EAST INDIA COMPANY AND

URBAN ENVIRONMENT IN
COLONIAL SOUTH INDIA

This book makes a pioneering attempt to analyse the linkages between the
rule of East India Company and urban environment in colonial India over
more than a half-century, 1746–1803, through a study of the city of Madras
(present Chennai).
The book traces urban development in colonial South India from a broad
economic history point of view and with a focus on its environmental
dimension, covering the period from the First Carnatic War until the 18th
century by which time the English East India Company had consolidated its
power. It discusses themes such as urban development, infrastructural
development, housing and buildings, city, and suburbs, and development of
land and roads in the colonial period. Using extensive archival resources, it
offers new insights on the various aspects of the shifting urban physical
environment and captures the development of Madras city limits; road
infrastructure, building of paved streets, whitewashed walls, and
compounded houses; establishment of garden houses, use of land resources;
development of masonry bridges by merchants, housing problems, and the
building of Fort House, Garden House, Admiralty House, Pantheon House,
Custom House, etc. in Madras, to describe the impact of colonialism on
urban environment.
An important contribution to the history of urban economics and
environment, this book with its lucid style and rich illustrations will be an
essential read for scholars and researchers of colonial history, modern
Indian history, environmental history, urban environment, urban history,
political economy, urban economic history, Indian history, and South Asian
studies.

Moola Atchi Reddy is a former professor of the Department of Economics,

School of Social Science, University of Hyderabad, Telangana, India.
Joining as the first faculty member in 1979, he retired as professor in 2006
after serving for nearly 27 years. He is a recipient of meritorious medals
from the Department of Economics, Andhra University. He was a research
assistant for the project on the Cambridge Economic History of India, Vol.
2, ed. Dharma Kumar (1982). With a PhD in economic history from the
Delhi School of Economics, he worked at Ford Foundation, New Delhi, and
Sri Venkateswara University (1976–8). He has published two books: Lands
and Tenants in South India: A Study of Nellore District, 1850–1990 (1996),
and Trade and Commerce of the East India Company in India (Madras)
(2006). Several of his articles have been published in refereed journals and
edited books, in addition to over 100 partly published and unpublished
papers read in conferences, seminars, and workshops. His research interests
are in studies of colonial Madras.
EAST INDIA COMPANY AND
URBAN ENVIRONMENT IN
COLONIAL SOUTH INDIA
Madras, 1746–1803

Moola Atchi Reddy

First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2022 Moola Atchi Reddy

The right of Moola Atchi Reddy to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in
accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Disclaimer: Every effort has been made to contact owners of copyright regarding the visual material
reproduced in this book. Perceived omissions if brought to notice will be rectified in future printing.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.

Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN: 978-1-032-05265-6 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-10488-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-21549-3 (ebk)

DOI: 10.4324/9781003215493

Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
DEDICATED TO PROFESSOR DHARMA KUMAR
CONTENTS

List of illustrations
Abbreviations
Preface and acknowledgements

1 Introduction

2 Growth

3 Gardens

4 Lands

5 Roads

6 Housing

7 Buildings

8 Conclusions

Appendices
Glossary
References
Index
ILLUSTRATIONS

Figures
2.1 Madras in the 18th century
2.2 Egmore Fort
2.3 Remains of Egmore Fort
3.1 Patrick Russell
4.1 Black Town wall
4.2 Black Town wall, Central Gate
4.3 Black Town wall, magazine
4.4 Sea Gate
5.1 Surf boat
6.1 Medical school
6.2 Clive’s house
7.1 Govt. House before repairs
7.2 Govt. House after repairs
7.3 Leith Castle
7.4 Brodie Castle
7.5 Monegar Choultry

Maps
2.1 Madras, 1768
5.1 Madras, end of 18th century

Tables
2.1 Measurements of works in feet, Santhome, 1751
3.1 Storms and cyclones at Madras, 1746–91
3.2 Population density and environment of Madras, 18th century
5.1 Male Asylum and road lotteries from 1 Aug. 1795 to 24 Nov. 1799
7.1 Cost of renovations to the Fort House, March 1783
7.2 Shawmier’s rental account, 1758
7.3 Shawmier’s furniture account, 1758
7.4 Houses of leading individuals, Fort, 1800
7.5 Memorandum of trading vessels, 1796–7

Appendices
1 Gardens of Madras
2 Garden Houses
3 Suburban house sites granted, 1774
4 Roads of Madras, 1803
5 Streets of Madras, 1803
6 Pariars’ Petition, 1779
ABBREVIATIONS

Apdx. Appendix
Apds. Appendices
Brig. Brigadier
Col. Colonel
Ed. Editor
Eds. Editors
EIC East India Company
Govt. Government
Lt. Lieutenant
Masuli Masulipatnam
NE North-east
NW North-west
Pags. Pagodas
Pondy Pondicherry, Puduchery
Rs. Rupees
SE South-east
SW South-west
Trichy Thiruchirapalli
PREFACE AND
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

For the first time, this study brings forth new insights into urban
development from a broad economic history point of view with a focus on
the environmental dimension of the erstwhile Madras city, the present
Chennai, over more than a half-century – from the mid-18th to the early
19th centuries. It describes in detail various aspects of the shifting physical
environment of Chennai city. The topic is inherently interesting as many of
the details of this history are not widely known. The existing literature on
the economic and environmental history and urban studies did not address
the urban environment on a wide range of issues, such as the ever-changing
pace of urban development process in the general infrastructural
development and housing, etc. Though several scholars had written about
Madras/Chennai city in general, none of them had addressed it from an
environmental point of view. Given the background, this book is an
important contribution to the environmental history in general and the urban
environment in particular.
My modest goal is to show that the development of greenery all around
turned Madras into a pleasant and liveable city. It was chiefly in the form of
gardens, garden houses, and shady trees on the sides of roads and streets.
The story of Madras is being largely told by its widespread gardens,
developed lands, straight roads, paved streets, masonry bridges, white-
washed walls, and compounded houses. The study starts in a ‘breaking
period’ of 1746–49 when the English had lost the city to the French. The
First Carnatic War began in that period when the powerful Indian political
rivals on each side were supported by the feuding commercial rivals, the
English and the French. The study ends conveniently with the 18th century
(1803), by which time the English East India Company (EIC) had firmly
consolidated its Indian Empire and emerged as a viable ruling power
(Damodaran V et al., 2015).
The study focuses on a small area of the vast economic history of this
period. Only three main aspects are presented in this study of urban
environmental economics – gardens, infrastructure, and housing. Greenery
dominated the urban environment of this period which was largely shaped
by its infrastructural facilities and housing policies. Houses were the basic
units for all the infrastructural facilities which were environmentally
designed.
This work has extensive references to original archival sources, which
strengthen the base and deepen the knowledge of the history of urban
economics. Certainly, this book would be an important contribution and it
will immensely benefit the scholars of environmental history, urban
environmental studies, and policymakers.
This work is a continuation of my colonial studies. The initial inspiration
was from the late Professors Dharma Kumar and S Ambirajan. I am grateful
to many teachers, scholars, friends, research assistants, and staff of many
libraries and archives all over India for their help and cooperation. Most of
the archival material is from the Tamilnadu Archives and Connemara
National Library, Madras. Professor V Saravanan helped me in material
collection. My wife Aruna Jyotsna, MSc, PhD, my son Bharath V Reddy,
MTech, and my daughter Laxmi Ramya, MSc, assisted me in
computerisation. Computer hardware is maintained by K S Chary. I thank
Dr. Shashank Sekhar Sinha, Antara Ray Chaudhary, and Rimina Mohapatra
for bringing out this Routledge publication. All others are acknowledged in
the appropriate places.
1
INTRODUCTION

DOI:10.4324/9781003215493-1

Environment
Environmental problems are threatening human survival. The planet is
facing puzzling problems of climate change and other challenges. Many of
them are unprecedented in their nature and effects in human history. The
entire world at present is suffering from serious and frequently occurring
environmental havocs. Increasing emissions of anthropogenic greenhouse
gases are causing atmospheric abnormalities leading to severe droughts,
flash floods, soil aridity, and vast desertification. Destructive tsunamis,
tropical typhoons, violent storms, severe hurricanes, inundating and flash
floods, warming oceans, melting ice, receding glaciers,1 glacial bursts
triggering landslides, heat waves, and wildfires are taking heavy tolls on
human as well as non-human life on our planet in recent times. Sea levels
are rising due to the melting of polar ice threatening low level coastal lands
and islands. The depleting ozone is exposing the planet to ultraviolet
radiation. More dangerous risks are being posed to humanity by acid rain,
ozone depletion, and greenhouse gases generated in the process of economic
development that is bringing out these terrible changes.2 In the process of
this inevitable change, forests and other finite natural haunts are dwindling
fast,3 tilting nature’s ecological balance and throwing some of the surviving
wildlife on human habitats.4 The environment is shaped by numerous
variables.
 The environment is influenced mainly by agriculture, hunting, fishing, and
other economic activities directly affecting nature. Ruthless exploitation of
natural resources in the past led to the rapid environmental degradation.
Since the beginning of the modern period in history, the peripheries have
been severely exploited for their raw materials and natural products
irrespective of their depletion and pollution (see Lynne L and Tietenberg TH,
1984). The British and other Europeans plundered the resources of the non-
European countries (see Scott R, 1824). Their ‘consumers and manufacturers
sucked in resources that were gathered, hunted, fished, mined, and farmed in
a great profusion of extractive and agrarian systems’ (Beinart W and Lotte
H, 2007, p. 2). The commodities included sugar from the Caribbean; furs
and cod from North America; ivory and cocoa from Africa; wool from the
sheep of the Antipodes; rubber from SE Asia; gold from South Africa; oil
from the Middle East; and spices, cotton, tea, and timber from India.
Commodities that could not be produced in Britain were particular objects of
desire in the UK during the early phases of imperial expansion. Simply put,
the main agenda of the European expeditionary movement was to exploit the
natural resources of other lands. Resultantly, new commercial cropping
patterns were developed alongside the exchange of tradable goods (see Raj
KN et al., 1985). Europeans started to explore virgin lands to extract natural
resources, and in the process, the natural environment was significantly
altered and degraded. There had been socio-economic conflicts over the
issues of environmental exploitation since the modes of resource use
introduced by the colonials led to the environmental degradation (see Gadgil
M and Guha R, 1992; and also Arnold D and Guha R, 1995). Thus,
European commercial imperialism was inseparable from the history of
global environmental degradation and the related changes.5
Global environmental degradation has largely been due to excessive
human interference6 particularly since the dawn of the European
adventurism of the 16th century. Unprecedented population growth,
competitive commercialisation, exploitative imperialism, destructive
industrialisation depleting useful natural resources, and the fossil fuel
revolution are the chief causes. European imperialism was responsible for
the growth of this excessively large-scale exploitation. European science,
technology, and capitalism had intensified the exploitation of the limited
resources of land, water, and air to satisfy the unlimited human wants.7 India
had been one of the major sufferers. Europeans started direct trade contacts
with the Indian sub-continent from the early 16th century, and trade and
commercial activities continued until the mid-18th century.8 The Portuguese,
the Dutch, the English, and later the French had established trade and
commercial ventures on the Indian coasts. The early Portuguese interest was
aimed systematically at a comprehensive control of the spice trade besides
their religious activities. Later, the important export materials consisted of
cotton textiles and yarn, pepper, pulses, wheat, rice, coconut products,
ginger, indigo, oil, sandal wood, benzoin, saltpetre, cloves, corals, diamonds,
rubies, seed pearls, wax and lac, turmeric, tutenage (an alloy of copper, zinc,
and iron (see Brown CP, 1903)), besides sheep, cows, horses, and elephants.
From that time, Europeans slowly started to exercise control over the
subcontinent, exploiting its rich natural resources for their commercial
interests.9 They were blamed for the past; the exploitation never stopped but
had increased.10 Modern economic development is being blamed as the basis
of many of the negative effects.
The negative effects of the modern economic development are
numerous.11 Climatic change, environmental pollution, and frequent
pandemics are chief among them. The latest of such pandemics is the
COVID-19 virus12 which is threatening the well-being of the entire
humanity. Being unable to check nature’s extremely savage fury and control
the deadly pandemics, humans are forced to think deeply about the origin
and growth of these destructive forces. Unlimited encroachment of the
forests for mining and agriculture with unsustainable practices, unchecked
urbanisation, and the ever-expanding infrastructural activities leading to the
ecological imbalance and environmental pollution13 are found by the
scientists as the major causes.14 The defensive purpose cited often is
economic development in the form of consumerism and industrialisation
leading to unprecedented urbanisation. Poisonous pollution of the natural
resources and the resulting environmental degradation are the harmful
effects. It is a general finding that most of these evils started with the
European colonisation; the acquisitive greed for natural resources led to the
prevailing unjustifiable world economic system causing immense poverty,
suffering, and environmental degradation (see Brandt W, 1983). It is widely
accepted by scientists and non-scientists alike that greenery alone can
sustainably solve most of these problems. Is it economically feasible and
possible in the modern urban agglomerations? There arise many such
questions concerning environmental problems. A look into the
environmental economic history would present us the realities and trends.
Environmental economics deals with the problems of earth, air, and water
pollution from an economic perspective; and so does economic history, but
in the past. Environmental issues in the modern times include 1) global
warming;15 2) climatic change; 3) emission of carbon-based gases;16 4) acid
rains; 5) pollution of air, water, and soil;17 6) ozone layer depletion; 7) loss
of biodiversity, including florae and faunae;18 8) disposal of waste, including
plastic, chemical, industrial, and bio-waste; 9) soil degradation; and 10)
deforestation. In fact, some of them are interrelated as cause and effects; or,
one involves another. For example, pollution of air, water, and soil leads to
acid rains while deforestation causes soil erosion. Global warming and
climatic change are interrelated. Many of these issues were not there during
the 18th century, and they certainly were not as dreadful as at present.
Environmental ecology was largely affected by the European imperialism
like never before. The imperialists began altering the entire global biology to
serve and suit their own commercial needs.19 The modern world is suffering
from some of these evils many of which revolve around urban centres.
Therefore, the need for studies in environmental economic history is being
felt now more than ever in the modern and fast-changing world facing many
such man-made anomalies.
Environmental history20 largely deals with three broad themes: material,
cultural, and political. The first focuses on the changes in biological and
physical environments and how they have affected human societies. The
second is about representations and images of nature in the arts and letters,
and how they have affected society and nature. The third dwells on how law
and state policy have changed nature and society. The early literature on
environmental history has a consensus that pre-conquest and pre-colonial
societies had ecological harmony (Saravanan V, 2018, p. 3). The past
societies had not altered the natural world as significantly as anything like
the rate and scale that began in the modern colonial era that affected the
natural balance of many countries and continents. The reason was that the
people in the pre-modern period had exploited nature only for their own
subsistence. On the other hand, the modern colonial trading companies
began to exploit the finite natural resources on a commercial scale leading to
soil degradation and environmental pollution with undesirable
consequences.21 The infinite lust and unlimited greed led to the devastation,
disappearance, and often extinction of the varied florae and faunae from
their habitats.22 Thus, environmental degradation turned into a serious
problem in the modern world; but its awareness is said to be of very ancient
concern in India. Yagna rituals23 were intended mostly to keep nature’s gifts
fit for the use of all forms of life, including plants and micro-organisms. But
the greed of humans increased in the course of time. Human population had
increased at the cost of all other species,24 leading to pollution of air and
water resulting in environmental degradation. Some of these problems are
dealt with in the history of environmental economics.
Environmental studies are a recent phenomenon since most of them began
to be felt after the Second World War. Recent studies on environmental
history have concentrated mainly on the 20th century. A few had located
them in the 19th century, while the environmental problems of 18th-century
India are left largely unstudied. Many environmental studies about the
modern period have found urbanisation as the chief contributor to many
ecological and damaging environmental imbalances.25

Urbanisation
Uncontrolled urbanisation is held responsible for many of the environmental
ills. Forests are encroached for development projects, cleared off natural
vegetation and often burnt to make agricultural fields. Green gardens and
topes are cut out. Again, agricultural fields are cleared and dug out so as to
make place for the buildings. This is the direct cost of urbanisation.26 The
environment sustains economic development that brings urbanisation. But
urbanisation pollutes the environment. Development and degradation take
place sometimes simultaneously too and with varied effects.27 Most of the
environmental problems being faced by modern cities are attributed to the
unbalanced urbanisation. Urbanisation in general means the movement of
people from rural to urban areas chiefly intended for their economic
betterment. Urbanisation is an index of transformation from traditional rural
economies to modern industrial cities leading to concentration of population;
a micro-climate is thereby created that differs from its rural surroundings.
Also, opportunities of employment would be created with a possibility of
super luxurious amenities, and all of them ensuring a high-quality life. It
implies a big economic transition. Urbanisation is a symbol of civilisation
and an index of economic progress. The growth and decline of urban centres
reflect changes in the networks of trade and commerce. The nature and
development of the cities depend chiefly on the progressive nature of its
residents, especially their entrepreneurial abilities and economic status (see
Douglas M and Friedman J, 1998). Urbanisation exercises a perceptible
influence on the process of capital formation, production, and consumption.
And with improved opportunities for jobs, education, housing, and
transportation, the rich too are being attracted to the cities aiming at speedy
economic development and progress.
Urbanisation is so closely linked to modern economic development that
one automatically indicates the other. Development leads to increasing
urbanisation through industrialisation, causing the mushrooming of
sophisticated urban services in health, education, and finance. A shift from
agriculture to industry enhances urbanisation. Cities are regarded as the
engines of economic growth. About 70% of global wealth is created in cities
whose residents constitute about 50% of the total population of the world in
the beginning of the 21st century (RCRE, 26th, 2007). Successful cities
provide jobs, quality education, safe and clean neighbourhoods, effective
transportation, and welcoming spaces for all types of residents.
Also, modern urbanisation is closely linked to civilisation,
industrialisation, and luxurious lifestyles. It leads to rapid riches and
enriched culture. Simply put, it leads to the increased density of population
and concentrated economic activities. Accordingly, cities are divided into
three categories. The primary cities are engaged mainly in the direct
production of human necessities. The secondary cities are devoted primarily
to marketing, warehousing, and distribution. The tertiary cities are
economically parasitic on the other two. They spring up for the sake of
education, health, and recreation facilities leading to the residence of the
opulent and leisurely classes. The level of industrialisation and pollution
seem to follow the same order. The tertiary cities are cleaner than
industrialised ones and vice versa. Cities are said to be cleaner, greener,
richer, happier, healthier, and smarter than the rural tracts (see Glaeser E,
2012). Thus, urbanisation is positively associated with riches. Most of these
matters are studied in urban economics.
Urban economics is pivotal in the modern development plans. It is a
relatively new field. It studies the special arrangements of households,
businesses, factories, offices, and other infrastructural establishments in the
urban areas. There are a good number of studies on the economics of
urbanisation. Urban spatial structures, sprawl and land use, congestion,
housing demand and policies, tenure choice, public goods and services,
pollution, crime, and quality of life are some of the criteria by which the
status of a city is determined. Many major cities of the world are also the
haunting places of crime, poverty and economic inequalities, and ghettos and
slums. They also turned into ‘hot air spots’ due to ‘island effects’. They are
more exposed to infectious diseases due to the high population density and
lack of sufficient green spaces. These problems have drawn the attention of
many scholars. Some cities are flooded in rains as all their marshes are filled
with skyscrapers and concreted roads. Traffic snarls with jams and gridlocks
emitting black smoke are daily occur-rences on the narrow roads, busy
streets, curved lanes, and blind bye lanes. Garbage heaps and sewerage leaks
polluting the metro waters is a common sight. At the same time, water
scarcities are becoming common in most of the cities like Madras (Chennai)
as their water tables have gone down, drying out the aquifers. Stinking
caused by the overflowing sewerages with fetid and putrid smells is the daily
experience. Pollution of water and air is causing health disorders and
diseases, sometimes incurable with the available medical treatments. The
result is the growth of slums leading to diseases, disabilities, and premature
deaths.28 The list goes on as the study deepens.
The picture of urbanisation is not as glorious as it appears. It is
accompanied by industrialisation and rapid economic growth; but the
resulting environmental effects are horrible and horrendous. The poor
physical conditions and the unsatisfactory working and living environments
are being experienced by many people. Urban infrastructures are stressed
beyond their normal limits. Modern cities have grown in a haphazard and
unplanned manner due to fast industrialisation. Cities in developing
countries like India became overpopulated and overcrowded with
overflowing migrants resulting in nasty pollution and numerous health
disorders. Faulty planning and corrupt administration led to lopsided growth
and deficient infrastructural facilities. Growing slums due to insufficient
housing is a common problem (Pasteur D, 1979; Desai AR and Devadas PS,
1970). Slums and pavement dwellers are increasing in metropolitan cities
like Calcutta, Bombay. Is there any solution to rectify these problems and
improve and safeguard the health of the people, especially the urban
citizens? Certainly, there are measures, but they are too costly to be borne by
the common people by taxes, levies, and other contributions. Urban
economics is centred round these matters.
There is a fairly large variety of literature dealing with the theoretical
aspects of urban development. They deal mostly with governance, planning,
finance, environment policies, and research. Urban problems such as
housing shortage, traffic snarls, and environmental pollution are analysed in
some major studies.29 Unsatisfactory administration in the developed world
and the defective systems of governance in the developing world are largely
studied and often held responsible for the failure of many innovative
schemes.30 Lack of proper planning helped by the conflicting humanist,
commercial, and technocratic approaches in the planning process are found
as the main reasons. General urban problems are the contents of many urban
studies.31 The uneven land markets had often complicated their financial
problems.32 The infrastructural facilities could not satisfactorily be
developed due to the lack of sufficient finance and prevailing corruption;
consequently, the transport facilities are often badly affected by financial
problems.33 Many cities do not have proper environmental policies, and
those with some moderate policies are facing acute financial constraints,
corruption, and mismanagement.34 A lot of research has been going on about
many of these problems of urbanisation.35 The Royal Commission Reports
on Environment (RCRE) had studied the pollution and other environmental
matters, both national and international, from many angles. Also, a fair
number of specific studies went into the applied and empirical aspects
dealing mainly with the developing nations (Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution’s report on the Urban Environment Government
Response, 2008).36 Few of them, however, dealt with the colonial origin of
urban problems. A trial is made by a few authors like Gerald Breese (1966)
and Joel Tarr (1996) to start with historical origins. It is seen that there are
not many serious studies on the urban economics of India in the 18th
century, in spite of the availability of a lot of archival materials of the
colonial period copiously collected by the colonial rulers.

Colonialism
India
Colonialism is often held responsible for India’s underdevelopment,
economic inequalities, and environmental degradation (see Kumar A,
2014).37 The expansion of Europe from the 16th century onwards was to a
large extent achieved by means of war and conquest, which the European
states recognised as a legitimate mode of acquisition of title to lands
inhabited by non-Christians or people who were then regarded as uncivilised
(Korman S, 1996, p. 41). They began to face difficult problems in this
process. The EIC judges, administrators, and governors in early colonial
India discovered governing over strangers to be a keenly paralytic
experience, particularly so in India. The natural and immediate response was
not hubris but desperation, or perhaps an odd mixture of the two (Wilson JE,
2008, p. 29). British officials thus, in fits and starts, found themselves
searching for more general and abstract rules, regulations, and principles that
suited their frustration and detachment that governing by custom in India
seemed to produce. The picture was slightly different in Madras where it was
‘a regime clearly concerned with pomp and splendour’, not for its own sake
but in the service of establishing political power, both over those subject to
its rule as well as perhaps even more importantly those powers with which it
engaged diplomatically and militarily (see Stern PJ, 2011). The basic truth
was that they were driven in their colonial conquests chiefly by the extensive
profits of the EIC trade and other advantageous affairs like employment
opportunities. They found that India had a wide spectrum of social, political,
and economic systems that served as their vast sources.38 Modern India
sprang from such bases.
Urban life in modern India is beset with numerous problems of pollution,
health problems, and infectious diseases. Software parks and slums are
coexisting. And the latest coronavirus is pushing out a large chunk of its
labour force. The governing bodies are more interested in the revenues than
in their healthy maintenance by providing decent civic amenities. Many
cities are gradually turning into unliveable concrete jungles. The inhabitants
do not find enough places to maintain the minimum ‘social distance’. Pure
air is scarce and being commercialised in the form of oxygen masks and
cylinders. What are the reasons behind this pathetic state and dismal picture
of urban life? How and when did they arise? What is the cost-benefit ratio of
their solution in India? It is a known fact that these problems did not arise
overnight. Most of them are environmental39 and can be traced back to the
colonial times. These problems had been there in the colonial Indian cities of
Madras, Calcutta, and Bombay. They were successfully solved by the
colonials following many cost-effective and environment-friendly methods.
Some of them may be relevant in one form or another even in modern times.
Therefore, we need an economic study in historical perspective to locate
some of them along with cost-effective, apt, and appropriate solutions.
Urban India owes to European colonialism.40 The growth of the modern
Indian city marked a revolution in its industry, politics, and social life
(Ranson CW, 1938, p. 1).41 Urbanisation had been one of the factors used by
the colonial companies to expand their trade and other interests. The EIC
used these civilised centres not only to conduct their trade and commerce,
but transformed themselves into a ruling entity in India during the 18th
century.42 First, they began to operate from the native centres like Surat,
Masuli, and Murshidabad. Being unable to reshape them to suit their
requirements, they shifted their factories to the nearby small ports
surrounded by the prosperous hinterlands producing a variety of tradable
goods, mainly cotton textiles. Thus grew the Anglo-Indian cities of Madras,
Calcutta, and Bombay. This had been the story of their trade and commerce
up to the early 1740s. Now they grew rich enough that they could do more
than pure trade from these heavily fortified cities to increase their earnings.
They began to interfere in the internal politics of India. In the process, the
English EIC was successful in defeating and sending out the other European
powers, particularly the Dutch and the French, from the Indian coasts
practically by 1760, after an almost continuous warfare of about 1½
decades.43
Modern urbanisation in India has been the result of the European trade
settlements. There are a number of studies in its colonial history. Most of
them were conveniently conducted from the European and especially British
point of view. There are not many serious studies on the modern period of
Indian urban economic history.44 Most of them are either surveys or dealt
with some applied aspects. None of them had gone into the origins of urban-
isation in modern India in the 18th century. Only a few studies were taken up
from the point of view of the colonised, and certainly not about Madras
under the EIC, though urbanisation in modern India started from Madras.
Therefore, a study of urban environmental economics of Madras,45 the first
colonial metro city, would be interesting. The present study tries to fill this
conspicuous gap with a brief analysis.

