDE, deceased 1 November 1795 (Sunday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 34 years old

>>>>>Marie Rose DUPUY
>>>>>(Marie Rose DUPUY)
>>>>>• Born in 1761 - Gondelour, Tamil Nadu, INDE
>>>>>• Deceased 1 November 1795 (Sunday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 34 years old
>>>>> Parents
>>>>>• Jean DUPUY, born 23 February 1716 (Sunday) - Neulise, 42, deceased 28 November 1776 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 60 years old, Maître armurier, maître arquebusier

>>>>>>>>>>Jean DUPUY
>>>>>>>>>>• Born 23 February 1716 (Sunday) - Neulise, 42
>>>>>>>>>>• Deceased 28 November 1776 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 60 years old
>>>>>>>>>>• Maître armurier, maître arquebusier
>>>>>>>>>> Parents
>>>>>>>>>>o Claude DUPUY
>>>>>>>>>>Married to
>>>>>>>>>>o Gasparde BALLON ou BATTON

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Gasparde BALLON ou BATTON
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o Married to Claude DUPUY with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jean DUPUY 1716-1776 Married to Marie Anne JAFFRÉ 1732-1785 with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marie Rose DUPUY 1761-1795 Married 17 January 1774 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to François Barthélémy du RHONE de BEAUVAIR, chevalier de l'Ordre de Saint Louis 1735-/1803 with :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> François Barthélémy Christophe du RHONE de BEAUVAIR 1778-1816
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joseph Marie Charles du RHONE de BEAUVAIR 1782-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>• Marie Adelaïde Marguerite du RHONE de BEAUVAIR 1783-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jeanne Elisabeth Honorée du RHONE de BEAUVAIR 1785-1874
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>• Etienne Barthélémy Edouard du RHONE de BEAUVAIR 1786-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Marie Rose DUPUY 1761-1795 Married to François Guillaume de KERUSEC 1749-1817

>>>>>Married to
>>>>>• Marie Anne JAFFRÉ, born 9 April 1732 (Wednesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, deceased 9 April 1785 (Saturday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 53 years old

>>>>>>>>>>Marie Anne JAFFRÉ
>>>>>>>>>>(Marie Anne JAFFRÉ)
>>>>>>>>>>• Born 9 April 1732 (Wednesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
>>>>>>>>>>• Deceased 9 April 1785 (Saturday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 53 years old
>>>>>>>>>> Parents
>>>>>>>>>>• François La Trompette JAFFRÉ, born about 1703 - Quimper, 29232, Finistère, Bretagne, France, deceased 17 October 1776 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged about 73 years old, Adjudant canonnier

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>François JAFFRÉ La Trompette
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(François JAFFRÉ)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>• Born about 1703 - Quimper, 29232, Finistère, Bretagne, France
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>• Deceased 17 October 1776 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged about 73 years old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>• Adjudant canonnier
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o Grégoire JAFFRÉ, born before 1686 - Quimper, 29232, Finistère, Bretagne, France, deceased after 1731 - Quimper, 29232, Finistère, Bretagne, France
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Married to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o Anne KERGANIVET, born before 1686 - Quimper, 29232, Finistère, Bretagne, France, deceased after 1731

>>>>>>>>>>Married to
>>>>>>>>>>• Marguerite VAGUENARD, deceased in 1751

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Marguerite VAGUENARD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Marguerite VAGUENARD)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>• Deceased in 1751
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Parents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o Guillaume VAGUENARD
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Married 26 September 1713 (Tuesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>o Sébastienne FERREIRA, born - Chennai, Tamil Nadu, (Madras, Inde Britanique), INDIA, deceased 4 November 1725 (Sunday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sébastienne FERREIRA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>(Sébastienne FERREIRA)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>• Born - Chennai, Tamil Nadu, (Madras, Inde Britanique), INDIA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>• Deceased 4 November 1725 (Sunday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA

 Iphigénie Jeanne Françoise PERNON 1828 Married 22 April 1852 (Thursday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Louis Marie Armand MONTCLAR 1823 with
o N1 MONTCLAR
o N2 MONTCLAR
o N3 MONTCLAR
 Eugène Albert PERNON 1832-1898 Married 14 May 1867 (Tuesday), Yanam, (Yanaon, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Marie Elodie LE FAUCHEUR 1849-1878 with
 Charles Eugène François PERNON 1868-1948 Married 24 September 1907 (Tuesday), Saint-Malo, 35288, Ille-et-Vilaine, Bretagne, France, to Marie Victorine Cécile BURGOT 1885-1965 with :
o Charles Eugène Joseph PERNON 1908-1976
o Marcelle Marie PERNON 1910-1916
o Antoine Paul Emmanuel PERNON 1911-1911
• Hubert Louis Gonzague Pierre PERNON 1912-1988
 Xavier Albert René PERNON 1915-1953
o Antoinette Elisabeth Marie PERNON 1917-1995
o Emmanuel Joseph Camille PERNON 1919-1981
o Marthe Marie Madeleine PERNON 1920-1940
o Hélène Suzanne Sylvie PERNON 1921-1997
o Joseph Marie Yves PERNON 1925-2006
• Fanny PERNON 1837-1858 Married to N GUYOT
 Marie PERNON 1845-1891 Married, Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Armand Joseph François GALLOIS MONTBRUN, chevalier de la Légion d'Honneur 1844-1905 with
 François Joseph Marie "Eugène" GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1868-1896 Married 3 January 1891 (Saturday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Julie Eulalie Nathalie Emilie TARDIVEL 1868- with :
• Stéphanie Léonie Marie GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1892-1949/
o Marie Julie Armande Paule GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1893-1950
 Armand Jules Joseph "Maxime" GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1894
o Marie Gabrielle Lucienne GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1895-1897
o Emile Louis Joseph Guy GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1897
 François Joseph "Lucien" GALLOIS MONTBRUN, chevalier de la Légion d'Honneur 1874-1934 Married, Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Jeanne Hélène Adèle CELORON de BLAINVILLE 1870-1963 with :
• Armand GALLOIS MONTBRUN ca 1904-1982
• François Joseph "Louis" GALLOIS MONTBRUN, officier de la Légion d'honneur 1875 Married, Île de la Réunion, to Joséphine POTIER de LA HOUSSAYE
o François Joseph "Emmanuel" Léoncel GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1876-1893
• François Joseph "Maurice" GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1878-1907/ Married 28 February 1903 (Saturday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Marie "Palmyre" Joséphine Albana GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1874-1903/
• Marie Fanny GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1879-1896/ Married 18 November 1896 (Wednesday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Charles Auguste Joseph Marie GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1871-1896/
 François Joseph Marie "Georges" GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1882 Married, Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Jeanne Marie Josèphe VINAY 1881 with :
 Jean GALLOIS MONTBRUN 1906-/1996

 Théodore Louis Nicolas LE FAUCHEUR 1810-1876
 Marie Françoise Joséphine Virginie LE FAUCHEUR 1811-1889

Marie Françoise Joséphine Virginie LE FAUCHEUR
• Born 27 December 1811 (Friday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
• Deceased 5 September 1889 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 77 years old
Spouses, children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren
• Married 28 June 1830 (Monday), Manjacoupam, Goudelour, INDE, to Trust Ernest William James FALLOFIELD, Lord Fallofield, born 5 April 1809 (Wednesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, deceased in 1841 aged 32 years old, Négociant, député [Trader, deputy]

Trust Ernest William James FALLOFIELD
Lord Fallofield
• Born 5 April 1809 (Wednesday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
• Deceased in 1841, aged 32 years old
• Négociant, député
Parents
• Ernest William FALLOFIELD, Lord Fallofield, born in June 1755, deceased 6 June 1816 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 61 years old,
Premier Membre du Conseil de l'honorable Compagnie des Indes Anglaise, Ancien Employé de la Compagnie des Indes Anglaise [First Member of the Council of the Honorable British East India Company, Former Employee of the English East India Company]

>>>>>Ernest William FALLOFIELD
>>>>>Lord Fallofield
>>>>>• Born in June 1755
>>>>>• Deceased 6 June 1816 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 61 years old
>>>>>• Premier Membre du Conseil de l'honorable Compagnie des Indes Anglaise, Ancien Employé de la Compagnie des Indes Anglaise
>>>>> Parents
>>>>>o James FALLOFIELD
>>>>>Married to
>>>>>o Catherine FALLOFIELD

Married 30 March 1807 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to
• Jeanne Elisabeth Honorée du RHONE de BEAUVAIR, born 9 June 1785 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, deceased 21 December 1874 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 89 years old

>>>>>>>>>>Jeanne Elisabeth Honorée du RHONE de BEAUVAIR
>>>>>>>>>>(Jeanne Elisabeth Honorée du RHONE de BEAUVAIR)
>>>>>>>>>>• Born 9 June 1785 (Thursday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA
>>>>>>>>>>• Deceased 21 December 1874 (Monday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, aged 89 years old
>>>>>>>>>> Parents
>>>>>>>>>>• François Barthélémy du RHONE de BEAUVAIR, chevalier de l'Ordre de Saint Louis, born 10 July 1735 (Sunday) - Saint Paul Trois Châteaux (26), baptized 18 July 1735 (Monday) - Saint Paul Trois Châteaux (26), deceased before 1803 - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, Capitaine d'Infanterie
>>>>>>>>>>Married 17 January 1774 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to
>>>>>>>>>>• Marie Rose DUPUY, born in 1761 - Gondelour, Tamil Nadu, INDE, deceased 1 November 1795 (Sunday) - Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA aged 34 years old

(Parents : Ernest William FALLOFIELD, Lord Fallofield 1755-1816 & Jeanne Elisabeth Honorée du RHONE de BEAUVAIR 1785-1874) with

• Célia Marie LE FAUCHEUR 1817-
 Camille Paul LE FAUCHEUR 1820-1875
o Virginie Catherine Matilda LE FAUCHEUR 1823-1824
 Marie Eugénie LE FAUCHEUR 1826-
o Nicolas Estienne LE FAUCHEUR 1780-1782
 Marie Julie Adélaïde LE FAUCHEUR 1781- Married 29 August 1796 (Monday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to John DEFRIES with :
 Jean de FRIES
Siblings
o Henri Hyacinthe LE FAUCHEUR 1684-
 Nicolas Olivier LE FAUCHEUR 1685-1739 Married 29 October 1723 (Friday), Puducherry, (Pondichéry, Inde Française), Tamil Nadu, INDIA, to Jeanne Julienne Michelle ARTUR 1709-
Paternal grand-parents, uncles and aunts
o Henri LE FAUCHEUR 1622-1697
o Olive MILLON 1631-
• Hyacinthe LE FAUCHEUR, seigneur de Saint Mamert 1654-1686
2 children
• Françoise LE FAUCHEUR 1659-1716
• Perrine Marie LE FAUCHEUR 1663
Maternal grand-parents, uncles and aunts
o Jan ARMANDE (1664)
 Jacquette HELIE 1633-
• Pétronelle ARMANDE
2 children
• Jan Baptiste ARMANDE 1658-
• François ARMANDE 1661-
• Jacques ARMANDE 1663-

[admin]

Part 4 of 4

Claude TURGIS dit ST-ETIENNE
(Nicolas TURGIS)
(Claude TURGIS)
seigneur de La Tour and de Vuarce, baronnet d'Ecosse [Lord of La Tour and de Vuarce, baronet of Scotland]
• Born about 1570 - , , ,Champagne , France
• Deceased after 1636
• Écuyer
Parents
• Guyon TURGIS †1609
• Maître maçon
o Marie CONDOT
Spouses and children
• Married about 1590 to Marie [*] de SALAZAR, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne ca 1560-1605 (Parents : Hector [*] de SALAZAR, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne †1585/ & Antoinette de COURCELLES, dame de Saint-Deniscourt [lady of Saint-Deniscourt] †1585/) with
 Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 Married in 1625 to Ne N, amérindienne Micmac
Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 Married about 1639 to Françoise Marie JACQUELIN, pionnière en Acadie 1621-1645
Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 Married in 1653, Rivière-Saint-Jean, Acadie - ,,,,Canada, to Jeanne MOTIN, pionnière en Acadie ca 1615-ca 1666
• Louise TURGIS Married to Charles SIMONY
o Angélique TURGIS /1602
• Married in 1615 to Marie GUESDON ca 1600-?1626 (Parents : Claude GUESDON ?1560 & Madeleine OGERON ?1565)
Events
about 1570 : Birth - , , ,Champagne , France
Sources: http://www.biographi.ca/fr/bio/saint_et ... de_1F.html
about 1590 : Marriage (with Marie [*] de SALAZAR)
Sources: René Jetté, Traité de Généalogie
2 September 1615 : Marriage Contract (with Marie GUESDON) - Paris, , Seine, Ile-de-France, France
Sources: René Jetté, Traité de Généalogie
1615 : Marriage (with Marie GUESDON)
after 1636 : Death
Notes
Note, the similarity of the coats of arms of the St-Etienne de La Tour family and the Col family. These two families are from the surroundings of Sens in Yonne.

Marie [*] de SALAZAR
[*] : descendants de Charlemagne and du Big-Bang
• Born about 1560
• Deceased in 1605, aged about 45 years old
Parents
• Hector [*] de SALAZAR, [*] : descendants de Charlemagne †1585/
o Antoinette de COURCELLES, dame de Saint-Deniscourt †1585/
Spouses and children
o Married to Paul de VERRINES, seigneur de Vouarces †ca 1590 with
o Marie de VERRINES
o Louise de VERRINES
• Married about 1590 to Claude dit ST-ETIENNE TURGIS, seigneur de La Tour ca 1570-1636/ (Parents : Guyon TURGIS †1609 & Marie CONDOT) with
 Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 Married in 1625 to Ne N, amérindienne Micmac
Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 Married about 1639 to Françoise Marie JACQUELIN, pionnière en Acadie 1621-1645
Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 Married in 1653, Rivière-Saint-Jean, Acadie - ,,,,Canada, to Jeanne MOTIN, pionnière en Acadie ca 1615-ca 1666
• Louise TURGIS Married to Charles SIMONY
o Angélique TURGIS /1602

Jean Salazar
by Wikipedia (translated from French)
Accessed: 8/2/21

Jean Salazar
Biography
Birth: Towards 1410, Biscay
Death: December 12, 1479, Troyes
Activity: Military
Child: Tristan de Salazar
Other information
Conflicts: Hundred Years War; League of Public Good


Salazar family coat of arms

Jean (de) Salazar is a famous mercenary of the Middle Ages, during the Hundred Years War.

Biography

It has been said of him that he was "a gentleman with a holed cape, light in money no less than scruples."

Born around 1410 in Biscay, he would have joined around 1428, the band of flayers of Rodrigue de Villandrando.

The Flayers are armed troops xvth century, sometimes confused with the Great Companies of the xivth century. They are war entrepreneurs who practice looting, ransom, but also the customary forms of medieval warfare (siege, defense of a stronghold, battle, rides) for their own benefit and for that of King Charles VII to whom they claim to be.

Distinction between Flayers and Rover Scouts

From the middle of the xivth century the French royal troops, whether semoncées or volunteers, are all pledged. The permanence of the conflicts during the Hundred Years War (1337-1453) thus creates careerists of the war, paid by the king or the great lords. These are not however mercenaries, because their vassalic and clientelist links remain in parallel with their economic interest in the war. During periods of peace or truce, these unemployed warriors gather in bands and live on looting and ransoms. In the xivth century, after the Peace of Brétigny-Calais (1360), the armies are disbanded on the spot and their members broken of their wages. Those who do not have the financial means to return home or want to continue their martial way of life (highly remunerative) then form autonomous bands of truck drivers who exert pressure on the regions of France: these are the Grandes Compagnies [The companies of mercenaries recruited from the xiith century to the xivth century, private employers during times of peace, congregated in bands called big companies, and lived at the expense of the people. These mercenaries were then designated as “road” because they belonged to a “route” (“troop” in French at the time]. It should not be confused with Flayers, which are rather the result of political instability in the France of the xvth century of peace and are not mercenaries in the strict sense.

-- Flayers, by Wikipedia

Rodrigue de Villandrando (Rodrigo de Villandrando in Spanish, also written Villa-Andrando in ancient texts and in his signature), Count of Ribedieux and Valladolid, Lord of Ussel, is a Spanish warrior noble of the Middle Ages with French origins by his grandmother Thérèse de Villaines. He was a cruel leader of a band of mercenaries during the Hundred Years War, famous both in Spain and in France where he committed numerous exactions. His dates of birth and death are debated, in the absence of clear documents...

Thanks to his French grandmother, he would have served first as a page then in a company of Jean de Villiers de L'Isle-Adam [Jean de Villiers de L'Isle-Adam, Lord of L'Isle-Adam, was a Marshal of France, Governor of Paris and Governor of Bruges, then Knight of the Golden Fleece. He was assassinated by the population during the Bruges Vespers on May 22, 1437.] during the war between Armagnacs and Burgundians and in particular the May 29, 1418 during the capture of Paris.

Around 1420, he formed a company of brigandage which joined the company of Amaury de Séverac in 1422. He took part in the Battle of Verneuil (1424) . Then engaged in looting from 1427 in Languedoc, the regions of Carcassonne and Nîmes rising to Lyon in October 1428.

He was joined around 1428 by Jean Salazar who became his lieutenant.

On June 11, 1430, he took part in the Battle of Anthon with around 400 men armed with vouges, masses, pikes on the Dauphinois side against Louis II de Chalon-Arlay, Prince of Orange and Franche-Comté vassal of Philippe le Bon, Duke of Burgundy, who was bound by a secret agreement with the Duke of Savoy, Amédée VIII, in order to dismember the Dauphiné. He made prisoner François de La Palud, Lord of Varembon and the Sire of Bussy, Guillaume de Vienne for whom he received heavy ransoms. The troops immediately moved against Orange.

He then received the title of squire. Incorporated into the royal army, he was tasked with Humbert de Groslée with the defense of the Bourbonnais border against Burgundy.

In 1431, he was made Count of Ribadeo because of the services rendered to John II of Aragon who invited him once a year to his table. The same year, it was used to restore order and suppress a popular revolt in Forez and exterminate the rebels who had taken refuge in Saint-Romain-le-Puy .

In September 1432, his truck drivers in the pay of Georges de la Trémoille hold Les Ponts-de-Cé and are attacked by Jean de Bueil.

Around 1433, he was at the height of his power. Its 10,000 bloodthirsty mercenaries (mostly of English origin) terrorize and ransom the populations and lords of the regions they pass through, mainly in the Medoc. He and his flayers ransack and loot many bastides.

In 1433, at the head of his band, the "Rodrigoys", he stormed the castle of Lagarde-Viaur, which he returned after paying a heavy ransom.

In exchange for a loan of 6000 crowns to his brother Charles Ist of Bourbon, he acquired the castle of Ussel and the castle of Châteldon. He then moved to the castle of Montgilbert, from 1434 to 1439.

In 1437, the fourriers of King Charles VII were robbed in Hedgehog by his men.

In 1438 the army of Lieutenant General Charles d'Albret, followed by Villandrando's men, attacked Bordeaux and plundered the Médoc, but failed against the city walls.

In 1443, part of the Rodrigue bands under the command of Jean Salazar retreated from Spain, devastated the Haut Languedoc and plundered the Lauragais.

Banished from the kingdom, he ended his life as Marshal of Castile, in the service of Spain, after bequeathing his goods to the Church of his native country. Refugee in a pious life, he died around 1457.

-- Rodrigue de Villandrando, by Wikipedia

Captain, he joined with Jean de Dunois in October 1428 Orleans besieged by the English and participates in the defense of the city with Joan of Arc. He follows her in all her battles, and is part of the king's army which she leads to the coronation in Reims.

In 1430, he found Villandrando and took part on June 11 in the battle of Anthon. Subsequently, he participated in the siege of Lagny, in February 1434 to that of Mont-Saint-Vincent against the Duke of Burgundy and finally to the liberation of Paris in April 1436 from which the English are driven out.

Unemployed, the Villandrando band settled in Languedoc where they engaged in pillage. Charles VII sends his son the Dauphin to restore order but Villandrando goes to Spain called by the King of Castile to suppress a general uprising. Villandrando remained in Spain, Salazar brings his troops back to France and settles in the Lauragais.

In 1440, he put himself at the service of the great rebellious lords like Georges de La Trémoille, his future father-in-law during the Praguerie. He burned down the church of Massiac but, bought, joined the royal troops.

He marries on October 31, 1441 in Sully-sur-Loire Marguerite, lady of Saint-Fargeau, who died on December 25, 1457 in Saint-Just-en-Champagne, natural daughter of Georges de la Trémoille.


The monument of Salazar


Tomb of John and his wife.

In 1443, after the siege of Isle-Jourdain, and the defeat of Jean d'Armagnac beaten by the Dauphin, he put himself at the service of the latter. The same year he bought the lordship of Chaudes-Aigues to John Duke of Bourbon selling it in 1450 to Charles Ist of Bourbon.

In 1444, he accompanied the Dauphin in charge of leading the bands of "road" out of the kingdom to Switzerland and then to Basel. He was defeated at Farnsburg, which earned him a disgrace. On the death of Charles VII, Louis XI gave him back his command of the company of the Spaniards of 100 lances.

In June 1463, he conquers with the seneschal of Carcassonne the county of Cerdagne.

During the war of the League of Public Good [The League of Public Good is a revolt of princes, led by Charles, Count of Charolais, and other great lords, against the increasing powers of King Louis XI of France. It lasts from March to October 1465.], in 1465, he was in charge of the vanguard of the royal army to harass the enemy and went up the left bank of the Seine, then took part in the July 16, 1465 at the battle of Montlhéry where he brought help to Louis XI in danger.

In 1468, he ordered four hundred lances and six thousand archers, for the people of Liège, who revolted against their bishop.

In 1472, he participated in the defense of Beauvais against the troops of Charles the Bold.

In 1477, he participated in the conquest of Franche-Comté and was governor of Gray. He was badly burned in the city in flames when it was taken over by the Burgundians and only barely managed to escape.

He died in Troyes, on December 12, 1479. He was buried in the church of the Priory of Macheret in Saint-Just-Sauvage. The remains of his tomb are kept at Sens cathedral.

He was captain of a company of one hundred lances, squire of the king, lord of Grandglise, Chaudes-Aigues, Saint-Just-Sauvage, Libourne, Mortagne [Which?], Laz, Lonzac and Issoudun.
The points in common with his chief Villandrando are numerous, like him he married the bastard of a large noble family but his time in the service of the king conferred on him a form of respectability which brought him honors and from which his family took advantage.

Offspring

He was nicknamed the Great Captain. There was another John of Salazar, probably a relative nicknamed little Salazar.

He was married three times.

• From his first wife whose name is unknown he had a son Louis de Salazar dit de Montaigne (x Catherine de Beaujeu lady of Montcoquier, of Asnois and of Tanlay: posterity).
• of his second wife, Marguerite de la Trémoille, daughter of Georges de La Trémoille:
o Hector, Lord of Saint-Just;
o Galéas lord of Mex and Laas (Loiret), (1497-1516);
o Lancelot, Lord of Marcilly and
o Tristan de Salazar, archbishop of Sens (1470-1519) who had a chapel erected in the cathedral of Sens in memory of his parents.
• He finally married Marie de Braque from whom he had:
o Charles de Salazar, Lord of Lonzac.

Coat of arms

Quarterly, 1st and 4th, Gules, 5 mullets with six spokes Or in saltire; with 2 and 3, gold, with five leaves of parsnip Sable, also in saltire [ 1 ]

Notes and references

1. H Gourdon de Genouillac Collection of coats of arms of the noble houses of France Paris Dentu 1860
• Louis Moréri Large historical dictionary Volume 4. Art. Salazar.
• Jules Quicherat : Rodrigo de Villandrando, one of the fighters for independence in French XV th century . Paris Hachette 1879
• Chanoine Eugène Chartraire: Jean de Salazar, squire of King Louis XI, father of Archbishop Tristan de Salazar Archaeological Society of Sens 1923
• A.Thomas: Jean de Salazar and the ambush of AmiensJuly 23, 1471 Library of the École des chartes, volume LXXXVI 1925

External link

descendants of Jean Salazar on Génanet

Ancestry of Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR

-- Ancestry of Etienne de la Tour, all the way back to Charlemagne

Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR [The Tower Of ]
administrateur de l'Acadie [Administrator of Acadia] (1623-1632), gouverneur de l'Acadie [Governor of Acadia] (1636-1641, 1651-1654), pionnier en Acadie, [pioneer of Acadia] [*]: descendants de Charlemagne and du Big-Bang [administrator of Acadia (1623-1632), governor of Acadia (1636-1641, 1651-1654), pioneer in Acadia, [*]: descendants of Charlemagne and of the Big-Bang]
• Born about 1593 - Bagneux, 92007, Hauts de Seine, Ile-de-France, France
• Baptized about 1593 - Bagneux, 92007, Hauts de Seine, Ile-de-France, France
• Deceased in 1666, aged about 73 years old
Parents
• Claude dit ST-ETIENNE TURGIS, seigneur de La Tour [Claude dit ST-ETIENNE TURGIS, Lord of La Tour] ca 1570-1636/
• Écuyer
• Marie [*] de SALAZAR, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne [descendants of Charlemagne] ca 1560-1605
Spouses and children
o Married in 1625 to Ne N, amérindienne Micmac
• Married about 1639 to Françoise Marie JACQUELIN, pionnière en Acadie 1621-1645 (Parents : Jacques JACQUELIN & Hélène LERMINIER) with
o Charles François de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR ca 1643
• Married in 1653, Rivière-Saint-Jean, Acadie - [Acadia] ,,,,Canada, to Jeanne MOTIN, pionnière en Acadie [Acadia] ca 1615-ca 1666 (Parents: Louis de MOTTIN, seigneur de Corcelles & Marie de SALINS) with
 Marie de SAINT-ETIENNE ca 1654 Married to Alexandre LEBORGNE ca 1643
 Jacques [*] LA TOUR de SAINT-ETIENNE, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne ca 1661-1698 Married to Marie Anne MELANSON, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1668-1754
o Charles LA TOUR 1663..1668-1731
• Anne de SAINT-ETIENNE ca 1664 Married to Jacques MIUS, seigneur de Pobomcouc ca 1654
 Marguerite de SAINT-ETIENNE ca 1665 Married to Abraham dit Glemarch MIUS, résident de la bittation de Poboncom ca 1658
o Jeanne de LA TOUR
Siblings
 Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie [Administrator of Acadia] ca 1593-1666 Married in 1625 to Ne N, amérindienne Micmac
Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 Married about 1639 to Françoise Marie JACQUELIN, pionnière en Acadie [Pioneer of Acadia] 1621-1645
Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 Married in 1653, Rivière-Saint-Jean, Acadie - ,,,,Canada, to Jeanne MOTIN, pionnière en Acadie ca 1615-ca 1666
• Louise TURGIS Married to Charles SIMONY
o Angélique TURGIS /1602
Half-siblings
On the side of Marie [*] de SALAZAR, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne and du Big-Bang, born about 1560, deceased in 1605 aged about 45 years old
o with Paul de VERRINES, seigneur de Vouarces, deceased about 1590
o Marie de VERRINES
o Louise de VERRINES
Events
about 1593: Birth - Bagneux, 92007, Hauts de Seine, Ile-de-France, France
Sources: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_d ... de_La_Tour
---: Origine
acadienne 1/1
about 1593: Baptism - Bagneux, 92007, Hauts de Seine, Ile-de-France, France
Sources: Jean-Marie Germe, bulletin AGCF, N° 47
1625: Marriage (with Ne N)
Sources: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_d ... de_La_Tour
31 December 1639: Marriage Contract (with Françoise Marie JACQUELIN) - Nogent-le-Rotrou, 28280, Eure et Loir, Centre, France
Publication: Jean-Marie Germe, DGFA Université de Moncton 2003 et Gazette de l'Acadie AGCF Poitiers 2001
Witness: François GODARD
Sources: Jean Marie Germe
about 1639: Marriage (with Françoise Marie JACQUELIN)
24 February 1653: Marriage Contract (with Jeanne MOTIN) - fort de Port-Royal, Acadie - Port-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada
Charles de St-Etienne, Seigneur de La Tour, Chevalier des ordres du Roy, et son Lieutenant général dans l'Acadie, Païs de la Nouvelle France, d'une part; Et Dame Jeanne Mottin, veuve de feu Messire Charles de Menou, Chevalier, seigneur d'Aulnay, en son vivant aussy Lieutenant général dans tout le dit Païs d'Acadye
Sources: René Jetté, Traité de Généalogie
1653: Marriage (with Jeanne MOTIN) - Rivière-Saint-Jean, Acadie - ,,,,Canada
http://www.francogene.com/genealogie-qu ... 085340.php
1666: Death
Sources: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_d ... de_La_Tour
Notes
Individual Note
George MacBeath, « SAINT-ÉTIENNE DE LA TOUR, CHARLES DE (1593-1666) », dans Dictionnaire biographique du Canada, vol. 1, Université Laval/University of Toronto, 2003–, consulté le 28 janv. 2017, http://www.biographi.ca/fr/bio/saint_et ... 66_1F.html.

Acadia (French: Acadie) was a colony of New France in northeastern North America which included parts of what are now the Maritime provinces, the Gaspé Peninsula and Maine to the Kennebec River. During much of the 17th and early 18th centuries, Norridgewock on the Kennebec River and Castine at the end of the Penobscot River were the southernmost settlements of Acadia. The French government specified land bordering the Atlantic coast, roughly between the 40th and 46th parallels. It was eventually divided into British colonies. The population of Acadia included the various indigenous First Nations that comprised the Wabanaki Confederacy, the Acadian people and other French settlers.

The first capital of Acadia was established in 1605 as Port-Royal. A British force from Virginia attacked and burned down the town in 1613, but it was later rebuilt nearby, where it remained the longest-serving capital of French Acadia until the British siege of Port Royal in 1710. There were six colonial wars in a 74-year period in which British interests tried to capture Acadia, starting with King William's War in 1689. French troops from Quebec, Acadians, the Wabanaki Confederacy, and French priests continually raided New England settlements along the border in Maine during these wars. Acadia was conquered in 1710 during Queen Anne's War, while New Brunswick and much of Maine remained contested territory. Prince Edward Island (Île Saint-Jean) and Cape Breton (Île Royale) remained under French control, as agreed under Article XIII of the Treaty of Utrecht. The English took control of Maine by defeating the Wabanaki Confederacy and the French priests during Father Rale's War. During King George's War, France and New France made significant attempts to regain mainland Nova Scotia. The British took New Brunswick in Father Le Loutre's War, and they took Île Royale and Île Saint-Jean in 1758 following the French and Indian War.

The term Acadia today refers to regions of North America that are historically associated with the lands, descendants, or culture of the former region. It particularly refers to regions of The Maritimes with Acadian roots, language, and culture, primarily in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the Magdalen Islands, and Prince Edward Island, as well as in Maine. It can also refer to the Acadian diaspora in southern Louisiana, a region also referred to as Acadiana. In the abstract, Acadia refers to the existence of an Acadian culture in any of these regions. People living in Acadia are called Acadians which changed to Cajuns in Louisiana, the American pronunciation of Acadians, even though most Cajuns are not descendants of Acadians but French-Americans who lived in southern Louisiana in the USA, a region which became known there as Acadiana in the latter part of the 20th century.

Acadia, by Wikipedia

Saint-Germain-des-Prés (French pronunciation: ​[sɛ̃ ʒɛʁmɛ̃ de pʁe]) is a parish church located in the Saint-Germain-des-Prés quarter of Paris. Founded by Childebert I in the 540s as the Abbaye Sainte-Croix-Saint-Vincent, by the middle of the 8th century it had taken on the name of Saint Germanus (French: Germain), the man appointed bishop of Paris by Childebert and later canonized....

Germain (Latin: Germanus; c. 496 – 28 May 576) was the bishop of Paris and is a saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church...

The Eastern Orthodox Church shared communion with the Roman Catholic Church in the state church of Rome until the East–West Schism in 1054, disputing particularly the authority of the Pope. Before the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 the Church of the East also shared in this communion, as did the Oriental Orthodox Churches before the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, all separating primarily over differences in Christology....

Originally located beyond the outskirts of early medieval Paris, it became a rich and important abbey complex and was the burial place of Germanus and of Childebert and other Merovingian kings of Neustria....

The 7th-century Chronicle of Fredegar implies that the Merovingians were descended from a sea-beast called a quinotaur:

It is said that while Chlodio was staying at the seaside with his wife one summer, his wife went into the sea at midday to bathe, and a beast of Neptune rather like a Quinotaur found her. In the event she was made pregnant, either by the beast or by her husband, and she gave birth to a son called Merovech, from whom the kings of the Franks have subsequently been called Merovingians....


-- French East India Company, by Wikipedia

Merovingian law was not universal law equally applicable to all; it was applied to each man according to his origin...Merovingian law did not admit of the concept of creating new law, only of maintaining tradition...

Merovingian kings and queens used the newly forming ecclesiastical power structure to their advantage. Monasteries and episcopal seats were shrewdly awarded to elites who supported the dynasty. Extensive parcels of land were donated to monasteries to exempt those lands from royal taxation and to preserve them within the family. The family maintained dominance over the monastery by appointing family members as abbots. Extra sons and daughters who could not be married off were sent to monasteries so that they would not threaten the inheritance of older Merovingian children. This pragmatic use of monasteries ensured close ties between elites and monastic properties.

Numerous Merovingians who served as bishops and abbots, or who generously funded abbeys and monasteries, were rewarded with sainthood....The most characteristic form of Merovingian literature is represented by the Lives of the saints. Merovingian hagiography did not set out to reconstruct a biography in the Roman or the modern sense, but to attract and hold popular devotion by the formulas of elaborate literary exercises, through which the Frankish Church channeled popular piety within orthodox channels, defined the nature of sanctity and retained some control over the posthumous cults that developed spontaneously at burial sites, where the life-force of the saint lingered, to do good for the votary.

The vitae et miracula, for impressive miracles were an essential element of Merovingian hagiography, were read aloud on saints’ feast days. Many Merovingian saints, and the majority of female saints, were local ones, venerated only within strictly circumscribed regions; their cults were revived in the High Middle Ages, when the population of women in religious orders increased enormously...

Among the greatest discoveries of lost objects was the 1653 accidental uncovering of Childeric I's tomb in the church of Saint Brice in Tournai. The grave objects included a golden bull's head and the famous golden insects (perhaps bees, cicadas, aphids, or flies) on which Napoleon modelled his coronation cloak....

French Israelism (also called Franco-Israelism) is the belief that people of Frankish descent are also the direct lineal descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and it is often accompanied by the belief that the Merovingian dynasty is directly descended from the line of King David....

Chapter Seven: The Merovingians

The Franks

During the Crusades, those members of Eastern European aristocracy descended from the remnants of the Khazars, in addition to the the ruling families of Armenia, reconnected to ignite an important network, by intermarrying with the descendants of the Merovingians. The Da Vinci Code of Dan Brown has recently popularized the legend of that the Merovingians, the most important of the Illuminati bloodlines, was derived originally from the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The likelihood of this possibility is nil, as the core doctrines of this lineage are based on the Luciferian teachings of Gnosticism. Rather, the myth of the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene was preserved to disguise a more occult secret about the origin of this bloodline.

More importantly, the descendants of the Merovingians eventually intermarried with the family of Charlemagne, founder of the Holy Roman Empire, and supposedly, that of an Exilarch, or claimant to the Davidic throne, named Rabbi Makhir. It is from this lineage that all the leading lines of European aristocracy descend, a bloodline featured as the central secret of Grail lore.

The Merovingians, again, came originally from Scythia, where they were known as the Sicambrians, taking their name from Cambra, a tribal queen of about 380 BC. Then, in the early fifth century AD, the invasion of the Huns provoked large-scale migrations of almost all European tribes. It was at this time that the Sicambrians, a tribe of the Germanic people collectively known as the Franks, crossed the Rhine and moved into Gaul, establishing themselves in what is now Belgium and northern France.

The Merovingians are believed in occult circles to have originally been Jewish, and descended from the Tribe of Benjamin, who had entered Greece known as Cadmus and Danaaus. Certain important details of the history of the Merovingians are related in the Fredegar’ Chronicle, a facsimile of which is in the Biblioteque Nationale in Paris. Fredegar, who died in 660 AD, was a Burgundian scribe, and his Chronicle covered the period from the earliest days of the Hebrew patriarchs to the era of the Merovingian kings. Fredegar’s Prologue tells how the Sicambrian line of “Franks”, from whom France acquired its name, were themselves first so called after their chief Francio, a descendant of Noah, who died in 11 BC. Prior to their Scythian days, Francio’s race originated in ancient Troy after which the French city of Troyes was named. The city of Paris, established by the sixth century Merovingians, likewise bears the name of Paris, the son of King Priam of Troy, whose liaison with Helen of Sparta sparked the Trojan War.

The claim, asserted in The Da Vinci Code, is that Mary Magdalene had brought to southern France a child she bore to Jesus, and that her lineage was survived among the Merovingians....