Madras

Madras, in the second half of the 18th century, played the key role in
deciding the colonial future of India in particular and that of the British
Empire in general. The British tested their luck from this grand colonial city.
The war heroes of Plassey (1757),46 that is Clive and his army, were from
Madras; a martial place fighting where from the English army had later
extinguished the mighty Mysore invaders47 before the end of the 18th
century (1799). At the same time, the British were more than compensated
the loss of their unstable and poor North American colonies by winning their
Empire in prosperous India. The developmental problems of such fast-rising
Madras city are highly interesting beyond any doubt. Some of the urban
environmental problems had been there in colonial Madras, which had
experienced a significant level of economic development along with the
consequent environmental changes. Colonialism is being credited for most
of these environmental solutions. The British Indian Empire started from
Madras in the 18th century, and therefore the present study is located in its
urban environment where greenery was developed as a cleansing agent of
urban pollution. Their policy was minimum pollution and maximum profits.
Actually, a healthy environmental sense started with the Portuguese in
Santhome.
The Portuguese started trading with the Madras region from Santhome
(Mylapore) in the 16th century. They were followed by the English in the
early 17th century. It is one of the ‘chartered cities’ of India that were
developed by the chartered European trading companies. The colonial city of
Madras was conceived and constructed for the convenience of the
Europeans, especially the English traders, though their total population in the
city had been a tiny minority. In fact, the Western type of urban
conglomeration in India had started in 18th-century Madras (see Ranson
CW, 1938). Madras city was not only industrious; by the turn of the century,
it evolved into an industrially vibrant city. It had surpassed the ambitions of
its original founding designers. Madras became the starting place of colonial
empire and economics.
 Also, the colonial economic history of Bengal was given more attention
than that of Madras even though the English colonisation of India started
with Madras. It was the first English colonial urban settlement in India
founded in 1639 followed by Bombay (1680) and Calcutta (1690).48 The
importance of Calcutta began to increase once it was declared headquarters
of English India in 1773. Thus, there is a conspicuous gap of comprehensive
and critical works about the 18th-century colonial Madras.49 Madras
presented a typical case. Its socio-economic-cultural life had been grandly
imperial and elite. Its language, dress, etiquette, recreation, and caste
structure had outdistanced the other Indian colonial towns. Its architecture
was grand, pompous, segregated, and spectacular. Its physical layout had
been the most economic and convenient of all the colonial Indian town
plans.

Present study
There are quite a few studies about the course of India’s transition to
colonialism. Two schools of thought are distinguished, in the stream of
studies of the 18th century, based on their interpretations.50 After adding one
more, all the available scholastic works about the economic history of the
18th-century India, and particularly that of the Carnatic, can be brought
under three heads. The third category comprises all others that do not
necessarily correspond to either of these two schools of thought since they
widely varied in their conclusions. The debates in this subject are called with
different names – national, colonial, oriental, and so on depending on
individual interpretations. The present work falls into the first category as
the decline of the economy of the Carnatic, and southern India in general,
had largely overshadowed the ‘growth and development’ of the islandish
Madras city that had headquartered the English interests, along with a few
other coastal towns that had the nodal presence of the other European trading
companies. But the actual implications may be more than these when we go
deep into the environmental aspects.
Humanity as a whole is seriously searching for appropriate and cost-
effective solutions. Raising environmentally suitable greenery seems to be
the most appropriate among them. As the heterotrophs depend on autotrophs,
the nature and extent of greenery on a given area of land surface would
determine the health of its environment. Thus, greenery improves nature and
so our living conditions. The present study is directed towards finding the
environmental concerns of the English EIC. Also, the chief query is posed:
Why and how could and did the English EIC grab the political power over a
vast country like India in such a short period? Of course, the period too is
unique that a crumbling commercial company was soon transformed into a
robust ruling power in a matter of five decades! Here, the argument is that
the English EIC had conveniently used their economic power in the form of
urbanisation.51 It was urban economics that earned them laurels with
enormous dividends. Therefore, a study of this part of the colonial economic
history of Madras may provide some solutions to the present-day urban
environmental problems.
Madras city has frequently been facing most of these hazards, sometimes
in their extreme form causing colossal losses to the colonial administration
as well as to the industries. Madras EIC, on its part, began with diplomatic
terms with the French as well as the Indian local rulers. Once Madras city
was occupied by the French in 1746, horrendous warfare began. The French
were completely defeated by 1760. And then the Mysore wars were fought
with Hyder and Tipu between 1767 and 1799 when the latter was completely
extinguished. One of the side effects was the consequent and vast expansion
of the city of Madras. In spite of the ever-increasing problems, there are few
serious studies about India, Madras, and the 18th century. The development
of the colonial capitalism in India had been analysed by some economic
historians (see Roy T, 2012). But its costs of depletion of natural resources
and the resulting pollution followed simultaneously by the urban
environmental enrichment are hardly analysed anywhere in the modern
studies. Therefore, the present target is to land on the environmental
enrichment of the urban Madras by distilling heaps of information.52 It took
me about five decades to get it so evolved into the present shape. This brief
narration is from an Indian viewpoint. Inherent here are Anglo-centric,
Carnatic, or Indo-centric biases as the city of Madras presented the growing
economic power of the English EIC. Their military might was exhibited by
their wars fought with the French and the Mysore. Poor European traders
turned finally into rich and supreme sovereigns by means of incessant
warfare fought mainly from their entrenched urban settlements, mainly
Madras.
 My specific and modest goal is to show that the development of greenery
all around turned Madras into a pleasant and liveable city. It was chiefly in
the form of gardens, garden houses, and shady trees on the sides of roads and
streets. This is a part of urban environmental economics. Concomitantly, it
forays into the nature and extent of economic development of Madras city in
the early modern period, during the second half of the 18th century. The
story of Madras is being largely told by its widespread gardens, developed
lands, straight roads, paved streets, masonry bridges, white-washed walls,
and compounded houses. The study starts in a ‘breaking period’ of 1746–49
when the English had lost the city to the French. The First Carnatic War
began in that period when the powerful Indian political rivals on each side
were supported by the commercial rivals, the English and the French. And
the study ends conveniently with the 18th century (1803) by which time the
English EIC had firmly consolidated its Indian Empire and emerged as a
viable ruling power.
This study focuses on a small area of the vast economic history of this
period. Only three main aspects are presented in this study of urban
environmental economics – greenery, infrastructure, and housing – each one
in two chapters arranged in the same order. Each chapter includes a
description of the information gathered extensively from the published
materials and archival records. The macro-level environmental issues are
captured in general in the introductory chapter. This has highlighted the
importance of the study of urbanisation and its environment and how the
early colonialism had affected the urban environment. It is delineated in
detail by means of engaging with the existing literature. This scholarly
chapter has brought out the importance of the urban environment and related
issues from the late 18th century with the help of archival data. Chapter 2
explains the expansion and development of the Madras city limits paving the
way for the development of the suburbs, presently known as urban
agglomeration of the Madras city, from the late 18th to early 19th centuries.
Chapter 3 deals with the establishment of garden houses resulting in the
decline of common property resources like tanks and rivers. Urban and
suburban gardens and green fields are also dealt with here. Chapter 4
recounts the importance of urban infrastructure, how the EIC managed the
land resources for urban development, the problems encountered, how the
land was being managed through different mechanisms, and how they
planned the city in an eco-friendly manner – all with strong archival
evidence. Chapter 5 describes the development of roads and streets that were
designed and named, construction of bridges by the philanthropic merchants
for the convenience of connectivity in different parts of Madras city, and
how the resources were managed etc., from the late 18th century. Chapter 6
analyses the housing problems and policies in Madras city that were being
managed since the mid-18th century. Chapter 7 describes the prominent
public buildings that were being surrounded with the green environment.
They are the Fort House, Garden House, Admiralty House, Pantheon House,
Custom House, Lighthouse, castles, and some grand palaces. The last
chapter ends with some inferentially reasoned concluding observations and
suggestions. Greenery dominated the urban environment of this period
which was largely shaped by the infrastructural facilities and housing
policies of the EIC Government. The methodology followed here can be
called historical induction.53

Orthography
The orthography of proper names follows the principles of brevity, easy
identification, and standardised spelling system. Fairly accurate
transliteration of words and place names found in the late 19th and early
20th century district manuals and gazetteers are used here. The hasty and
corrupt 18th-century forms are avoided except in quotations of original
passages; modern transliterations without diacritical marks are followed to
simplify the textual presentation. Only a few 18th-century forms of Indian
words and names had been retained in unavoidable contexts. ‘Sic’ is avoided
for it is implied. Much of southern India was renamed and administratively
reorganised from the late 18th century as it came under British rule, and
most of these names continued even after Indian Independence. Only the
most familiar names and spellings are used. Madras and not Chennai,
Carnatic and not Karnataka, and Arcot and not Arkat are used in this work.
Proper names are standardised following their use in the local languages of
southern India, as also after prolonged usage in the official records and
publications. The word ‘Mr.’ is not always prefixed to the historical and
gubernatorial personalities like the Governors, Commanders-in-Chief,
Colonel, Major, and others as ‘sir’ and ‘lord’ are sometimes retained.
‘English’ is frequently used here instead of EIC, England, Britain, British,
and the UK. It is the same with the word ‘French’.
Notes
1 Resultantly, water scarcity in the near future is feared in the Himalayan catchment rivers.
2 Change is the essence of time. Progress is the major face of change. And economic
development is the dominant dimension of these facets.
3 The reckless destruction of the Amazon forests is affecting the climate of the Americas and
particularly that of the US.
4 The end result is fuzzy and highly controversial.
5 The early history of the global aspects of environmentalism began with the European
colonialism, and subsequently, a coterie of professional scientists emerged with
smoothening names like ‘Green Imperialism’ (see Grove RH, 1995; Hughes DJ, 2001).
Discussing diverse aspects of the environmental history of South and SE Asia, from a
variety of perspectives, they brought together leading experts from the fields of history,
science, archaeology, geography, and environmental studies.
6 Natural disasters like earthquakes, famines, and floods too are indirectly attributed, to some
extent, to the human interference.
7 It has sometime been attributed to a series of culturally distinctive, yet often parallel
developments arising in many parts of the world, leading to intensified exploitation of land
and water (see Burke E III and Pomeranz K, 2009). But they had been shaped largely by the
European leaders and models.
8 This was the time of economic and commercial revolution; of expansion in long-distance
commerce and empire; of political revolution in India, North America, France, and Saint-
Domingue; and of the changes in ways of thinking about individual lives, political rights,
freedom of commerce, and European dominion overseas that have been associated with the
birth of the modern world (Rothschild E, 2011, p. 11). India had been one of the main
focuses of the Europeans.
9 The Indian forest resources were subject to the colonial exploitation affecting the livelihood
of the tribal communities (see Arnold D and Guha R, 1995; Chaudhuri BB and
Bandopadhyay A, 2004; Saravanan V, 2017, 2018). They were exploited in the fair name of
tribal economic progress.
10 If the present rate of uncontrolled use is continued unchecked and unabated, future
generations may have to face seriously dreadful climatic and environmental problems.
Environmentalists and economists clash here (see Joyce F (ed.), 1982). Environmentalists
criticise economists for their greed, lust, and carelessness about the future. We have flawed
preferences, enjoying too many goods that involve excessive pollution in their production
and consumption; ‘perhaps destroying ourselves after we have destroyed everything else’
(Graves PE, 2007, pp. 1–2). Economists should think about the conservation of the natural
resources (see Pearce DW and Kerry TR, 1990). Economic development should be limited
by the environmental costs (Nordhaus W, 2013). An advice by economists is that climate
change should be controlled by carbon taxes.
11 The conversion of natural ecosystems into modern development projects is leading to the
decline of the wildlife populations, which has increased the human vulnerability towards
catastrophes, including dreadful viruses.
12 Zoonotic infectious pathogens are suspected to have caused this pandemic.
13 Plastic and space junk are recent additions.
14 Rampant destruction of natural habitats to meet the needs of unlimited consumption levels
is disrupting nature beyond easy repair.
15 See the Report of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 28 July
2010.
16 Global warming and climate change refer to an increase in average global temperatures
(see Singh and Singh, 2012). The climate change is caused chiefly by rising emissions of
carbon dioxide from vehicles, factories, and power stations. Global warming is primarily
caused by increased greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (NOX),
sulphur dioxide (SO2), and hydrogen. A warming planet thus leads to climate changes
which can adversely affect the weather in different ways.
17 Pollution in the biosphere includes chemical, physical, and biological processes affecting
flora, fauna, water, air, and soil. They include transport, deposition, accumulation, acid
precipitation, atmospheric pollution, metals, aquatic pollution including marine pollution
and ground water, waste water, pesticides, soil pollution, sewage, sediment pollution, and
deforestation (see IJE, aims and scope).
18 Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia,
terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they
are a part. Mainly, plants and animals to some extent are our main concern here.
19 The pollution, in the modern sense, started with their trade, commerce, and widespread
wars involving the overuse, depletion, and destruction of the natural resources.
20 History is a pragmatic discipline in which the analysis of change over time involves sifting
the influences and perspectives and so the environmental history. Environmentalism began
with the establishment of the first ‘empire forest’ in 1855 in British India. The ‘empire
forestry’ movement spread through India, Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US
and to other parts of the world (see Barton GA, 2002). It tied together legislation, political
propaganda, economics, trade, empire, and forestry with the environment and created
awareness.
21 The planet is being heated up with the accompanying climatic extremes.
22 The palaeontologists had rationally estimated that the gains obtained by humanity that led
to the extinction of many species along the disappearance of the palaeo-environments had
been far less than the cumulative losses to the coming generations (see Irwin DH, 2006).
The long-term costs of the losses are said to be far higher than our short-term gains.
23 There had been three compulsory vedic duties to be performed by humanity: yagnas for
environmental health, philanthropy for social health, and penance for personal health. These
three were judged the best karmas. It was a vedic saying that the green cover of trees would
induce rain (Rigved, 1995, 5:84:3). Life on earth is sustained by rains.
24 A number of species of florae and faunae are extinct as shown by the modern palaeo-
biological studies (see Jain PC and Anantharaman MS, 2016). There is no clarity about the
trade-off between development and destruction in the economic theories.
25 Urbanisation has brought with it many problems, including degradation of environment
(Saxena HM and Khan MZA, 2016). The problems are more damaging in the developing
economies.
26 Urbanisation is causing most of the environmental pollution in South and SE Asia (see
Grove RH et al., 1998; Smith S, 2011). It is one of the burning global issues.
27 The cost of urbanisation may exceed the benefits of development when externalities are
included in the cost-benefit analysis (Graves PE, 2007). Scarcity increases the cost of
natural resources.
28 Growth of slums is largely viewed as an outcome of the failure of urban planning in
meeting the needs of cities with rising population and industrialisation (Srivastava AK,
2013, p. 18). It is evidently apparent that the suburban regions in India are the most
affected. Sometimes the surrounding villages integrated into the city are reduced into slums.
29 Anas A,1987; Brunn SD and Williams JF, 1983; Currie L, 1976; Datta A (ed.), 1980;
Forrester JW, 1969; Hall P, 1979; Hirsch WJ, 1973; Palen JJ, 2002; Park RE et al. (eds.),
1967; Patrick G, 1915; Ross R and Telkamp GJ (eds.), 1984; Werner HZ, 1975; Weber M,
1966.
30 Allen B. (ed.), 1982; Anderson N, 1959; Anderson WP et al., 1983; Ashraf A, 1977; Dobers
H (ed.), 1980; Garson GD and Williams JO, 1982; Levine CH (ed.), 1978; Lewis CW and
Sternheimer S, 1979; Muttalib MA and Umapathy N (eds.), 1981; Tokyo, 1980.
31 Agger GS, 1979; Cullingworth JB, 1969; Ericksen GE, 1954; Habitat Conference
Secretariat, 1978; Hansen P et al., 1987; Houser PM, 1965; Joyce F (ed.), 1982; Kulkarni
KM, 1981; Rasmussen DW, 1973; Stretton H, 1978; Taylor JL and Williams DG (eds.),
1982.
32 Angel S et al. (eds.), 1983; Ashford DE (ed.), 1980; Bahl R et al., 1982; Christian JW,
1980; Davey K, 1983; Harvey C, 1982; Mc Caffery J and Mikesell JL, 1980.
33 Pederson EO, 1980.
34 Ian D, 1983; Miles S, 1979; Misra GK and Sarma KSRN, 1979; Rapoport A, 1977; World
Bank, 1979.
35 For example, see Chandler T, 1987; Clarke TN, 1981; Gibbs JP, 1961; and Royal
Commission Reports on Environment (RCRE) since 1972.
36 Banga I, 1991; Bhargava G (ed.), 1981; Breese G, 1966; Chan MWH et al., 1985; Chelliah
RJ and Mathur OP, 1993; Cherunilam F, 1984; Clarke ES, 1989; Desouza A, 1983; Ghurye
GS, 1962; Gopi KN, 1980; Manzoor AS, 1988; Peach GCK, 1968; Ramagowda KS, 1979;
Roy T, 1962; Saberwal S, 1978; Safa H, 1982; Samal KC, 1990; Savani NV, 1966; Thackar
MS, 1965.
37 The colonialism ended in the last century but not these ills.
38 India being the vastest of all the colonial entities, its rich experience had a pervasive
influence on other colonised areas of the world (see King AD, 1976, Chs 4–7). The EIC
drew from the rich historical sources ranging from Cholas and Mouryas to Moghuls and
Vijayanagaras.
39 The ancient Indian saying is ‘prakruti rakshith rakshatah’, meaning that nature protects us
provided it is protected. It implies that we humans should not destroy nature, that is mainly
the florae and faunae. At least, the ecological balance should not be disturbed beyond
certain natural limits.
40 The period of colonial transition in India, the second half of the 18th century, was in fact
the beginning of environmental degradation in rural India. In contrast, the urban centres,
where the Europeans resided, were safely enriched along with their environments.
41 The British colonial rulers claimed that they saved the ‘ancient constitution of India’ that
was degenerating under the debilitating climate and environment as also the pernicious
effects of the Islamic rulers (Travers R, 2007, pp. 1–2). The period 1757–93, though brief,
was of constructive imperialism guided neither by the dominance of Indian political and
social forms nor the transformative effort of British officials. Instead, it relied on a series of
deep-rooted arguments among the EIC officers between rival attempts to recover India’s
past which nonetheless significantly transformed Indian politics. However, this view was
not accepted by the Indian Nationalists.
42 The 18th century was the age of revolutions. It was a time of transformation in political
and economic relationships, and in ways of thinking about the world (Rothschild E, 2011, p.
1). And Madras had been the main focus in India of that period.
43 The Plassey Battle of 1757 is regarded as the turning point.
44 See Ballhatchet K and Harrison JB, 1980; Banga I, 1991; Bharadwaj RK, 1974; Bose A,
1980; Bulsara JF, 1964; Fox RG, 1971; Gupta GR (ed.), 1983; Hanumappa HG, 1981;
Kulkarni KM, 1981; Raj B, 1986; Rao AP, 1986; Tumer R, 1962.
45 The present work is a part of a major study: ‘the Establishment of the British Rule and
Spread of European Economic Institutions in South India in the 18th century’.
46 The novelty-seeking fastidious Bengalis preferred the new English rulers over their nawabs
ever-indulging in their internecine quarrels.
 47 The adventurous Mysorians helped the English so as to get rid of their unjust power
grabbers.
48 There had been other port towns on either of the coasts where the EIC had their factories.
49 There are not many socio-economic studies on South India of the 18th century (Mizushima
T, 1986, Intro.). It was ‘a dark age and a century of anarchy’ (Sinha R, 1936, p. 1).
However, there are some regional studies.
50 There are two widely debated views of the Indian economic history during the 18th century
– the Orientalist and the Nationalist (see Roy T, 2012). The present study supports the
Indian Nationalists.
51 Side by side, the French EIC had its headquarters in the Pondy city.
52 An economic historian should have large data at his or her command even to draw a small
inference. He or she should be accurate and cautious in the use of those data aimed at
showing the ways and means to solve the problems of the human society (see Nef JU,
1941). Sources for the 18th century are immensely vast and widely varied. Most of the data
and information used here are from treaties, letters, debates, and grants apart from the
published works including biographies, pamphlets, Parliamentary Papers, Reports of
Commissions, and Government Orders and proceedings of the different departments of
administration.
53 It is Smithian historical induction (see Smith A, 1937) arranged dialectically and analysed
following the Hicksian theory (see Hicks JR, 1969); so that it comprehends many while
contradicting few approaches.

2
GROWTH

DOI:10.4324/9781003215493-2

Cities
Cities are synonymous with civilisation. A city is a place where custom
has been superseded with opinions and positive law, where man lives
by his wits rather than by instincts or tradition; the city is the breeding
ground for individuals as units of thought and action rather than
passive, adaptive mechanisms motivated by simple physiological
drives.
 (Ericksen GE, 1954, p. 3)

City residents are more productive, lively, and creative than those of the
rural tracts. Historically, cities are centres of commerce and culture,
celebrations of innovation, knowledge creation, and education (RCRE, 26th,
2007, para 1.1). They are expressions of political and moral authority and
symbols of stability. They are wonderful places to live in as they offer
diversity, creativity, and entertainment. They are founts of opportunity and
magnets to attract population, particularly skilled workers. Cities encompass
only 2% of the world’s land surface, yet they are responsible for consuming
over 75% of the planet’s resources and produce more than 75% of the
world’s waste (cited, 1.6). Life in cities had preoccupied social reformers,
town planners, public health officials, and many scientists. The high human
population densities can provide citizens with access to a wide range of
services with low personal transport requirements. By contrast, systemic
issues arise from the unique social, economic, and environmental
characteristics of urban settlements. Thus, the urban heat ‘island effect’ may
result in the ambient temperatures of towns and cities being 10 to 60 C higher
than those in the surrounding countryside, with consequent impacts on
human health and energy consumption to cool buildings. Urban biodiversity
in terms of florae and faunae is far less than in the rural haunts of nature.
Patterns of urban living also typically require specific infrastructure such as
extensive storm and sewerage systems. Healthy cities have considerable
green space in terms of parks, gardens, and vegetation along transport
corridors and pathways. The presence of good quality urban green space can
counter a significant number of the negative aspects of urban living and
modern lifestyles by providing a range of benefits for human health (cited,
3.54). Such benefits include improved physical health, physical comfort, and
psychiatric well-being as well as opportunities to improve people’s quality of
life and social interactions. Many of these measures were historically
experienced by Madras.

Location
Madras got three distinct environmental features that had enlivened and
added grandeur to its residents in the 18th century. First, its marina was the
second-longest beach in the world (see Figure 2.1). Second was the nice
network of coastal rivers, canals, and tanks that filled the plain grounds.
Third was the large stretch of the wild jungle that enclosed it on the SW.
Having all these environmental advantages, it evolved during the first
century of its existence into a green, clean, neat, and spacious city endowed
with a variety of architecturally adorned buildings. Tall trees were found
along the roads, streets, and house compounds; the gardens were surrounded
by paddy fields all around the city. Most of these territories around and near
the Fort and beyond Black Town were steadily included and gradually
amalgamated into the city of Madras (Reddy MA, 2006, iii, Chs 14–15).1
Starting in 1639 (1619), the territorial accession and expansion had
progressed almost smoothly up to 1746.2 The city reached such a state of
prosperity and grandeur that its neighbouring Pondy lagged far behind in
many respects.
Figure 2.1 Madras in the 18th century
Source: Jan Van Ryne (1712–60), Robert Sayer. Secretariat Museum (1970), Madras

Grandeur
Madras is the ‘cultural capital’ of south India. The city had been the
commercial capital of the English EIC. ‘Old Madras’ (1639–1746) was
shaped mostly by their trade policies and commercial actions (see Reddy
MA, 2006). As a fortress, it had always been well enough to protect the
inmates from the attack of local pikemen and afforded shelter from a cavalry
raid (Dodwell H, 1926, p. 11). Its trade had been active and prosperous.3 Up
and down the Coromandel Coast, it was without a rival. Madras was the
great mart, not only for the cotton stuffs that formed the staple of the EIC
exports to Europe, but for every other species of merchandise bought and
sold upon the coast. A class of merchant capitalists dominated its trade
(Ramana GV, 2008, p. 171). Its native population was reckoned at 40,000
persons.4 Its annual revenues exceeded 50,000 Pagodas, raised almost
entirely from its trade; and its credit was so strong that the Govt. could easily
raise as much again at 8% even in a time of war (Ibid.).5 Pondy had been far
behind Madras in terms of its economic progress. When the French at Pondy
had diamonds and precious metals to dispose of, they applied to the bullion
dealers of Madras through the Capuchin fathers. Also, Madras used to attract
many rich Pondy traders and skilled weavers. Its environment was suitable
for many development activities. The widespread green grandeur became a
symbol of the prosperity of Madras.
The green grandeur followed its prosperity. Starting in 1639, the territorial
accession and expansion of Madras had progressed almost smoothly up to
1746. The English EIC of the pre-1746 period had entirely been engrossed in
trade and commercial affairs; the ideas and intentions of the native courts
seemed to them so remote from their interests that they had made no serious
endeavour to follow or understand them; and they had never dreamt of using
their defensive forces outside the limits of their coastal settlements.
Consequently, Madras enjoyed a reasonable degree of peace, stability,
prosperity, and development under the umbrella of the English EIC. It had
always attracted peaceful men with ‘suitcases and rejected those with
swords’. The economic organisation that appeared in old Madras could be
branded as a ‘proto-type capitalist economy’ based on the English
mercantilist system of organisation. A brisk trade with sizable exports had
led to the creation of a number of efficient institutions in this thriving city.
Merchants, traders, brokers, bankers, banias, weavers, painters, and washers
had operated mostly on commercial principles. A clearly identifiable labour
market had been functioning there. The English greed for wealth and passion
for power went on hand-in-hand in Madras along with the native traders.
Call it the might or even the magic of Madras; its enormous wealth, though
unevenly distributed, empowered the English to expand their trade and enter
into the native power game as honest brokers.
Old Madras enjoyed peace, stability and rule of law, and an astounding
economic progress. The city grew rich quietly and almost peacefully when
compared to its counterparts in Asia and even to London. Trade and travel
grew by leaps and bounds. The economic position of Madras and its
surrounding coastal towns seemed to have been better than that of London
and its surroundings. Its economic divisions were not as sharply earmarked
as those of England, where the contemporary society was divided
conveniently into seven classes by some writers (Hibbert C, 1989, pp. 308–
9). This classification was found even in Madras. First, there were the great
traders who lived ‘profusely’; second were the rich who lived ‘plentifully’;
the third were the middle sort who lived ‘well’. The next three classes were
‘the working traders’. Those who laboured hard and felt no want belonged to
the fourth class, followed by the next two classes of the people who fared
indifferently and the poor who fared hard. The last were the miserable lot
who really suffered want. Accordingly, the ‘English nobility’ who drew their
rental incomes and trade profits constituted the first while the toiling masses
fell into the poor fifth or sixth class. The economic position of the EIC
servants was easily upgraded. They came here in Madras as poor writers and
returned home as ‘economic nobles’. They lived in the UK in luxuries as
‘nabobs’ with their newly acquired wealth with which some of them
acquired large estates and high positions. The English in Madras grew rich;
they plucked money from the ‘pagodas of Carnatic’. The English traders of
Madras were interested chiefly in extending their trade, enhancing the rate of
profits, sharing the growing dividends, acquiring valuable assets, and
amassing huge wealth (Watson IB, 1980, p. 194). They surpassed their
European rivals in the first half of the 18th century in the levels of trade and
accumulation of wealth on the Coromandel Coast and especially in Madras.
Decline
The grandeur of Madras was destined to decline. The riches of Madras were
so exposed to the greedy eyes of its French neighbours that its defence fell in
risk. Splendid Madras reached an unprecedented state of green grandeur and
trade prosperity by 1746 that the French invaded it (Reddy MA, 2006, III,
pp. 282–300). The English EIC garrison was too weak to defend the garden
city from the fearful French forces. They occupied the city in Oct. 1746 and
held it until 21 Aug. 1749. This three-year period is generally reckoned as
the darkest period in the history of the city. Traders and merchants left the
city en masse, their riches were looted, Black Town was largely demolished,
water sources were silted, and greenery turned into wild growth. Thus, the
misrule in Madras was further aggravated with its declining trade and falling
revenues.
The fall of Madras had exposed its fragility. It was a four-dimensional
event. The changes in the power equations between Madras and Pondy,
Arcot and Madras, French in Pondy and the nawab, and finally England and
France – all had taken place almost simultaneously. Crudely put, the first
three changes led to the last one. The fall had badly affected trade and
commerce of both the English and French. The trade of the times was not
prosperous. The country trade was dull. While Madras was ruined, Pondy
was not correspondingly benefited. Pondy’s Governor Dupleix arranged
about this time to invite various classes of Madras weavers – Kaikolars,
Sedars, and Seniyars – to settle at Villianalluru, in the vicinity of Pondy, and
advanced them ten Pagodas a loom to enable them to build houses and
construct looms (Srinivasachary CS, 1939, p. 162). These efforts did not
result in any major success, and the trade of Madras continued to decline
during those three years.
There were three main reasons for the decline of the city during this brief
period. The French did not develop any permanent foothold in Madras as
they were already entrenched in Pondy. Their greed for the lootings and
other spoils led to internecine quarrels among themselves leading to misrule
and misery of Madras city. Only a few rich traders preferred to move to
Pondy while others were widely scattered in other places, including the
neighbouring Santhome and nearby Dutch settlements. Second, the English
attracted some of the leading Madras traders to their new headquarters in
Kadalore.6 They tried to weaken the city in other ways too as to create
troubles to its French rulers. Third, the Arcot nawab, the de jure local ruler,
tried to grab the city but was utterly defeated in 1746 by the French forces
equipped with modern weapons. He then sided with the English and assisted
them with his troops and other supplies but to no avail. Their combined
troops were horribly defeated before Kadalore in 1746–47 and also near
Pondy in their offensive in 1748, with heavy losses of men and materials.
Thus, the misrule in Madras was further aggravated with the nawab’s
onslaughts and heavy French exactions in the name of its defence.
The sizable revenues of Madras helped them to strengthen their armed
forces that they could win all their wars against the English during this
triennium. On the other hand, the heavy exactions had squeezed its economy.
All its prosperity had vanished into thin air. The city’s environment faced
large-scale destruction during the French period starting with the widespread
battles between the armies of the French with those of the Arcot nawab in
1746 and almost continuously with the English. Its gardens turned wild and
the infrastructural facilities crumbled. Trees were cut out for the purposes of
wood, firewood, and charcoal. All the tall trees were removed from the
defence point of view of distant visibility. Rich gardens were sold out to the
wood contractors. To render it more defensible, the French had pulled down
a considerable part of the native city or Black Town close under the northern
wall of the Fort. They plundered the rest with exceedingly planned
thoroughness and compelled the wealthy merchants to transfer their trade to
Pondy. The old inhabitants of the city were thus scattered, impoverished, or
dead. The overjoyous French harassed the residents by compulsory
collections, extensive lootings, destructive demolitions, and abusive
conversions to Christianity. Under pressure of the decrees of confiscation,
every merchant who had goods in Madras hastened to get them removed and
paid for that privilege. It was a completely neglected town squeezed of its
productive resources while unemployed workers and beggars roamed the
streets. The rich had left the city and the merchants and traders migrated
leaving their houses to decay. The victims, both the English and the natives,
had no rest for the next three long years. Pondy’s Governor Dupleix did not
leave them to sleep in peace. Of course, a large part of these dismal
descriptions of the English might have been exaggerations so as to claim
credits to their rule in the eyes of the natives. Luckily, this gloomy picture
did not last long due to the changed circumstances in Europe. Meanwhile,
the news of the treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle reached India to their happiness.
Restoration
Peace between England and France was concluded by the treaty of Aixla-
Chapelle, 7 Oct. 1748; and the city was restored to the English on 21 Aug.
1749.7 It was a frantic day with hectic schedules. Major Lawrence and two
others met Dupleix and five others in Aug. 1749 for the purpose of
considering the terms of the evacuation of Fort St. George by the French.8
Re-entering the city, the English felt sad and dismayed at the unfamiliar
sight of the shabby surroundings and rundown environmental conditions
including the dugout roads, streets with stray animals, breached tanks,
stinking canals, and dried down gardens. Extraordinary exactions, limitless
lootings, and many such mindless acts of violence, committed by the French
rulers were readily reported by the remaining residents along with the
returning merchants. The English and the natives exchanged their old
memories and began to assess the losses. Anger, anguish, and exasperation
were found on the faces of those that returned but found their former
residences either damaged or demolished. The degraded environment,
neglected waterworks, growth of wild plants on the structures – all were
vividly depicted in their reports drafted by the environmentally sensitive
English EIC servants.9 The city which the English left in 1746 had been very
different from that to which they returned in 1749. They did find there
neither the same society nor the same people with vigorous trading activities.
It was found in an abysmal state of neglect. The almost vacant Fort along
with the depopulated and mostly demolished Black Town was of little
value.10 The entire place seemed desolated at the time of its rendition, that
the headquarters of the English were not brought back there until three years
later, that is in 1752.11 The administrative apparatus had to restart and
rebuild the required facilities. However, usual environmental sense prevailed
again among the residents while recouping their losses.
They started restorations and renovations. Growth of the cities during the
17th and 18th centuries was rapid and so also had been Madras. There
occurred many geographical and environmental changes. Restorations and
renovations began with earnest but funds crunch retarded them. The city was
geographically expanded, and the ecological balance was improved in the
next few decades. The EIC dictum was that development plans should
observe strict economics. All the localities were comprehensively surveyed,
tank bunds repaired, water wells de-silted, and roads were restored and re-
carpeted. Consequently, the number of inhabitants and the extent of
infrastructure had vastly increased as also their trade and financial resources.
Indian merchants came crowding back to their old homes, as joyously as if
each one of them had recovered a fortune (Dodwell H, 1926, p. 11). Madras
offered them all their past glories and more in some respects. Now
Peddanaikpet and Muthialpet were jointly called the ‘New Black-town’.12
The new converts, including many fisher-folk as well as the boatmen, fell in
a dilemma whether to come back to their former Hindu denominations.13
More than anything else, substantial greenery was added during the next
phase of the ‘new Madras’ (1749–). Of course, the trees in the gardens and
on the roadsides took their natural time to grow. All these changes had
brought out a number of significant environmental improvements.

Improvements
It was a new life after death for the English to get again into their ‘lucky
Madras’. The whole tone of English activities was tremendously transformed
by the end of 1749. Environmental restoration was their first priority. All the
changes and their long-awaited surprising return had kindled numerous
hopes in their hearts followed by concrete and pragmatic plans and tactical
strategies. The next hard task was to defend the city so as to face and prevent
future threats and deter wasteful wars. And their last but most important
decision was to expand its territorial jurisdiction so as to avoid the huge
expenditure on fortifications and other uneconomic defence preparations.
With these objectives, business was resumed at once in the old crumbling
premises. And more than the residents, their EIC Directors in London were
impatient for its early resumption: ‘As hostilities have ceased, our ships must
be dispatched directly home to us after the 17th October next [1749] in the
usual manner before the commencement of the war’ (Leighton D, 1902, p.
84). This order had encouraged the EIC servants in their avowed restoration
of the city’s environment along its trade and commercial activities.14 Some
of their actions were spontaneous.
Collecting funds by local subscriptions, they started to restore some
business places. Their immediate actions showed their environmental sense.
The ‘golden era’ of Madras’ began now. Much of its development pattern,
particularly that of the White Town, was influenced by the growth of
London, ‘from the disease infected rookeries and teeming vice-ridden streets
to the sweatshops, coffee houses and spacious parks’ (see Dorothy GM,
1965). The natives too followed them in all possible ways. Weavers were
invited into the city and traders followed them; both these communities were
the backbones of the city’s trade. Rich natives from the inland towns were
invited to invest their funds in Madras. The English began to reinforce their
armed forces with new recruits and train them in the use of sophisticated
weapons in view of continued French threats.
The whole tone and tenor of English activities had been transformed
towards strong defence and usual trade by 1752. And now, political and
military business assumed a new appearance altogether. The Anglo-French
rivalries came to the forefront. The French could not easily stomach the loss
of the revenue-yielding Madras to their English enemies. Their rivalries
began to take different shapes and in uncertain ways. They were trying to set
up one native ruler in Southern India whereas the English were trying to set
up another. The native princes, who had enjoyed the reputation of irresistible
power, were to lose it permanently. And the European traders had suddenly
discovered that their military discipline and tactics could produce vast
political gains with great financial results. Consequently, EIC military
power, politics, finance, and the collection of taxes had gradually filled the
place that had once been occupied only by trade and commerce. The
Europeans had diversified their interests. The Fort, which had once been so
easily captured in 1746, was reconstructed so skilfully that it resisted all the
efforts of the French to take it in 1758–59. Its surroundings were equally
transformed to suit the needs of development as well as defence. Expansion
was accompanied by minimum disturbance to the existing ecological
balance. The green and rich Santhome was immediately occupied in Oct.
1749, as part of defence strategies.

Santhome
The occupation of the neighbouring Santhome was a daring event to secure
the defence of Madras and expand their trade interests. To spread both of
them, the old Madras territory became too narrow in the changed
circumstances. In other words, territorial expansion at least around the half-
demolished ‘native city’ was a sine qua non for its rebuilding. Their future
security and prosperity, they thought, would depend entirely on the pace of
enmeshing the surrounding villages with the city. An unofficial cost-benefit
account showed that Santhome was the immediate and most advantageous of
the contemplated ventures aimed mainly at solving the housing and other
shortages. The environmental topography of Madras began to change with
the addition of the neighbouring Santhome and its suburbs. Its capture by the
English, in 1749, had pre-empted all the secret French plans.
Santhome added considerable extent of luxurious greenery to Madras city.
It had large topes of tamarind trees, lines of tall palmyras and other groves
and thick bushes besides some marshy lands and paddy fields. The bosky
and bushy woods, when dried, were sold as firewood in the city. Santhome
had its chequered history of ups and downs. Its heyday was under the
Portuguese and decay was experienced only afterwards. The Arcot nawab
had used, misused, and exploited it and most of its unfortunate residents fled
to Madras or Pondy (Reddy MA, 2006, III, pp. 32–66). Owing to its
strategic location, Santhome continued to attract some moneyed merchants
and adventurous entrepreneurs even during the 18th century. The French had
an eye on it but could not fix its legal ownership. The English EIC
determined to end its chaos once for all. Showing some lame excuses,
Admiral Boscawen (1711–61) took possession of Santhome in 1749. He
suspected that Dupleix dreamt to establish his authority. Santhome was only
four miles from Fort, so that its possession was a vital matter for the English.
The residents felt relieved once the place passed permanently into English
hands. The immediate task was to defend it from the French threats.
A massive redoubt was therefore planned and executed in a record time to
protect Santhome (see Table 2.1). The redoubt, located on the south side of
Santhome, a work projected by Benjamin Robins (1707–51),15 was planned
as a refuge for the garrison of Mylapore. It was a massive brick structure
executed in 1751. In view of the urgency, the maistries, bricklayers, cooleys,
etc., were paid extraordinarily high wages.

Table 2.1 Measurements of works in feet, Santhome, 1751

S.N. Item of work Length Height Thickness

1
1 Fause bray 449 13 2.0
S.N. Item of work Length Height Thickness

2 Outside of the ditch 674 10 2.5

2
3 Covert way 1,079 7 1.75
3
4 Traverse, six - - -

Breadth of the ditch is 33 feet and depth is 7 feet

1Fause bray = fausse-braye, a low-level parapet placed in front of the main
parapet to afford a second tier of fire.
2Covert way = covered way, a space between the ditch and glacis, where
troops assembled for defence or counter-attack. It formed a line of
communication round the fort and was protected by the parapet of the glacis.
3Traverse = a bank of earth built to afford protection from fire. Traverses are
generally transverse to a parapet.
Source: Based on Love HD, 1913, II, p. 415

Estimation of the expense of this redoubt completed in 1751 was Pags.

6,374 for five structures: 1) ditch of 568 feet length, 40 feet wide, and 9 feet
deep; 2) revetment to the body of the place, measuring 466 feet length, 14
feet high, and 3 feet thick, with 15 buttresses; 3) counterscarp measuring 670
feet length, with 18 buttresses; 4) parapet of the covered way, 980 feet
length, 7 feet high, and 2 feet thick; and 5) false bray gates, draw bridge, and
standing bridge, barrier gate, barracado door to the upper part of the battery,
godowns, levelling ground on the glacis, etc. (PC lxxxi, 22 Oct. 1753). Wage
rates and material costs are not available from any of the sources. The
redoubt costs were added to the rehabilitation costs of Madras. The next step
of expansion was into the surrounding villages.

Expansion
Madras’s territorial limits got vastly extended during 1749–55. The necessity
and advantages of expansion of the city into the immediate suburbs became
evident with the addition of Santhome. Starting by urgency with the strategic
Santhome, the city limits moved fast in this quinquennium as shown in the
surveyed map of 1755. Once the city was extended both northwards, south
and west after 1749, the remaining Black Town near the Fort was called the
Old Black Town16 while the extended parts – Muthialpet, Peddanaikpet,
Potter’s town (Kummarapet), and Washermenpet – were known as the New
Black Town. As the city continued to extend into the suburbs, the name,
sometimes, comprised all of them in the 18th century (Survey, 1755).17 It
marked the transition from the old (–1746) to new modern Madras (1749–).
The city was bordered by the line of choultries, batteries,18 and ‘bound
hedge’ on the north, Santhome on the south, the sea on the east, and Egmore
on the west. There were a number of new features on this map. 1) The
North-river had a new channel connecting it with the Cooum where it
bended to the east round the corner of the General-hospital grounds, thus
making the ‘Island ground’. Its former course had been dammed up at either
end of the White Town so that Smith’s ditch had become the true western
boundary of the fortifications, and the old river bed formed a pond in the
middle of the Fort. 2) The Smith’s ditch was traversed by a causeway. 3)
Only a part of the EIC Garden house in Peddanaikpet remained. 4) The
Garden bridge survived fully; on its northern end were located the
Peddanaikpet and Muthialpet, striking the sea 540 yards south of the bound-
hedge. 5) The map showed clearly the part of old Black Town destroyed by
the French to a distance of 400 yards from the northern rampart. 6) There
was also an esplanade between old Black Town and Muthialpet; it was
created by the demolition of houses at the time of the threatened Maratha
incursion of 1740. 7) The highway from the Triplicane Bridge had actually
passed behind the back of the Governor’s new garden house just acquired
from Mrs. Madeiros. 8) The south bank of the river to the NW of Triplicane
Bridge was devoid of any buildings; it was in fact a marshy area intersected
by streams (Kuriyan G, 1939, p. 310). The petas and the suburban villages
were found with their fields full of crops and trees.
The important buildings of the city and suburbs along with the vacant
lands were marked in this map.19 The EIC servants were acquiring building
sites both in Egmore and Vepery; but by 1755, Triplicane became the favou-
rite suburb. Several garden houses were built in Triplicane and the adjoining
areas; consequently, Peddanaikpet had ceased to be the fashionable
European quarter, though the EIC garden still continued there. The other
large garden houses left in Peddanaikpet in 1755 were those of John Walsh,
Solomon Franco, and Scrimshaw.20 Many houses of the rich native
merchants in Peddanaikpet had green compounds. The southern boundary of
Madras as depicted in the map was shown by a line running from west to
east at a distance of about 1,000 yards south of the mouth of the river Cooum
with sand bars. The northern boundaries were depicted by the hedges and
batteries. The western boundary was the Elambore river in the northern half
of the city, but the southern half was indefinite (Kuriyan G, 1939, p. 311).
Chin-tadripet, Triplicane, and Santhome formed parts of the city.
Purusawakam, Vepery, Choolai, and Vyasurpady were outside the western
border. This was the geographical position when the capital was re-shifted to
Madras in 1752 (see Map 2.1). The extensions can clearly be marked when
this map is compared to the sketch map of the 1746 (Love HD, 1913, ii,
facing p. 356), just before the surrender of Madras to the French, and also
with that of 1733 (Love HD, 1913, ii, in the back pocket), the most detailed
map before that of 1755, showing the surrounding villages. And extensions
into the surrounding villages continued slowly till the French siege of 1758–
59. The broad terrain of the river Adyar, as it existed just before the siege
along with the new extensions are shown in the next map of 1758 (Love HD,
1913, ii, facing p. 550). This failed siege gave a further fillip to the
expansion plans.
Madras territory got considerably enlarged during the period 1755 to 1775
to include within its limits, not merely Triplicane, but also Mylapore and
Santhome along with their hamlets (see Map 2.1). The failure of the French
siege of 1758–59 ensured the safety and security of Madras. It became a
boon to further extend the boundaries of the city in the following years. The
next Madras map of 1768 showed numerous extensions into suburbs. The
number of garden houses increased (see Apds 1–2). It depicted all the
suburbs extending from the ‘bound-hedge’ on the north to Santhome on the
south, and from the sea in the east to Pursawakam in the west. It showed
Egmore Redoubt, Vepery, and Pursawakam full of gardens. The choultries
on the plains were doomed during 1758–65; a few survived until the rampart
was undertaken in 1769. The plain extending up to the Adyar river on its
south was soon occupied with gardens and houses. The two gardened blocks
of the nawab’s palace at Chepauk were unfinished. The North and South of
Cooum with Chintadripet loop and Triplicane were clearly marked in that
map. Old Teynampet village with trees is shown near Santhome road. The
villages of Chintadripet, Chepauk, Triplicane, and Kistnampet were around.
Muthialpet, Peddanaikpet, and the line of old redoubts are shown in the
Black Town. To the west were Periamet with a brick field close by. Egmore
powder mill, village, and tank, and Pursawakam, Vepery, and Virachetty’s
Choultry were in its NW. When compared to the Survey (1755), the total
area of the city had nearly trebled in 1768. The major extension was into the
Choultry Plain of 1755; the total area of the city seems to have been
extended three to four times. The total area of the city had nearly trebled in
1768. The major extension was into the Choultry Plain.

Choultry Plain

The first major extension was into the scrub jungles of Choultry Plain.21
Choultry Plain was the place to the SW of Santhome up to the Adyar river. It
was full of thorny bushes. This was occupied later by Teynampet and
Alvarpet. Krishnampet was located between the Fort and Santhome.
Whereas the old merchant-governors had been satisfied to reside principally
in the Fort itself, the new generation of the EIC servants and rich merchants
had built spacious villas in the stretching SW. The new buildings followed
the latest technologies.22 The Mount, which had once been a place of retreat
and leisure, became an artillery cantonment. Black Town,23 which had been
the exclusively Indian quarter, was invaded by Europeans who could not
afford a garden house on the Plain or a house of business in the Fort. Society
lost the village simplicity which it had once been marked with. Every class
Map 2.1 Madras, 1768
Source: Love HD, 1913, ii, facing p. 614
multiplied, but the soldiers grew faster than any of them. The four weak
companies of 1746 commanded by a dozen officers had swollen by the end
of the century into an army that needed over 600 officers for its control. By
then, Madras had become the capital of Southern India. There had been
numerous other socio-economic and environmental changes that extended
the horizon of the prospering city. The next quinquennium saw an
unprecedented scale of expansion of the city limits.
Choultry Plain was regarded as an eligible locality after the siege of
Madras by the French in 1758–59.24 Choultry Plain in the 18th century was
an open tract of land lying between the Fort and the jungle that extended up
to and after the Mount. The early occupants of the Fort were never free from
fear of land attacks. They were careful to keep the plain open and clear of
any undergrowth that might form cover for an enemy (Penny FE, 1908, p.
27). Only limited cultivation was allowed on some fertile patches.
The acquisition by Europeans of land to the SW of the Fort for coun try
houses and gardens was going on gradually. Their mansions lie inland
instead of on the shore, where the full benefit of the sea breeze could be
enjoyed. The explanation of the puzzle is to be found in the circumstance
that the EIC servants of the 18th century longed for a change of scene. They
lived and toiled in the White Town, where they saw enough of sea and sand.
Originally, the country house was not a permanent residence for its owner. It
was designed for weekends and holidays, and its great feature was its lush
garden. Fruits and flowers would not flourish on the beach. There the soil
was sand, and the water brackish. A secondary reason for the selection of the
interior was convenience of communication. There was no highway along
the shore. The thoroughfare from Triplicane to Santhome was half a mile
from the sea. The principal highways from the Fort were Mount Road
leading to Chingleput and further south, and the road through Egmore to
Poornamallee and further west. The Mount had been a sanatorium and
holiday resort, and the route thither from the Fort was a great thoroughfare.
As the British acquired the suburban villages, Peddanaikpet lost its former
popularity; and Triplicane rose in favour as a residential quarter. A group of
country mansions were on the south of Triplicane Bridge. That area towards
its SW was the vast Choultry Plain, where uncultivated ground was available
grown mostly with shrubs and bushes.
Spreading into these bushy jungles, the city changed a lot by 1768. The
river at Triplicane Bridge was running in two channels, with a low marshy
island between them. The bridge was upwards of 200 yards in length. The
highway on the south bank had a guardhouse on its east side, with Henry
Powney’s residence close behind. The road then passed the back of the
governor’s garden house. About 750 yards SE of the governor’s house was
the residence of Signora Estra Gregorio with a walled garden. The south
bank of the river to the NW of Triplicane Bridge was a marshy area,
intersected by small streams. From Triplicane, a road to the westward, later
called White’s Road, joined the main thoroughfare at the White choultry, and
the triangle enclosed by Triplicane and these two roads was the site of
several houses built after the French siege of 1758–59. Another road towards
the west skirted the village of Rayapet and joined Mount Road a little
beyond the White choultry. Among the first houses built in 1761 in the
triangle were the garden houses of James West and Peter Marriette25 in
Rayapet. Captain Edmund Pascal, the Town major, acquired an adjacent plot
in 1764. Four years later, Daniel and Moses De Castro26 applied for the land
between Rayapet and Tiruvatiswarpet, the former laying SW and the latter to
the north. It was bounded westward by Marriette’s garden and eastward by
the road to the Luz. Most of the residents had maintained large gardens in
their compounds which in turn were frequently surrounded by tall avenue
trees on the road margins. Two other such chief extensions were Pudupak
and Egmore.