Charlemagne

Clovis converted to Roman Christianity, and an accord was ratified between him and the Roman Church, followed by a great wave of conversion. Clovis was granted the title of New Constantine, presiding over a Holy Roman Empire. Clovis’ successors, however, did not retain his ruthlessness, and instead became mere figureheads, puppets of the Mayors of the Palace, in whose hands was the real power. On Clovis’ death, his son Dagobert, acceded to the kingdom of Austrasia, but was deposed by a conspiracy on the part of Pepin the Fat, the king’s mayor of the palace, which the Church of Rome approved, immediately passing the Merovingian administration of Austrasia to him.

Pepin was followed by Charles Martel, one of the most heroic figures in French history, and who was the grandfather of Charlemagne, according whose name the dynasty came to be known in history as that of the Carolingians. The Carolingians were partly of Merovingian descent, but more importantly, they represented the union of the once divided lineage of the Mithraic bloodline. This lineage had survived in two branches. Julia, the heiress of the Edomite royal bloodline, was the daughter of Herod Phollio King of Chalcis, whose grandfather was Herod the Great, and whose mother was the daughter of Salome, married Tigranes King of Armenia, the son of Alexander of Judea. Their son Alexander married Iotape of Commagene, the daughter of Antiochus IV. From them was descended St. Arnulf, a Frankish noble who had great influence in the Merovingian kingdoms as Bishop of Metz, and who was later canonized as a saint, and who lived from 582 to 640 AD.

In St. Arnulf, this lineage was united with the other branch. That other branch was survived in the priest-kings of Emesa, descended from Claudia, the grand-daughter of the Emperor Claudius, which had also culminated in the person of the Neoplatonic philosopher Iamblichus. Saint Arnulf was the grandfather of Peppin II, the father of Charles Martel.

Charles Martel’s son, Peppin III, was the father of Charles the Great, known as Charlemagne. In 771, Charlemagne assumed the throne and took advantage of his brother’s death to unite the Carolingian territories. Charlemagne’s goal was to unite through conquest all the Germanic people into one kingdom. By 800 AD, the Frankish kingdom included all of modern France, Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, almost all of Germany and large areas of Italy and Spain.

Charlemagne received substantial help from an alliance with the Pope, who wanted to cut the remaining ties with the Byzantine Empire. In this way, the domains of the Pope became an independent state in central Italy. In the same year, 800 AD, Charlemagne was crowned Emperor by the Pope, becoming the first emperor in the west, since the last Roman emperor was deposed in 476 AD, and thus inaugurating the Holy Roman Empire. Charlemagne’s dual role as Emperor, and King of the Franks, provides the historical link between the Frankish kingdoms and later Germany, as both France and Germany look unto Charlemagne as the founding figure of their respective countries.

Guillaume of Gellone

It is frequently claimed by genealogists that all of European aristocracy can claim descent from Charlemagne. Less well-known, though significant for occult lore, is that Charlemagne’s descendants were intricately intertwined with those of one Rabbi Makhir, a Jewish Exilarch from Baghdad, known as Rabbi Makhir, or Natronai, who became the father of Guillaume the Gellone. This was the important union, infusing European aristocracy with Davidic lineage, by which occult societies, and books like the Holy Blood Holy Grail, have claimed represented the secret of the Holy Grail. It is also the reason for which one of the stated aims of the Illuminati, like the enigmatic Priory of Zion, mentioned in The Da Vinci Code, is to reinstitute the descendants of Merovingians, as rulers of a New World Order....

A look at the numerous dynastic alliances between this Guillaume de Gellone, and the descendants of Charlemagne, will illustrate the degree of penetration of his lineage, and demonstrate the basis for his perceived importance in occult circles. Their descendants, known as the Guilhemids, would form an important nexus, through intermarriage, with their Saxon and Scandinavian relations, as well as the aristocracy of Eastern Europe, descended from the Khazars, and the royal family of Armenia, that would figure centrally in the occult conspiracy that was brought to birth during the Crusades. Their subsequent subversive activities would alter the history of Europe, and provide an occult influence that would remain a hidden, though powerful influence, until they finally came to light as the Illuminati in the eighteenth century....

Finally, when these various bloodlines reconnected with their counterparts in the east, they became introduced to the Paulicianism, whose influence produced the heresy of the Cathars, that was adopted by the Guilhemids, and ultimately figuring in the lore of their secret bloodline, the Grail legends. There was one union in particular, which set off the beginning of this relationship, and from which would derive the most important line of descent, and which would later figure at the center of the various covert activities of the early predecessors of the Illuminati. That union was the one between Adiva, the daughter of Edward the Elder, King of England, and Boleslav I, the Duke of Bohemia, and the person produced was a daughter named Dubrawka....

Dubrawka, the daughter of Boleslav and Adiva, married Mieszko I King of Poland, a member of the Piast dynasty. Mieszko and Dubrawka’s daughter, Adelaide, married Geza Arpad. Their daughter Hercegno married Gavril Radomir, the son of Samuil, Tsar of Bulgaria. Samuil was one of four sons of Prince Nikola Kumet, Count of Bulgaria, who was descended from Kubrat the first King of Bulgaria, himself descended from Attila the Hun.

Another branch of the Turks, the Bulgars, during the seventh century AD, had come under domination of the Khazars, with whom they shared a language. The Khazars forced some of the Bulgars to move to the upper Volga River region where the independent state of Volga Bulgaria was founded, while other Bulgars fled to modern-day Bulgaria.

Through Jewish influence, Nikola Kumet’s sons were all given Jewish names, which included David, Moses, and Aaron. Nikola married Rhipsime Bagratuni, the daughter of Ashot II Erkat, Shahanshah of Armenia. Bagratuni was the name of the dynasty that succeed the Mamikonians as rulers of Armenia, in the ninth century AD, and claimed Jewish descent.

These Bulgarian Csars became defenders of Bogomilism, a Gnostic heresy that developed in Bulgaria, in the tenth century AD, from Manichaeism and Pauliciansism. In 970 AD, the Byzantine emperor John Tzimisces, himself of Armenian origin, transplanted as many as 200,000 Armenian Paulicians to Europe, and settled them in the Balkans, which then became the centre for the spread of their doctrines. Settled there as a kind of bulwark against the invading Bulgarians, but the Armenians, instead, converted them to their religion, eventually evolving into what is known as Bogomilism.

Signifying in Slavonic “friends of God”, their doctrine maintained that God had two sons, the elder Satanael, the younger Jesus. To Satanael, who sat on the right hand of God, belonged the right of governing the celestial world, but, filled with pride, he rebelled against his Father and fell from Heaven. Then, aided by the companions of his fall, he created the visible world, the image of the celestial, having like the other its Sun, Moon, and stars, and last he created man and the serpent which became his minister.

Later Christ came to earth in order to show men the way to heaven, but His death was ineffectual, for even by descending into Hell he could not defeat the power of Satanael. The belief in the impotence of Christ and the need therefore to appease Satan, led to the doctrine that Satan should be worshipped. Nicetas Choniates, a Byzantine historian of the twelfth century, described the followers of this cult as Satanists because, “considering Satan powerful they worshipped him lest he might do them harm.”

In the first half of the tenth century, Bogomil teaching, led by the priest Bogomil, appeared in Macedonia. Within a short period of time Bogomilism had grown into a large-scale popular movement. The Byzantine Empire was unable to eradicate the heresy, and David, Moses, Aaron and Samuil, began a rebellion in 869 to defend Bogomilism against its enemies, resulting in breaking Macedonia away from the Bulgarian Empire, establishing the first Slavic-Macedonian state. After their considerable territorial conquests Samuil was proclaimed Emperor and was crowned by the Pope of Rome.

-- Terrorism and the Illuminati: A Three Thousand Year History, by David Livingston

The Abbey was founded in the 6th century by the son of Clovis I, Childebert I (ruled 511–558). Under royal patronage the Abbey became one of the richest in France, as demonstrated by its ninth-century polyptych; it housed an important scriptorium in the eleventh century and remained a center of intellectual life in the French Catholic church until it was disbanded during the French Revolution...The abbey church remains as the Église de Saint-Germain-des-Prés, one of the oldest churches in Paris.

In 542, while making war in Spain, Childebert raised his siege of Zaragoza when he heard that the inhabitants had placed themselves under the protection of the martyr Saint Vincent. In gratitude the bishop of Zaragoza presented him with the saint's stole. When Childebert returned to Paris, he caused a church to be erected to house the relic, dedicated to the Holy Cross and Saint Vincent, placed where he could see it across the fields from the royal palace on the Île de la Cité.


The Île de la Cité, in the center of Paris

Palais de la Cité

In 558, St. Vincent's church was completed and dedicated by Germain, Bishop of Paris on 23 December, the very day that Childebert died. Close by the church a monastery was erected. Its abbots had both spiritual and temporal jurisdiction over the suburbs of Saint-Germain (lasting till about the year 1670). The church was frequently plundered and set on fire by Vikings in the ninth century. It was rebuilt in 1014 and rededicated in 1163 by Pope Alexander III to Saint Germain of Paris, the canonized Bishop of Paris and Childeric's chief counsellor....

It gave its name to the quarter of Saint-Germain-des-Prés that developed around the abbey. This area is also part of the Latin Quarter, because the Abbey donated some of its lands along the Seine—the Pré aux Clercs ("fields of the scholars") for the erection of buildings to house the University of Paris, where Latin was the lingua franca among students who arrived from all over Europe and shared no other language...

The tomb of philosopher René Descartes is located in one of the church's side chapels.

Burials

• Childebert I
• Chilperic I
• Clothar II
• Bertrude
• Chilperic II
• Childeric II
• Bilichild
• Germain of Paris
• Fredegund (The tomb of Fredegund (Frédégonde) is now situated in the Saint Denis Basilica, having been moved from the abbey church of Saint-Germain-des-Prés).
• John II Casimir Vasa (Heart only, body transferred to Wawel Cathedral)
• William Egon of Fürstenberg
• George Douglas, 1st Earl of Dumbarton
• Lord James Douglas
• William Douglas, 10th Earl of Angus
• Jacques Barbeu-Dubourg
• René Descartes
• Nicolas Boileau-Despréaux
• Louis César de Bourbon, Count of Vexin...

From 1275 to 1636, the pillory of the Abbey was located in the current Place d'Acadie, better known to Parisians as the Mabillon due to the eponymous Métro station located there. This square was therefore called the Place du Pilori and the current rue de Buci leading to it was called the rue du Pilori.

-- Saint-Germain-des-Prés (abbey), by Wikipedia

Alexandre LEBORGNE
• Born about 1643
Parents
• Emmanuel LEBORGNE 1610-1681
o Jeanne FRANÇOIS 1615
Spouses and children
• Married to Marie de SAINT-ETIENNE ca 1654 (Parents : Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 & Jeanne MOTIN, pionnière en Acadie ca 1615-ca 1666) with
o Emanüel LEBORGNE ca 1675
• Marie LEBORGNE ca 1677 Married about 1694, Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada, to Alexandre dit Ledru GIROUARD, résident Charlotte ca 1670
o Alexandre LEBORGNE ca 1679
o Jeanne LEBORGNE ca 1681
Events
about 1643: Birth
---: Marriage (with Marie de SAINT-ETIENNE)
1686: Domestiques: (with Marie de SAINT-ETIENNE)
Witness: Etienne AUCHER ca 1673
Sources: recensement de de Meulles

Marie Anne MELANSON
résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal (1671)
• Born about 1668 - Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada
• Deceased 19 September 1754 (Thursday) - Annapolis-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada, aged about 86 years old
• Buried 20 September 1754 (Friday) - Annapolis-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada
Parents
• Charles la RAMÉE MELANSON, résident de la bittation de Port-Royal 1642-1700..1701
• Marie DUGAS, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1648-1737
Spouses and children
• Married to Jacques [*] LA TOUR de SAINT-ETIENNE, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne ca 1661-1698 (Parents: Charles [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, administrateur de l'Acadie ca 1593-1666 & Jeanne MOTIN, pionnière en Acadie ca 1615-ca 1666) with
• Agathe SAINT-ÉTIENNE de LA TOUR 1690-1743/ Married to Edward Bradstreet †1718
Agathe SAINT-ÉTIENNE de LA TOUR 1690-1743/ Married after 1718 to Hugh CAMPBELL †/1730
 Anne Marie [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne 1692-1764 Married 6 February 1714 (Tuesday), Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada, to Jean Baptiste PORLIER ca 1685
o Married after 1698 to Nn ROBICHAUX
Siblings
o Marie MELANSON, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal 1663..1664
o Marguerite MELANSON 1665..1666
 Marie Anne MELANSON, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1668-1754 Married to Jacques [*] LA TOUR de SAINT-ETIENNE, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne ca 1661-1698
Marie Anne MELANSON, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1668-1754 Married after 1698 to Nn ROBICHAUX
 Cécile MELANSON, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1671- Married to Jean BELLIVEAU, résident de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1652-ca 1734
Cécile MELANSON, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1671- Married before 1686 to Abraham dit Manne BOUDROT, résident de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1657-1700..1701
 Isabelle MELANSON ca 1673- Married to Michel BOURG, résident de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1665-ca 1714
o Charles MELANSON ca 1675
 Madeleine MELANSON ca 1677 Married in 1696, Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada, to Jean BELLIVEAU ca 1672-1707
o Marie MELANSON ca 1679
o Françoise MELANSON ca 1682
o Pierre MELANSON ca 1685
o Ambroise MELANSON ca 1685
 Jean MELANSON ca 1690-1760 Married 22 January 1714 (Monday), Port-Royal, Acadie - Port-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada, to Madeleine PETIOT ca 1694-1760
Events
about 1668: Birth - Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada
1686: Census - cap de Sable - Port-la-Tour, ,Île du cap de Sable, Nova Scotia, Canada
18 ans
Sources: recensement de de Meulles
---: Origine
acadienne 1/1
---: Marriage (with Jacques [*] LA TOUR de SAINT-ETIENNE)
after 1698: Marriage (with Nn ROBICHAUX)
19 September 1754: Death - Annapolis-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada
environ 80 ans
Sources: Registres de St. Jean-Baptiste, Annapolis Royal, 1702-1755 p514
20 September 1754: Burial - Annapolis-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada
Sources: Registres de St. Jean-Baptiste, Annapolis Royal, 1702-1755 p514

Edward Bradstreet
Deceased in 1718
Lieutenant de l'armée britanique [British Army Lieutenant]
Spouses
Married to Agathe SAINT-ÉTIENNE de LA TOUR 1690-1743/ (Parents: sosa Jacques [*] LA TOUR de SAINT-ETIENNE, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne ca 1661-1698 & sosa Marie Anne MELANSON, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1668-1754)

Hugh CAMPBELL
• Deceased before 1730
• Lieutenant de l'armée britanique [British Army Lieutenant]
Spouses
• Married after 1718 to Agathe SAINT-ÉTIENNE de LA TOUR 1690-1743/ (Parents: Jacques [*] LA TOUR de SAINT-ETIENNE, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne ca 1661-1698 & Marie Anne MELANSON, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1668-1754)

Jean Baptiste PORLIER
• Born about 23 October 1685 - Québec, , Capitale-Nationale, Québec, Canada
• Pilote
Parents
o Claude PORLIER, pionnier en Nouvelle France 1652-1689
• Écuyer marchand
• Marie BISSOT 1657-1719
Spouses and children
• Married 6 February 1714 (Tuesday), Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada, to Anne Marie [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne 1692-1764 (Parents: Jacques [*] LA TOUR de SAINT-ETIENNE, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne ca 1661-1698 & Marie Anne MELANSON, résidente de la bittation de Port-Royal ca 1668-1754) with
• Jean PORLIER 1715 Married 17 January 1741 (Tuesday), Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada, to Madeleine GRANGER
o Pierre PORLIER 1718
• Marie Joseph Porlier 1723 Married 21 January 1744 (Tuesday), Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada, to Laurent GRANGER ca 1721-1751
 Claude [*] Cyprien PORLIER, [*]: descendants de Charlemagne 1726-1811 Married 20 January 1755 (Monday), Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada, to Cécile GRANGER 1729-1805
o Marguerite PORLIER 1732
Events
about 23 October 1685: Birth - Québec, , Capitale-Nationale, Québec, Canada
http://gw.geneanet.org/henrene?lang=fr& ... &n=porlier
---: Origine
acadienne 1/8 canadienne française 7/8
6 February 1714: Marriage (with Anne Marie [*] de SAINT-ETIENNE de LA TOUR) - Port-Royal, Acadie - Annapolis-Royal, , , Nova Scotia, Canada
Sources: Registres de St. Jean-Baptiste, Annapolis Royal, 1702-1755

[admin]

Part 1 of ___

Louis Barthelemy
Excerpts from The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai
translated from the Tamil by Order of the Government of Madras
Volumes 1-3 edited by Sir J. Frederick Price, KCSI., Late of the Indian Civil Service, Assisted by K. Rangachari, B.A., Superintendent of Records, Government Secretariat, Fort St. George
Volumes 4-12 edited by H. Dodwell, M.A., Curator, Madras Record Office
1904-1928

Louis Barthelemy [b. 1695; d. 1760] was the son of a Montpellier merchant. He entered the Company’s service in 1728, and at this time he was of the Pondichery Council, after serving in Bengal. In 1746 he was second at Madras under d’Espremenil, and, when the latter retired to Pondichery, became chief there; but refused to remain when he was superseded by Paradis. He married a daughter of Dulaurens. Etat general des Employes en 1750 (Ministere des Colonies, C2 15); Weber, pp. 466, 467 ; Cf., infra under date July 15.

-- The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, translated from the Tamil by Order of the Government of Madras, edited by H. Dodwell, M.A., Curator, Madras Record Office, Volume 4, 1916

The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, translated from the Tamil by Order of the Government of Madras, edited by Sir J. Frederick Price, KCSI., Late of the Indian Civil Service, Assisted by K. Rangachari, B.A., Superintendent of Records, Government Secretariat, Fort St. George, Volume 1, 1904

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....

CHAPTER XV.

FROM APRIL 12th, 1746, TO APRIL 22ND, 1746.