Pudupak

The rural fields had enriched the urban environment of Madras city. They
supplied all greeneries including fruits, flowers, vegetables, and plants from
their nurseries. Pudupak and Egmore were known for paddy fields, later
converted into luxurious garden houses, mostly on commercial lines.
Pudupak was one of the nearest areas to the Fort that attracted the EIC elite
to build their grand garden houses there. This crowded division was also
close to the grand Mount Road. It covered the region (with hutments) to the
north and west of Tiruvateesvaranpet in the angle formed between the high
road leading from that village to Mount Road and the White’s or Peter’s road
in the south. First mentioned in the EIC records in 1673, Podupaca or
Pudupak was obtained from the nawab in 1742, after a long period of
negotiations. It was full of fertile lands with paddy fields and grownup
gardens. The nawab gave it, together with several other villages, in gratitude
for the EIC’s sympathy, for an annual rent of about 105 Pagodas. The
killedar of Poornamallee actually handed it over only after 1744.27 The
village then became a favou-rite site for country residences (Rangacharya V,
1939, p. 126). The earliest residence to come into existence at Pudupak was
Mackay Garden with its servants (after nawabi style), which was named
after George Mackay, a free merchant, who came to Madras about 1738 and
became Mayor in 1756 and a contractor for supply and transport to the army
in 1760. He asked the President and Council about the year 1758 for the
lease of a piece of ground for constructing a house, and it was granted to him
on a 99 years’ lease on his payment of a fee of 30 Pagodas, together with the
undertaking to pay rent of one Pagoda per annum. After 99 years, the
ground, with all buildings and improvements, was to revert to the EIC. There
were two separate properties in this region of Mackay Garden, one being to
the north of the Thousand Lights, and the other a little further to the NE on
the Graeme road which led to Nungambakkam. The former was the one
acquired by George Mackay, as the latter was occupied by paddy fields and
trees. Here, the Arcot nawab owned some large properties. The next large
extension was Egmore and its hamlets.

Egmore

Egmore was strategically located on Poornamallee Highway to the west of

the Fort. It was a rich village of mansions and bungalows surrounded by
gardens and fields. It had two large tanks beside the river Cooum (Koopam)
on its southern border (Reddy MA, 2006, III, pp. 90–113). Rich peasants
lived there besides a number of dubashis, contractors, priests, artists, and
other elite sections. The EIC established a ‘powder mill at the Redoubt’ in
1752, at a cost of 7,500 pagodas; and the manufacture of powder was
commenced in Aug. 1754, by a German overseer named John de Roos, who
was able to turn out 500 lbs. per day. Capt. Brohier (the Engineer)
complained in 1756 that the quality of the powder was not equal to that of
the European factories. De Roos justified his mode of manufacture by giving
details, which made the Council place the factory under the control of the
Committee of Works. The ‘powder magazine’ was then enlarged and the
surplus powder manufactured was stored temporarily in the two pagodas at
Chintadripet. The employees were granted lands as house sites in Egmore
around the mill. This mill was blown up by the French during Lally’s siege
of Madras, 1758–9, and some of the terrified residents vacated the
surrounding houses. After the expulsion of the French, the Committee of
Works manufactured gunpowder in a temporary shed following native
methods, until a disastrous explosion occurred by which many people
miserably perished. It was then resolved to restore the factory pending the
erection of the machinery which had been sent out from England several
years earlier. The Redoubt was a little out of repairs, and Major Maule, the
Chief Engineer reported in 1793 that its old drawbridge must be replaced by
a new one (Rangacharya V, 1939, p. 138). Meanwhile, the need for the
redoubt vanished with the fall of Tipu (1799), the last formidable enemy of
the British in South India. Now the neo-rich began to construct their ‘airy
bungalows’ not only around the redoubt but also beyond Egmore, in the
outlying villages.
At this time, the Madras Male Asylum was near the redoubt; and the
surrounding land was handed over to the asylum authorities in 1800. They
made some quaint alterations in the structure of the redoubt so that they
could have more comfortable quarters. The attempt to convert a military
building into a civil one naturally led to queer architectural features
(Rangacharya V, 1939, p. 138). The authorities of the asylum added an upper
story to one of the military buildings, with the result that there was the
strange spectacle of a row of windowed chambers on the top of a buttressed
and battlemented wall, windowless and grim. The upper story was built into
the battlements in such a manner that the outline of the battlements was still
clearly visible, and the building was a composite reminder of old-time war
and latter-day peace (see Figure 2.1). The whole of the lower part of the
building, with its massive walls and its frowning aspects, was of curious
interest. The ground around, which was extensively bricked, was a reminder
that the redoubt in its original form was a massive structure surrounded by
vacant lands (see Figures 2.2 – 2.3). The addition of the incongruous but
necessary accommodation was due to the fact that the Male Asylum
possessed a press. It was on a small scale at first; but in 1800, a bigger
Govt.-press was established there.28 As the city expanded, old and smaller
structures gave place to larger ones due to scarcity of land. The result was
that agricultural lands were receding and gave place to large residential
mansions with gardens. Egmore gardens got a long history dating back to the
beginning of the 18th century. Mansions (manor type houses) were built
there in the early decades.

Figure 2.2 Egmore Fort

Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 44
Figure 2.3 Remains of Egmore Fort
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 45

They built separately a small quarter for the servants who served in the
household including watering the plants.29 In view of the vast expansion of
the city into the surrounding villages and vacant lands, the next step
involved was the proper integration of the new areas by extending all urban
facilities.

Integration
Integration involved a number of developmental measures. Most of the
required funds were raised through local taxes. Many owners of the garden
houses had built and also maintained the roads bordering their bungalows. It
was proposed, in 1775, that a bound-hedge be planted right round the limits
of Madras beginning from the Redoubt at Santhome along the borders of
Adyar river to Morse choultry on Mount Road near Lushington gardens
through the Long-tank round the village of Chettipet to Vepery, and from
thence to be continued to the sea at about a mile distant from the northern
wall of Black Town. The extent of this protected hedge showed probably the
limits of Madras in 1775. This project was then not carried out but was
partly revived by Popham 11 years later. Branch roads were built from the
main roads into the suburban villages, some of them with lottery funds.
Further enlargements up to 1803 were many. Limits of Madras were fixed
on 2 Nov. 1798 by the Governor in Council. The southern limit was the
southern bank of the Adyar river; as far as the road leading to the long tank,
the limits continued in a northern direction along the bank of the long tank
and from thence along the bank of the Nungambakkam tank as far as the
village of Chettipet on the banks of the Cooum. The limits continued in the
same direction to the villages of Kilpauk and Perambur, and from the latter
village it took an eastern direction to the sea, so as to include the whole
village of Tondiarpet (Kuriyan G, 1939, p. 311). All the lands included in the
villages of Chettipet, Kilpauk, Perambur, and Tondiarpet were considered
within the city limits. These limits were more extensive than those depicted
in the proposed bound-hedge of 1775, mainly towards the north. On a
comparison with the maps of 1733, 1755, and 1768, the boundary limits of
Madras, especially the Black Town, extended very considerably by the end
of the century with the inclusion of the suburban villages.
 The suburbs of the city consisted of the surrounding villages on all three
sides as its eastern boundary was the sea. Based on the survey of 1798, the
city could be divided into two halves taking the Poornamallee high road in
their middle. There had been a number of villages to the west and north of
the Black Town. Vepery and Choolai bordered it on the west. Purasavakam
and Medavaram were on their further west. Kilpauk and Perambur were on
their NW. Saltpans were followed by Vaservadi towards the north of
Choolai. A vast and hilly area called Yerragiri was on the NW of Vaservadi.
The immediate northern neighbours of Black Town were Korukupet and
Washermenpet. Tandiyurpet and Tandiyur were to their north. Cordungur
and Sattangudu were to their further north. The villages on the west were
connected to the main native city (Black Town) by the Poonamally high road
while most of the villages on the northern side were connected to it by the
Nellore Road. There were many hamlets on these roads.
Coming to the southern side of the Poonamally high road, we find a large
number of suburban villages. Starting from the Fort, Chintadripet was on the
southern banks of Cooum; Pudupet followed by Egmore, Chettipet, and
Amjikarai towards the west and on the northern banks of Cooum. Chepauk,
Triplicane, Krishnammapet, Santhome, and Mylapore were to the south of
the Fort along the Marina beach. Adyar river bordered Santhome on the
south and Adyar village was located on the southern banks of the river.
Towards the western end of Triplicane started Mount Road that ran up to the
Mount. Walajapet, Rayapet, and Teynampet were on its left. Teynampet
extended up to the river Adyar. Nungambakkam was a large village on the
right side of Mount Road and bordered by the river Cooum on its north with
clean waters. The village was known for its paddy fields around the newly
raised gardens.
The city’s suburbs were found to be abundantly green by the visitors in
the last quarter of the 18th century. The tourists used to enjoy the fragrance
of the beautiful gardens. One could smell some odour or other throughout
the day and night. A variety of trees and shrubs were there in the big gardens
whose leaves, flowers, and fruits had different scents. Some of the flowers
had aromatic flavours and perfumes occupied by bees of different hues and
colours. The neighbourhood of Madras was everywhere found delightful
with greenery around the houses, in and out of their large compounds. Eliza
Fay couple visited the suburbs in April 1780: ‘As they are almost surrounded
by trees when you see one of the superb dwellings encompassed by a grove
… it is beyond comparison the most charming picture I ever beheld or could
imagine’ (Fay E, 1817, p. 123). It was a wonder to the Europeans but not to
the Indians. The field boundaries had all fruit trees. When Fay visited
Madras once again in 1796, she noted the improvements during the
preceding 1½ decades (Love HD, 1913, III, p. 367). This time, she found
more greenhouses. The Cooum banks and all the tank bunds were full of tall
trees. The Black Town looked too congested that it needed urgent expansion.
The distance between the leafy shades of the Choultry Plain and the busy
Black Town was not great; yet there was a great contrast of scenes between
these two places. The luxuriant herbage gave ‘place to narrow streets
thronged with busy humanity’. The only tree that remained faithful was the
coconut palm, which sprang from the tiny enclosed yards and lifted its
crown high up into the brilliant sunshine and humid sea breeze. Red and
pink-tiled roofs and colour-washed walls; the scarlet, blue, and white
clothing of the people; the green palms; and the azure sky made an oriental
picture full of charm (Penny FE, 1908, p. 117). Almost all the house
compounds had some plants or other. Daily shandies (santas) were held
under the tree shades.30 Water was supplied to the gardens from wells, tanks,
canals, and the rivers.
Water was also drawn from the Cooum and Adyar rivers by canals to
many gardens on their banks. After leaving Egmore and Nungambakkam,
the Cooum circles round Chintadripet, the central weaving town of the
EIC.31 Having tall trees and large gardens, it was highly picturesque. The
road between the river and the village provided beautiful scenery of wood
and water with small canals irrigating the nearby gardens. There were many
garden houses standing back among the trees, with here and there a massive
arch and handsome pillar that bespeak better times. ‘The phosphates bred in
the bed of the Cooum impregnated the air and drove the fastidious away’
(Penny FE, 1908, p. 116). The military cemetery was on the other side of the
river, below the old weavers’ hamlet, located at the extreme west end of the
island. It was first laid out as a burial ground in the middle of the 18th
century. It was surrounded by a historical wall built in 1787–8 by Edward
Garrow32 by a private contract under the supervision of the Madras
Engineers, which cost the Govt. 13,000 Pagodas (over 40,000 Rupees). It
was one of the extravagances that led to the withdrawal of large building
contracts from the hands of private individuals and caused the Govt. to carry
out its own works through its own engineers (Penny FE, 1908, p. 117). The
local merchants complained that the river had lost its green surroundings
with the growth of the residential areas all around. Waste materials often
piled up on its banks.33 Most of the garden watchmen were recruited from
the Peddanaick peons. Sometimes, the army used to clean these areas for
their drills.

Conclusions
Madras was badly affected by the French occupation of 1746–49. The serene
city was disturbed and many of its establishments were changed or destroyed
once it was passed into the French hands in Oct. 1746. The next ½ century of
almost continuous warfare had resulted in the diversion of smaller streams
and construction of the protective walls around the city. The lakes and tanks
shrank as the gardens, roads, and houses occupied their space. The beauty of
Madras was aptly described by Mrs. Kindersley, a keen observer in 1765:
‘Madras … is strongly fortified, and the walls and works, as well as the
barracks for the army, the storehouses, and every other public building are so
calculated as to be both convenient and an addition to the beauty of the
place’ (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 617). Visitors were attracted by its
environment with water tanks and gardens. Now the Black Town turned into
a ‘green town’ with gardens.
The rehabilitation had attracted so large a population into the city that it
became difficult to accommodate them properly in the territorial limits of the
‘old Madras’. The streets and building spaces looked too narrow for any
effective functioning of the trading activities. Therefore, the EIC had
embarked first on the expansion of the territorial limits of the city starting
with Santhome and then closely located suburban villages with buildable
spaces. The rebuilding and the environmental enrichment continued; and by
the 1770s, Madras got a beautiful green cover. The Governor’s (EIC) garden
had impressed William Hicky, a visiting journalist in 1769 (Spencer A, 1923,
p. 170). Its boundaries were enlarged. The native town was full of water
streams surrounded by paddy fields and green gardens fenced by tall trees.
Consequently, the EIC military power, politics, finance, and the collection
of taxes had gradually filled the place that had once been occupied only by
trade and commerce. The Europeans had diversified their interests. The Fort,
which had once been so easily captured in 1746, was reconstructed so
skilfully that it resisted all the efforts of the French to take it in 1758–59. Its
surroundings were equally transformed to suit the needs of development as
well as defence. Expansion was accompanied by minimum disturbance to
the existing ecological balance. The green and rich Santhome was
immediately occupied in Oct. 1749. The city was next extended beyond the
Black Town into the surrounding villages.
Black Town was protected by its high masonry ramparts on the north and
west. The North river was outside the ramparts, and it had dwindled later
into a streamlet. The west wall of Black Town was skirted by a defensible
tract of ground half a mile wide providing field for fire. All the city suburbs
like Chintadripet, Triplicane, Santhome, Mylapore, Chettipet, and Kilpauk
were dotted with residential quarters; but Nungambakkam and Teynampet
extending as far south as the Adyar, were mostly under wet cultivation with
gardens. The palace of the nawab was in Triplicane. The Triplicane high
road was the chief thoroughfare leading to Santhome and Mylapore. The
area between Triplicane and Santhome was filled with gardens and coconut
groves and date palms. The acquisition by Europeans of land to the SW of
the Fort for country houses and gardens was going on steadily. These
mansions were inland and not on the shore. The EIC servants of the 18th
century longed for a change of scenery. Originally, a country house was not
a permanent residence for its owner. It was designed for weekends and
holidays, and its great feature was its garden since fruits and flowers would
not flourish on the beach (Kuriyan G, 1939, p. 312). A secondary reason for
the selection of the interior must have been the ease of communication.
Along the seashore, there was no highway; the thoroughfare from Triplicane
to Santhome was half a mile from the shore. The principal highways from
the Fort were Mount Road leading to Chingleput and the south, and the road
from Egmore to Poornamallee and the west; and both were built mainly for
military purposes. From the early days of Madras, Mount Road had been a
great thoroughfare. As the British acquired the suburban villages,
Peddanaikpet lost its popularity and Triplicane rose in favour as a residential
quarter. Prior to the French capture of Madras (1746), a group of country
mansions had arisen on the south side of the Triplicane Bridge and when the
EIC purchased one of them for the use of the Governor, the area traversed by
Mount Road was marked as the building ground for the future. The EIC
servants were acquiring building sites both in Egmore and in Vepery; but
Triplicane became the favourite suburb by 1755. From the first half of the
18th century, Choultry Plain became the favourite resort of the Europeans
(Kuriyan G, 1939, p. 313). Innes Munro estimated in 1780 that there were
between 500 to 600 garden houses in the Choultry Plain. But Thomas
Twining in 1794 estimated that there were about 200 garden houses in the
Choultry Plain alone (cited, p. 314). Both fruit and avenue trees stood often
in lines in Egmore and in Vepery. All road margins were covered with tall
trees. Various visitors had left their own impressions.
The strategic importance of Madras city is illustrated by its unique
location and environment. The EIC naval forces had operated from Madras
and won the naval wars against the French. Trade to all the southeast Asian
ports up to Manila was carried on from Madras. It was the centre of China
trade. Mrs. Kindersley recorded her impressions of Madras in June 1765: ‘It
[Madras] is, without exception, the prettiest place I ever saw’ (Love HD,
1913, II, p. 617). Madras was strongly fortified by 1765, and the walls and
works, as well as the barracks for the army, the storehouses, and every other
public building were so calculated as to be both convenient and an addition
to the beauty of the place. On the other hand, Madras city had too hot a
climate that it presented many health-related problems to the Europeans and
especially to the English. It was believed that it was one of the main reasons
for cutting short of their lifespans. But the profits were so attractive that the
trade with the East Indies was stoutly defended by the contemporary English
writers. The Madras traders were better placed and protected when compared
to their counterparts in other countries, especially those in SE Asia.
There had been some drawbacks in the development of the city and the
EIC had faced critique from their contemporaries. There is no account of the
revenues collected by the French in Madras during their three-year rule, and
not to speak of the other revenues like fines, auctions, lootings, etc. The
scattered English were so happy to get back into their beloved Madras that
that they hardly questioned the French about these matters. It was alleged
that the French had spent a major portion of the Madras revenues on the
wars fought against the English during this period. Another plausible doubt
was that Dupleix saved enough to spend on his imagined extension of the
French Empire in India. Madras was not as well laid as Pondy which the
English destroyed in 1760–61. The Fort or White Town resembled London,
but with unpaved roads and narrow streets as space was limited. Black Town
was neglected, and it had to face the French fury in 1758–59. The expansion
and development of the city limits, road infrastructure, and establishment of
garden houses had resulted in the decline of common property resources like
tanks and rivers paving way to the uneven development of suburbs. An
important feature of the suburb was the large gardens with variety of trees
and medicinal shrubs.
Notes
1 The geographical limits of the city were marked in the Madras map of 1733: Black Town
was a sparsely populated suburb occupied by gardens and garden houses. The ‘districts’ to
the westward were marked by tiny villages, surrounded by agricultural fields.
2 Pulicat (1619) and Armagon (1626) were the predecessors of the city of Madras on the East
Coast (Reddy MA, 2008 pp. 195–255). The EIC continued to use them thereafter for naval
and trade purposes.
3 The two other big towns, Bombay and Calcutta, did not match it in the total volume of trade
transactions (Chaudhury KN, 1978, Apdx. 5; and also Reddy MA, 2006, II, pp. 467–70).
4 The total population of the city reached the maximum of about 40,000 in 1691 as estimated
by the EIC while it was censused in 1731 by Governor Pitt to be around 100,000 (Reddy
MA, 2006, II, p. 4 and Table 7.1).
5 The English author had conveniently forgotten to mention the cost of this prosperity. The
residents were harassed by too many taxes and there was a revolt against heavy taxation
(Reddy MA, 2006, ii, pp. 342–62). The English EIC encouraged the caste fault lines and
collected heavy fines. They continued to get the advantages of ‘divide and rule’ (cited, pp.
90–144). Of course, the French also harassed the Pondy residents but more in the matters of
religion and other strict French rules.
6 They too grew poorer due to the lack of trade prospects there.
7 The usual time taken by the ships to reach Madras from London was about six to seven
months.
8 It was stipulated, mutually between Great Britain and France, to restore whatever forts or
territories had during this (Austrian Succession) war been taken on either side; whereby
Madras was restored to the English.
9 Madras, even then, looked certainly greener than Pondy. They might have intentionally
overstated the French damages so as to get the sanction of necessary funds from their
niggardly EIC Directors.
10 The Apperley Plan of the Fort 1749 shows the existing parts (Love HD, 1913, map facing
p. 394). John Apperley (17?–1757) and Leonard Bickerstaff were the EIC Engineers.
11 The seat of Govt. was officially transferred back to Madras on 6/17 April 1752 (old and
new dates).
12 This name was not common among the natives who continued to call them with their old
names. The ‘Black-town’ became ‘George-town’ in the beginning of the 20th century.
13 They complained to the English about the loss of their age-old culture and rich local
traditions.
14 It also provided them a leeway for asking for more funds.
15 He was a great mathematician turned into a scientist–engineer. He invented some ‘defence
devices’.
16 The Black Town was almost demolished by the French allegedly for improving the defence
of the Fort from the expected English attacks.
17 A survey of Madras was undertaken in 1755, and the resulting map contained useful
details. The Council ordered on the last day of 1754 that a survey of the EIC bounds of
Madras and its suburbs be made by Messrs. Hume and Sausure under the Direction of
Brohier (PC lxxxiii, 31 Dec. 1754); Captain John Hume (17?-1759) was a surveyor and his
friend Sausure was a private merchant with statistical knowledge. The map was drafted by
the EIC Assistant Engineer and Draftsman Lewis F Conradi; and therefore, it was called the
 Conradi map of 1755. Based on the survey details, the bounds of Madras were marked by
Conradi in 1755, at an approximate scale of about 60 yards to the inch, or 29″ to a mile.
18 A strongly fortified defence structure on which artillery was mounted and manned by
soldiers.
19 Identification of vacant and waste lands was one of the purposes.
20 John Walsh (1726–) was a civil servant of 1743, and Councillor (1750), Alderman (1755),
and Mayor (1755). He had some private trade. Solomon Franco was a free merchant with
his parental house in the Fort. His grand garden house was located in the northern end
Peddanaikpet. Scrimshaw (?–1753) was a Captain. Their gardens escaped the French
demolitions, allegedly on paying some amounts.
21 It was an area of more than 60 sq. miles dotted with small villages and their hamlets. It was
so-called because of the presence of some choultries or inns.
22 The structures of the city had conformed to the modern principles of urban sustainability
and economic development (see Fitzgerald J, 2010). Most of the roads and streets were
straight lines crossing at right angles.
23 Daniel Corrie, who visited Madras in 1806, observed: ‘The Black-town far exceeds my
expectation in the commodiousness of its houses, and in their structure; but the streets are
narrow’ (Corrie D, 1847, p. 38). The residents explained that narrowness ensured safety and
social cohesion in their petas.
24 Only one or two pioneers discovered its advantages before the French attack of 1758.
25 West (17?–1802) became a free merchant (1752). Marriette also was a free merchant
(1752) and Mayor (1761).
26 De Castro, a free merchant, applied for land in Chintadripet in 1763 (Love HD, 1913, II, p.
506).
27 Killedar claimed that the rent was too low when compared to its high revenues.
28 From which emanated the famous Asylum Press Almanac.
29 Sweet water from Egmore was supplied to the Fort and other areas.
30 Actually, all markets selling flowers, vegetables, fruits, fish, and meat were started under
the tree shades in the vacant places of the native petas.
31 It was founded by the local merchants in 1734 as residence for their weavers, spinners,
painters, washers, and dyers (Reddy MA, 2006, iii, pp. 69–74). The site was chosen on
account of the protection offered by the river which more than half surrounds it.
Chintadripet had, in its earlier days, been a pleasant place with a large garden-cum-fields
owned by Lingichetty, a local ‘trading merchant’ who renovated local temples and planted
gardens.
32 Edward Garrow was a civil servant and contractor dating from 1769 (Love HD, 1913, III,
p. 166). He was an Alderman in 1779 and Mayor in 1788, and his house was acquired for
the observatory in 1791. He owned three houses in the Fort valued in 1800 at 15,000
Pagodas (cited, p. 511). All of them had their own surrounding gardens.
33 Most of this waste originated from the Peddanaikpet and Pudupakam.

3
GARDENS
DOI: 10.4324/9781003215493-3

Greenery
Green plants are extremely important in the daily lives of people. All of us
depend upon plants to meet our basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, and
health care.1 Most of the animals and birds too depend on plants for their
food directly or indirectly. These needs are growing rapidly along with the
growth of global population. With the declining forests and wild growth,
plants are being cultivated by humans in the fields and gardens. Also,
gardens facilitated the study of plants in view of their multiple uses as food,
medicines, and fuel. Apart from the economic benefits, they served as
recreational resorts. Garden tourism is a fast-developing industry in the
modern world.2 There are many other considerations justifying their
economic viability. With maintenance costs often exceeding revenues, their
continued existence in the highly commercialised modern world is under
question. Many methods were in practice to improve their net profits in the
EIC-ruled colonial Madras.
Greenery pervaded Madras city mainly in the form of gardens. The
purpose of raising gardens varied from case to case. Clean air and ‘pleasure’
had been the chief motives while botanical, medical, aromatic, decorative,
and commercial purposes played their roles as well. Botanists raised them
for their research purposes while physicians grew mostly medicinal plants.
Some of them sold the plant products commercially. Grass was useful as
fodder to their domestic animals and the surplus was sold. Wood was sold in
the market. Large logs were used in the making of furniture and instruments;
the leftovers were burned into charcoal. Carts, agricultural tools, and other
implements were made from wood in the small firms in and around Madras.3
Low-grade wood also was used for charcoal as well as firewood in
households and commercial establishments. In short, gardens were widely
raised from the point of view of food, fruits, feed, and fuel. They protected
the city from sweltering heat; and it was believed that greenery attracted and
moderated the rainfall over the seasons.4
There are many examples of growing gardens (vanas) of useful trees in
ancient India. The asramas (hermitages) had plenty of them where the rishis
took more care about the plants than about their children (Kalidasa’s
Raghuvamsam, V:1).5 Beautiful flower gardens (chamans) were planted in
the Mogul times in the Indian cities. What is new in the colonial era is that
the English had planted numerous gardens in Madras city on a commercial
scale and from a health viewpoint. Also, they experimented in growing
useful plants brought from the diversified and distant tropical habitats as far
as the South American and the SE Asian countries.

City gardens
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) said: ‘God Almighty first planted a garden. And
indeed, it is the purest of human pleasures. It is the greatest refreshment to
the spirits of man’ (Scott MA, 1908, p. 211).
Madras was full of gardens. The EIC was a form of polity and corporate
sovereign well before its supposed transformation into a state and empire in
the mid-18th century. Its political and legal constitution as an overseas
corporation and the political institutions and behaviours followed from it
ranged from tax collection and public health to war-making and colonial
plantation (Stern PJ, 2011, Intro.). The English took advantage of the
multiple benefits of greenery as healthy and economic. The gardens and
garden houses were common in the entire city and liked by everyone (see
Apds. 1–2). There was no such thing as going to the hills then; the heat of
the summer was well-nigh insupportable when the breeze from off the sea
died away and the hot land-wind blew over the city. The merchants sought
relief inland; they raised gardens and built garden houses among the
luxuriant trees of Mylapore and surrounding places. Located between
Teynampet and the sea, Mylapore was within easy reach of Santhome. The
large airy houses with their thick walls and massive pillars were more suited
to the taste of the proud old dons than the crowded Fort. They laid out
gardens, cultivated the sweet Persian rose, the oleander,6 and the double
jasmine (Jasminum indicum). They lived in princely fashion with a number
of slaves to do their bidding, especially gardening. Mylapore was a link
between the heavily guarded city with its ever-busy ports and the sprawling
suburbs.
Madras, by the end of the 18th century, surpassed London in the matter of
greenery. With its rich greenery and wide tracked suburbs, Madras had
attracted the English youth especially those who came here from far off
London. London was ‘a very great town with nothing but houses for miles
and miles everywhere’ (Henty GA, 1896, p. 60). And the streets of London
were ‘crowded with vehicles of all sorts’. Therefore, ‘few people kept horses
to ride’ in London. On the other hand, Madras streets had fewer vehicles;
and people walked freely throughout the day; and especially so in the
suburbs whose streets were wide and straight. Riding in the green suburbs
was a pleasure, watching the natives and paddy fields. The countryside
around Madras was full of forests and wild animals which provided plenty of
game. On the other hand, ‘there were no wild beasts in England and no game
birds anywhere near London’ (Ibid.). The elegance of the buildings, the
beautiful rows of trees which formed an agreeable shade on either side of the
streets, and the universal appearance of wealth and magnificence struck
forcibly on the eyes of the strangers. The houses in the gardens were lofty
and well proportioned and kept cool through the seasons (Love HD, 1913,
iii, p. 80). Every person, who could afford it, had a country retreat at the
distance of a few miles, which was called a garden house, and it was fitted
up with peculiar elegance. Madras was very much liked by the newcomers.7
The possibility of attractive earnings especially by private trade in a short
period had attracted the adventurous and young English to Madras.
The impressions of the Europeans arriving by sea in Madras had been
variously recorded. The coast of Madras was full of coconut (Cocos
nucifera) groves almost down to the waters’ edge while sheets of surf ran up
high on the sandy beach sparkling with coruscated shells and slow-paced
snails (gastropoda): ‘The long flat shore, unrelieved by bay or cove, gave no
promise that it would contain behind the fringe of coconut palms anything to
fascinate the eye’ (Penny FE, 1908, p. 63). No sooner was the belt passed
than avenues of noble trees were disclosed with groups of picturesque
houses, patches of emerald green rice fields, thronged bazaars, and palaces
set in park-like grounds fenced with bushes. The greenery continued through
the suburbs of Madras that connected the adjoining rural tracts.

Villages of mud huts cluster outside the very walls of the compounds
which contain the palatial residences of the Europeans; and the happy,
careless children of the sun seem to revel in a picturesque squalor with
every sign of contentment.
(Ibid.)
If the dwellings of the natives were mean,8 the trees that sheltered them were
not. Many of the roads were adorned with magnificent avenues, and every
compound possessed groups of trees ‘that would be an ornament to any
English park’. Almost similar descriptions are found in a historical novel
about Madras, ‘the Tiger of Mysore’ (Henty GA, 1896). Most of the avenue
trees were tall by European standards, and some of them exhibited thick
foliage. One of the most striking trees was the flamboyant Poinciana regia, a
native of Madagascar. Its acacia foliage was of a vivid green, and its boughs
were ‘laden with masses of brilliant scarlet blossom’. The flowers of some
trees bloomed before the leaves unfolded. The tree then appeared ‘clothed
completely in scarlet, a strange sight in the blaze of the midday sun’. It was
known as the gulmohr (Delonix regia) or peacock-flower from the markings
on one of its petals. The name had been corrupted into goldmohur,9 by
which it was known to Europeans in some districts. Many rich Europeans
and some natives too owned the garden houses.
Entertainments at Madras were often held in the gardens outside the walls.
In these gardens were gourds of all sorts for stews and pottage, herbs for
salad, and flowers as jasmine, for beauty and delight. Also fruits of cocoas,
guavas (a kind of pear), mangos (the delight of India), plums, pomegranates,
and bananas (a sort of plantain) were being sold in the markets as well as in
the head-baskets.10 Travellers like John Fryer described the attractive
greenery of Madras in his nine years’ travels of Persia and India (see Fryer J,
1992).11 The visiting travellers were interested in the exotic plants and
strange trees, but there seems to have been little skill in the design of the
gardens. And during the hot weather when the grass disappeared and the
plants wilted, gardens remained often a courtesy title. Thomas Hickey, the
painter, was invited by a friend to visit one such ‘boasted garden’ (Kincaid
D, 1938, p. 55). The riverside gardens had always been green. One such
famous garden maintained evergreen was the Company garden, a ‘place of
pleasure’ to the EIC servants.

EIC garden

The new EIC Garden at Chepauk12 had been enlarged in Saunders’s time
(1752–55) by the addition of a considerable area belonging to Shawmier
Sultan, who received in lieu the grant of a smaller piece to the west of the
Armenian Church. The garden was further enlarged in 1756 by adding some
adjacent and fertile lands (PC lxxxv, 19 May 1756). The ‘Company’s Old
Garden’ in the old Muthialpet was allotted to the inhabitants of the northern
part of old Black Town, in compensation for land taken up for the esplanade
(PC Ixxxix, 3 April 1759). As the allotted land included some adjacent
pieces, their long-standing owners questioned the legal landownership rights
of the EIC.

Number
The Fort was green, and greener were the spacious avenues built by the rich
merchants and traders and the well-to-do EIC servants in the suburbs. The
new Madras, with its luxurious gardens, had vastly expanded during 1760–
1803. The grand European avenues appeared on the surrounding plains and
around the neighbouring villages. Wealth of the Europeans accumulated
faster than that of the natives. The neo-rich were imbued with grand ideas of
comfort; the houses they built for themselves were lordly and surrounded by
spacious gardens. Every garden/park had its ‘own soul’ formed by the
interaction of nature and environment (see Marron C, 2013). The EIC, on its
own, had maintained some green gardens that had absorbed the city’s
grandeur. And then, there were the stories where gardens became the
repositories of memory, places where personal and often family histories
were nurtured. The owners of the gardens were passionate about the
increasingly complex role city gardens played within the ever-changing
urban landscape. They reflected their richly textured memories. Egmore
became a favourite and fashionable quarter, and lands were acquired there
almost freely. The river had to be crossed at fords signed by rows of trees.
Compounds were embellished with white bungalows and green palms,
banyan, tamarind, mango, and neem trees (Penny FE, 1908, p. 136). Allusion
has from time to time been made to the acquisition by the EIC servants of
building grounds in Egmore and Vepery at cheap and concessional prices.
Triplicane, however, became the next favourite suburb, and several
substantial residences bordered Mount Road near the Govt. Garden House.
How far they extended along this road is uncertain, but the most remote
building was the house of Dr. Robert Turing. This was situated on the south
side of the Triplicane river, a little above the site of the Harris Bridge. The
rich Hindus built their houses around the Parthasarathy temple while those
of the poor had spread till the beach sands.13 Posh houses with large
compounds were built on the Choultry Plain and its surroundings.
The gardens of Madras had reached a high number and area by the end of
the 18th century. Their number approximated more than 300 from the
available records (see Apds 1–2). They can be divided into five categories
taking their area and tree cover on a given area: 1) large = more than ten
acres; 2) big = 10>5; 3) moderate = 5>2; 4) small = 2>1; and 5) minor = <1
acre. Each garden in the large category consisted of a fenced area of ten
acres and more. There were 12 such gardens out of the 30 suburban house
sites granted by the EIC Govt. in 1774 (see Apdx. 3). The EIC garden was
among the best maintained. The second category, big gardens, consisted of
five acres and more but less than ten. The rest, that is 18 cases, come under
this category. The third category, moderate gardens, consisted of two acres
and more but less than five. This category seems to have exceeded the other
two in number and probably in area also. The fourth category, the small
gardens, consisted of 1–2 acres. All others belonged to the last category
whose number might have been larger than all the other four categories
combined since almost all the houses, either compounded or not, had some
green cover or trees or bushes.
It is evident that the number of gardens in the post-1749 Madras had far
exceeded those of pre-1746. The renovated and rebuilt residential houses,
offices and other establishments – all were surrounded by greenery. Garden
houses were built all along the stretch of Mount Road. The vast Choultry
Plain was fully occupied by the ‘mansions and gardens’. It crossed the Adyar
river in the South, spread up to Kilpauk and Perumbur on the West, the
Ennur creek stopped it to the North, while the NW was bounded by the Red
hills. The gardens were combined with the agricultural fields often in the
form of fenced borders. There were also topes and groves of fruit-bearing
and woody and shady trees in the villages apart from the cultivated gardens
like banana (Musa paravisiaca), betel leaf (Piper betle), coconuts, mangoes,
and others. The garden houses differed from the house gardens especially
with regard to their area. The former were houses built in the gardens while
the latter were the other way and more numerous.
The renters of Egmore and its allied villages complained of their loss of
agricultural lands on account of EIC land grants, but their complaints were
regarded as baseless. When the Spur tank was named in 1740, for the first
time, a lease of ground near it measuring 200 yards square was granted, with
the consent of the renters, to Matthew Empson Jr, a senior merchant.
Empson also rented part of the Three Brothers’ Garden near the
Kachalesvara Pagoda in Black Town.14 The Spur garden and house of
Empson were subsequently in ruins, and in 1766 were purchased by Major
John Eley, a sergeant of the Train who was commissioned Lt. Fire-worker in
May 1756 (Rangacharya V, p. 140). Major Eley also obtained some
additional land to the west of Empson’s between the garden and the road by
the tank side, thus indicating that the Spur tank road was already in
existence. The nawab owned in 1771, one of his numerous houses near the
Spur tank. The nawab acquired two large manor-type mansion bungalows
near the river on the outskirts of Egmore where some of his close relatives
lived.15 There were also some temples owning lands in those surroundings.
Various visitors had described not only the beauty of the Madras gardens but
also the variety of trees and their economics.

Plants
The biodiversity in the Madras region was very rich both in density and
variety.16 Hot tropical climate and fertile coastal soils helped such thick
vegetation. The suburban biodiversity was more variegated with a richly
diversified environment of varied flora;17 richer than that of the city. The
Europeans, especially the English, were surprised over the wide spectrum of
biodiversity around Madras. They liked it so much that they wanted to
preserve, protect, and expand it at all costs, for their own health and
pleasure. Local ethnicity was such that it helped preserve and enrich the
environment (see Guha S, 1999). The face of the suburban country was
beautifully adorned with a variety of extensive forests,18 shady groves, and
spacious avenues, which were a blessed recreation to travellers in this
salubrious climate. Coconut (Cocos nucifera), mango (Mangifera indica),
tamarind (Tamrindus indica), Indian bamboo (Bambusa tulda), banian
(Ficus benghalensis), and palmyra (Borassus flabellifer) trees were the most
common productions of this soil. Also, guavas (Psidium guavajava), a kind
of pear; mangoes, the delight of India; plums (Prunus domestica);
pomegranates (Punica granatum); and bananas (Musa paradisiaca), a sort of
plantain, were plenty on these graceful gardens. Plantations of the coconut
were very valuable, as this tree produced many necessaries of life,19
particularly a refreshing kind of drink called toddy. An inferior sort of this
liquor was also taken from the palmyra (Borassus flabellifer or B.
flabelliformis) and date palm (Phonix sylvestris or Elatea paludosa) trees.
Groves of young coconuts had a pleasing effect to the eye: each of them
yielded about five pence per day to its owner, and they did not require any
attention or care after a certain age. They grew on the coastal sandy, salty,
and sour soils. Each house grew one or more such coconut plants as they
were regarded auspicious.20 They were found in plenty, in rows, in the
garden houses.
Garden houses were common in 18th-century Madras. Every EIC servant
lived in the country tracts, though all offices and counting-houses, public
and private, were in the fort or in town. The houses were usually surrounded
by a field or compound, with trees and shrubs, but it was with incredible
pains that flowers or fruit were raised. During the hot winds, tats (a kind of
mat), made of the root of the koosa grass (Andropogan muricatus or
Chrysopogon zizaniodes),21 which has an agreeable smell, were placed
against the doors and windows and constantly watered, so that as the air
blew through them, it spread an agreeable scent and freshness through the
house. The inhabitants were keenly interested in a balanced and beautiful
environment. Some of them were born lovers of nature – they watched birds
and spent their leisure time pruning plants (sometimes into animal shapes)
and tending flowers. They grew gardens with a variety of trees all around
their palatial residences. ‘The grounds round the palace were thickly planted
with trees, which constituted a grove rather than a garden’ (Henty GA, 1896,
p. 64). The Europeans wondered at the squelchy sounds under their boots
when they walked on the heaps of dried leaves that formed a thick yellow,
grey, and brown layer under the garden trees. Tall trees were not grown in all
the residential compounds except a few varieties of daily use, for example
Azadirachta indica. ‘And numerous fountains added to the effect of the
overhanging foliage’. A variety of ‘shrubs covered the ground wherever
there was a break among the trees’. Water was drawn from the nearby
domestic wells. ‘Men with water-skins22 were at work among the clumps of
seasonal flowers’ in the mornings and evenings. ‘Here and there were small
pavilions whose roofs of sculptured stone were supported by shafts of
marble’ (Ibid.). The foliage of shrubs and trees alike was delightful with the
fresh breeze and hues and smells. The foyer of each house had its unique
beautifications.23 Banyans or figs were found in the open fields.24
The banyan or banian tree was very remarkable, majestically towering
above all others. Its singular appearance conveyed to one the idea of a
superb amphitheatre. It grew first in one prodigious trunk, which rose
perpendicularly from the ground, appearing like vast numbers of thick vine
roots cemented together in a cluster; and when it arrived at the height of 12–
15 feet, six or eight large branches mooted out horizontally from it in every
direction. When these had projected about 10–12 feet from the centre,
younger branches, or fibres like small ropes, issued and descended from the
lower part of their extremities; and in a few years reaching to the ground
took root again and, receiving fresh nourishment and vigour, grew to a large
size (Munro I, 1789, pp. 78–9). All the principal avenues are formed of these
stately trees. The foliage retained a perpetual green, the old leaves never
dropping until young ones were ready to succeed. But the dust too was
enormous.
The peepal, bo-tree of the Buddhists (Ficus religiosa), is of the banyan
tribe. It was to be found near all Hindu temples. According to the teachings
of the Hindus, man’s duty in life was to plant a tree, dig a well, and beget a
son. To plant a peepal was more than a duty, it was a sacred act, and no
heathen gardener would willingly root up a peepal seedling. The legend
relates that when the old tutor of the gods had taught them all that was
necessary to know, they turned him into a peepal (Penny FE, 1908, p. 66).
Their affection for their preceptor remained, and out of love for him they
came sometimes into the tree. Its foliage was like the aspen25 and is so
delicately poised that it is always trembling. Often when one failed to feel
the lightest breath of wind, one could see the peepal tree (Ficus religiosa) or
portia tree (Hibiscus populnea or H. populincus or Thespesia populnea)
leaves quivering against the yellow sky of the setting sun in Madras. Other
trees stood motionless with drooping foliage in the heavy warm air, but the
peepal was alive with gentle movement that was almost uncanny. The
trembling was attributed to the presence of innumerable spirits that never
sleep.26 The sadhus that visited the villages had rested under these trees
looking into the cerulean and deep blue sky.
Next came the tamarind tree (Tamarindus Indica), a familiar tree common
to most compounds. In shape it was like an elm.27 Its foliage, of the
character of acacia, was extremely fine, each tiny leaflet being barely half an
inch long and not more than ⅛ of an inch broad, yet its green crown was so
thick that the rays of the sun scarcely penetrated, and the weary traveller and
tired cooly eagerly sought its shade during the fierce noontime summer heat
(Ibid.). The fruit crop was valuable, as the tamarind was a necessary
ingredient in many curries. Its seeds were used in the preparation of
ayurvedic medicines. More prevalent than the tamarinds were the neem
trees.
A wooded tree grown wild in every locality was the vepa or neem. The
leaves of the neem or margosa (Melia azadirachta or Melia sempervirens or
Olax scandens) were said to drive away evil spirits; the natives hanged them
up in their rooms. The neem was ‘planted near native houses as a
preservative of health’, as well as a warning to devils to keep their distance.
The word ‘margosa’ is Portuguese for ‘bitter’. The oil that was pressed from
its olive-shaped seeds was exceedingly bitter and had a strong scent of
garlic. The warm climate of the tropics encouraged insect life, and the
natives anointed themselves with the oil as a protection; ‘the smell was so
abominable that Europeans preferred the insects’ (Penny FE, 1908, p. 67). Its
wood was used for erecting huts and in house building activities. The paste
was used as a cooling agent when smeared on the body. The leaves were
burnt to expel mosquitoes. There were several other trees that were pleasant
to look at. The portia tree (Thespesia populnea) near the sea lifted its tulip
blossoms into the sunlight. The foliage was a bright green, and ‘the flowers
were of a primrose tint with deep madder blotches in the centre’. They
opened and dropped quickly without giving the dust time to settle upon their
creamy petals. The place to see the portia in perfection was the moist and
humid coastal belt. The most graceful of all Eastern trees was the palm – the
sea-loving coconut palm.28 Its slender stems were thrown up in artistic
sweeps towards the sky, no two making the same curve, and ‘its crown of
foliage spread out into a bouquet of fronds, arranged by nature with a skill
that exceeds the cunning of the human hand’. When the sun had set and
night was approaching, the fireflies swarmed out and carried ‘their
scintillating lamps to their playground among the fronds’ (Ibid.). Coconut
fruits are sacred to the Hindus who break them in the temples while
worshipping the gods. The leaves were used for roofing the huts. The inner
kernel and oil are used in the chutneys and curries. Many other uses of this
and other trees in the gardens were listed in the local literatures.
 The leaves were always covered with dust and sand; and the grass was
either so short, or so long and wild, as constantly to have a withered or
reddish hue. Hay was never made in Madras, because the heat did not allow
the grass to arrive at sufficient perfection; it was therefore pulled up by the
root as occasion required. And so astonishingly rapid was the vegetation to a
certain length that, in the space of one night after a shower of rain, a sandy
desert, where not a pile was perceptible, covered with luxuriant verdure.
Thorn hedges were sometimes placed in gardens, but in the fields, the milk
bush was most commonly used. It had this name from being of a soft and
porous nature, when squeezed emitting a whitish juice like milk that was
deemed a deadly poison. All animals were taught by instinct, as men are by
experience, to avoid it (Munro I, 1789, pp. 80–1). A plant resembling the
leaves of an artichoke, but ten times longer, more formidable and prickly,
was placed in dry ditches of forts, or other places of defence, and formed an
impenetrable barrier, being so strong and pointed in every direction that
neither man nor beast could force it. Also, a number of medicinal and holy
herbs along like tulasi or sacred basil (Ocimum sanctum), Rama tulasi
(Ocimum guatissimum), wild Basil (Ocimum album) along with fruit trees,
shady groves and seasonal vegetable shrubs were found in these gardens.
The biodiversity was more in the hot climates. The English were afraid of
the hot climate of Madras. William Hicky, a journalistic adventurer, was
caught in such a fear of fever on his landing in Madras in the first week of
May 1769 (Spencer A, 1923, p. 163). He could not enjoy the cool sea breeze
in the evenings. But he was surprised and alarmed by the common land wind
blowing in the morning and compared it to ‘standing within the oppressive
influence of the steam of a furnace’. He formed a very unfavourable opinion
of Madras after watching the death of Peter King, the ship’s carpenter in a
few hours after being caught by a heat-related disease. High-speed gales
often affected the Madras gardens.29 Botanical research gardens in the city
were more affected by the storms as they had many plants from faraway
habitats.

Research
Botanical research was the chief purpose of raising some famous gardens of
Madras during the 18th century. Many of the Madras physicians had also
been good scientists. One such Madras physician-scientist was Gilbert
Pasley (1733–81). He was one of those numerous doctors by whose research
the natural sciences had been greatly advanced. His botanical garden was
long remembered at Madras and was maintained by his son-in-law, Dr
Andrew Berry. About this time, the doctors were almost the only persons of
any scientific knowledge in Madras and were much employed in what was
so close to the heart of the Directors, the commercial ventures of the EIC.
William Roxborough (1751–1815) and Benjamin Heyne, employed as the
EIC botanists, were both surgeons by profession and so was Patrick Russell
(1727–1805), who, after some 20 years spent as physician to the English
factory at Aleppo, came out to Madras in 1781 (see Figure 3.1). He devoted
his leisure to botany and zoology and published An Account of Indian
Serpents Collected on the Coast of Coromandel.30 Another Madras surgeon
worth mention is Tysoe Saul Hancock (1723–75).31 After serving for some
years on the Coast, he was brought down to Madras as surgeon in 1758, and
in the next year at Clive’s special request sent to Bengal (Dodwell H, 1926,
p. 116). Some of them received military ranks. They arranged frequent
professional meetings with their fellow confrère and exchanged ideas.32
Many of them, especially women, turned to the collection of the plants and
artistic rarities out of aesthetic curiosity. Evidence of such aesthetic priorities
can be found in the family of Robert Clive, whose son, Edward, served as
governor of Madras (see Jasanoff M, 2005).33 Both men were avid collectors
of material culture, and so were the women of Edward’s family. Four of
them, led by Lady Henrietta Clive, undertook a grand tour of southern India
in 1800, collecting flora, fauna, weapons, and porcelain. Lady Clive’s
pattern of collection reflected her class, as a member of the aristocracy; her
political position, as the governor’s wife; her gender, since the collection of
plants and animals remained primarily the province of women at the time;
and most of all, it reflected her aesthetic sense of environmental economics.
Many of these artefacts were carried back to the UK while some of the
collected plants had enriched the botanical gardens of Madras.
Figure 3.1 Patrick Russell
Source: Russell P, 1796, facing title page