Visit of Deputy Governor, Tranquebar — His personal appearance — Reception accorded to him — Opinion as to grounds for honours shown — Ramachandra Aiyan asks diarist whether he intends to take up chief dubashship -- Conversation on the subject — Kesava Rao, agent of Fatteh Sing, sends letter to Governor — Contains inter alia request for large loan -- Considered a forgery — Verbal reply sent that matter would be discussed later on— Governor inquires into claim against W. Tiruvengada Pillai —Directs him and Vira Chetti to make oath in temple — Muttukumaran and others deputed to see to compliance with order — They converse with diarist on their way — Statements of parties on taking oath — Removal of surveillance over complainant — Accused released — The complaint against him — Diarist strongly condemns conduct of Governor — Mentions result of it — Further remarks on Governor — Mari Chetti brought from prison to diarist who advises him to pay his debts— Remanded to confinement — Again produced — Certain persons complain to Deputy Governor that traders are being ill-used and tortured — Being repulsed, go to M. Barthelemy alleging that diarist torturing Mari Chetti— He refuses to listen— Go to house of Governor, but leave without speaking — Complain to certain members of Council and to priests — M. Miran records statements, and takes these to Governor — Who comments unfavourably on them — Sends for diarist — Wife of Mari Chetti comes to her husband— He reassures her, and is relegated to confinement — Governor summons diarist — Chinna Mudali, Tandavarayan, and Rangan, present — Last two interrogated as to story told to M. Miran— Deny it — Governor holds an investigation — Interpreter of M. Miran examined — Wrath of Governor against Tandavarayan and Rangan — He severely censures M. Miran — Who resents this — Tandavarayan and Raman imprisoned — Governor directs their speedy trial and punishment — Mari Chetti executes bond for payment of debts — Flight of a certain woman, to escape creditors -- Remarks on this — Departure of Deputy Governor, Tranquebar — Widow of Kanakaraya Mudali and her daughter-in-law remove to new residence — conduct of Chinna Mudali towards former — Reflections on the fall in her circumstances— And on the instability of prosperity —Remarks upon character of Chinna Mudali — Contrasted unfavourably with his brother — His efforts to obtain chief dubashship— Avay Sahib purchases broad-cloth —Release of Mari Chetti and others— Avay Sahib makes more purchases— Price set off against debt due by Company to Imam Sahib -- Four traders execute bonds for debts to Company — Governor unable to see diarist, owing to illness— Traders therefore retained in custody — M. Desmarets comes to diarist -- States that Governor keeps secret contents of a despatch— Believed to be orders for dismissal of Deputy Governor and cashier— Diarist expresses astonishment at fault being found with former— M. Pesmarets explains how these two officers got into trouble — Conversation as to how contents of despatch leaked out— M. Coquet, of Company’s service, drinks spirits — Enters native house in view to annoy females — Fracas ensues— M. Coquet severely injured — Governor expresses his approval— Inquiry instituted  as to assailants ...

Friday, 15th April 1746, or 6th Chittirai of Akshaya. This morning, I had Mari Chetti brought before me at the distillery, from the house of the chief of the peons, where he was detained. I again talked with him on the subject of the previous night, and explained the terms of the instalment-bond which he was required to execute. In the meantime, Devam Tandavarayan, and Rangan the brother of Govindan, who had previously been incarcerated with other traders in the court-prison, called together the parents of Mari Chetti, and a few men and women, and went with them to the house of the Deputy Governor. They took their stand before the gate, and loud enough for the Deputy Governor, who was within the house, to hear them, they bawled out a complaint that the traders who were taken to the court-prison were confined in a room, and not allowed to go out to take their food, or answer the calls of nature; and that they were tortured by being compelled to inhale the smoke of burning chillies. M. Legou, the Deputy Governor, hearing the noise came out, and inquired who they were. They replied they were traders. He told them that they were a pack of rogues, and directed them to go away, warning them, at the same time, of the consequences which would befall them if they did not agree to pay the money due to the Governor. They thereafter went to M. Barthelemy, and complained to him that, having summoned Mari Chetti before me, and finding that he would not execute the bond demanded of him, I had caused his hands to be tied behind him, and having hung him head downwards, was beating him; that the ropes with which he was bound were moistened with water to make them swell, and cut through the flesh; that the victim of this cruelty was also being compelled to inhale chilly-smoke, and was lying at death’s door; and that the men taken to the court-prison were confined in one room, were not allowed to answer the calls of nature, and were tortured by being forced to breathe chilly-smoke. These and other false charges were made before M. Barthelemy, who told the accusers that he had nothing to do with the matter. They next proceeded to the residence of the Governor. They were met at the gate by Chinna Mudali, who told them that it would not be proper for the whole party to enter the house; and that two of them had better go in, and make the complaint. To this they would not agree. They then went to MM. Dulaurens, Miran, Le Maire, and other Councillors; and to the priests of the church, before whom, severally, they preferred in detail the same charge as they had made before M, Barthelemy. M. Miran, however, caused them to repeat their complaints, took them down in writing, and went to the Governor, to whom he handed the deposition of the traders, and stated what they had told him. The Governor remarked in reply that what was alleged could not have occurred; that it was true that he had deputed me to bring the traders to terms; that two or three of them had already executed instalment-bonds, and had been released from custody; and that two or three more — as I have said — had agreed to do the same. He pointed out that it was therefore impossible that such things could have happened, but nevertheless he said that he would send for me and others, and make an inquiry; and finding that it was almost meal-time, he asked M. Miran to dine with him. A peon was accordingly sent to fetch me.

Whilst this was going on, I was at the distillery-house endeavouring to bring Mari Chetti to terms. As I was thus engaged, his wife arrived, and said to her husband: "Devam Tandavarayan, and Rangan the brother of Govindan, told us that you were being beaten by Ananda Ranga Pillai. They took with them your parents, and some others, and have gone to make a complaint to the Governor. I have come here to ascertain what has happened.” Mari Chetti replied that they lied, and that he was merely having a talk with me. He thereupon told her to depart, which she did. I continued to try to convince him, but in vain. I then sent him away to the house of the chief of the peons, and went home at half-past 12. I was bathing, when one of the Company’s peons delivered a message to me that the Governor required my presence, after I had taken my meal. Having eaten my food, I set out at half-past 1, for the Governor’s house. My arrival was reported to him, and he thereupon sent for Chinna Mudali, who came at once. He had previously summoned Devam Tandavarayan, and Ranga Pillai the brother of Govindan, and they were already there. Chinna Mudali and I presented ourselves before him. As the Deputy Governor of Tranquebar was seated with him at table, the Governor when he saw us left it, and retired with M. Miran to his writing room. Chinna Mudali, Tandavarayan, and Rangan, were then sent for, and when they entered the apartment the Governor told Chinna Mudali to ask Tandavarayan and Rangan what they had said to M. Miran regarding my treatment of them. To this question they replied that they had already stated I had done them no injury, but that the warders of the court-prison had put them to a good deal of annoyance, by not permitting them to go out, either to take their meals, or to answer the calls of nature. The Governor then asked what they meant by telling a tale to M. Miran about my having caused Mari Chetti to be hung up head downwards, and beaten in that position, and about Mari Chetti’s being compelled to inspire the fumes of chillies, etc.; and then quite a different story to him. They replied that they had not said what was imputed to them, and that they only complained against the warders as regards their treatment of them when prisoners. M. Miran testified that he took down their statements as they were translated to him by his interpreter, Surappa Mudali, for whom he then sent. The Governor now made a sign to me to advance from where I was seated apart, and asked me what I had done to induce the traders to come to terms. I replied that a few of these men had sent their relatives to treat with me; that on my refusal to hear them, on the ground that they were a litigious set and that I could not put faith in their words, they besought me to listen to them, and agreed to execute bonds undertaking to pay by instalments; and that thereupon I communicated this to him, took documents from two or three of the traders, and released them from custody. I added that, whilst I was treating with Mari Chetti this day on the subject of his bond, the two men mentioned above collected a crowd, and made false charges against me to the Councillors and the priests, to the effect that I had beaten and otherwise ill-treated him; and that this was all I knew about the matter. He asked me why I did not make a report to him. I replied: "Is not this a complaint preferred against me? I therefore thought it would be better to wait until my accusers had had their say. I did not like to prejudice your mind by first telling you what I knew.” Chinna Mudali then said to the Governor: "These people came, and complained to me. I investigated their allegations, and finding that they were making false charges, I spoke angrily to them, and bade them go away.” "Why did you not of your own accord tell me about this?" asked the Governor. He in reply alleged that as a crowd had gathered at the time, he could not find an opportunity to convey to him any intimation of what had occurred. Surappa Mudali, the interpreter of M. Miran, who had been sent for, now came. The Governor desired him to repeat what Tandavarayan, and Rangan, had stated to M. Miran. He stood trembling in every limb; his tongue clove to the roof of his mouth; and he was unable to utter even a word. The Governor said encouragingly to him: "Be not afraid. Tell us what happened.” Surappa Mudali stammered out a few unintelligible words, and then exclaimed in Tamil: "There are witnesses who heard what these complainants told me. The men who before this said certain things to me, now deny them altogether.” This speech was interpreted by Chinna Mudali to the Governor, who then turned to Tandavarayan, and Rangan, and wrathfully asked them what harm the Councillors and priests, to whom they had made false complaints, could do to him. He next addressed M. Miran, and said with anger, both in his voice and manner: "Is it not because you, and all the other Councillors have given occasion for indignities to be heaped upon me — inasmuch as you have not in the first instance properly investigated the false complaints preferred by these dogs — that these worthless men do as they like. Now, do not M. Dulaurens and all of you share in the profits realised by the sale of goods to these traders? Am I alone the gainer thereby? Do we not all equally share both the profit and the loss?" M. Miran, frowning, replied: "This is the first time that I ever heard these complaints. As soon as I did so, I reported them to you, in order that inquiry might be made.” The Governor afterwards directed that Tandavarayan and Rangan, should be confined in the court-prison, and sent them away in custody. He next told Chinna Mudali to go to the court on the hearing day, and ask the Deputy Governor to take up, as the first for hearing, the case of false charge of which these two men were guilty, and to mete out to them a proper punishment. I thereafter went to the distillery-house, and sent Arunachala Muttu Chetti to my brother, Tiruvengada Pillai, to communicate to him all the tidings of the day. Towards evening, Mari Chetti came, and having executed before me a bond for payment in instalments, in favour of Wandiwash Ranga Pillai — his house being the security for the money due by him to the Governor — he returned to the house of the chief of the peons.

Two Indian hours before daybreak this morning, Rangammal, the wife of Kasturi Rangaiyan, the subordinate chief of the peons, escaped from Pondichery, to avoid her creditors. Tyaga Aiyan, the elder sister’s son of Gopalakrishna Aiyan, was distressed because she fled with 130 pagodas of his money. A few consoled him for the loss, by saying that he had had his satisfaction otherwise. A few others, who hoped to reap a little money by the scandal, were much chagrined, and remained in-doors, through sheer vexation. A few more were transported with joy because they felt the riddance of her as though they had been relieved of Saturn.* [The most malignant, in astrological influence, of all the planets.] Others again, who had been quaking with fear lest she should prefer false accusations against them, now felt their hearts revive. So her flight was hailed with delight by many, and regretted only by a few. The latter were Ranga Pillai, — the Governor’s accountant, — Arunachala Chetti, Vijayaragava Chari, Ranga Chari, Tyaga Aiyan, Ramachandra Aiyan, the son of Melugiri Pandit, and his brothers: the many were the rest....

Friday, 22nd April 1746, or 13th Chittirai of Akshaya. — This day, whilst I was at the arecanut storehouse, M. Desmarets came to ask me for carts for gravel. He said to me: "In the mail bag which came four days ago from Mahe, there was a letter from France. This was first sent to Bussorah; whence it was despatched, by way of Surat, to Mahe, and thence here. The Governor read it, and keeps the contents to himself. He also has not delivered the letters from France which were addressed to other individuals. It is reported that this letter, which is to the Council of Pondichery, contains some news of interest — at least some people in Mahe have written to this effect to MM. Barthelemy and Dulaurens, and a few others. Now listen to me, and I will relate to you the particulars, as far as I have learnt them. I was told by M. Vincens that M. Dupleix has received an order to dismiss M. Legou the Deputy Governor, and M. Guilliard the cashier, and that the letter addressed to the Council intimated that two commissioners are on their way out to hold an inquiry. I was further informed that M. Dupleix let out, when chatting at table, that he has been given full powers to act in the matter, and that he is perplexed as to the manner of communicating the order to the persons whom it concerns.” I remarked to M. Desmarets: "M. Legou has served the Company for forty years; he is, besides, a man of respectable character, of amiable disposition, and of good conduct. He has no equal as a judge of the qualities of cloth. There is everything about him with which the Directors should be pleased; and how is it possible that they should dismiss a man who has committed no fault.” M. Desmarets replied: "M. Porcher, when he was Administrator at Bandar, was charged with misconduct, and deprived of his Councillorship by M. Dumas, who also passed an order incapacitating him from serving the Company again. M. Porcher went to France, and laid the matter before the Directors, who confirmed the order of M. Dumas, but granted him permission to trade in the East on his own account. He, accordingly, returned to this country. When M. Dupleix became Governor, the case was again laid before his Council, and M. Porcher being declared innocent of the charges brought against him, was restored to his Councillorship. But the Company not having confirmed this, he was obliged to resign his appointment. In the course of the second, investigation, MM. Legou and Guilliard gave evidence to the effect that MM. Golard and Delorme had testified, to the innocence of M. Porcher, when he was on his trial before M. Dumas. This matter became known in France to M. Dumas, and he asked the Company whether such time-servers as MM. Legou and Guilliard, who altered their statements to suit the occasion, could be permitted to remain on the Council. Again, M. Dumont, a private merchant at Chandernagore, wrote to M. Soude, his agent, to realize a debt of 600 pagodas due to him from M. Mossac, a kinsman of M. Dupleix. M. Soude demanded payment from M. Mossac, who however repudiated the claim. The former then petitioned the Council to hold an investigation. On inquiry, it held that a false claim was preferred in M. Soude’s petition, and that what was mentioned in M. Dumont’s letter to him was untrue. As a matter of fact, however, M. Mossac subsequently repaid at Chandernagore the amount alleged to be due to M. Dumont, and requested him not to reveal the fact of his having done so. In this affair there was some perjury on the part of M. Guilliard, who was then the King’s Attorney; and M. Legou was accessory thereto. These acts on the part of the two Councillors were laid hold of by M. Dumas, who put it to the Directors whether men such as these, who were guilty of perjury and giving false evidence, could be allowed to continue in the service of the Company. They thereupon passed an order dismissing them.” In reply to this statement by M. Desmarets, I asked him how it happened that the contents of the despatch had leaked out before they had been made known in Council. He replied that some individuals in Pondichery had received communications on the subject from Mahe. I inquired who they were. He mentioned the names of MM. Barthelemy, and Dulaurens, and a few more; and said that he was told that these people had been talking over the matter in confidence. I observed that the whole truth would come out in the course of ten days more. Thereupon, he bade me farewell, and went home.

Last evening at 7, M. Coquet, the Notary Public and a subordinate merchant, left his house, and went to the garden of M. Basque in Mirapalli. There he drank spirits, and as he was returning home he entered a house in a certain street, for the purpose of annoying the women there. As it was dark, he pulled a firebrand from the hearth, and was waving it in the air in order to cause it to blaze before commencing his search, when a girl rushed out. He kicked off his slippers, and ran after her. The girl, however, fled to a neighbouring house, and called for help. On hearing her cry, the Tamil neighbours and passers-by assembled, and instituted a search in the house which the Frenchman was reported to have entered. He however escaped, and took refuge in a building hard by, which was in course of erection, and had no outer door. The Tamilians, fearing to venture in, surrounded the house, and kept watch. After a while, the Frenchman issued from his hiding place, and threw clods of earth at those who were watching for him in the street. Four men approached from behind, and seized him. He was then set upon, and beaten by all the persons assembled there. The gold buttons on his dress fell off, and all his clothes were torn. His sword and cane were wrested from him, and he was taken as a prisoner to the house of the Deputy Governor. The beating which he received was so severe that his skull was fractured, and his life is despaired of. Whether he will survive the rough treatment to which he has been subjected, remains to be seen. The Governor, who was apprised of what had occurred, expressed his approval of the action of the people in these words: "Should the Tamilians bear with the conduct of a European who enters a native house to outrage the women? They have done well in making a thorough example of him.” Those who were concerned in assaulting the Frenchman are not known, and inquiry is being held. No arrests have as yet been made.

The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, translated from the Tamil by Order of the Government of Madras, edited by H. Dodwell, M.A., Curator, Madras Record Office, Volume 4, 1916

Saturday, March 18. [8th Panguni, Akshaya.] — The news is that M. Delarche, [Son of a captain in the French service and of a Creole mother. Dupleix describes him as almost faultless save for his vanity, ‘vice ordinaire de l’enfant de l’Inde.’ (Google translate: ordinary vice of the child from India.) He knew Persian, and married an Armenian woman. Cultru, pp. 40, 50; Cj. ante ii 326.] M. Cayrefourg, [Surgeon-Major of Pondichery. Cultru, p. 14. European Surgeons (more or less qualified) played a considerable part in the diplomacy of those days. One need only mention the exploits of Manucci and the fact may be recalled that Dupleix maintained a correspondence with Delhi by means of a French deserter who had set up as surgeon in ordinary to the Moghul.] M. de Kerjean, and the priest, who went with the present to the Nawab, reached my garden at sunrise this morning with a dress of honour and a horse sent in return. They left the horse at the garden, and, as the Governor was in bed, came here at seven o’clock, gave the dress of honour to me and went home. As soon as the Governor rose, I told him about this. Then M. de Kerjean called me and said, ‘When we went to Arcot by way of Perumukkal, Muttu Malla Reddi entertained M. Delarche and gave many presents. He complained that you were harbouring the poligar of Alattur, stopping his letters to the Governor and Council and imprisoning his people. M. Delarche replied that he would go to the Governor and do this and that. Then we went on to Arcot.’

While we were talking of these matters, the Governor came up and asked what we were talking about. Thereupon N. de Kerjean told him what is written above, about the presents given to M. Delarche by Muttu Malla Reddi at Perumukkal, his complaints and M. Delarche’s reply. I then said, ‘Muhammad Tavakkal told me, when he was here before, that M. Delarche had asked him to get him a sword, and, when he went to Arcot, the title of Sikandar [i.e., Alexander, ‘the victorious.’ Delarche’s name was Henri Alexandre.] Khan and a munsub of two or three hundred horse; and to ask the Nawab and others to give him special presents for himself. I told Muhammad Tavakkal that you would not object if presents were given according to a man’s deserts, but that otherwise you would be displeased. He then said he would not do what M. Delarche asked, but would put him off with promises. M. Delarche however has done just as he pleased while he was at Arcot. Compare the dress of honour and the horse that he has brought for you with those that he has brought for himself. He boasted at Perumukkal and made people believe that there was no one like him, and all to get something more out of them.’

The Governor said angrily, before M. de Kerjean, 'If anybody asked him, he should have said that such matters did not concern him and so departed. What business has he to make such answers? Let him come and speak to me about it and you shall see what I will say to him.’