The biggest botanical garden of India was established in 1778 in Madras

by Dr James Anderson at Nungambakkam. Anderson (1739–1809) was an
enthusiastic scientist. He was a qualified surgeon with a medical degree from
Edinburgh, and he came to Madras in 1761 from Scotland. He was appointed
an assistant surgeon with the EIC in Madras in 1765. He was promoted as a
full surgeon in 1786 and then Physician-general on an annual salary of
£2,500 and devoted himself and a large part of his handsome salary to
botanical pursuits. He acquired in Nungambakkam more than 100 acres of
land, which included what later were the Pycroft and Tulloch Gardens
(Barlow G, 1921, pp. 107–8). Anderson started introducing sericulture in the
gardens from 1790.34 Consequently, the Nungambakkam botanical garden
was expanded to 110 acres by 1792, with additional plants.
The second garden of Anderson was the famous ‘nopal nursery’.
Anderson sent specimens of cochineal insects he collected on a grass
growing on Madras’s sandy beaches, as well as of the dye they produced, to
Joseph Banks (1743–1820), an English naturalist and botanist, for
verification. Banks certified them and advised Anderson to try to grow them
in Madras. Then Anderson applied for permission from the EIC who allotted
Anderson a two-acre site in Sydapet for the nopalry. This piece of land was
levelled; Anderson planted its embankment with a milk hedge (Euphorbia
aphylla) and margosa (Azadirachta indica, Meliaceae) and set up his nopal
nursery. This was the only nursery of its kind in India then, and it started
functioning in 1791. The cactus grown, Nopal de Castile, had such fine and
minute spines that they could be seen only with a magnifying glass.
Anderson planted the nopals six feet apart. He began giving more attention
to his botanical gardens adjoining his home; and in 1793, the EIC decided to
devote a part of his nopalry to the Govt. gardens and also to experiment with
growing rubber trees. Now many enthusiasts of Madras began to grow
mulberry and rubber plants in their botanic gardens. Rubber failed, but the
mulberry spread to other gardens.
The planting of mulberry plants in the botanic gardens of Madras received
further fillip with the EIC aiming to commercialise the silk textiles. Some
more correspondence was published in the Madras Courier of 11 June 1791.
Announcing that he had secured the cooperation of many district officers
including John Philip Burlton,35 Anderson urged in 1791, the adaptation of
the Female Orphan Asylum, to the intensive silk-weaving industry:
‘Could the Governors and Governesses therefore of this Asylum … might
consider this Charity as a sufficient establishment for the Filature of Madras
and its environs’ (quoted in Love D, 1913, III, p. 407). The young women
thus acquired the art that was sufficient to preserve them independent
through life. The same was informed by the Madras Govt. to the EIC in
London in 1791, along with their favourable recommendations after
Anderson addressed them a detailed letter, representing the success he had
experienced in the introduction of silkworms in the Madras gardens,
describing the superior quality of the silk thread made from them. Being
interested in its commercial advantages, the EIC encouraged the gardens; but
at the same time cautioned the Madras Govt. not to spend any large amounts
but to encourage private enthusiasts by allotting some waste lands.36 Being
attracted by the profitable silk industry, the nopalry gardens were soon
combined into botanic gardens growing mulberry trees.
Another large garden was that of George Mackay (17?–1784), and his
wife Sarah. It was maintained mostly by a band of local servants and slaves.
Mackay went to England in 1761 and returned to Madras in 1766 as a
member of the Council. He acquired the ground for his house before his first
departure to England in 1761 and constructed his fashionable residence
about 1758–9. He held then the post of Assay-master as well. Mackay took
part in 1776 in the factions which led to the deposition of Governor Pigot.
He was suspended by the Directors and recalled to England. He received,
like many others, a bribe of a lakh (100,000) of rupees from the Arcot nawab
for his dismal part in the Pigot episode. Mackay, together with four of his
colleagues, was prosecuted at the instance of Parliament in 1779, convicted
of misdemeanour, was fined £1,000 (Rangacharya, 1939, p. 127). On his
death in England, the house was occupied by his son Alexander George
Mackay, who sold it later to the Arcot nawab at an ‘attractive price’. The
extensive character of the Mackay Garden and establishment can be gauged
from the fact that James Taylor, the executor of Mackay’s estate, claimed
compensation for the damages caused by its temporary occupation by the
army during Hyder’s invasions to the extent of 491 Pagodas on items like
the replacement of 400 reapers in the tile-house, nine windows in the Slave-
boys’ godowns, three windows in the pigeons’ house, etc. The Directors
wrote to Madras discouraging ‘Mackay-like grand grants’. But
circumstances were stronger than the Directors’ remonstrances, and the
number of garden houses rose everywhere. A record of 1774 says that, out of
30 grants of lease grounds during that year, no less than 11 were at Pudupak,
the rest being at Veerasanur to the SW of it, and elsewhere (Ibid.). A
prominent person who got a lease of six acres for an annual rent of one
Pagoda was Reynold Adams, a free merchant who came in 1764 and who
afterwards became Master Attendant. He owned a house in the Fort and
another in the parish of Santhome as well. His Pudupak garden was to the
north of the east end of Pigot road. All these houses were planted with a
variety of tall and beautiful trees in their large compounds.37 As the city was
prone to hurricanes, large compounds were fenced by deep-rooted trees.
Native traders too had constructed some garden houses but their gardens
were not as big as those of the Europeans. Some of them had even purchased
their neighbouring houses of the natives.
Anderson’s nopalry garden in Marmelon38 was a larger botanical garden,
established at a vast expense. There were many costly plants. One of them
was Saguenus Bumphii (Cycasrevoluta or Metroxylon sagu), a kind of palm,
from which an excellent kind of sago was made. It was also valuable on
account of the black fibres surrounding the trunk at the insertion of the
leaves, which afforded a cordage for ships, said to be stronger and more
durable than that made from any other vegetable substance (Graham M,
1813, pp. 125–6). Nopal was a kind of prickly pear, on a species of which
the cochineal insect lives, and which was now cultivated in Madras as an
esculent vegetable. It was brought here merely as a curious exotic but was
discovered by Dr. Anderson to be a valuable antiscorbutic and had since
been used in all men of war on the Indian station to fight against that
dreadful malady – the scurvy. The nopal kept fresh and even continued to
vegetate long after it was gathered; it made an excellent pickle, which was
also issued to the war ships. And for nearly a quarter of a century, until his
death, Dr. Anderson utilised his leisure in the creation and development of a
useful and ornamental botanical garden. He was most enthusiastic over his
hobby, and he was continually carrying out botanical and agricultural
experiments of medical or commercial or industrial value. His grounds were
open to the public, and Dr. Anderson’s Botanical Gardens became famous
and were a place of popular resort. Anderson died at the age of 72 in 1809;
and the botanic spirit that he had started remained alive for a long time in
Madras.39
 Anderson appointed his nephew, Andrew Berry, also a surgeon, as
Superintendent of the nopalry. Dr. Berry developed the Nopalry at Marmelon
into a botanic garden. Even after the change of name, the monthly sum of
150 Pagodas had been regularly drawn for the expenses of the nopalry,
besides the allowance of 50 Pagodas for Dr. Berry. The Govt. directed him to
deliver in his accounts of the expenditure since the establishment was first
allowed. The original plan had in view to establish a nopalry only, but in
consequence of a proposal from Dr. Anderson, the garden has been extended
to the reception of various plants of different countries, and a great part of
the monthly allowance had been employed upon this new improvement. The
Govt. therefore agreed to submit the matter to the favourable consideration
of the EIC (Love HD, 1913, III, p. 408). The EIC Court reply was
favourable to the maintenance of a garden and nurseries in Madras. Dr.
Berry continued as paid full-time ‘Superintendent of the Nopalry’. He
cultivated a variety of commercial plants, and among them was rubber. In
1796, he wrote that some poon and resin plants consigned by Mr. Smith of
Pulo Penang had perished but that the ‘Elastic Gum Plants’ (rubber) received
from Smith and Captain Clarke of HMS Victorious were doing well (PC ccx,
l5 July 1796). Berry reported in the following year that the clove plants from
Amboyna which were growing in the nopalry would be distributed in
Dindigul and the Baramahal, as well as to Lionel Place, for his garden at
Carangooly, and Call for his garden at the Red Hills40 (PC ccxiv, 6 Jan.
1797). Their plan was to spread the clove plants to all the climatically
suitable places. Further, the EIC engineers were asked to investigate the
possibilities of commercialising the gardens of Madras. The two Anderson
gardens thus evolved into commercial ventures.41
There were a number of others that had garden houses in Pudupak and its
surroundings. A better-known figure and owner of a large garden was Patrick
Ross, the celebrated engineer who carried out, in the last quarter of the 18th
century, the reconstructions of the Fort in its final form, as well as the
General hospital. Ross got ten acres at Pudupak as also on the Choultry Plain
opposite to Pigot road and probably came thither from a house which he had
been occupying in the Luz.42 Still another large leaseholder was James
Taylor, a civil servant from 1764, who became in the course of time Senior
merchant, Assistant Assay Master, and Registrar of Mayor’s Court. As
Assay-Master, Taylor had an allowance of 2,000 Pagodas per year; and this
was only a small fraction of his total earnings.43 Taylor became the acting
justice of the Mayor’s Court in 1790, and in his time took place an
interesting incident in connection with slave traffic.44 Taylor’s resources
could be realised from the fact that he lent a lakh (100,000) of rupees to the
Arcot nawab. He rented eight acres at Pudupak for 2 Pagodas per annum in
1773. It was to the southward of the avenue leading from Mount Road to
Stratton’s garden and near the Brick kilns. George Stratton, Thomas Powney,
John Holland, Edward Monckton, Colonel Cosby, James West, Abdur
Rashid Khan, and probably John Sulivan, similarly came to have grand
garden residences (Rangacharya V, 1939, p. 128). Being near to Cooum, the
area was suitable for rich growth of gardens yielding a variety of fruits and
vegetables. The old gardens around the water sources were larger in area
than the houses enclosed by them. The garden houses of Henry Brooke and
George Dawson near Rayapet belonged to this category. George Stratton
owned one such house near Mackay’s garden. They also reared a few
Madras faunae in those large gardens.

Faunae 45
Madras climate favoured the propagation of vermin. The white ant (termite)
was an insect greatly dreaded in every house as it caused almost incredible
devastation. When a person furnished a house, the bedposts were placed in
small wooden basins filled with water, to prevent vermin, and the white ants
in particular, from creeping up upon them. Trunks containing clothes, or
anything of that nature, were raised upon bottles, as the smoothness of the
glass prevents the insects from climbing. It is really amusing to observe their
industry, and the curious order of their different movements. They had the
appearance of great business, millions of them following each other in two
ranks or lines loaded with plunder, the one going and the other returning in a
straight course of many yards in length, towards some particular hole where
they deposit their booty. And what showed a singular instance of sagacity in
these animals was, that, if anyone of them should drop his load upon finding
it too heavy, ‘his next in rank comes immediately to his assistance, and
appears to make extraordinary exertions to help his friend in distress’
(Munro I, 1789, p. 31). If the white ants once make their way into a trunk
filled with wearing apparel, they would in the course of one night render
everything entirely useless, eating immense holes in the clothes, and
sometimes perforating the wood. The smell of wormwood and strong-
scented herbs kept them at a distance; but the most common way of
destroying them was by pouring boiling water into their holes, or laying
trains of gunpowder in their line of march, and thereby blowing them up. By
this last method gentlemen also often amused themselves in destroying the
common flies (cited, p. 32). Termites were common in the compounds.
Sometimes the newcomers suffered from the mosquitoes. The ‘noxious and
troublesome creatures’ abounded in the Fort and the journalist William
Hickey found them troubling his sleep in the modest mansion of his host,
Hugh Boyd46 in 1791 (Spencer A, 1923, iv, p. 10). Mosquitoes of the genus
anopheles were dangerous creatures as they caused malaria and other health
disorders. However, the beautiful plants and animals attracted the inquisitive
visitors.47
The bandicoot (muskrat or Nesocia bandi-cota) was another troublesome
animal, more indeed from its offensive smell than anything else. Some of
these were found as large as a guinea pig; and wherever they went, or
whatever they touched, instantly partook a strong flavour of musk. So
astonishingly communicative was the nauseous stink of this animal, that if
by chance it should get into a cellar and pass over some bottles, or even a
pipe of wine, the liquor would ever afterwards taste and smell so strongly of
musk as to be rendered entirely unfit for use. This made housekeepers very
careful in securing their cellars (Munro I, 1789, pp. 32–7). Bandicoots and
rats were kept away by keeping their alimental items in closed pots or in
unreachable places. Providence had kindly placed an animal in Madras as an
implacable enemy to all reptiles, but particularly the snake. The predatory
was called mongoose (Viverra ichneumon or Herpestes edwardsii) and was
of the ferret kind but much more beautiful both in colour and shape. Families
often kept one of them tamed in their houses. Nature had placed a certain
kind of herb in this soil, the instant application of which enabled the
mongoose to attack the snake without any danger from its sting. When this
animal meets with any serpent, he first ran round the room or yard, to see if
by any opening he could have ready access to the grass; and when this could
be easily effected he furiously attacked the snake by the throat and killed it;
after which he was immediately guided by instinct to the grass, which
purified him from the poison. The howling of the jackal is also extremely
disagreeable when one has retired to rest. They sally from their concealed
retreats in quest of prey, during the silence of the night, accompanied by a
species of the common cur, called a pariar dog (Cynomys). Both of these
were inoffensive animals, living entirely upon the dead carcases or carrion
they could meet within the course of their travels. There was an amphibious
animal, the iguana, a species of the crocodile (Crocodylus) or alligator. As
common in India, the windows and doors were constantly kept open for the
reception of the cooling sea breeze. Fires were lit in the nights in the
suburban villages to scare away the wild animals48 including snakes.
Snakes of various kinds were so numerous here, the Europeans called it
‘the country of serpents’. Some of the European visitors were amazed to
watch their movements all around the city suburbs (Fay E, 1817, p. 126).
And they were induced to play by their charmers. The sting of some of them
was reckoned very dangerous and deadly; while others were docile. Some
country people caught them when young, pulled out their teeth and stings,
rendered them perfectly domestic, teaching them to dance and leap in a
familiar manner to the music of a rustic pipe or violin. The Europeans were
surprised to behold how charmed these creatures were with the sound of the
bagpipe, raising their heads with seeming joy, and moving their bodies in
concord with the musical notes. As the time quickens, they appeared more
and more delighted; and at last got into an ecstasy, their eyes sparkling with
increased lustre (Munro I, 1789, pp. 33–4). The most dangerous of those
reptiles were the coverymanil or Russell’s viper (Daboia russelii) or
katlapamu and the green snake. The first was a beautiful little creature, very
lively, and about six or seven inches long. It crept into all private corners of
houses and was often found coiled up betwixt the sheets, or perhaps under
the pillow, of one’s bed. Its sting inflicted immediate death. The green snake
was generally discovered winding round some branch of a tree, and it
attracted birds.49 Many very large snakes, of six or eight feet long and
hissing with opened hoods, are also found in the fields along with venomous
scorpions.
Scorpions (Scorpiones or Androctonus crassicauda) and centipedes were
also very troublesome in old houses and barracks, their stings being attended
with great pain, and sometimes danger (Munro I, 1789, p. 35). Another
disturbance was the croaking of frogs in the neighbouring tanks and pools.
They sometimes grew to the size of a chicken and were extremely numerous
around Madras. The noise of the grasshoppers was no less disagreeable in
rainy weather. At such times, they crowded in swarms into the houses and
hopped into every dish at supper (cited., p. 36). Anuran frogs and toads were
abundant in the surrounding water bodies and used to make a low frequency
noise especially in nights. Varied types of arachnids were found in the
surroundings. Some of them had poisonous stings. Also there had been many
crepuscular creatures that were activated in the twilight of dawn and dusk.
White, red, and black ants of different sizes were found in the fields and
homes. Various types of acaricides were used to destroy the mites. The city
was full of mosquitoes. William Hickey found in 1769 that the city was
filled ‘with myriads of mosquitoes of no small size’ (Spencer A, 1923, I, p.
176). Neem leaves were burnt to fog out mosquitoes. Also some of the
insects were eaten by birds.
Some large-bodied birds were hunted for food. Birds of different hues and
colours used to make chirping sounds in the residential compounds. Some of
them knitted their nets more skilfully than the weary weavers did below the
trees. The Madrasis believed in the omens, especially of the birds. Edward
Clive, son of Robert Clive, who had been the Madras Governor, had a strong
belief in the bird omens (Torrens WM, 1880, p. 180). Parakeets (Psittacula
cyanocephala) flew about the groves in numerous flocks and rows. But the
most remarkable of all these foreign fowls was the flying fox with its
monstrous bat wings (Munro I, 1789, p. 37). The crop-eating birds and wild
animals were scared away from the fructifying crop fields50 in varied
methods.
Wild ducks (Anas platyrhynchos), fowls, deer, and other animals were
hunted for their meat by the local hunters. The nature of their traps were
interesting to the meat-eating Westerners (Munro I, 1789, pp. 37–40). The
simple methods, by which the natives entrapped the wild duck or teal, were
noticed curious. If they were seen sitting amongst the grass or bush-wood in
marshes or swampy grounds, two sportsmen went with a net in one hand,
and holding a large green branch in the other. They crept slowly along upon
their bellies, keeping the branch betwixt them and the game, until they came
near enough to throw the net quickly over them, when they were almost sure
to catch the unwary birds. Should the wild fowl be discovered upon deep
water, the Madras hunter had recourse to another stratagem. He got a large
earthen jar, into which he put his head, having first pierced three small holes
upon its side for his eyes and nose, and another upon the top, into which was
placed a green branch hanging carelessly over it. Thus equipped, he took the
water like a dog and swam slowly towards the birds. And, when the
unsuspicious bird came near enough to pick at the jar or branch which he
carried upon his head, he flipped his hand cautiously up, and, seizing the
duck by the feet, pulled it quickly under water, where it was immediately
drowned (Cited, p. 38). On this account, as violence was seldom offered to
them, the vultures (Gyps indicus) and kites (Ictinaetus malayensis or Milvus
milvus), but particularly the crows (Corvus splendens), were quite tame.
Crows passed to and fro quite familiarly from one room to another; and
when the tea things were laid upon the table in the morning, a crow hopped
off with a print of butter in his bill. The ladies and gentlemen frequently
amused themselves whilst at breakfast by giving names to these birds and
throwing crumbs of bread upon the floor to them. The beautiful squirrel was
also quite domestic here. This pretty little inoffensive animal came regularly
to partake of the scramble (Cited, p. 39). The European gentlemen often
amused themselves by firing balls at those large vultures and kites, and they
sometimes tried their dexterity in mooting at them with the pellet-bow.51
Tigers and leopards had wondered around the villages. Tigers were so
ferocious and numerous in this country that some villages in the
neighbourhood of hills and mountains in the Jagir in the 1780s were obliged
regularly to lodge their cattle and shut up their doors before sunset (Munro I,
1789, p. 90). The tiger killers were often rewarded by the villagers,
especially when they killed the ‘man-eaters’. Most of the animals depended
on the streams and lakes in the wild for their water needs52 while the gardens
in city were watered from the rivers, tanks, lakes, and wells.

Watering
Water sources were many and varied. Madras had a network of well-
connected water bodies. Gardens were watered by rivers, lakes, and wells.
The city got rains from July to Dec. The NE monsoon was copious during
the last two months of the year when many of these sources were overflown,
and sometimes flooded. Water was plenty for the rest of the year except
during some drought years. The rivers and major tanks had water canals and
supply channels. Water from the domestic and small wells was lifted by
roped buckets while etams and motas53 were used to lift water from the large
agricultural wells. The farer from the rivers and tanks the deeper were the
wells, 10 to 40 feet being the usual depth. Separate water-men were
employed in large gardens while the gardeners themselves performed this
function in smaller ones.
Rivers are dynamic systems, and under natural conditions they continually
move and interact within their flood plains. Historically urban rivers, over
several hundred years, have been modified to maximise the amount of land
available for development, to reduce the risk of flooding and to separate
people from what were once polluted and unhealthy water courses (RCRE,
2007, para, 4.9). As a result, many urban rivers have been straightened,
contained, or buried underground in culverts, damaging their ecological
characteristics, reducing their wildlife value and making them less attractive
to the residents. Madras rivers did not meet such a fate till the end of the
18th century. They were clean with plenty of fish. The city, in the 18th
century, had four irrigating rivers – the Cooum, the Adyar, the Uttaraperu,
and the Ennur rivers – all flowing from the west into the sea. More than 30
irrigating tanks were there besides many canals and numerous wells.

Cooum

The city river Cooum collected surplus waters from about 75 irrigating tanks
in its catchment area. Cooum was a handsome and main river stream of
Madras winding through the suburbs and city and presented broad stretches
of silvery waters at various points. The calm surface reflected to the
European visitors the quaint oriental buildings, the beautiful palms and trees
that flourished on its banks, and the gorgeous colours of the sunset, with a
picturesque charm that delighted the artistic eye. Cooum was nothing but ‘a
sandy watercourse’ that merged into a broad backwater as soon as it arrived
within the sound of the surf. The immense tract of sand thrown up since the
building of the harbour arms has divorced Cooum from the ocean and closed
it against the small country ships, which in the olden days had an anchorage
across its bar. It still had its river craft, rafts, and barges, which travelled for
miles without haste or hustle to distant villages by way of the silent canals
with which the river was connected (Penny FE, 1908, p. 75). The river had
plenty of plain water fish. More than eight roads and causeways crossed it at
different points. It had some canals dug out to water the crops and gardens.
The second large stream was the Adyar river, which collected surplus
from about 100 irrigation tanks in its catchment flowing about 27 miles
before falling into the Bay of Bengal. The river widened on the coast into a
broad backwater with mud banks and shallows, and the roadway was raised
on an embanked causeway. Brown wading birds paddled in the ripples,
filtering the mud through their long beaks, and the water snakes pursued
their sinuous way in their hunt for the frogs. Once, while the Penny Franks
were away from Madras, a strange sight was to be seen from the bridge that
crossed the Adyar. The water was unusually low, and round the piers were
masses of writhing snakes intertwined like tumbled coils of rope. What had
brought them there no one could say. It was a loathsome sight which did not
last long; and it had never been seen again. The backwater extended on
either side of the road, reflecting sky and landscape, the gorgeous colours of
the sunset, the groves of palms, the handsome trees, and the skimming gulls
and curlews (large birds). The moan of the surf upon the shore became
audible, and Santhome was reached with its silent old streets, its big
cathedral of modern growth, and its pleasant little bungalows, nestling
confidently upon the beach with the waves beating up to the very compound
walls (Penny FE, 1908, pp. 71–2). The upper reaches of the river Adyar was
full of wild and dense forest, home of a number of wild animals. The
Uttaraperu was reduced to a canal flowing with clean water only during the
monsoon rains. The Ennur river watered the red hills reservoir before
flowing into the Ennur creek. It was called Kortileru above the reservoir,
filling a number of tanks. These attractive environments were often badly
shaken by natural calamities like storms and hurricanes.

Storms
High-speed gales were common on the Madras coast. The effects of one
such wind in the last week of Oct. 1769 was described by Hicky (cited, pp.
172–74). The gale was so ‘awful and terrific’ that the sea had violently
agitated. The prodigious height and fury of the surf prevented all
communication with the ships. The gales were accompanied by ‘torrents of
rain’, the weather turned ‘dismally dark and so thick that no object could be
distinguished at twenty yards distance’. The ‘hurricane continued with
unremitting violence’ for 24 hours. Not a single vessel was to be seen in the
Madras roads. The dreadful storm felled many trees on the roads and the
coast was badly damaged. The ‘whole coast, as far as the eye could reach,
being strewed with wrecks and dead bodies’ of diverse animals along with
those of humans.
The Madras environment was prone to storms, floods, and famines.
Storms and floods are generally short events, taking place over a period of
hours or a few days, yet wreaking destruction in their wake. In their
aftermath, on the one hand, they provide urban planners with a moment in
which to re-evaluate and rebuild their cities and, on the other, offer
environmental historians a moment to focus on a single event and track its
consequences. Madras had been more frequently visited by storms than
famines in the olden times (Reddy MA, 2006, III, Chap. 16). About seven
major storms hit the city starting from 1746 (see Table 3.1). Most of them hit
the city in the last quarter of the year and more so in October. Rural
hinterland was cursed with frequent famines while the city suffered often by
devastating storms and the resulting inundations. The severe drought of 1782
turned into a deadly famine and human and cattle losses were increased by
the terrible devastations of Hyder’s invasions.54 Europeans and natives had
equally suffered in the floods. Carts and palanquins had moved slowly in the
flooded streets (Munro I, 1789, p. 25). Trees fell across the streets and
sometimes animals and humans too had perished in the low-lying areas. The
curious but the most furious storm was one that devastated the coast and the
city immediately after the fall of Madras to the French in 1746. The weather
was remarkably fine and moderate all day on 2 Oct. 1746. A furious cyclonic
storm arose about midnight and continued with the greatest violence until
the noon of the next day. The catastrophic hurricane had damaged and
deluged the Madras coast, devastating the buildings, boats, and ships and
leaving widespread debris and distress among the fishermen and others. The
storm had badly affected the Madras coast both north and south of the city.
The furious cyclone had almost completely destroyed the French fleet. Six of
the French ships were in the road when the storm began, and not one of them
was to be seen at daybreak. One put before the wind and was driven so much
to the southward, that she was not able to gain the coast again. The 70-gun
ship lost all her masts. Three others of the squadron were likewise dismasted
and had so much water in the hold, that the people on board expected every
minute to perish, notwithstanding they had thrown overboard all the cannon
of the lower tier. The other ship, during the few moments of a whirlwind
which happened in the most furious part of the storm, was covered by the
waves and foundered in an instant, and only six of the crew escaped alive.
Twenty other vessels belonging to different nations were either driven on
shore or perished at sea (Orme R, 1861, I, p. 70).

Table 3.1 Storms and cyclones at Madras, 1746-91

S.N. Dates Damage

1 2 Oct. 1746 Great damage sustained by Bordonnai's fleet.

31 Oct.-1
2 Structures in Fort and Triplicane Bridge damaged.
Nov. 1752
3 1 Jan. 1761 Deplorable loss of life in Madras and Pondy.
20–22 Oct.
4 Several vessels lost and trees fell.
1763
Many buildings unroofed and hospital washed out. Loss
5 30 Oct. 1768
of cattle and people was large.
14–15 Oct. Very severe cyclone. Ten ships and 105 country vessels
6
1782 lost. Many cattle and people died.
13–14 Nov. Rivers flooded; Marmalong Bridge breached; vessels
7
1791 lost along with many cattle and people.

Source: based on Love HD, 1913, iii, pp. 559–60

A severe cyclone struck Madras on 30 Oct. 1768. Many of the native

inhabitants lost their lives, and cattle perished in great numbers. Many
buildings in Madras sustained grievous damage; the Fort flagstaff was
carried away, the Egmore powder mill unroofed, the sepoy sheds round the
bound hedge ruined, and every convenience for the sick in hospital was
totally destroyed (PC, c, 31 Oct. 1768; and ci, 19 Jan. 1769). A number of
masulas and fishing boats were lost. Heavy losses were reported from the
surrounding areas. Suburbs suffered more than the city from the droughts
and famines. Hyder retreated at the end of 1782 by the acute famine
conditions and not by the fighting valour of the ‘famished and ever falling
EIC armies’. The cyclone and the prevailing famine of 1782 saved the
nawab’s Carnatic from Hyder’s devastations.

Conclusions
The main environmental issue in the city in the 18th century was urban
pollution. Madras was badly affected by the French occupation of 1746–49.
The serene city was disturbed and many of its establishments were changed
or destroyed once it was passed into the French hands in October 1746. The
next ½ century of almost continuous warfare had resulted in the diversion of
smaller streams and construction of the protective walls around the city. The
lakes and tanks shrank as the gardens, roads, and houses occupied their
space. The beauty of Madras was aptly described by Mrs. Kindersley, a keen
observer in 1765:

Madras … is strongly fortified, and the walls and works, as well as the
barracks for the army, the storehouses, and every other public building
are so calculated as to be both convenient and an addition to the beauty
of the place.
(Love HD, 1913, II, p. 617)

Visitors were attracted by its environment with gardens.

Plants provided relief from many ills and increase our pleasure and
happiness as they present us the natural richness. Growing plants and taking
care of them helped the busy urbanites overcome the boredom of urban life
and also keep away tension and psychological distress. The glamorous
greenery of Madras had covered its urban grime and neglect. The eye-
soothing greenery around the Fort turned into a retiring place of comfort to
the work-tired EIC servants, especially in the evenings. Madras city by the
end of the 18th century looked cleaner, healthier, and more ordered than in
the preceding period. Its numerous gardens were filled in with birds as well
as monkeys playing on the trees. People relaxed while youngsters pranced
there in the evenings. It was full of sweet-water streams, laid out lakes, and
spacious parks, with tall trees in the gardens all around, ponds full of fish,
and abundant natural florae and faunae in the surrounding forests. The city
was kept neat and clean by the municipal authorities. On arrival at Madras
from Calcutta, the Europeans looked happy and healthy. The scenery, the
natives, the gorgeous colouring, the brilliant sea and sky never failed to
delight the eye. In addition, each district of the town, whether covered with
buildings or with luxuriant tropical vegetation, was full of historical
associations (Penny FE, 1908, pp. 61–2). All abiotic wastes were burnt away
in the street corners and open places. The sweepings were carted out and
sold as manure to the crops. The spacious suburbs looked greener than the
Black Town and the Fort.
The garden areas of Madras, as it existed by the end of the 18th century,
can broadly be categorised into four types, depending upon the density of
population, tree cover, cleanliness, and economic status (Table 3.2). It seems
that the population density is the chief factor that determined the quality of
environment. Also, the Madras environment was influenced, effected, and
shaped by the infrastructural facilities, culture, heritage, and historical
events. Infrastructural facilities were shaped by the nature of land and the
land policies of the ruling EIC.

Table 3.2 Population density and environment of Madras, 18th century

Locality Population Tree cover Cleanliness Economic

Fort Low (varied) High High High

Choultry Plain Low High High High
Black Town High Low Low Low
Suburbs Low High Low Low

Source: compiled by the author

Notes
1 Plants provide the raw materials for many types of pharmaceuticals, alcohol, and other
drugs. The fiber industry depends heavily on the products of cotton, and the lumber
products industry relies on wood from a wide variety of trees.
2 Garden visitation is a tourism motivator and can be enjoyed in many different forms. Private
garden visits, historical garden tourism, urban gardens, and a myriad of festival shows and
events all allow the green-fingered enthusiasts to appreciate the natural world (see Benfield
RW, 2013). Most of them had been there in Madras.
3 Chase and Parry (1789), started manufacturing high-quality chaises longues in Madras city
during the last quarter of the 18th century (Aiyar VV, 1939, pp. 269–70). There were also
many other such small units.
4 The details of rainfall being attracted and moderated by the plants (vanas) is stated in the
varun sooktas of Rigveda (I:24–25, V:85, VII:86–89, VIII:41, and so on). Many of these
facts are confirmed in the modern scientific studies (see Kumar SJ, 2021). A green city
award is recently granted to Hyderabad city.
5 Kalidasa devoted a large portion in each of his works to the description of plants and forests.
6 Nerium oleander is a poisonous but evergreen shrub with fragrant white, pink, and purple
flowers.
 7 The avenue trees and large white-coloured compounds attracted the visitors.
8 Most of the houses in the suburbs were thatch roofed so as to face the hot climate and heavy
rains.
9 Kumkum mayuri or Turayi (Telugu) in some districts.
10 The fruits in the baskets were carried on their heads by the street vendors.
11 He found that Madras was far greener than the Persian towns.
12 The old one was in Peddanaikpet.
13 Most of them belonged to the fishermen and cattle dealers.
14 It had been known as the Four Brothers’ Garden in the map of 1733. Most of these mansions
were known after the names of their owners.
15 Some of them had reported to the nawab the unusual developments in those areas.
16 Our concern here is only plants and animals.
17 The botanical names are standardised from George Watt’s classic botanical publications:
(Watt G, 1889–93, 1908). Watt was a Scottish physician who worked on economic botany in
India. Local words in Telugu, Tamil, and Malayalam were finalised after consulting the
19th-century dictionaries and sometimes the local priests and the learned pundits in those
languages.
18 They hunted in the forests and gathered their needs of wood and food, including useful
seeds, leaves, flowers, fruits, roots, fodder, fuel, fibre, honey, and other wild products.
19 The coconut is a unique fruit with three eyes on its top resembling the face of Lord Shiva
that it is broken at the feet of many gods, especially in the holy temples. Its leaves are used
for thatching the huts.
20 Their leaves are festooned in all decorations.
21 Koosa grass is Poa cynosuroides. This grass is considered sacred and is used in sacrifices.
Another variety is the Vattiveru (Telugu) or the roots of Andropogon muricatus.
22 The water buckets were made of leather; only a few of them were made of metals.
23 The coloured kolam designs had beautified the floors, walls, and doors.
24 Their leaves, both fresh and dried, were used as eating plates.
25 Aspen is a poplar tree whose leaves are attached to the stem by long and flattened stalks.
26 No native would impart any information beneath its branches to another person, lest the
story should be overheard and repeated by the mischief-loving spirits (Penny FE, 1908, p.
65). It moving was a sign that all crops would flourish and bear plentiful harvests.
27 Elm is a hard and heavy wooded tree (genus Ulmus) having separated leaves and winged
fruits.
28 Date palms too were there in ‘lines and lines’. Toddy was extracted from grownup dates.
29 See Storms later.
30 After his younger brother Claud had been appointed administrator of Vizag in 1781; Russell
accompanied him to India. He succeeded the Dane John Gerard Koenig as botanist to the
EIC in the Carnatic in Nov. 1785. In this capacity, he made large collections of specimens
and drawings of the plants, fishes, and reptiles of the country and proposed to the governor
of Madras in 1785 that the EIC medical officers and others should be officially requested to
collect specimens and information concerning useful plants of the various districts of India.
He drew up a preliminary memoir in 1787 on the poisonous snakes of the Coromandel
Coast, which was printed officially at Madras. In 1794, he wrote the preface to the Plants of
the Coast of Coromandel by William Roxburgh, a sumptuous work published at the expense
of the EIC. Russell published in 1796 at the EIC cost the first fascicle of his Account of
Indian Serpents in folio, with 46 plates, a huge collaborative enterprise in which Russell
enlisted the help of other company servants. Russell’s Account also relied heavily on Indian
knowledge, although he subjected local wisdom to the trial of experiment and his own
observations (Source: Russell P, 1796).
31 His wife Philadelphia Austen (1730–92) helped him in gardening and plant collections.
32 Many plants and animals and their habitats around Madras were discussed from a
commercial point of view mainly to enrich the EIC.
33 She picturised colonialism and the EIC as fillips to the development of science.
34 Anderson was inspired by the manner in which Tipu had gone about introducing silk in his
Mysore Kingdom. He thought Tipu had hit upon an excellent economic enterprise, and he
imported silkworms from Bengal in December 1790.
35 Anderson was inspired by the manner in which Tipu had gone about introducing silk in his
Mysore Kingdom. He thought Tipu had hit upon an excellent economic enterprise, and he
imported silkworms from Bengal in December 1790.
36 A thorough search by Russell into the plants and animals in the Coromandel Coast,
combined with the knowledge of the native Gentues, had offered a large commercial
potential, especially in the form of medicines (Russell P, 1796, Preface). The successive
governors of Madras had encouraged the ideas.
37 Only houses were taxed, not compounds.
38 Only houses were taxed, not compounds.
39 Botanical gardens in Madras had added, in the 19th century, many medicinal and
ornamental plants and increased the trade of herbal medicines (see Beddome RH, 1863,
1869–73 and 1873). The research had extended to the Gramineae or Poaceae plants.
40 Lionel Place was Collector of the Jagir (Chingleput), and James Call was the Sea Customer.
41 Both the gardens suffered when a cyclone ravaged Madras on 9 Dec. 1807. However, some
of the plants in both the gardens survived the cyclone and among them were sago palm
(Saguerus rumphii, Arecaceae) and the nopal.
42 It, however, continued to be called as Ross House.
43 It was alleged that his salary was far lower than his mamools.
44 Taylor was found guilty of bringing a number of slave children from ‘Northern Settlements
on Country vessels’ and selling them in Madras. He was caught red-handed in 1790 with 41
slave children, 21 boys, and 20 girls (PC clxi, 5 March 1790). He was asked by the Board to
send them back to their original native places at his own expense.
45 The names are checked with Blanford WT (ed.), 1888.
46 Hugh Macauley Boyd (17?–1794) was secretary to Governor Macartney (1781–85) and
edited the newspaper Madras Courier.
47 Many EIC botanical and zoological investigations, including that of the famous Roxberg,
started from Madras.
48 They sneaked along from the thick forests on the SW side in search of prey during the
nights.
49 Some birds and animals used to feed on the small snakes.
50 Crop fields near the forest edges faced swathes of birds and also were often damaged by the
wild boars, jackals etc., depending on the season and nature of the crops.
51 The wild game constituted a large part of the food, especially of the lower classes.
52 The hunters waited generally at their water drinking points.
53 Both are water-lifting instruments. Etam was a lever of wooden planks operated by a man
moving on a long upper plank, while mota was operated by oxen driven by men. A leather
bucket was suspended to a rope in both cases.
54 Hyder’ army retreated at the end of 1782 because of acute famine conditions and not
because of the fighting valour of the ‘famished and ever falling EIC armies’. It was the
famine that saved the nawab’s Carnatic from Hyder’s devastations.
4
LANDS

DOI:10.4324/9781003215493-4

Infrastructure
Infrastructure is an underlying basic foundation for any organisation or
system. It encompasses the fundamental facilities and systems serving a
country, city, or other areas, which are needed for the functioning of a
community or society, such as transportation and communications systems,
water and drainage lines, and public institutions including schools, post
offices, and prisons of a city. The fixed installations form the urban
infrastructure. Cities, from the early times, have had infrastructural amenities
like roadways, drains, and sewers. Over time, there developed an
increasingly accepted notion of extended facilities. The circulation of air,
falling sunlight, functioning commerce, moving vehicles, running water
supply, waste management, and even knowledge became essential to the
healthy operation of a city. What marks the development of the modern
infrastructure since the 18th century1 is its close association with the overall
economic development, especially technological development,
industrialisation, and the growth of urban population. Thus, infrastructure is
sine qua non for any urban development. Urban infrastructure includes any
and all public services; and land forms the basis.
Land development and infrastructure building have an indispensable and
positive role and are considered the determinants of urban economic growth.
They raise the productivity of labour and capital. Infrastructure is often
regarded as an unpaid and indirect factor of production. The efficiency of
urban services depends on the quality of the infrastructural facilities of the
town or city. Proper control and management of infrastructure not only
modified the public places in the cities but influenced the way people lived
and organised and managed their private spaces (Bobbio T, 2015, p. 8).
Urban inhabitants take the city’s spaces, material conditions, characteristic
lifestyles, historical reputation, or imputed ideals as a lived site through
which to understand the times (cited, p. 14). Infrastructural growth helped
the extension of urbanisation. It provided the basic necessities to the traders
and merchants. The development of urban lands with their roads, bridges,
water bodies, and other paraphernalia was required mainly for residence and
commercial activities. The location of industries and employment in a
variety of producer and consumer-oriented industries are planned in relation
to major neighbourhood characteristics such as demography, labour force,
and socio-economic and housing variables (see Bingham RD and Zhongcai
Z, 2001). The nature of land use stands at the base of many of the
infrastructural developments.2
The essential elements of the urban infrastructure during the 18th century,
the formative period of the modern city, consisted of the stock of the fixed
capital of that city. The roads, streets, and boulevards; mass transit; drainage
and sewage systems; and the provision of water and sanitary facilities
formed the essential part. The net effect of these infrastructural
developments was the creation of the modern city as a circulatory system
designed to move people and material products rapidly and efficiently. All
infrastructural development involved the provision of public services and the
use of public spaces that were deemed essential for the happy life of people
in the city. Urban infrastructure also included in the 18th century all
buildings and permanent installations necessary for the support,
redeployment, and operations of military forces like barracks, headquarters,
communications, stores, port installations, and maintenance stations.3 They
facilitated all other developmental activities.4 Madras was one of the
successful cities in planning and management of its land resources.

Management
Land is the primary requirement for housing, roads, and streets. Land
economics is a controversial topic. There are not many studies on the
economics of the urban lands.5 It has several attributes that makes it unique
as a factor of production. Its distinctive features are scarcity, immobility, and
permanency. The moral status of landownership has been always highly
contested because it simultaneously affords economic freedom and
exclusion, for owners and non-owners, respectively. Property is both ‘liberty
and theft’ (see Josh RC et al., 2017). For this reason, sovereigns and states
have been compelled from the earliest times to manage ownership of land,
meaning it is less a typical commodity and more a bundle of overlapping
rights to access and use, subject to laws and customs.
The nature and quality of infrastructure depend largely on the quality and
management of the available land resources of a city. Land management is a
crucial determinant of the urban development of the fast-expanding modern
cities. As the mutual penetration area between the core area of cities and
suburbs and the most intense areas of urbanisation, city outskirts are the
natural mapping of urban expansion on agricultural land. The joint of urban
and rural is characteristic of dual properties, namely naturalness of the
suburbs and the transition (Zhang X and Shan Z, 2012, p. 354). Therefore, a
skilful management of the land use in the joint of urban and rural with the
necessary new breakthroughs would largely eliminate the disadvantages of
the urban–rural dual structure. The planning and execution of the urban
infrastructural facilities and their maintenance is one such crucial area. The
first requirement was the spacious lands.
The land area of Madras city increased steadily. Starting with five square
miles on the coast in 1640, Madras expanded into a city of about 18 square
miles by 1790.6 The administrative centre continued in the Fort surrounded
by the native petas. Its immediate northern settlement was called the Black
Town while the Fort was called the White Town; they were named so after
the race and colour of the majority of their residents. River Cooum divided
the city into two halves. The northern part consisted of the Muthialpet on the
east and Peddanaikpet to its west. Egmore was located to its SW on the
Cooum almost parallel to Nungambakkam on the other side. The great Spur
tank was followed by Chettipet or Chetput to its west. Vepery was on its
north and Pursawakam was in between Kilpauk and Vepery. Both of them
were bordered by Perumbur on their north, followed by Jannaram still west.
The place to the north of Muthialpet and Peddanaikpet was occupied by the
Batteries and other defence installations. The Kalahasthi Chetty’s, Kaluvoy
Chetty’s, Suncurama Chetty’s, and Gangaram’s were the chief batteries in
1768.7 The first two batteries spread on their north till the Ennur village and
its creek. Vyasarpady village with its extensive topes was located west of the
Gangaram Battery. The large village of Perumbur was on the western side of
Vyasarpady. The southern half consisted of Triplicane, Krishnampet,
Alwarpet, Teynampet, Santhome, and Mylapore extending up to the Adyar
river. Parallel on their west were Nungambakkam followed by the Choultry
Plain and Marmalong (Mambalam) up to the Adyar river. The map of 1798
shows that the city with its suburbs spread between the river Adyar in the
south up to the Ennur creek to its north with vast area of rural lands. And
gardens and houses were raised on the southern banks of Adyar after
reclaiming the forest lands. The extension of the city into the suburbs was
restricted following the French threats.
And the period of French wars ended in 1761 with the final defeat of the
French followed by the destruction and demolition of Pondy.8 This last
major French war was followed by the four Mysore wars starting from 1767,
almost one in each decade almost till the end of the century. The overall
growth and development of the Madras city of this period was war-oriented.
The core city could not sprawl far and wide but was compressed to the
minimum possible area in view of the economics of defence. Most of the
establishments were defence-oriented. The Fort and surroundings were
further strengthened. A strong defence wall was raised around the Black
Town with arched high gates protected by heavy magazines and batteries
beyond (see Figures 4.1, 4.2, 4.3). Tall buildings near the high wall were
discouraged. Large water storage facilities were installed in the Fort. A
General Hospital for the army and a special Naval Hospital for naval persons
were constructed, followed by a Lunatic Hospital for the mentally deranged
persons from the two chief defence wings. Asylums with attached schools
were opened for their destitute children. Most of the imports into Madras
had been for the use of the armed forces and their families. A large part of
the trade profits collected through taxation and other methods were spent on
the wars. Simply put, the entire infrastructural development of the city was
oriented towards defence from the enemies’ attacks and deadly wars. Of
course, the resultant territorial acquisitions, annexations, and the war boo-
ties brought enormous revenues, a part of which were spent in expanding the
city. In other words, it was not only a war-oriented but a need-based growth
and development in the 18th century. Trade and war were its two facets.9
Scarcity of land in the Fort forced many of its rich residents to move to the
surrounding villages with cheaper lands.
Figure 4.1 Black Town wall
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 26
Figure 4.2 Black Town wall, Central Gate
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 28

Figure 4.3 Black Town wall, magazine

Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 30

The Fort was richer and better developed than the Black Town, which was
‘more truly Indian’ for it contained an admixture of Hindus, Muslims,
Armenians, Portuguese, and British, with their varied avocations and places
of worship. It was defended towards the land by a high and broad wall with
mounted guns, capable of keeping any irregular cavalry at a respectful
distance. It gave a sense of security, in a restless period, to the inhabitants of
the town. However valuable the wall was from a military point of view, it
hindered the circulation of air in the narrow streets near it and was therefore
objectionable from a sanitary point of view (Lawson C, 1905, p. 221). It is
no wonder that Cordiner10 regarded Black Town as a very uncomfortable
place of residence for Europeans. He justly remarked: ‘Yet the climate is not
generally unhealthy; it is excessively dry and hot, but the air is extremely
pure’. The month of May was the hottest in the whole year, for the land wind
then blew like the ‘flames of a furnace’, and the climate altogether
resembled ‘the warmest corner of a glass-house’. But the temperature inside
the houses of Europeans was agreeably lowered by the use of well-watered
kus-kus tatties (Vetiveria zizanioides); and some gentlemen had screens of
the same nature attached to the sides of their palanquins, which being kept
continually drenched, prevented them from feeling any inconvenience from
the sultry climate. The streets of the Fort were diligently watered by carts
drawn by oxen, loaded with boxes and casks full of holes so that the water
showered down as they moved along. White Town with its sophisticated
infrastructural development had provided varied employment
11
opportunities. Black Town served the former to keep its houses clean and
green besides providing many other services.
Madras had the most sophisticated infrastructural development among all
the cities of India, probably in Asia. It was an ‘innovative city’ by the
contemporary standards of economic development. Its infrastructural
facilities were praised by many of the European travellers.12 The
knowledgeable Fay couple who first visited Madras in April 1780, felt
amazed: ‘There is something uncommonly striking and grand in this town,
and its whole appearance charms you from novelty as well as beauty’ (Fay
E, 1817, p. 121). They travelled through both Fort and native town and went
through Popham’s unfolding city development plans for the latter. They
noted the locational disadvantages including the risk of storms and
hurricanes with gushing gales such as one that covered the beach with
wreckage in 1746. Yet, despite these difficulties, Madras roads were
frequented by ships of all kinds during more than seven months in the year.
And they landed cargoes and shipped such goods as the town produced.
Apart from the erection of warehouses close to the shore, and the public
provision of masula boats and catamarans, the only improvement was the
erection of a lighthouse on the roof of the Exchange building in 1796 (see
Chapter 7 infra). To render the roadstead fully safe was impossible; all that
could be done was to discourage ships from entering it at the worst time of
the year (Parkinson NC, 1937, p. 43). All ships entering the roads, or indeed
coming anywhere within the soundings during this period, vitiated their
insurance; and most were so debarred over a longer period of time. The crew
of the EIC ships were well warned in advance about these insurmountable
problems. Therefore, Madras was in need of all round development of its
infrastructural facilities. The land market of the city was so well developed
as to facilitate them to run on scientific lines.
Successful land market mechanisms in the 18th-century Madras reduced
the gap between urban and rural development. Madras was developed,
following the problems, on scientific lines.13 The European part was
modelled largely on London. Black Town was built in general after the
famous Vijayanagara style. As Madras was expanding, the Govt. began to
initiate steps to regulate the structures that were being built. The Committee
of Works recommended in 1761 that in the new ground to the west of the
town wall, buildings should not have upper rooms on small plots. This was
from a defence point of view. The plots in Madras were measured in units of
ground of 60 by 40 (2,400 sq.) feet, and since all the grounds in the town
technically belonged to the EIC, land was given out at an annual rent of 2½
Pagodas per unit of one ground. The Committee of Works also
recommended that the rent that still prevailed was at the old rate, but now
that Madras had grown, and if the ground rent was lowered, it would attract
more people to build good houses. The Council, however, felt that with
Madras having become so secure, the old rent would not deter new residents
(PDC, 16 June 1761). It was decided to fortify the entire Black Town so as to
protect it from the invasions of the local ‘satraps’ after facing the threats of
Hyder during 1767–9. A detailed plan was accordingly drawn up in 1769, for
the fortification of the entire town, for which the estimated cost was 150,000
Pagodas. The Govt. decided that the best and most equitable method of
raising the money would be to make an assessment on every house, garden,
and spot of ground within the walls according to the value thereof. This
measure would be useful since the Quit-rent and Scavenger’s duty could also
be estimated more accurately. The Committee of Works was therefore
ordered
 to take a detailed survey of each street, to number each house, garden
and spot of ground, specifying the name of the proprietor and the value
thereof, and to affix a board at the corner of every street, with the name
of such street both in English and Malabar [Tamil] or Telugu.
(PDC, 27 March 1769)

Suggestions for proper assessment and appropriate names of streets were

invited from the prominent residents. Meanwhile, land sales were system-
atised by sale deeds.14 And the facility of sale registrations was extended to
the suburban and agricultural lands. Once confidently established in its
landownership rights, the EIC started the land grants.
The suburban landholders, including agricultural cultivators, found it
profitable, in the short run, to sell out their lands to the ‘urban developers’.
Their manner of agriculture was equally simple and unprofitable. The
plough was a plain machine with only one handle to it and dragged by two
bullocks, never turning up above two or three inches of the ground. The rice
was removed from its first bed, and transplanted into regular drills, after the
stem had grown about six inches long (Munro I, 1789, p. 81). A yatam
situated upon an eminence and worked the whole day by two men through
the day. Every field was surrounded by a low bank; and channels of
communication were made from the yatam to each of them (Ibid., p. 82).
There had been the kaniyatchi system of control over land and other
productive resources of villages. The early rumblings of discord between the
revenue farmers of the English EIC and the local nattars of the
Poornamallee pargana were symptoms of later large-scale events. An
interesting aspect is the focus on the indigenous socio-economic institutions
which evolved over centuries, but which were found by the EIC in their
dying phase. These included the extensive puramboku lands that were left
for communal purposes. The jati-kinship nexus played an important role in
the management and regulation of local institutions like tanks and temples,
in addition to the landed estates. Each group of villages called nadu was
headed by a local nattar and a number of them belonged to specified jatis. A
good number of nattars and kaniyatchikars were Reddys, Naidus, and
Brahmins, while a few Muslims15 joined their ranks at a later stage
(Sivakumar C and Sivakumar SS, 1993, p. 25). A number of
kaniyatchikars16 began to sell out their lands. Taking advantage of the active
land market, the EIC began to sell the lands or grant them on lease. Now
came to the forefront the problem of occupancy and the ownership rights
(see Reddy MA, 1996). There also started mortgage problems.
The numerous allotments and frequent sales and swappings led to a
confusion of the titles of landownership.17 Therefore, a fresh investigation of
titles to property was ordered in 1759 after the lifting of the French siege:18

As there is good Reason to believe that many Persons have, in a long

Course of Years since any Account has been taken, enclosed Grounds
and Planted Gardens where they have no right, and no Account having
been yet taken of the Gardens and enclosures in St. Thome and other
Villages which have of late Years fallen under the Company’s
Jurisdiction, Resolved That all Persons who occupy or claim a right to
any Houses, Gardens, Inclosures or other Possessions within the
distance of Ten Miles of Fort St. George be called upon to bring in and
deliver to the Secretary the Bills of Sale or other Titles by which they
claim, within Six Months from this day, in order that the said Titles may
be examined.
(PC lxxxix, 5 April 1759)