At four o’clock this afternoon, I and the Europeans, M. Barthelemy, [Louis Barthelemy (b. 1695; d. 1760) was the son of a Montpellier merchant. He entered the Company’s service in 1728, and at this time he was of the Pondichery Council, after serving in Bengal. In 1746 he was second at Madras under d’Espremenil, and, when the latter retired to Pondichery, became chief there; but refused to remain when he was superseded by Paradis. He married a daughter of Dulaurens. Etat general des Employes en 1750 (Ministere des Colonies, C2 15); Weber, pp. 466, 467 ; Cf., infra under date July 15.] and M. Duquesne, [Ensign 1735; lieutenant 1738; appointed captain in 1748.] together with the Poligar [An official corresponding with the Peddu Nayak at Madras, who is also sometimes referred to by the same title. He maintained a body of peons and was supposed to prevent, or pay compensation for, robberies.] went to the garden with music, to fetch the presents, the dress of honour and the horse which had been left there.

The dress of honour and the presents for Madame were placed in the palankin and the big black horse was led in front of it. Eleven guns were fired when we entered the gates, and fifteen guns were fired from the Fort, when the dress of honour was presented to the Governor. When the presents were examined, it was found that the horse was black, [Therefore inauspicious.] lame and old, and the dress of honour was old and worn, and not worth even a cash. Madame’s [presents] were also old. When he had seen them, the Governor asked if there was any present for me. M. Delarche said there was, but he gave it neither to the Governor nor to me. Thereupon the Governor, having viewed the presents, said angrily to M. Delarche, ‘You had better take away the present you have brought. What do you mean by bringing me such things? Take them away.’ Then they all dispersed.

My present has not been given to me nor has any letter from the Nawab been given along with the presents to the Governor. When asked why this was, he said that it would come later. On account of what was going forward at Fort St. David, M. Delarche and the other Europeans grew alarmed and fled, without getting any letters from the Nawab and Sampati Rao— as women say, they ran away with nothing but what they had on.

***

Saturday, July 15. [3rd Adi, Prabhava.] — According to the Governor's orders of yesterday, I told Avay Sahib to come and read to him the letter that came yesterday from Imam Sahib. It said: — ‘Please obtain and send to Nizam-ul-mulk a hundred candies of copper, two hundred of tutenague, one hundred, of lead, and a hundred bales of English broad-cloth. Avay Sahib will give you Nizam-ul-mulk’s pass and send the goods to Aurangabad. You have written that you wish to exchange Madras for Valudavur and Villiyanallur, and that I should settle the matter. You seem to think lightly of Madras, as if it were a place of small advantage. But your conquest of it and your victory over the Nawab of Arcot have spread your fame even to Agra and Delhi. Why then should you give up Madras? I will secure for you the possession of Valudavur and Villiyanallur. Ascertain the assessment, the collections and the names of the jaghirdars. My people also shall make enquiries. Please give my son, Hasan ’Ali Khan, a little money as I have already asked you, and also advance money to purchase and make ready things against my daughter’s marriage. You will have received already the sarpech sent you by Nasir Jang. If you get the telescope now sent mended, and send another one, he will be as pleased as if he had been given a lakh of pagodas. Do not omit this. It will serve as a mediator to make friends for you. There is a book in the French tongue about the body, bones, veins and other doctor’s matters. Please send me a Persian translation of it, or, if there is none, the book itself.’  

After hearing this, the Governor, in the presence of Avay Sahib, gave me the following: — a book with pictures of the parts of the body and their uses; a book about instruments and medicines; two telescopes, English-made, one long plated one and one coloured, and another of brass with which to see the moon and the stars. He also told me what must be said in the letter to Nasir Jang to go with these things by Avay Sahib, and to write to Imam Sahib the assessment and collections of Valudavur and Villiyanallur. After he had finished his instructions, Avay Sahib asked about the other articles mentioned in Imam Sahib’s letter. The Governor told me to see that a hundred candies of copper were given by the Company’s merchants, and asked how much tutenague they had. I told him a hundred candies, and he said that also was to be given, and he also promised out of the Fort [i.e., out of the Company’s godowns in the Fort.] a hundred candies of lead and a hundred bales of French broad-cloth, as we have no English. He further said that he would pay 1,000 pagodas out of the interest due, and told me to take a receipt for it. Avay Sahib said it was not enough. The Governor answered that the broad-cloth, lead tutenague and copper would come to more than 30,000 pagodas, and that he would give the rest after the ships arrived. Avay Sahib then took leave and went home.

The news about the marriage has already reached Madras. M. Dulaurens heard on Monday, July 10 from his son-in-law, M. Barthelemy, saying that Papal had died on the 7th at half-past nine. He sent for Muttayya Piilai, and told him, saying with much feeling that it was very sad for the bridegroom and a shocking and undeserved misfortune for me. On hearing this Muttavya Piilai fell down and wept for grief. All the Europeans, men and women, Hindus and Muhammadans, even the children, mourned, and the whole town wept. M. Dulaurens and other Europeans said, ‘When it grieves us so much, what must it be to Rangappa and his wife?’ M. Dulaurens asked Gopalakrishna Ayyan to write me a letter of condolence, saying that it must be ascribed to the ill-fate of my son-in-law and that we must submit ourselves. The letter was bitter reading to me. M. Barthelemy sent it Muttayya Pillai of Porto Novo who left here for Sadras on June 28 in a Portuguese ship, [The San Luis.] Captain Antonio de Campos, was in Madras and was present when M. Dulaurens told Muttayya Pillai in the Fort about Papal’s death. Gopalakrishna Ayyan’s letter described the extreme sorrow felt by Muttayya Pillai and ail the people in the town. Tirumangalam Kumarappa Chetti and other merchants also wrote to me. When people who only hear of it are so grieved, what must I feel who witnessed it? I wonder I still live. My heart must be of iron, not of flesh. Had this blow fallen ten days before the marriage, or after it, it would not have been so overwhelming; but falling amidst the marriage feasts, it is unbearable. Man’s efforts are vain. Heaven’s decrees surely come to pass however we attempt to resist them. None can take away from what God ordains or add thereto. What can I do?

***

Wednesday, November 22. [10th Karttigai, Prabhava.] — When I went to the Governor’s house this morning, he had sent for all the Councillors. They came and held a consultation, and then dispersed. The Governor then called me, and said with much exultation, ‘M. Dulaurens [Jacques Baleine du Laurens d. 1749] has been behaving at Madras as if he had no superior.

For his misconduct and Kommanan’s, we have resolved to recall him [See infra p. 233.] and send M. Barthelemy in his place. This comes of his despising the advice which I told M. Miran to give him at the time of his going to Madras. You will see that he has to come back and remain here, with no more power than a monkey. It is what always happens to those who forget the power of their superiors. Madame Dulaurens [Marie Galliot de la Touche] [Marie, daughter of Louis Galliot de la Touche, who came out as a Mariner and subsequently became Master Attendant at Pondichery. (P. R. — No. 28 p. 851).] too who hoped to rule Madras will have to come back with her husband.

I have also recalled M. Gosse, [Gosse is said to have been a nephew of the director Saintard. He had served at Mahe and Bussorah. Was appointed Secretary in 1747, and in August went as Second to Madras. The Conseil Superieur said of him that he was talented, but ‘son caractere caustique, difficile et mordant n’est du tout point convenable pour des colonies trop eloignees de l’Europe.’ [Google translate: its caustic, difficult and biting character, not at all suitable for colonies too far from Europe.] Cons. Sup. a la Compagnie, December 24, 1747 (P.R. — No. 7).] M. Panon [A Creole from the Isle of Bourbon, and a 'tres mauvais sujet’ [Google translate: very bad subject] according to Dupleix who writes of him that at Madras ‘il a fait sa main autant qu’il l’a pu et vilainement’. [ Google translate: he made his hand as much as he could and badly.] He held the rank of ‘commis.’ Ministere des Colonies, C2 15. M. de Nazelle mentions a man of the same name as Engineer at Madras (op. cit p. 27), but I cannot say if he was the French Civil Servant or another.] and M. Cotterel, [Originally a sailor, but, being protected by the Cardinal deTencin, was appointed to the Civil Service in 1740. He had served as ‘Lieutenant de port,’ inspector of the Hospital, and inspector of Customs. He had only reached Madras in the previous August. Cultru, pp. 47, 50 ; La Compagnie au Cons, Sup. November 9, 1740, and the Council's reply to the Company’s letter of November 25, 1741 (PM. — No. 6) ; Madras to the Cons. Sup. August 24, 1747 (P.R. — No. 16).] and shall send others. M. Dulaurens [Jacques Baleine du Laurens d. 1749] has spoiled his chances by his tongue; his government has been quite a failure.' He went on railing at M. Dulaurens [Jacques Baleine du Laurens d. 1749] for three-quarters of an hour. I observed, ‘I always knew that those who opposed you would be overthrown. M. Dulaurens [Jacques Baleine du Laurens d. 1749] is fortunate to have escaped till now. I don’t know what will become of him.’ I talked suitably on this sub- ject with him for an hour and a half. I then told him of the news that the customs people brought last night and of their list. The three English ships that were off Madras passed here at noon and are anchored oh Cuddalore.

***

Monday, November 27. [15th Karttigai, Prabhava.] — When I was at the Governor’s this morning [M. Barthelemy] [Blank in the original.] who is going to Madras as Chief and M. Moreau [Moreau had previously served at Mahe, and Surat. He arrived on the Coromandel Coast with Leyrit in the previous May. Dupleix characterised him as ‘atrabiliaire et fripon’. [Google translate: atrabiliar and rogue] Cultru, p. 49.] who is going as Second, came to take leave. Malaikkolundu Mudali the leper, who is Tambicha Mudali’s son-in-law and husband of Kanakaraya Mudali’s wife’s sister, was introduced as the man who is to be chief dubash there. That vagabond Nallatambi, who used to live by picking up half-smoked cheroots, and who washed the dishes at the Second’s house, is to be Poligar; [i.e., Head of the Police.] and his fellow, Savari, who was once a dog-boy, is to be chief of the peons, Kulandaiyappan has been named interpreter at the Choultry. [See p. 37 supra.] The latter is Varlam’s elder brother and Malaikkolundu Mudali’s son. All these have been ordered to go with M. Barthelemy. He and M. Moreau took leave and then set out with their dubashes and poligars.

These people have been appointed partly because Nallatambi gave Madame Dupleix 1,500 rupees, and because she has ulterior motives. She believes the former poligars at Madras have grown rich by plunder and expects to grow rich herself by appointing her own people. She thinks that she will be able to do whatever she pleases at Madras, as M. Barthelemy is not so clever as M. Dulaurens, and that M. Dupleix, who got nothing when M. Dulaurens was there, will be able to make it up now that M. Barthelemy is chief and it will be easy to plunder the town. Thus hoping to get money out of it, she has persuaded her husband to make such appointments.

I have heard and I have read in books also, extraordinary accounts of the cunningness of women. But Madame Dupleix surpasses them all a thousand times. The Europeans, both men and women, and Hindus and Muhammadans alike, all curse her as a pupil of the Devil who will ruin the town. M. Dupleix sometimes remembers what she is, but often he forgets. So affairs are carried on at a venture, not according to wise management.

At half-past ten the Second visited the Governor; and when he had gone, the latter, calling me into the hall, said, ‘Have you heard about the accusations against you? Your enemies say you are moving your goods away to your uncle’s house and that you yourself are only awaiting an opportunity of deserting us. They say that you and Muttayappan are to share the money made by robbery, deceit and theft at Madras, and that is why you wish to leave.’ — I replied, ‘Sir, consider this. They bring false charges against me in order to make you suspect my conduct and to drive me from your favour. They tried before, but failed. They have done this only to involve me in trouble. If only your honour will be pleased to hear me for a quarter of an hour, you will see who is guilty — I or my accusers — and whence these stories spring.’ — ‘I know where they come from,’ he answered; ‘they are childish, and you need not worry over them. Ten thousand such charges cannot injure you, so long as you serve the Company diligently with all your heart.’ —

‘But, sir,’ I exclaimed, ‘let not the matter be so dismissed. If you will be pleased to hear me, in two words — ’ But he cut me short. 'It’s a childish matter,’ he said. ‘I know all about it. You may go.’ And he went into his private room. I feared he would grow angry if I said more, and so I thought it best to wait till later. I had meant to tell him that his wife was the cause of all this; that because he had treated me with great favour, my name was spread abroad to Mysore, Aurangabad, and even Delhi; that even one like the Nawab of Arcot did not pronounce it lightly and that Nizam-ul-mulk himself regarded me with respect; that all this was because I was his slave; and that if Madame Dupleix was angry and slighted me, it would reflect upon him and other people would cease to respect me or pay heed to my words. That was what I had meant to say, but as the very words were in my mouth, the Governor said, ‘I know all about it. Am I Dumas?’ And so he left me. I must therefore speak about this another time.

But how malicious must she be to invent such lying stories! She tells all she meets, Europeans, men and women, that I have bewitched her husband and closed his eyes, that I plunder the town and bribe him, that he no longer looks after business but leaves all to me, that I have become Governor instead of M. Dupleix, and that she has never seen a man so fond of any one not his wife. Such are her accusations. God alone must look to this; there is no other help.

***

Wednesday, November 29. [17th Karttigai, Prabhava.]— The Governor sent for me this morning and I went to him at half-past seven. He got up and took me into his room. He said to me, ‘You know that from the time M. Dulaurens went to Madras, he constantly disobeyed my orders, and that his fraud in the matter of the cotton sale was brought before Council. [By a resolution of the next day Dulaurens and Gosse were excluded from the Council and Panon was suspended, for this cotton business. The charge was that, although 22 parodas (at 345 rupees per hundred) was offered per babar at the outcry, the cotton was sold privately to one Balu Chetti for 22 pagodas (at 320 rupees per hundred) per bahar. In other words they sold the cotton at 70-4 rupees [to] the bahar instead of 75-9. Dulaurens, etc., declared absolutely that no more than 20 pagodas was offered at the outcry, but admitted that after the sale Balu Chetti had allowed them to take a share in the bargain. Cons Sup. a la Compagnie, November 30 and December 24, 1747; also Dulaurens, etc. au Cons. Sup. November 26, 1747. ( P.R . — Nos 7 and 16) If the accused were not guilty, they were extraordinarily imprudent; but Dupleix' efforts to make matters appear worse are very characteristic. According to La Bourdonnais, Delaurens had had a dispute with Dupleix over the charges the latter wished to bring against La Bourdonnais. Memoire pour la Bourdonnais, Preces Justificatives, No. ccxxx.] He has been recalled for it and M. Barthelemy sent instead. Now as he has been dismissed for selling cotton at so low a rate as 22 pagodas, I must report to the Council that it has been sold better. I want you to take the 700 bales —about 500 candies — and induce the Company’s merchants to buy them at 20 pagodas. I will be responsible for any loss that may result; but if it were known that I was responsible, the Council might think that I, not minding a loss of a thousand or two, had done so out of enmity to M. Dulaurens, and it would seem likely; so we must make it appear that the Company’s merchants have come and bought it of their own accord, and I shall write and tell the Council [i.e., the Madras Council? Cf. p. 238 infra.] so. I will give the merchants all possible help, and if they need it I will even give them 9 per cent, commission afterwards. They won’t trust to my promise and sign the contract. If I wished to, I could put all sorts of pressure on them; but I don’t like that. I do not want to see them put to any loss — on the contrary I will always relieve them. They bought some goods eight months ago, and must pay the whole price if they are asked to. But I will be lenient. They may pay five or six thousand pagodas a month, to cover the expenses at Madras, till the debt is cleared; that will take a long time and meanwhile they can be getting their money in and selling their goods, not only without loss, but with their proper interest and profit. I do not think any one has ever treated them so favourably.’

I answered, ‘Sir, it is all true. Their business prospers by your favour, and their interests are made the same as yours. No one has ever treated them so kindly. They had indeed sold off their goods resolving to act together no more but now they have agreed to enter into a new contract as you desired. They deserve your favour and are grateful for it. They have spoken to me for close on an hour about your justice, your protection of the people and removal of the land tax.’ [I have found no reference to this; but the Deliberations du Conseil Superieur are missing at Pondichery for this period.]

He then told me to repeat to the merchants what he had said. I suggested that he might summon them before him, and when he had broken the matter to them, I might relate the rest. He agreed, so I sent peons to call them all to the Governor’s. Before they had come, he called me and told me to get a bill for 10,000 rupees, saying the money should be paid at the Fort. I sent for Guntur Balu Chetti and got a bill on Gundu Ramanujalu Chetti of Madras, in M. Barthelemy’s favour at eight day’s sight. I took it to the Governor, but he told me to keep it till the morning after Council, when a letter would be written to Madras.

Meanwhile the merchants had come and I presented them to the Governor. He told me to explain to them all about M. Dulaurens’ misconduct and dismissal. So I said, 'In spite of his want of respect for the Governor, M. Dulaurens was named Governor of Madras, where he should at least have behaved honestly. Bat his wickedness increased; he did as he pleased and even began to rob, as though he were the lord of the place. When he was ordered to sell cotton at public outcry, he reported that he had sold 700 bales, weighing about 500 candies to Guntur Balu Chetti at 22 pagodas, meaning to keep the cotton for himself. This was brought before the Council, who found him guilty.’

When I had thus explained the matter, the Governor said, ‘You may sell the cotton as if it were mine, keeping any profit there may be, and if there is a loss, I will bear it. In Council to-morrow we shall write that the cotton has been sold at 26 pagodas. Besides this, you may pay for the goods you have bought in monthly sums of five or six thousand pagodas, to meet our expenses at Madras. That is giving you long credit and is a great concession.’

The merchants answered, 'You always treat us with favour, and so we are not astonished at this.’

The Governor said, ‘I am astonished, for, while I do you and every one else all the good I can, yet people call me unjust and pray God for my removal.’

The merchants answered: — ‘The rich English town of Madras was plundered in the war; the merchants of Aladras, of Cuddalore, of Porto Novo, and those who had taken refuge in the Moghul’s country lost all their goods and had to wander about homeless. But since you, like a father, have guarded the people of this town, what other proof is needed of your valour and great-heartedness? Before the war we were afraid; but we have been preserved by you, while we have witnessed the sorrows of the people of Madras. Moreover to protect your people you were pleased to take off the grain-duties in the famine. [See p. 56 supra.] In spite of all these things, some people have spoken evil against you. They should be diligently sought, and their instigators be hanged. Your glory is greater than the Moghul’s and people pray that your life and glory may endure; but your detractors should be discovered and hanged, else they will invent more lies.’ I interpreted all this to the Governor, and added, ‘The day before yesterday I was accused falsely; if it were sought into, it would be seen whether I or my accuser were guilty; whichever is proved guilty, let him be hanged without further words. If such accusations are ignored, there will be no end to them, and I shall be unable to perform my duties. They have been inventing lies against me from morning to night, and though you pass over many I fear at last you will become angry with me. New lies are still being coined, and my difficulties are unbearable.’ And I also added more words to the same effect.

The Governor answered, ‘I know all that. People always speak ill of one in power. We have a saying, “The cur’s barking shows the true man.” It’s no evil, but an honour, Ranga Pillai, for these low-caste dogs to snarl at you. Remember, it is a sign of growing fame. That is what I think in my own case.’

We thus discussed matters in the presence of the Company’s merchants, and then the Governor dismissed me, saying, ‘God bless you; you may go.’ As it was then noon, I and the merchants went to our homes. The Governor’s good humour was so extraordinary that, if the merchants had not been there, I would have told him plainly that Madame was the cause of all these false charges. But I will do so another time.

***

[admin]

Part 2 of __

Thursday, December 7. [25th Karttigai, Prabhava. In the transcript the date is given as the 27th, evidently by mistake.] — When I was at the Governor’s this morning, the people returned who were sent six or seven days ago to escort the Brahmans with the Mahe letters. They had been ordered to seize the persons who intercepted our last letters, if they could meet with them. They had escorted the pattamars to the Attur bounds, and on their return near Avali Salem they had met a Brahman with an English letter which they had seized and brought to the Governor. He took it and asked why they had not brought the man in as well; but nevertheless told me to give them twenty rupees. I got the sum from Parasurama Pillai and gave it them. It was then noon and I came home.

At four o’clock the Governor gave me the letters for Mahe, and he said they were to go by two Brahmans with twenty peons. Accordingly these people were sent off with their batta.

Nasir Jang’s troops are encamped at Chittirakandi Baman near Basavapandana. [Possibly this is Basavapatna, about 40 miles west of Chitaldrug.] Two runners have come thence with letters — one for the Governor and one for me — from Nasir Quli Khan. [Already mentioned as Diwan to Mahfuz Khan.] He says, ‘I have already written how the Fort St. David Vakils have hitherto failed, in spite of all their efforts. But they have made new proposals which have been agreed on; and they are to have 1,500 horse under two Jemadars, Hafiz Beg Khan and Zafar Y’aqub Beg Khan. [Cf. Country Corresponding, 1748, pp. 2, etc.] I shall endeavour to break off the agreement, by means of the brotherly affection which exists between the Governor and Mahfuz Khan, but nevertheless you should be on your guard. If you will place three or four sets of runners along the road, I shall be able to send news from time to time.’

When I had interpreted this to the Governor, he told me to write a reply to Kasir Quli Khan desiring him to tell Mahfuz Khan that so long as he guarded the French like an elder brother they were sure no enemies would advance against them, but that if by chance any enemies did come, they would learn what sort of men the French were. ‘Moreover,’ the letter was to continue, ‘since you are interested in our good and ill fortune, it is my duty to tell you that in the storm of last month five or six English ships were lost and the rest were shattered by the fierce winds; our people in Europe have won many victories, and the English suffered as many defeats; and I have news from France that twenty ships are on their way here. I eagerly expect your return to Arcot in all prosperity.’ The letter was written with further compliments, and sent off along with one from myself. The Governor directed that the messengers should be given presents; these were obtained from Parasurama Pillai.

This afternoon ’Abd-ul-rahman and Shaikh Hasan both came to me and asked me to get leave of absence for them from the Governor on account of Shaikh Hasan’s marriage. I got the permission on condition that he would go to Mylapore for his marriage and return within twenty days. Shaikh Hasan is to marry the daughter of Muhammad Kamal, Nawab Anwar-ud-din Khan’s son by a concubine.

Wandiwash Tiruvengada Pillai came to-night and told me what he had heard from Varlam. According to him, a letter [Presumably to Ranga Pillai.] from Mutta Pillai at Madras was opened by Madame today. It said, ‘M. Barthelemy and M. Moreau have arrived. M. Dulaurens has given over charge to M. Barthelemy and gone to St. Thomas’ Mount to take the air. Malaikkolundu Mudali has become dubash and that rascal Nallatambi poligar. Malaikkolundu Mudali and the others will also go there.’ Madame has destroyed this, but she has preserved two other letters, [Presumably from Ranga Pillai, but the passage seems obscure.] one to Gopalakrishna Ayyan and the other to Guruvappa Chetti. The first said, 'Get the letter to M. Dumas from M. de La Touche and send it soon. If the letters from M. Dulaurens for the Company are ready, don’t send them by the runners but by a special messenger.’ It was thought why should M. Dulaurens write to M. Dumas unless he had a favour to ask. So this letter has been translated into French by M. Friell and he is to show it to the Governor and try to get me into trouble. The second letter, to Guruvappa Chetti, said, 'Madame is displeased with you. Every one who comes here complains of you. Why don’t you come here as you were told? It will not affect me at all, but you had best look to the result.'

Now a summons was issued in the name of M. Dumas, and besides he has stood surety for the money owed by M. Arnault. [See p, 256 n. 5 infra.] So I wanted to have a letter written to him about it, and wrote to Gopalakrishna Ayyan to send it. I have kept a copy which any one may see who pleases. A beggar does not fear thieves, and I told him [Tiruvengada Pillai] that they may inquire into the matter as much as they like. So Madame is trying to find more false charges. But as I am innocent I am sure God will not suffer her to prevail.

***

Tuesday, December 19. [8th Margali, Prabhava.] — While I was at the Governor’s this morning, Raza Sahib, Chanda Sahib’s son, came, and invited him to the marriage with many compliments. He promised to go, and then Raza Sahib took leave and went home. The master-gunner was then summoned, and ordered to post twenty-one guns, with some gunners, near Chanda Sahib’s house, and he ordered that they should fire salvoes whenever asked to, and give as many displays of fireworks as possible, during the five or six days of the marriage festivities. The Governor also ordered sweetmeats to be prepared.

At eleven Varlam came twice and spoke to him. I think he came about putting Kommana Mudali in prison. About noon as I was going to see Murtaza ’Ali Khan’s son, I heard that Kommana Mudali and Ammayappan (Dubash Ella Pillai’s younger brother) had been arrested.

M. Barthelemy has written to the Council here saying that Malaikkolundu Mudali, the dubash who used to be a runner, and Nallatambi, the chief of peons who was formerly a scullion, are useless and ought to be replaced by others. I hear that these two have been ill-treated at Madras. Tirukkamu Pillai’s son who was sent there on business by Arumpatai Pillai, Subbayyan’s son, Muttayyan, and Chella Pillai joined together and made reports against the palli, Nallatambi the Poligar, Varlam’s elder brother and Choultry dubash, and against Malaikkolundu Mudali the chief dubash. The result was that M. Moreau began to think ill of them. He scolded Nallatambi for using idle excuses when he visited the Choultry, and asked, ‘Why did you imprison this man and release the other without orders? You are unfit to be poligar. No doubt you can wash dishes well, but you know nothing of your present duties.’ So saying, he beat Nallatambi, giving him fifteen cuts with his rattan, and moreover kicked him twice. The same thing was done to Varlam’s brother, and he was sent away because he was quite unable to interpret. M. Moreau told M. Barthelemy that these two were incompetent, and said of the Chief Dubash, 'He used to be only a runner; he knows nothing of merchants’ affairs; he knows nothing of their position and credit; and he has no manners. For chief dubash we need an honest elderly man of a respectable family, not a worthless beggar like this.’ Moreover he said to Malaikkolundu Mudali, ‘What do you know about business?’ and also kicked him.  

M. Barthelemy considered that these people, being fools, must have obtained their posts by promising Madame a share of whatever they could get, and that they deserved to be punished and sent back to Pondichery. So he wrote to the Council here, desiring that better men should be appointed. Likewise these great men who have been kicked wrote to Madame to say that they had been beaten because of accusations brought by Muttayyan, Subbayyan’s son and Chella Pillai. Madame translated it and gave it to the Governor who then wrote to M. Barthelemy, saying that the accusers should be sent to Pondichery, that the men themselves should be tried for a little longer, that they would learn their duties, and that they should be shown a little kindness. We shall see what happens when the men arrive who have been sent for.

About four o’clock this afternoon M. Dulaurens came. He asked the Governor, ‘Why should my writer be imprisoned for what was done at Madras? I am responsible for that.’ Moreover he asked that the man should be released. The Governor answered, ‘He is also involved in the charges against you. You should not interfere in this matter.’ With this curt answer he went into his room, and M. Dulaurens went away.

I believe Kommana Mudali has been imprisoned because he took the tobacco farm away from the old renter Papayya Pillai aud gave it to Velu Pillai of Madras. The latter ran away, owing the Company 450 pagodas — 100 pagodas advance and 350 pagodas for one month’s rent. Kommana Mudali has been imprisoned because he will not make this sum good. But we shall see what else inquiry brings to light.

To-day there was a feast at Chanda Sahib’s house for those who are attending the marriage. Haidar ’Ali Khan and others were present. When Hirasat Khan went and returned, the soldiers and the Mahe sepoys formed a lane and beat their drums.

At five this evening the Governor drove out. He passed by the bridegroom’s lodging. At six, Hirasat Khan sent wedding presents, with Mahe sepoys, music, elephants, horses and kettledrums, to Chanda Sahib’s house. The presents were carried on a hundred and fifty trays. They consisted of fruit, pan supari, sugar, sugar-candy, cloths and other things. Nawab Hirasat Khan watched a nautch at his lodging for an hour and a half. Haidar ’Ali Khan of Perumukkal and his younger brother are attending the marriage. They are lodged in broker Nallatambi Mudali’s cloth-godown. Govardhana Das’s gumasta has been lodged in the brick-layers’ out-houses.

***

Monday, January 15. [5th Tai, Prabhava.] — Madame Dupleix, Madame Barthelemy, and others who went yesterday to Ariyankuppam came back at eleven last night after dining with the Governor. The troops, cavalry, military, etc., marched from Ariyankuppam at four this morning, and the Governor set out at seven to proceed against Fort St. David.

As the Second was at the Fort, I went thither this morning. I was speaking with him till half-past eleven, and despatched the things required for the camp. Meanwhile a Europe frigate [She was La Cibele. Her news must have been only the arrival of Bouvet at the Isles and the departure of Albert’s fleet for the Indies.] came to anchor in the road, and the Captain came ashore at ten. She has been [ ] on her passage. The Captain says that twenty Europe men-of-war are coming, and that we shall have good news in five or six days; but he said nothing more definite. We shall learn all later on.

The Second went home from the Fort at half-past eleven. The drums did not beat nor did the guard turn out on his departure, for he has dispensed with such honours as all the garrison have gone to camp and the Fort is guarded only by the Councillors’ writers and old men, who have been armed with muskets.

The Governor and M. Paradis arrived unexpectedly at half-past four this afternoon, with a guard of fifty European horse, a standard-bearer and a kettle-drum. This was because the Captain who arrived this morning went off to camp at Muttirusa Pillai’s Choultry to see the Governor without his despatches, and, as they have to be read in Council, the Governor has come here. After the despatches had been read, he returned to camp at half-past five, with his guard. The news brought by the Europe letter is [ ].

***

Monday, January 29. [19th Tai, Prabhava.] -- This morning I went to the Fort and asked M. Cornet when he would be ready to bale the hundred corge of blue cloth and the dressed white cloth. [Cloth was usually washed, bleached and starched before being packed for Europe. ] He said that the Second was not well, but that the cloth should be baled as soon as he came into town, in a day or two.

M. Lucas objected to a receipt of his for 360 rupees -- one of those given for the 3,360 rupees he received in all at Lalapettai. This receipt had not been signed by him, presumably by oversight. I pointed out that the receipt was written out in his own hand, and so no objection ought to be raised even if it did not bear his signature. One or two Europeans agreed with what I said, and at last M. Lucas himself agreed. I also pointed out that the country people would not ask for his signature if he wrote out the receipt himself, and that he had actually written ten lines. Although he had withdrawn his objection, I said 1 would take the receipt to the Governor and return it to him afterwards, when we would settle the balance in pagodas.

I then went to the Governor’s house, and on my way met a peon coming to fetch me. The Governor asked whether the blue cloth had been sent to the Fort. M. Cornet said that a hundred corge of blue cloth had been received and that the white cloth was ready dressed. The Governor then asked how much paddy had been bought according to his orders. I told him, ten garse. He said, 'I don’t expect much will be brought in, for ten days or so, as we have ordered Kar paddy to be sold at four great measures and Samba at three and a half. Merchants will not like selling at a measure more than before, and they will take ten days or so to get over it.’ I answered that it was true. He then asked what the price of paddy was likely to be this year. I answered that I expected it to sell at about five great measures. He agreed with me. M. Cornet and M. Porcher [Porcher, who had been in the French Company's service, was allowed to return as a free merchant to India in 1739. La Compagnie au Cons. Sup. September 20, 1739. (P.E. — No. 6 )] then said that they were not willing to sell their paddy from the northward. I answered severely that it should be measured now and that they could settle the price with the Governor afterwards. The Governor said soothingly, ‘Don’t be hard on them; they will sell of their own accord at the market-price.’

M. Cornet had brought to the Governor a Telugu letter which M. Boyelleau received from Madras this morning, signed by Periyambala Chetti, Ammayappa Chetti, and Tandavaraya Chetti, the gumastas of the Company’s merchants at Madras, reporting the amount of cotton they had bought. The Governor gave it to me, directing me to get it signed by the Company’s merchants and then to deliver it to M. Cornet. I said I would see to it, and gave the letter to M. Cornet, saying I would bring the Company’s merchants to him.

When M. Cornet had taken his leave, the Governor again called me and asked what was the Fort St. David news. I said that there were in the roads fourteen ships and some sloops; [There were the ships of Griffin’s squadron, reinforced by three fresh ships from England, together with three Company’s ships from England via Bengal.] that some Europeans had been landed; [There were 84 recruits for Fort St. David on the Company’s ships.] and that they were now strengthening their works. ‘here is Muttayappan and what is he doing now?’ he then asked. I said he was at Utramallur, very feeble and blind. He observed, ‘I remember being told last night that he had died.’ — ‘Those who deserve your displeasure deserve to die,’ I said. He then said, 'Some one told me he has no son and that his adopted son also is dead. Who is the heir?’ I said he had no relations on his father’s side, but that he could adopt some one. ‘But he is the notary and village accountant; who will succeed to the post?’ he asked. — ‘I wonder he has not already adopted an heir,’ I answered. He inquired if he had really mortgaged his house and property to the St. Paul’s priests; and when I said he had, the Governor exclaimed, ‘M. Dulaurens is a rascal; like master, like man!’ and said other abusive things. He then asked where Kandan was. I said he was at his native place, spending extravagantly all he had got. The Governor said, ‘Ill-gotten gains never prosper; he will spend as he got.’ I said, 'He is not the only one. All those who made their fortunes at Madras will do the same.’ — ‘No doubt,’ the Governor answered.

I then reminded him that sometime ago Nawab Anwar-ud-din Khan had written about the Madras rent, and that a year’s rent should be sent to him. He at once sent for Friell, and asked him about it. Friell in turn asked me. I said I was not sure whether it was eleven or twelve hundred pagodas, [It was of course 1,200 pagodas.] but that broad-cloth, rosewater and provisions should be sent along with it, besides dusturi for the writers and servants, [The Kanungo’s duty. See p. 261, supra.] according to the Nawab’s letter. The Governor ordered me to have a letter written to M. Barthelemy, asking him to examine the English records and say what should be sent. Accordingly I got a letter written by M. Bertrand; it was signed and sealed by the Governor; and I sent it off to Madras. I also wrote to Gulab Singh, asking him to tell me how much the rent and dusturi really were. I sent this off by one of the two men who came from Arcot; and then came home.

When I went to my nut-godown this evening, Chinna Parasurama Pillai, Mariyappa Mudali, Vira Nayakkan, and Kalavaraya Kumara Pillai came to tell me that writer Tandavaraya Pillai was dying. They brought with them Tandavaraya Pillai’s man, Muttukumara Pillai, made him prostrate himself before me, and begged that he might be given the post. I said, ‘God is merciful; nothing can be done but by His will.’ Chinna Parasurama Pillai besought me with tears, saying, 'You brought me up and made me what I am; do now the same for this man. Again I said, ‘God will protect him,’ and dismissed them. But they said, 'Tandavarya Pillai will have died before we can return.’ So I sent them away with a little encouragement, saying, ‘What God wills, men cannot hinder.’ I then came home; and after it was midnight Muruga Pillai came to me and asked that the appointment might be made as they desired, and they would give something. Then Muttayya Pillai, the son of the Arumpatai [ ] came, and begged with many fine words that the appointment might be given to himself. Lastly at half-past three Kalavaraya Kumara Pillai and Vira Nayakkan were sent to say that both I and the Governor should profit if the post were given to Muttayya Pillai. I only answered, ‘If God wills, it will be done,’ and so dismissed them with hope. They expected me to take their bribes, not knowing my purpose. But in this affair [ ].

***

Saturday, February 3. [24th Tai, Prabhava.] — When I went to the Governor's this morning, he had a letter from Madras saying, that the merchants had paid only 8,000 rupees out of the 6,000 pagodas they should pay monthly, and that they said they would pay the rest in four or five days; and that he [i.e., M. Barthelemy.] had not money enough to pay his people. The Governor was very angry with me about this. I said, ‘It is written to me that they have already paid 15,000 rupees, and that they will pay 4,100 rupees, in four or five days. If M. Barthelemy writes thus, what can I say?’ — He remarked, 'The gumastas of the Company’s merchants must be fools.’ — 'True, Sir,’ I answered; ‘they cannot manage matters well.’ I then told him that the merchants had been offered at the rate of 23 for the whole of the cotton, but had not accepted it; and that they had then been offered 24 for a hundred candies, but had not agreed and had written to me about it. He said they did not care whether it was sold or not, as he would have to bear any loss. I answered I was sure they did not think of the matter thus. But he was very angry, and said that if there was a loss, he would make them pay for it. I answered suitably, but he continued to talk angrily about it for an hour and a half. I could say little, but with the help of God I answered somehow or other.

He afterwards said, ‘You promised to supply a hundred corge of blue cloth; where is it?’ — ‘It is in the Fort,’ I replied; 'M. Legou says he will have it baled on Monday; also I have engaged to send in twenty or thirty corge more within the next ten days. I also have coarse cloth ready cured; that too will be baled.’ — 'Very well,’ he said. Then M. Duquesne arrived, and they were engaged together, so, as it was nearly noon, I came home.

***

Sunday, Feb. 4. [25th Tai, Prabhava.] — When I went to the Governor’s this morning, he told me to write an answer to Imam Sahib’s letter. I have kept a copy for reference. There is nothing else of importance to be written, for we only spoke of common things not worth mention.

In the afternoon, Madame Barthelemy went to take leave of the Governor, being about to join her husband at Madras. She set out at four o’clock, with the Councillor, M. Desfresnes, and two writers.

The Governor went out to the camp at Alisapakkam and returned.

***

Saturday, March 16. [7th Panguni, Prabhava.] — When I went to the Governor’s this morning and salaamed, he asked me if I had heard of the arrival of a ship at Mahe and the receipt of letters from Europe. I replied, ‘I have heard of the arrival of the ship and of the letters, but I don’t know what they say. I should have known, if I made a habit of going to European houses. I leave my house only to come here or go to the nut-godown. I hear no news but what you tell me.’ The Governor said, 'The English attacked Normandy with fifty men-of-war; but as God was against them, a storm arose, forty-six ships were sunk, and only four escaped. Fifteen thousand of those on board were lost. [I do not know whence Dupleix derived this story.] The English are unlucky just now, or such things would not happen. Besides this, the Dutch have joined us and declared war against the English. [On April 17, 1747, Louis XV declared himself compelled to break with the United Provinces; in a few months Dutch troops were to appear beside the English before Pondichery!] Just as the war here was ended by the capture of Madras, so it will be ended in Europe, as the Dutch have declared war.’ I replied, ‘There is no doubt of it. Is it not clear from their fearing to approach your town with twenty ships? I know not what you think; but I believe that the English have reached the zenith of their power and there is an ill time before them. I am sure the English cannot hold their factories. For example, when you attacked Madras, they surrendered it without resistance, like men, drunk with intoxicating drugs, giving up all they possess. Their Bengal factories owe a hundred lakhs of rupees, and they also will be lost, as you say. Even Fort St. David will surely be taken by the month of Vaigasi. [i.e., May-June.] Everywhere their affairs are threatened, and I think they cannot hold out much longer. Were it their time of prosperity such things would not happen.’ — 'It is true,’ he said.

Meanwhile M. Duquesne arrived from camp; and while I was speaking with him, the Governor sent for Appu and said, 'I hear that Sadayappa Mudali is appropriating the money paid by the people of the out-villages at Madras instead of paying it to the Company, and that he is imprisoning them.’ Appu replied, ‘Sadayappa Mudali would not keep back the collections, as he is responsible to the Company whether the people pay or not. What they say is false. His accusers say this because they themselves have stolen the money.’ Thereon he said, ‘I will tell M. Barthelemy to punish them.’ He then turned to me and said, ‘Rangappa, I am going out for stroll. Come with me.’ — ‘I am ready,’ I replied. He laughed, and, just as he was going to reply, five Englishmen arrived who had deserted from Fort St. David and said that they had been sent here by M. Latour. Thereupon Schonamille [Corneille Schonamille, son of the late Director in Bengal of the Imperial Company; it will be remembered that he had acted as English interpreter to La Bourdonnais at Madras. He married Ursule Vincens in 1743.] was sent for and told to interpret. He asked why they had come and they said that they had run away because they were given too much to do. He called me and said, 'See how the English soldiers are deserting.’ I replied, ‘Of the eight who deserted, five have come in here and it is not known where the others are; they should be asked about it.’ Then he said to Schonamille, ‘Ask them how many left the place.’ At once they answered as I had just said, that of the eight who had run away, five were here and three had gone into the Muhammadan territory. The Governor laughed and said, ‘How did you know this?’ I said politely, ‘I learnt it by your favour; is it astonishing? If they are now sent to the hospital and summoned again this evening, they will tell you all the news there from beginning to end.’ He agreed with me and told Schonamille to send them to the hospital. They were sent to the hospital accordingly.

I told the Governor the choultry news, namely, that nine hundred and forty bullock-loads of paddy had come in. M. Cornet then came and said to the Governor, ‘M. Lucas has not yet supplied goods for the pagodas advanced to him. Ranga Pillai should be told to write and find out whether the goods have been purchased and whether they will be sent or whether he has run away. Also Nawab Zain-ud ’Ali Khan has not yet sent wheat for the money we have sent.’ The Governor turned to me and said, ‘Write and tell Zain-ud’ Ali Khan to send wheat at once for the 1,600 rupees we have advanced.’ I replied, ‘We wrote to him only the day before yesterday. Let us see his reply and then I will write what may be necessary.’ Then I came home, telling M. Cornet that I would visit and speak with him about M. Lucas’ affair.

One Gopalaswami who went to Chidambaram on the 5th or 6th January 1747 meaning soon to return, came and saw me this afternoon, when I was about to have my oil bath. He had said, ‘In the period of Venus and the sub-period of Saturn you will fall sick and the town be beset with troubles.’ Remembering his words, he went wandering to Ramesvaram, Tinnevelly, and those parts, and as his nephew had sold the village of Nirasi he served Krishna Pillai who is employed under Mir Ghulam Husain; and with his help succeeded in his business. Even when he could hardly keep himself, he was always inquiring the news about this place, and as affairs have by God’s grace prospered he has returned. He said in a complimentary manner, ‘Because I am ignorant, stupid and unlucky, I have wandered everywhere, undergone hardships and now have returned as I was destined to see you. Forgive my faults and protect me.’ I said, ‘Why should I be angry with you? What harm have you done to me? I lose nothing by your return, even as I gained nothing by your going. You went on your own business and have returned.’ When I said these words, he took leave.

-- The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, translated from the Tamil by Order of the Government of Madras, edited by H. Dodwell, M.A., Curator, Madras Record Office, Volume 4, 1916

[admin]

xx

[admin]

xxx

[admin]

xxx

[admin]

De La Touche
Excerpts from The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai
translated from the Tamil by Order of the Government of Madras
Volumes 1-3 edited by Sir J. Frederick Price, KCSI., Late of the Indian Civil Service, Assisted by K. Rangachari, B.A., Superintendent of Records, Government Secretariat, Fort St. George
Volumes 4-12 edited by H. Dodwell, M.A., Curator, Madras Record Office
1904-1928

Tuesday, 26th September 1741, or 14th Purattasi of Durmati. — The Duc D' Orleans, captain, M. de la Touche, set sail at . . . * [Blank in the original.] to-day, bound for Acheen. The supercargo who embarked in this ship was Sultan Kandu Marakkayan Tambi....

Monday, 9th [Sic in original. But the correct date is 8th.] January 1742, or 28th Margazhi of Durmati. — This afternoon at 2, the French ship Duc d’Orleans returned from Acheen. She saluted the fort with nine guns, which was responded to by a similar number. M. de la Touche, the new super-cargo Sultan Kandu Marakkayan Tambi, and the late supercargo Husain ’Ali Beg — disembarked at 4. It is reported that the French have seized a ship of the former king of that country, for the dues outstanding against him; that frankincense and some other articles of merchandise which were on board her, together with her crew, have been transhipped to the Duc d’ Orleans, and brought away; and that the ship herself has been taken direct to Mauritius, with MM. Cotteril and Cornet on board. The cargo of the Duc d’ Orleans is said to consist of forty-four horses, thirty candies frankincense, arecanut ... [Blank in the original.] avanams, [Avanam=20,000 arecanuts.] sugar candies . . . , [Blank in the original.] and some other goods...

Sunday, [10th] January 1745, or 1st Tai of Raktakshi. — Written intelligence came this night from Karikal that a vessel belonging to Tranquebar had returned from a voyage to Acheen. The tidings brought by her were to the following effect. The French ship Favori, which sailed, on the 27th [Sic. But the correct date is 28th — vide p. 260.] Purattasi [9th October] last, from Porto Novo for Acheen, arrived at the latter place. On the 9th Arppisi, [21st October] she cast anchor at Boutrian, [In a letter of remonstrance from the French, Boutrian is said to be "on the coast of Acheen." It has not been identified. ] where she landed all her goods, and the mercantile agents who were on board. She remained there until the 23rd Karttigai, [4th December] when two English ships arrived, and after an engagement captured her. The letter further stated that M. de la Touche and a few Europeans had come by the Tranquebar ship...

Monday, 15th August 1746, or 3rd Avani, of Akshaya.—I went to M. de la Touche, and said to him: “Fifty or sixty casks of Colombo arrack are available at Porto Novo. Kindly write a letter to M. Astruc asking him to purchase them. Please also tell him to buy 500 or 600 blocks of jaggery, packed in palmyra-leaves—as many as can be procured.” He promised to do this, and asked me whether I would take twenty casks which he had by him. I inquired how he would sell them. He replied: “I will let you know what the cost to me was. Allow me some profit.” I replied: “Certainly. What is the price?” His answer was: “I paid 50 pagodas. I will take whatever profit you may give me over that sum.” I replied: “I do not require any for myself. I will pay you the full amount for which I sell to the Company.” On this he said: “Very well. There are at Madras about fifty casks more belonging to M. Vermont. The English will not permit their being taken to Pondichery. I shall, however, attempt to procure them. I will also endeavour to arrange for the purchase of as many more as may be available there. Will you, without fail, take the twenty casks which are with me? I exclaimed: “Most assuredly. The goods are mine.” He said: “So be it;” and I took leave of him. I then returned, prepared in consultation with him a list of the articles of merchandise to be supplied to the Company in the ensuing months of October and January respectively, and then went home...

Wednesday, 17th August 1746, or 5th Avani of Akshaya. —M. de la Villebague, the brother of M. de la Bourdonnais, sent for me to-day, and asked for a statement of the goods which were being manufactured, telling me that he required some for sale on the Malabar coast. He then said that the goods of which his brother had furnished me with a list must be completed soon, and promised to send me 20,000 or 25,000 pagodas on the morrow. I then remarked: “Your brother left word with you very long ago. Why did you delay so much in giving the order?” Upon this he poured forth all the sorrows of his heart, and I made a reply of some sort to him. I then took leave, and came away.

M. Paradis, who set out on Saturday for Karikal, returned to Pondichery by boat this morning, at about 6 or 7. Surprised at his speedy journey and quick return, I instituted inquiries, and learned that after reaching Karikal he breakfasted there, went on board the ship commanded by M. de la Bourdonnais, conversed with him, slept there that night, landed next morning at sunrise, breakfasted at Karikal, and started thence in a double boat, reaching Pondichery at 6 this morning. When I came to think over this journey of M. Paradis, it occurred to me that he was entrusted with some message to deliver to M. de la Bourdonnais, which either could not be conveniently conveyed in writing, or which it was feared might, if so communicated, be intercepted on the way. Trusting to time to reveal the truth or falsity of it, I will hazard a conjecture as to the nature of the message carried by him. It appears to me that the French have decided to attack either Madras, or Fort St. David. It seems probable that as soon as powder, ball, and all other munitions of war, had been conveyed on board the Marie Gertrude and two other sloops, M. Paradis was sent to communicate to M. de la Bourdonnais the time of departure of these vessels, as well as their destination; and to intimate to him at the same time that he should direct his fleet to proceed to the same place.

When M. Paradis returned, he had a talk with the Governor. After he had gone home, the Governor and M. d’Auteuil were closeted together. After a while, the former sent for me, and asked whether the horses were ready. I replied that they would be at any time, provided that three hours’ notice was given. He directed me to make the necessary arrangements.

In the afternoon, the Governor and M. Paradis went to the beach, and had a long talk. The Governor then sent for M. Auger, the Superintendent of the Port office, and directed him to engage for transport purposes all the boats, coasters, and other craft, lying in the port. He accordingly boarded everything of this class in the roads, in order to inspect, it. M. Paradis had previously visited the Company’s ships and sloops, and examined them. The Governor and he continued to converse on the beach until the evening. After they had departed, the boatmen were all impressed, and were, during the whole of the night, compelled to convey to the boats tents, poles, and other supplies; together with all the materials and stores required for a campaign by land. Such was the intelligence communicated to me. I surmise from this that a land attack is meditated, either on Madras, or Fort St. David. By and by, the matter will be made clear.

This day at half-past 9, M. de la Touche visited me at my arecanut storehouse, and asked if I would really take the twenty casks of Colombo arrack which he had by him. I replied: “Why do you doubt? I will give you a note saying that I have purchased them from you, and you had better also furnish me with one stating that you have sold them to me.” On this he said: “Your word is enough. I hear that a ship laden with arrack has arrived from Colombo. If the Governor takes the consignment, there will be no need for what I have. It was in consequence of this that I asked this question.” I replied: “Even should the Governor reject it, I will cause it to be kept in my liquor shop, for retail sale. I will certainly not withdraw from my bargain with you. Believe me implicitly that I am as honest with you, as you are with me.” Then, after talking to him on general topics for a while, I bade him farewell.

This morning, Chinna Mudali, having heard that Annapurna Aiyan was also an applicant for the situation of chief dubash, reviled him before an assembly of 100 persons, in a most intemperate manner, and without any decency whatever, in the following words: “His daughter is an unchaste girl. His wife is a lustful woman, who has in her amours no scruple as to caste or creed. She is also on terms of intimacy with Muhammadans and East Indians. He owed my brother about 80 or 90 pagodas, but declines to repay the amount, on the ground that, as a set off, he treated some sick members of the family. I will take care that he is imprisoned.” Then Krimasi Pandit, addressing Madananda Pandit, said: “Chinna Mudali is as excited as he is, because he fears that Annapurna Aiyan may secure the appointment. I suppose that he will calm down when this man fails to get it. I will tell him not to seek the post. I do not know who gave him such false information.” Madananda Pandit replied: “Annapurna Aiyan told me, in person, that he had secured Rs. 10,000, that if I would be instrumental in obtaining a further sum of Rs. 6,000 from Tarwadi, he would be appointed to the situation, and that this had been settled through the intervention of Madame Dupleix.”

The foregoing account of what occurred in Chinna Mudali’s house was related to me by Krimasi Pandit....

Tuesday, 13th September 1746, or 1st Purattasi of Akshaya. — This morning, the Governor directed me to tell my brother Tiruvengadam to set out with Krishnaiyan the Hasty and Chinna Tambu Rangappa Chetti, under escort of twenty peons. They were to pass through Mortandi Chavadi and Tirukkazhukkunram, halt at Covelong, and thence make their way to Madras along the sea shore. He gave me a letter addressed to M. de la Bourdonnais, and two others to MM. d’Espremenil and Paradis, which were to be handed over to my brother, and he instructed me to despatch him at once on his journey. I accordingly delivered the three letters to my brother. The Governor, in person, told him to see the merchants and others at Madras, and persuade them to settle at Pondichery with all their effects. He also authorised him to execute the necessary agreements, and make such conditions as he thought fit. These the Governor promised to ratify. He further enjoined on me to caution my brother to be always circumspect; which I did. In addition to this I advised him to report to me, from time to time, what took place at Madras, and to maintain in a book a concise diary of the occurrences of every day. I further suggested to him that inasmuch as M. de la Bourdonnais was accompanied by his brother, he should keep M. d’Espremenil and others informed of everything done by M. de la Bourdonnais that might come to his knowledge, and I urged on him that his conduct should be such as would earn the approval of the Governor.

It was about 9 o'clock when my brother set out with Krishnaiyan the Hasty and Rangappa Chetti. These being troublous times, Heaven only knows how uneasy I felt when he bade me farewell. Just as he got into the palanquin, somebody behind us sneezed, and Kunjan, the interpreter of M. de la Touche, drew the attention of Arunachala Chetti to this. I requested Arunachala Chetti to escort my brother as far as the Vazhudavur gate. He did so, and on his return informed me that with the exception of the sneeze, there was no other omen— auspicious or otherwise. I remarked: “This is a journey which has been undertaken with misgivings and feelings of depression. The sneeze signifies that there is no ground for anxiety, and that he will return to us in safety. Under the circumstances, the omen portends no ill.” With these words, I permitted him to retire.

All the town-gates, which for the past two days had been closed in view to prevent the residents from leaving, were thrown open at day-break to-day, and people have been going in and out, as freely as ever....

Sunday, 18th September 1746, or 6th Purattasi of Akshaya.— The following are the contents of a letter received this day by Tanappa Mudali, from Maduranayagam of Mylapore: “Those [See appendix.] who were encamped at Tolasinga Perumal Koyil at Triplicane have since moved to Chintadripet, and have displayed the white colours. The Madrasis, seeing them, fired seven cannon, but without effect, as the shot fell about five furlongs short of the camp. Mr. Morse, the Governor of Madras, has become insane, and his place is occupied by the Chief [See appendix. The “Chief” referred to is evidently Mr. Stratton, who for some time had been Chief of Vizagapatam, this title being that applied to the civil officer in principal charge of a factory. In the original, the term used is “Chief Captain.”] of Vizagapatam. All the guns mounted on the out-works of the fort have been spiked, and cast away. The English have thrown open the gates of the city, and are only looking to the security of their fort. Some of the troops raised by Peddu Nayakkan there have deserted, and Mr. Barneval has had an interview with M. de la Bourdonnais.”

This letter was read and explained to the Governor, who then apprised his councillors and others, in detail, of the circumstances of Mr. Morse’s mental aberration, of his being succeeded by the Chief of Vizagapatam, and of the encampment of our army at Chintadripet. They all exultantly indulged in jeering at and depreciating the English. I, also, was summoned, and made acquainted with everything mentioned above. I replied to the Governor: “This does not come as a great surprise to me. The people of Madras were in utter dismay at the mere report that you had set out for Ozhukarai. Is it then a marvel that the actual sight of an army should have unhinged their minds?” Concurring with me, he asked some particulars concerning the position of Chintadripet, and the fortress at Madras. I described them as far as I knew, and in such terms as would be likely to please him. It would probably occupy six pages to record here the whole of the conversation which took place then, but the gist of it was as I have written above.

About noon, a letter was brought to the Governor by some Brahmans from Mahe, who had performed the journey in twelve days. In this it was stated that seven ships which left France this year had touched at Mahe, and had set out on their way hither. The joy which this intelligence has aroused in his breast is beyond description. The news concerning Madras, when added to this intelligence, has raised in him hopes of ample resources to enable him to prosecute the expedition against the English with success, and to place the Company’s trade once more on a sound basis. The gratification which this prospect has caused to him is indescribable.

This day, a letter was received from M. de la Bourdonnais.

M. de la Touche having obtained the consent of his mother to marry Madle. Astruc, has sought and obtained that of the Governor also. The preparations for the wedding are progressing, and M. de la Touche’s delight, and lightness of heart, are beyond expression in writing...

Monday, 19th September 1746, or 7th Purattasi of Akshaya. —To-day, before visiting the Governor, I visited M. de la Touche, and congratulated him on his approaching marriage. I thence went to M. Cornet’s, where I checked with him the account of broad-cloths taken by me, and furnished him with a receipt, addressing it to the Governor. I also obtained from him, for delivery to the Governor, a copy in his own hand of the bill, and received the balance of the sum due for cloths required by M. d’Espremenil.

Having taken leave of him, I was proceeding to the house of the Governor, when I heard that a camel express had brought a letter from Nawab Anwar-ud- din Khan. As soon as I arrived, Tanappa Mudali, who was there, said to me as follows:—

“Nawab Anwar-ud-din Khan has sent a letter by a camel courier. He points out in it that the Madrasis had some time ago planned to attack Pondichery, but at his intercession abstained from doing so. He considers it a matter for surprise that in defiance of his remonstrances, the French should have despatched an expedition against the English. He says that it is unjust that the Guzeratis, Pathans, and other classes of people of the trading communities at Madras [Vide footnote at p. 284.] should be disquieted in this way. He reiterates his astonishment that, notwithstanding all his expostulations, the French should have done this, and concludes with an expression of the hope that they will in future refrain from affording ground for similar complaints. 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, [M. Dupliex was evidently under a misconception as to the position of Mr. Stratton, and was no doubt misled by the use of the words “Chief Captain” used in the reports perused by him, which he clearly took to mean a naval captain. Mr. Stratton was at the time of the capture of Madras a member of the Council there. See also Appendix (p. 410).] 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.”

As we were thus conversing together, the Governor summoned me, and said: “A letter from M. de la Bourdonnais was received last night. When our people marched into the Governor’s garden at Madras, the English fired only about twenty or thirty guns, but the shot flew high. If the Governor lost his nerve, could not a councillor take his place? Was it becoming that the captain of a ship should be invested with his powers, and be called upon to exercise the functions of a Governor? Is there any other example of such a height of folly? These men have brought infamy on the whole English race.”

I observed: “They have disgraced their nation, and you have graced yours. Moreover, the fame of the French nation has, through you, spread as far as Delhi, and the French are spoken of night and day as possessing valour and prowess to a degree to which no other nation can lay claim. This is attributable to your individuality, and you have thereby cast a permanent lustre on the name of your family."

He replied: “Rangappa, did 1 not tell you before that those who laughed then would afterwards weep, and that it was their last fit of laughter, whilst those who wept then would later on laugh? Has my prediction proved untrue.”

I answered: “Sir; did I not then tell you that your hopes would be realized, that you would acquire imperishable fame, that your name would be held in great esteem throughout Europe, as well as India, and that you would be appointed a Marshal of France, and raised to the highest rank in the kingdom.”

“True,” replied he.

I added: “If you will not take offence at the liberty I take, I will mention a small incident which 1 remember.”

“Not at all,” he said: “Proceed.”

I then continued: “This time last year, a Brahman, referring to the circumstance that the ships had not arrived, assured me that in the current month of this year, the Governor would capture Madras, Fort St. David, and Cuddalore, and gather very great renown.”

“Was it a Brahman who said this,” he asked. “Yes, sir,” I replied.

“No other class of men can bear comparison with Brahmans in point of intelligence,” he observed.

I continued : “Quite so. The Brahman further said that when the attention of the King of France was drawn to these achievements, he would be so much gratified that he would appoint the Governor, a Marshal.”

“How did the Brahman come to know the title of ‘Marshal,’” he exclaimed.

I replied: “What that Brahman said was that the Governor was destined to be eminently fortunate, and that, when the news of the capture of the towns which I have mentioned reached the ears of the King, the latter would be so much pleased that he would favour him with rare presents, confer on him an exalted position, and keep him near himself; and that his career thenceforth would be one of marked distinction. It then struck me that the distinction referred to must be that of a Marshal, and I interpreted it as Marshal of France.” This aroused joy in his heart, and he cried out, laughingly, “Many thanks: much obliged.”

I said: “All your great deeds have been rendered into lays, and are being sung.”

“Who is it that sings? Who is the originator of this?” he asked.

“The people have done this in excess of the joy which fills their heart,” replied I.

He then observed: “You must have been the author of this. I imagine that you are accomplished in this branch of the fine arts. I now recollect, the way in which you were wont to listen when attending musical parties here.”

“I can pretend to but little musical knowledge,” 1 replied.

“I know it too well to need to be enlightened by you” was his answer.

He then asked what the import of the songs was.

I replied: "They set forth, amongst other matters, how undauntedly and courageously you faced the days when no ships appeared here, and when enemies were overwhelming you; how the very mention of your name so terrified the English as to cause their bowels to fall out, how, within six months, you erected earth-works and fortifications on the beach which would have taken another person not less than three years, how you, having procured men-of-war from France, defeated and dispersed the English ships sinking one and seriously damaging the rest, and how your heroic achievements have won the admiration of the Emperor of Delhi, and indeed of all European countries. I have heard that these deeds, and several others, are celebrated in the songs.”

He exclaimed: "You must have caused these to be composed, and sung; for no others knew of all these matters.”

He then retired into the room where his wife lay, and in consultation with her, sent word through Narayaua Pillai, to the minstrels to attend and sing before them. In obedience to this order, Narayana Pillai brought Kasturi Rangaiyan and Venkata Naranappa Aiyan. The Governor however put off the party to the following day, as his wife was then sleeping.

Upon this Narayana Pillai said to me: “The Governor asked me some questions regarding the songs. I told him that some Brahman songster or other had entertained us with them at a musical performance at your house, and that several of the townspeople were reported to be learning them by heart. This piece of news made the Governor merry beyond measure. The state of Madame Dupleix’s feelings was similar. He asked me whether the songs were in Telugu, or Tamil, to which I replied that they were in Telugu. He then inquired whether they could not be composed in Tamil. I answered that I would consult you.”

I pointed out to him that if the songs were composed in Tamil, they could not be sung in Arcot, Mysore, and Golconda, but that if a Tamil rendering of them was required, a performance in that tongue could be arranged for in a week. With these remarks I bade him adieu.

I then went home, ate my dinner, and was about to lie down for a rest, when the singers told me that they were summoned by the Governor and his wife, and that two peons had come. I then instructed them, at some length, as to how they should conduct themselves in the presence of Europeans, and bade them go.

The musicians were taken into the house of the Governor where he, his consort, his sister-in-law, and the wife of Pedro Mousse, were assembled. A carpet was spread for them to sit upon, and they were asked to proceed. As the songs were poured forth by the minstrels in all their melodious grandeur, two or three European ladies translated them into Tamil to Madame Dupleix, who in turn rendered them into French to her husband. They all enjoyed the performance very much. It was mentioned in the song that two of the French ships captured by the English had been sold by the latter to the Dutch, and that the French had addressed a remonstrance to the Dutch, and wrung from them an agreement to refund the value of these. The Governor desired that this should be so altered as to convey the meaning that the French, by way of a penalty, had demanded and received 15,000 pagodas from the Dutch. He further suggested that some lines should be added to commemorate the circumstance that in an engagement between the English squadron, and the French country ship Pondichery, the captain of the latter, M. [Puel] discharged a cannon shot which inflicted a wound in the back of the British Commodore Mr Barnet and eventually caused his death. [This appears to be without the slightest foundation in fact.] Certain other additions were also mentioned by him, and he desired the minstrels to attend again, and sing once more the song as revised. The performance aroused in the hearts of the audience intense pleasure, and a show of spirits to a degree beyond all description. They wished some other words inserted in the song, and asked the singers to have it altered as directed, and to come again, and give another rendering. They were very charmed with it, laughed, and made merry: their delight was beyond measure...

Sunday, 2nd October 1746, or 20th Purattasi of Akshaya. —Nothing of more importance than the following occurred to-day. As M. de la Bourdonnais had declared that he took all responsibility for his conduct at Madras on himself, and would explain it direct to the Company, and that the Council at Pondichery had no concern in the matter, an order was sent investing M. d’Espremenil with supreme power at Madras, and directing the imprisonment of M. de la Bourdonnais, in case that he refused to acknowledge M. d’Espremenil’s authority. The Governor, and the other Europeans, were engaged to-day in discussing this subject. They did nothing but speculate on the probable conduct of M. de la Bourdonnais; whether he would obey the order of the Council, or whether, relying on his strength, he would defy it, and command those who conveyed the order to him to depart, there was, also, much talk as to the expected arrival of three ships which had been ordered to sail from Mahe, and doubts were expressed whether they would reach Pondichery by the end of October. As for me, I passed my day in the usual round of business.

This morning, the first banns of the marriage contemplated between M. de la Touche, and the younger sister of M. Astruc, the present Deputy Governor of Porto Novo, were published in the church.

I did not go to the Governor’s house, as I went to see M. Dubois in the morning, and after chatting with him proceeded at 10, to the arecanut store-house....

Friday, 7th October 1746, or 25th, Purattasi of Akshaya. — M. Bonneau, the Councillor at Mascareigne, who went some time ago from Pondichery to Madras, returned from the latter place, at 8 this morning. He had been imprisoned by M. de la Bourdonnais, but was released when M. d’Espremenil assumed charge. He left Madras secretly the night before last, and going to Mylapore, started thence, and arrived at Pondichery at 8, When he reached the Governor’s house, all the Councillors were summoned, and a Council was held. Just then, a letter arrived from Madras by post. A despatch for that place was sent by the post at noon, after the Council had broken up.

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. Dalaurens, 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."

The prompt measures adopted by M. de la Bourdonnais,  in disobedience of the Council's orders, lead me to think that he will restore Madras to the English, and set sail with his ships for France, carrying away with him all the merchandise which he found in Madras. His future action is uncertain. The anxiety experienced by M. Dupleix is indeed great. The desire which he cherished, for the last two years, was the capture of Madras. When M. de la Bourdonnais demurred to this, on the ground that he had no orders from the King and his Ministers, M. Dupleix overruled his objections, by giving him a written statement in which he took all the responsibility on himself. Finally, when Madras was captured, and the French flag was hoisted on its walls, M. de la Bourdonnais, setting at naught the orders of M. Dupleix, plundered the fort of all the treasures which it contained, and then restored it to the English. If M. Dupleix is to derive no advantage from the capture of Madras, if his orders are to be set aside, and the men whom he sent thither are to be imprisoned, what greater evil could befall him in this world? Hence his grief is boundless, his reputation, too, has declined much in the estimation of the outside public....

Tuesday, 11th October 1746, or 29th Purattasi of Akshaya.— This day, M. de la Touche was married to a lady who is the daughter of M. Astruc, formerly the Deputy Governor of the Dutch factory at Porto Novo, and sister of the present Deputy Governor of that place. Madame [Dupleix] was present on the occasion. At night, the Governor attended the ceremony. The wedding was celebrated in the ordinary way. There were no extraordinary rejoicings, for the Governor was troubled by the state of affairs at Madras, and was sad at heart. Every one present shared the general depression. I presented the married couple with a roll of lace valued at Rs. 130, a white shawl valued at Rs. 62, plantains, sugar-candy, sugar, flowers, milk, and twenty hares. Before nightfall, in company with some others, I visited thrice the place where the marriage was celebrated. They presented betel and nut to me, and sprinkled me with rosewater.

M. Labougie arrived this morning from Madras. He conversed with the Governor. A Council was afterwards held. I could not have a talk with M. Dupleix; and as I had done during the last six or seven days, I went to the arecanut store-house, and thence home.

The letters which I received yesterday, and to-day, from Arcot, mentioned that Nawab Anwar-ud-din Khan was extremely ill, that Muhammad Mahfuz Khan, his eldest son, had been invested with the title of Nawab, that Muhammad Ali Khan was encamped at Ranipettai, preparatory to marching against the Mahrattas, that Mahfuz Khan, Sampati Rao, and others, went to visit Muhammad ’Ali at Ranipettai, that Sampati Rao had been presented by Muhammad ’Ali with an elephant, and a dress of honour, and that Mahfuz Khan, and the others, had returned to Arcot. The letters also contained the following information.

Vidya Chand, the agent of Saiyid Fazl Khan, complained to the Diwan, and through him, to the Kotwal, [An official who combined the duties of a police officer and Magistrate.] that I had not yet paid the amount for which I stood surety for Vannipettu. Thereupon, the Kotwal sent tor my agent, Samba Aiyan, and intimated this to him. He replied that he knew nothing about this, that there might be a hundred such transactions unknown to him, and that the matter should be settled with his master at Pondichery. The Kotwal then directed him to address me.

I wrote letters to Appaji Pandit, and Kevurvaram Kodanda Rama Aiyan, stating that I never stood surety for any one, that I merely wrote a letter of recommendation on behalf of Ragava Pandit, that in that year disturbances took place on three occasions, and that I was therefore not responsible for anything that had happened. I moreover, enclosed a copy of the letter written by the Governor of Pondichery in reply to a reference made to him on the subject. I asked those to whom I wrote to bribe the Kotwal, settle the matter reasonably, and not allow it to be dragged before the public; and I gave them permission to put two of Husain Sahib’s men into the shops at Lalapettai and Arcot. I gave these letters to the agent of Kodanda Rama Aiyan, with instructions to him to start the next morning, and travel in company with Kanukoyi Srinivasa Rao’s men.

In connection with a dispute regarding a water channel at Karikal, I wrote letters to Prakasa Mudali, Srinivasa Rao the son of Melugiri Pandit, Kandappan, and the grandson of Sesha Aiyangar, telling them to conciliate the villagers to the west and the east of the channel, impress upon them that they should abide by the orders of M. Paradis, and urge upon the lessees of the late Kanakaraya Mudali that it was unjust to disturb a long-standing custom....

Wednesday, 12th October 1746, or 30th Purattasi of Akshaya. -- This day, M. Melville arrived from Madras, and brought news that the fort had been given back to the English, that M. de la Bourdonnais, treating with contempt the orders of the Council here, had placed in confinement those who came from Pondichery, and had subsequently set them at liberty, that M. Dulaurens, M. d’Espremenil, M. Barthelemy, M. de Bury and others, and my brother Tiruvengadam, were returning, that they had halted at Mylapore, and that they were intending to move on hither. He said, also, that M. de la Bourdonnais was making ready provisions, arms, and other supplies necessary for his ships, and was preparing to set sail.

In the letter written by my brother to me, he said that M. d’Espremenil, other Frenchmen, and he had reached Mylapore on their way to Pondichery, and that they would leave on the following day. He further requested that in the event of there being any delay in their departure I would arrange to recall him at once, as he was ill.

The trouble that the Governor took in writing despatches to be placed on board a ship bound for France, and the vexation apparent in his face, cannot be described.

At 10 this morning, a letter came by post from Madras. From this it appeared that 2 lakhs of pagodas had been buried by the English under the flagstaff, that the matter came to the knowledge of M. de la Bourdonnais, and that thereupon he said to Mr. Morse the Governor of Madras and the other Englishmen, as follows: “You have cheated me. Believing that you spoke the truth, I incurred even the displeasure of the Governor of Pondichery. I wished to give back to you your fort and town, and for that purpose I requested all his people to depart. I executed the necessary agreement, and I was preparing to leave in two or three days. But as you have deceived me in this manner, there is no knowing in how many other ways you may not mean to mislead me.” He then destroyed the agreement which he had executed in their favour, placed Mr. Morse and his companions in confinement, sent back to the ships the Englishmen whom he had brought ashore, landed the troops from Pondichery that had been embarked by him, and set French soldiers to guard all the gates of the town. Ho wrote a letter to the Governor of Pondichery stating that as the English had deceived him, he had now destroyed the treaty and remanded them all to custody, and asking that M. d’Espremenil, and others, might be sent to resume possession of the fort. Thereupon, the Governor felt relieved, and was happy. The Council met, and an order was issued to M. d Espremenil, and others, to return—wherever on their way the order might reach them—to Madras. I heard this from M. de laTouche, and others. As to the private news of the place, I know nothing. I shall inquire more particularly, and write it down by and by.

This evening, M. de la Tour, M. Bruyeres, and M. de Kerjean, arrived from Madras. The Governor started them off again, at 8, with orders to return there.

To-day the Governor posted three letters for Madras.

At daybreak tomorrow, the Dipavali festival will commence...

[Saturday], 15th October 1746, or 2nd Arppisi of Return of Akshaya. -- [This is a repetition, evidently through oversight, of the entry regarding this officer at the preceding page.] Major Avice who came from France in chief command of the soldiers on board the three vessels previously mentioned, and was sent to M. de la Bourdonnais at Madras, returned yesterday, at midnight. He delivered a letter to the Governor, and also communicated some news to him. What he said is not known.

This morning, the Council met, and did not break Council up until noon. I ate my cold rice at sunrise, went to M. de la Touche, and had an interview with him. I then visited M. Dubois, had a talk with him, and reached the Governor’s house by half-past 9. As he was engaged at Council, I proceeded to my arecanut store-house at 10, and seated myself there. Wandiwash Tiruvengada Pillai then delivered to me a letter written on palmyra-loaf sent by Kandappan from Karikal. The contents of this were:—

"The working party which went to open the bar of the river to the west of the village of Vadakkuvattam asked me for 17 pagodas alleged to be the expenses of the work. I replied: 'You know that some time ago, when the Raja came with his horsemen, a rising took place, the place was plundered, and then from 1,000 to 2,000 men assembled and fought. Are we to pay these expenses also? Is it not right that you should defray them. What is it to us?’ They answered that the Governor had told them that in former days Wandiwash Tiruvengada Pillai had taken upon himself charges of this nature. I observed that this man had been entrusted with some money on account of the affairs of the Company, but that my master had informed me that he would not bear these expenses. They told me that I must nevertheless pay them. I said that I knew nothing about it, and that I would write to my master on the subject, and I then went away.”

I took the letter to Wandiwash Tiruvengada Pillai, and asked him to read it, as a reply was required. Having perused it, he said: “We never paid a cash towards the expenses of the working party; what is it to us?” I at once had a reply to this effect written to Kandappan of Karikal, sealed and posted it. I sent away the peon Pichandi, who had brought the letter, and returned home at noon. When all this took place, there were present at the distillery-house Sesha Aiyangar, Gopalakrishna Aiyan, Appaji, Nilakanta Nayakkan, Tyaga Aiyan, and Venkatachala Aiyan.

It will be remembered that on the 30th Purattasi last (12th October), M. de la Bourdonnais wrote a letter to the Governor in which he said: “Please send your officers and Councillors. I will deliver the fort of Madras to you. I have cancelled the agreement whereby it was to be left in the possession of the English.” In consequence of this M. d’Espremenil, and others, returned to Madras. In another letter which he wrote on the following day, he stated that he had restored Madras to the English. Thereupon, the Council met, and as he had thus disgraced them, they sent him a reprimand. Before however this could reach him, he had, on the next day, forwarded another letter to the Governor saying: “I have neither restored Madras to the English, nor have I placed it under the control of the Council at Pondichery.  I do not know what I shall finally do. I am as yet undecided.” This was the reason why, the day before yesterday, the Council sat until 10 at night, and an answer was hurriedly prepared at 11, and despatched with proper instructions to the runners.

The measure of the disgrace brought by M. de la Bourdonnais upon the Governor and his Councillors can hardly he adequately expressed. As an attempt to enlarge upon this point would be indiscreet on my part, I have recorded the important part only. Wise people will understand it.

-- The Diary of Ananda Ranga Pillai, translated from the Tamil by Order of the Government of Madras, edited by Sir J. Frederick Price, KCSI., Late of the Indian Civil Service, Assisted by K. Rangachari, B.A., Superintendent of Records, Government Secretariat, Fort St. George, Volume 1, 1904