There was clearly a revenue motive on the part of the EIC. It had further
resolved that all such houses, gardens, grounds, and enclosures to which no
just title should be proved within the time aforesaid ‘be appropriated to the
EIC use as proprietors of the soil’ (Ibid.). The EIC wanted to establish that it
was the rightful landowner of the entire area on the basis of its usufruct
rights.
After the siege of 1758–9, land was taken up apace in the name of
defence. Being encouraged by the EIC, many applications were received
between 1760 and 1763 for land allotments. Some of them were 1) James
Taylor, a writer, for ground at the Luce (Luz) by Santhome; 2) John
Debonnaire, a free merchant, for a large area in the Village of Kepock;19 3)
Peter Marriette, also a free merchant, for land on the Choultry Plain; 4) Lt.
James West,20 for ground near Royapet; 5) Captain Charles Tod, on the
Choultry Plain; and 6) Daniel de Castro in Chintadripet. In several cases, the
leases were granted at once; in others, surveys were ordered so as to
determine the status and extent of the lands applied for. There were
objections from the local elite against the automatic takeover of their
landownership by the EIC whose officials had successfully suppressed all
such complaints.21 The Council kept silent in these inconvenient matters. A
written promise to plant well-laid-out gardens served as the main excuse in
granting lands to their favourites. Along with all others, the soldiers asked
for a large vacant ground for their regular drills.
The soldiers, having finished their drill in the vacant places, used to sit
down before their wooden platters to breakfast, the sun burning fiercely
overhead. At the bidding of their mistresses, the slaves hoisted the laden
market baskets on to their heads, and the English ladies hurried back to their
homes inside the Fort walking on the paths across these grounds going in the
NW, it was ‘a dirty, squalid Black-town’, albeit a very happy one as it had
much greenery. The contrast between it and the well-laid-out and carefully
preserved Fort had distressed the worthy merchants. In vain, they
represented to the citizens, through the headmen of their castes, that
cleanliness was desirable and beneficial. The large bungalows were an
exception. They maintained their own servants for cleaning and other
purposes. In spite of its vigilant mayors and functioning corporation, Black
Town remained unaltered, busy in the morning with its trade, noisy at night
with its punch and rack houses, the delight alike of the British soldiers and
the natives (Penny FE, 1908, p. 122). The Brahmins kept their surroundings
clean, neat, and tidy. The holy Brahmin, whose full dress then consisted of a
snowy flowing loincloth and a sacred thread, looked cleaner than others, and
his dress was more attractive than the robes of the Aldermen. In fact, the
English settled in their grand avenues all around the Black Town began to
follow the local Brahmins in cleanliness.22 In spite of all these allotments,
the ownership question could not be satisfactorily solved by the ruling EIC.
Having spent all the available funds during the terrible siege, the EIC
resorted to the sales of the city lands mainly by grants.23

Grants
Selling lands for urban development is an old practice followed by the EIC
in Madras. This was one of the easy ways of realising sufficient funds (see
Doebele WA (ed.), 1982). The theory of land readjustment is simple. Lands
of high value were disposed generally by auction. The new plan for the area
might designate some areas for commercial uses, some for industrial or other
productive uses, some for high-density residential development, some for
low-density residential use, and so forth.
Liberal land grants started in the late 1750s when the imminent French
defeat was heralded. The official process started with the vast waste lands of
the Choultry Plain which included the villages of Nungambakkam,
Teynampet, and Royapet, traversing as far as the Long Tank, 3½ miles SW
of the Fort, by the high road from Madras to the Mount. The process
obtained speed in the early 1760s, starting the first official lot with James
West (17?–1802) who applied for ‘a Piece of Ground lying between
Rayapeta and the Road on the Left of Choultry Plain’ (PC xci, 17 July,
1761).24 The details of other grants of this lot are not noted in the official
records.
The second lot started with George Mackay, one of the EIC servants, who
set the example of building luxury bungalows on the lush green Choultry
Plain.25 He offered to buy or lease in a large portion of the Choultry Plain for
the purpose of erecting dwellings for himself and his fellow countrymen.
The EIC was very much unwilling to make the concession for strategic
reasons. After some time, Mackay could convince the President about the
benefits of his building plans: ‘The President acquaints the Board that Mr.
George Mackay is desirous of having a Lease of a Piece of Ground on
Choultry Plain, a Ground Plot whereof is now laid before the Board’ (PC
lxxxviii, 10 May 1758).26 The area applied was 3,448,150 sq. feet or about
79 acres, but the area granted finally was only about 620 sq. yards.27 The
Council agreed that a lease be granted him on some conditions: 1) the term
was 99 years; 2) a fee of 30 Pagodas to be paid on granting the lease; 3) the
rent one Pagoda per annum to be paid when demanded; 4) a fees of 30
Pagodas at the expiration of every 30 years of the term; and 5) at the
expiration of 99 years, the ground with all buildings and improvements to
revert to the EIC (Ibid.).28 There is no doubt that the vacant site was built by
George Mackay while the rest was occupied by paddy fields. After
succeeding in obtaining his desire, Mackay set about raising the first of a
long succession of noble buildings that were called the ‘palaces of Madras’
located in the gardens. His house retained its name and was called Mackay’s
Gardens. It was known later as Blacker’s Gardens, probably on account of
having had for some time as its occupant Col. Valentine Blacker, a
distinguished officer in the EIC Cavalry service (Penny FE, 1908, p. 28).29
Most of these houses were built in an environmentally friendly fashion. They
were surrounded by tall trees and some with large gardens and wells.30
Another such story was that of Charles Tod.31 The EIC meanwhile wrote to
the Directors about the increasing demand for the land grants. The Directors
discouraged grants of land unless made for utilitarian purposes as the EIC
directed Madras in 1760:

If our uncultivated Grounds can be Leased out to Europeans or others

with Views of Improvement, it is undoubtedly a Judicious Measure and
should be encouraged; but if it is merely to gratify the Vanity and Folly
of Merchants in having the Parade of Country Houses and Gardens, We
think these are Distinctions which belong only to Our Governour and
the principal Persons of Madras.
(quoted in Love HD, 1913, II, pp. 505–6)

They added this condition because they conceived that Mackay, to whom the
Council had granted a lease of a big spot of ground on the Choultry Plain,
had no intention of ‘turning planter’. The EIC wanted only prominent
persons to settle in these prime areas. Those with ideas of producing some
goods and services of export value were preferred over the pleasure seekers.
A part of the vast and bushy Choultry Plain, by circumstances, became a
cantonment, an unofficial living and working quarters to the Madras troops.
The EIC Council sold lots of lands and realised good revenues once it had
established the ownership of the urban lands after the French were defeated
and Pondy was demolished in 1761. This profitable business without any
direct investment went on in the name of ‘city development activities’. The
third lot of EIC official land grants was opened in the early 1760s. The long-
waiting applicants rushed in large numbers once the scheme was opened.
The ‘funds-hungry Board’ was happy to get the required revenues by land
grants.32 Major Eley,33 who had purchased in 1766 the ‘Ruins of the House
and Ground at the Spur-Tank to the westward of Egmore’, obtained
additional land to the west of it between the garden and the road by the tank
side. Shawmier Sultan34 received in 1767 a grant of ground at Marmalong
(Sydapet) where most of his printed cloths were made (PC xcvii, 23 Feb.
1767). The Armenians were not allowed in the Fort for security reasons.
Meanwhile, some grounds were sold, in 1768, in the Fort at a very high
price, as part of the fourth lot.35 The rare ground remaining available in
White Town extension was sold by auction under very strict conditions:
‘That whosoever purchases the said ground shall regulate the exterior Line
of his Building by the Form and height already prescribed, and shall erect no
other building thereon than terras’d dwelling Houses that shall occasionally
admit of upper rooms’ (PC xcix, 12 Jan. 1768). No person should purchase,
or sell after purchasing, any spot of ground without the consent of the
President and Council. Any spot of ground so purchased, and whatever
building might be erected thereon, should be resumed for the EIC’s use
whenever necessity required. The EIC paid a valuation in such cases as
appraised by indifferent persons chosen by both parties. The sales should
only be made on the terms of long lease for 99 years, after the expiration of
which the ground, with all the buildings thereon, reverted to the EIC, on the
condition that the whole be redeemable during another like term for a fine of
100 Pagodas (Ibid.). The Directors were informed of the matter in 1768:

Many Persons having made Application for the Pieces of Ground which
remained within the Fort unbuilt upon, We determined to sell them by
Public Outcry, judging that to be the best Method not only of
ascertaining their real value, but intending thereby to come to a
determination regarding the Prices of the Pieces which had been before
allotted.
(quoted in Love HD, 1913, II, p. 622)

Having accordingly settled the conditions, they sold some grounds on 27

Jan. 1769, at prices far beyond their expectations. This done, they considered
at increasing prices of those spots which had been built upon since 1761.
They resolved that 60 gentoo sq. feet36 for 2½ Pagodas was a reasonable
price. All the vacant lands applied for were sold at this price. The locations
were determined by ‘first come first served’. European applicants were
given preference over the natives whose number of applications was far less.
The rich private traders took advantage of the rising prices by cornering a
number of grounds in the ‘land auctions’.
A sizable number of applications for land was received in the sixth lot, in
1768–9. Now the preferences were shifted to the suburbs. John Whitehill
(near the White choultry), James West (near Marriette’s), Paul Benfield and
Edward Monckton,37 both near Mackay’s Garden, figured in this lot. The
applications of Henry Brooke, George Dawson, and George Stratton were
also included in this lot38 along with some others. After realising some quick
money, the Govt. considered, in 1769, that the building of country houses
promoted extravagance, and they treated the applicants to a homily: ‘The
Board think it first necessary to remark that, as Luxury, Expence and
Dissipation ought at all times to be discouraged, and more especially in the
junior Servants on this Establishment’ (PC cii, 7 Sept. 1769). They showed
in support the example of the extravagance of Paul Benfield: ‘there would be
the greatest impropriety in complying with the request of Mr. Paul Benfield,
a Writer on the List’ (Ibid.). His application was therefore rejected; and it
was now made a standing rule that no such grant as desired by Benfield
should be given to any writer in the future.39 With respect to the other
rejected applications, the general argument was that cultivation and
improvement tend to more public benefit than garden houses. Former
grantees were so far mostly Europeans while the rejected applicants included
some rich native merchants who did not agree with these official
arguments.40 They demanded that the Govt. should come out with a list of
advantages and disadvantages.
The Govt. came out with some evidence in their next meeting of the
Board. In many grants made so far to Europeans, the improvements were
chiefly ornamental, such as buildings and gardens of pleasure, which the
Board felt, tend to the encouragement of idleness, expense, and dissipation,
the undesired consequences of which were obvious in Madras. At the same
time, the Board was of the opinion that all should not be alike restrained
from such indulgence; but it became difficult to draw a precise line of
separation in granting them. Now the third lot started. Seven applications at
once now before the Board for such grants, compared with former times,
indicated too great a propensity to profusion; and though their means of
supporting their plans were abundant, they were discouraged. In spite of
rejections, the applications did not stop; and now they increased to 20 at
their next meeting. The Board, being subjected to local requests and
pressures, thereby requested the opinion of the Directors (PC cii, 7 Sept.
1769). Their reply was in favour of land grants but with strict conditions of
development, including an appropriate time period, attached. Sometime
afterwards, all the applicants, Benfield excepted, were restricted to areas of
150 sq. yards, the leases being terminable in the year 1780 and to be
renewed considering the future changes and land requirements for roads,
gardens, and public purposes.41 Information about the extensions into the
immediately neighbouring villages of Pudupak and Egmore are available
from the records. Consequently, the number of land disputes rose adding to
the ongoing legal problems.42
Facing numerous legal problems, the Council ceased making grants of
ground for garden houses in 1769 pending instructions from London. The
Directors in due course gave the Govt. full discretion with the result that a
flood of applications poured in in this seventh lot, 1772–4, when a second
halt was called.43 The Public Consultations (PC) that recorded the details of
the applications stated whether they were granted or refused and also
described the site by reference to some previously established road or
garden. Mackay’s Garden is frequently mentioned as a point of reference,
and it is the only site whose position is certainly known. Further help is
rendered by the Book of Grants of Ground from 1774. The first 30 grants
there are all dated 1 Nov. 1774, but most of them related to applications
which were sanctioned in and after 1772. The first page is occupied with a
copy of a lease to Henry Brooke44 of about 25 acres of land on Choultry
Plain for 99 years at an annual rental of Pags. 3, with a fine of Pags. 30
payable after every 30 years. The lease was granted on condition that a brick
house should be built amidst luxurious greenery. The remaining leases were
issued on similar conditions, but the only particulars recorded here are the
name of the lessee, the area allotted, the yearly rent, and the name of the
village in which the land was situated (see Apdx. 3). The fact was that the
EIC Govt. had taken it for granted that all the land was its property in all the
surrounding villages. Without being accompanied by any documents of its
ownership, the Govt. sold the land to the applicants in many locations, most
of them being in the Choultry Plain and its surroundings.45
The attitude of the Govt. towards the applicants for land was largely
commercial. It shows that land was scarce and applications were too many at
that concessional price. John Sulivan, writer and contractor, prayed in 1772
for ‘a Spot between Storey’s house and the road leading to Robert Fletcher’s
Large Garden’. Du Pre’s Council disposed of the case in its own style:

The Board confess themselves much embarrassed in respect to the

Requests for Grants of Ground; If they grant to one, why not to
another? Rank in the service cannot be admitted as a Determinate Line,
and where shall we stop, and by what shall We be determined?
(PC cviii, 4 Aug. 1772)
Being upset with the problems of unending litigations and finding not
enough litigation-free land, the Council stopped the grants. Yet the
applications continued to pour in upon them. Meanwhile, they received the
EIC Commands leaving such grants to their discretion. Now they
apprehended that, if they continued to comply with the existing number of
applications, there would soon be no more vacant ground to grant. The EIC
would thus get a lot of funds, but at the same time they were indeed
embarrassment by the resulting damage to the environment. And also the
EIC power over the lands would diminish blocking the future developmental
plans (Ibid.). The President therefore took the opportunity of the application
now made by one to whom he had been thought partial to put his negative
upon his request, as an example that he would do so to every application
which should not be supported with incontrovertible reasons.46 And the
Board unanimously acquiesced in the strict criteria that were applied in all
the allotments. After finding that the prices were nominal, there arose a
demand for free grants.
Grants were freely made to selected persons on Alexander Wynch’s
accession (1773), and the seventh lot continued until 1774, when it was
found that the public service sustained injury through the number of private
buildings in course of erection, and the consequent difficulty experienced in
procuring workmen for public activities. The Council being of the opinion
that further grants of ground could not be made without many
inconveniences, it was resolved that all further applications of this kind be
rejected (PC cxii, 19 Sept. 1774). But there had been exemptions in practice.
And the Govt. tried to settle as many Englishmen as possible on the vacant
lands. Turning to the Book of Grants, it appears that of the 30 leases issued
on 1 Nov. 1774, 11 related to Pudupak, six to Veerasanur, three to
Nungambakkam, seven to Egmore, one to Vepery, and one to Santhome. All
of them promised to keep green gardens. Some particulars of the 30 grants of
1 Nov. 1774, and of one grant, Captain Donald Mackay’s, of later date are
available from the records (see Apdx. 3). Later applicants were granted lands
in far off suburban villages.
Some additional applications, as a supplementary to the seventh lot, are
recorded in the Consultations as sanctioned between 1772 and 1774, but
none of them are mentioned in the Book of Grants. 1) The Arcot nawab
asked for, and was granted, land between the house occupied by Johnson47
and that of Abdul Rasid Cawn.48 2) Captain John Kennedy was allotted
ground North of that given to Bromley, and on the Road to Egmore. 3) The
executors of Col. John Wood,49 William Chambers and Christian Frederick
Swartz,50 were granted a spot adjacent to the late Colonel’s garden house in
Egmore. More are there but without proper records. A number of
applications, though either unnoticed or rejected by the Council, are
interesting as they contained a few topographical details. Edward James51
asked in 1773 for a plot on the SE angle of West’s Garden and SW of
Adams’s Garden, fronting the road between West’s and Adams’s. Charles
Edward Jones, of the civil service, applied in 1774 for ground near the Luz
situated on the West Front of the House52 later inhabited by Col. Ross. Both
applications were refused. George Taswell,53 who afterwards succeeded
Adams as Master Attendant, applied in 1773 for land between that already
permitted to Col. Ross and Adams. Gideon Firth,54 a civil servant, asked in
1774 for a spot lying North of Pigot’s Road and East of the Brick-kilns on
Choultry Plain. John Turing, the contractor for bricks and chunam, a civil
servant of 1762,55 requested a grant of ground on the south side of Pigot’s
Road nearly opposite Dawson’s Garden, or as an alternative, a spot between
the gardens of General Smith and Dawson. Smith’s ground was in Egmore,
while Dawson’s56 was classed as Santhome. James Henry Casamaijor,57 a
civil servant of 1762, sought but failed to obtain land in Veerasanur opposite
to Desvoeux’s, and on the east side of Mount Road. Captain Henry
Montresor,58 of the engineers, failed to obtain ground on Choultry Plain, SW
of Munro’s Garden House. Andre Majendie,59 agent for victualing the
troops, a civil servant of 1766, applied in 1774 for a spot of ‘Ground and
Tank’ situated on the south side of the road leading to George Smith’s,60 and
to the Westward of the tamarind tope belonging to the Portuguese Church at
the Luz. George Smith had land in Egmore, but he was a resident in the Luz
in 1778. Charles Oakeley,61 the Secretary, a civil servant of 1767, and
afterwards Governor of Madras (1790–2), applied for a plot of land on
Choultry Plain. George Andrew Ram,62 the coroner, a civil servant of 1767,
asked in 1774 for the ground lying near the main road leading to Egmore,
situated between the ground granted to Bromley and Egmore Fort. Charles
Mordaunt,63 a civil servant of 1765, applied in 1773 for a spot of ground
lying SW of Stracey’s and NE of Petrie’s on the bank of Cooum. It is not
clear whether there had been some more rejected applications nor
unofficially granted lands without any entries in the official records.
The growth of garden houses in the suburbs was checked by Hyder’s
invasions that lasted up to 1782. The English Army went into cantonments
on the Choultry Plain, and the inhabitants of the garden houses fled to the
Fort in 1780–2 in anticipation of the speedy advent of Tipu and his allies.
Peace was restored in 1784, and the disturbed householders returned to their
homes on the plain. The troops remained under canvas in close proximity for
several years. Though the Commander-in-Chief occupied a house (later
known as the Elphinstone Hotel) standing near Mount Road, the military
orders were dated from ‘Headquarters, Choultry Plain’ for nearly half a
century. No fewer than five English regiments were encamped there in
1794–6 (Penny FE, 1908, p. 29). The EIC policy was to keep the Choultry
Plain clean and green with trees in the place of bushes. The EIC garden
served as an example for the new builders and planters.64 More gardens were
added in a single but safe decade of the 1790s as the Govt. sold away vast
swamps of marshy waste lands at attractive prices.

Prices
Land prices began to rise after 1761 and very high after 1782 indexing the
security of the city from external invasions.65 The increasing land prices also
had an impact on the hutted dwellings of the marginalised castes like the
paraiyar. They lived in their colony called Parachery on the outskirts of the
petas. Some of their lands were allotted to the net losers of land due to the
EIC land sales. The paraiyars sent a petition about their loss by the land
transfer, which was recorded by the Council in 1777:

Read a Petition from the Pariars, setting forth that, before the
Establishment of Fort St. George by the English, their Ancestors
inhabited the great Parcharee, and that the same was confirmed to them
and their descendants, and exempted from paying the Quit Rent and
Scavengers Duty, and has ever since been Considered as Ground
allotted for the use of the paraiyars in general, and not to be
appropriated to anything else; and requesting that no part of the said
ground may be granted away.
 (MC lviii, 17 March 1777; also quoted in Love HD, 1913, III, p. 130)

Their main case, in the first instance, was with the EIC that occupied their
lands. Their case regarding the Black Town Parachery was referred to the
Committee of Works in March 1777. The Committee found that they had
been encroaching continuously on waste ground belonging to the EIC,
though they had been forbidden to build any more huts on these lands. There
was still enough room in the Parachery for the paraiyars; they were not
eligible for any compensation.
The Committee found further that the paraiyars had no right but that of
‘suffrage or sufferance to any ground’ in the Black Town. Consequently, they
called that the great Parachery was quite undefined, as they were continually
building new huts and encroaching on the waste ground belonging to the
EIC. The president of the Committee of Works ordered the ground to be
given to Narrain66 in compensation for the ground which was taken from
him for the new powder mill. The ground they then claimed, a part of the
Parachery, was measured by order of Warren Hastings.67 There were at that
time some huts on it, which the Engineer valued at about 130 Pagodas, and
the paraiyars were forbidden to build any more on that spot. But,
notwithstanding, they continued to increase their huts building mostly during
night times. After observing their illegal acts against the EIC orders, the
Committee came to the opinion that the disputed ground should be given to
Narayana, as there was sufficient room for the paraiyars in the Parachery.
The ground taken from Narayana for the powder mill was 126,588 square
feet; and when this much area was cut out from the Parachery, a large
number of their huts had to be removed to other and vacant places. After
their regular requests, the Council decided in 1777, to give equal area of land
to compensate 53 grounds of their Parachery land. This land from the Black
Town given to them in compensations costed the EIC about 3,710 Pagodas
at current market prices.68 Now came into the limelight the cost of many
exemptions allowed to the paraiyars.
The right of exemption from taxes of the pariah community and other
castes/classes was affirmed in 1778, when orders were passed on the unpaid
dues reported by the Rental General and Scavenger, Thomas Cooper. The
Govt. resolved that the paraiyars in the Parachery, the Madras Poligar and
his followers, together with the menial servants and poor Moors, consisting
of peons, horse-keepers, masalgies,69 etc., be excused from paying Quit Rent
or Scavenger’s Duty. But with respect to the Washermen, Town Pagodas,70
Europeans, Armenians, and others, who evaded it by raising objections of
various kinds, the Rental General proceeded to recover it of them with dues.
Many excuses were shown for non-payment; moreover, they claimed
exemptions. Once the entire pariah community was exempted from taxes,
other castes with similar economic and equal ritual status began to clamour
for such exemptions and free lands. However, free lands were stopped to be
granted to the other lower castes. The EIC began to investigate into the
rising land values and the following market prices.71
The prime motivation for taking the land from the Parachery for the
gunpowder factory was because, otherwise, the English would have had to
give land of much higher value as compensation to others. But this is not to
deny that some encroachment might also had taken place. The underlying
factor which created a confrontation was the spatial expansion of the town,
so that lands which were previously of marginal value now began to attract
the EIC attention. When the demolition of their huts and eviction from the
disputed lands was put into effect two years later (1779), the paraiyars once
again appealed to the Govt. After losing some of their lands also to the ‘local
grabbers’, the pariahs had submitted an effective petition in 1779 (see Apdx.
6). They said that from time immemorial and from the establishment of the
Madras town, this land had been allotted to their own ancestors. The land in
question was situated not far from the bound hedge. If they were
dispossessed of this land and had to move further out, they would have no
safety in case of attacks from country powers; and since they were of the
‘meanest caste’, no other caste people would give them shelter within the
town. The EIC did not respond immediately and ignored their pleas as
unjust. There had been many such cases especially when lands and houses
were occupied by the EIC Govt. for defence purposes paying little or no
compensation. They justified themselves in most of these cases as the ‘legal
land owners’ and ignored the complaints by the residents.72 The EIC
continued its profiteering by land sales.
As most of them worked as scavengers, they were naturally exempted
from that duty. But they were not rich enough as to corrupt the officers to get
their favours in the case of their land rights. Evidently, it was not surprising
that they could not get any favours about the already occupied lands.
Alongside, land mortgages increased and urban growth and increasing prices
attracted encroachments. Rich buildings had replaced the poor huts (PDC, 19
June 1778). Many others had simply occupied land without any kind of
documents as to ownership (PDC, 6 Nov. 1781). They frequently questioned
the legal land rights of the EIC. The main problem in all such cases was the
lack of proper Govt. land records and surveys.
The process of regularising the administration of the lands of the colonial
city engendered internal contradictions within the various strata of the
colonial state. The Govt. faced a major crisis in the 1780s when its right to
collect quit rent or scavenger’s duty was questioned by the EIC authorities in
England. The Council argued that this had the sanction of long usage (PDC,
19 Nov. 1783). The Supreme Court at Calcutta, however, was quite
categorical that the Presidency of Fort St. George had no legal authority to
collect either (PDC, 22 March 1784). However, the issue had amicably been
resolved by 1800, after prolonged complaints and justifications. The Govt.
of Madras appointed a Quit-rent Collector and began the process of
ascertaining the rights of ownership to land in the town through bills of sale
or grants, and to issue proper title deeds for the land. All the outlying
villages which had been incorporated into Madras city, Tondiarpet,
Attapollam, Santhome, etc., were also covered in this statistical survey. The
regularisation of landownership and maintaining comprehensive registers in
the city was seriously taken up by the authorities in view of the fast-growing
demand for house sites. The Govt. began to look to the surrounding villages
for vacant spaces and waste lands.73 The proceeds, at least a part, were used
to develop the city infrastructure by proper planning, particularly the
sanitary facilities and waterworks. By all available means, the land prices
were kept as low as possible so as to provide cheap land to the garden
planters as well as to the builders of large garden houses. Apart from the
extension of the city into the suburbs, planning of the land use, reclamation,
and regulation of the land prices by other means were undertaken by the EIC
Govt.74 Planning and regulation of land use in the city had lessened the
litigation problems.

Planning
Madras began to grow fast after 1760. Problems of landownership came to
the forefront in the process of widening the streets and roads by the
municipal authorities. Only need-based infrastructural plans were first drawn
but later on scientific basis in the decade of 1770s. Problems of sanitation
cropped up by the early 1770s. One of the fundamental differences in the
points of view between indigenous society and Europeans was in their
notions of ownership of urban space and cleanliness. The question of
keeping the town clean and neat had become a major problem by the 1770s.
Francis Jourdan, the Rental General, after going through the town, wrote in
1776 to the Council that the men who were supposed to pick up waste and
garbage in their carts frequently evaded their duty.75 To improve garbage
collection in the town, he proposed to divide each peta into eight divisions,
allowing four carts for each. The ‘cart people’ would not be paid the fee for
their carts and bullocks until they produced a certificate from the residents
that each street had been neatly cleaned at least twice a week. Many
residents contributed to the general filth by keeping carts, horses, bullocks,
buffaloes, and cows in front of their houses in the streets, which Jourdan
suggested should be prohibited. Large houses in the town normally had a
compound or garden at the back, and fronted on to the street. Jourdan
proposed that the Govt. should pass an order that each house should have a
cesspool in the backyard to drain the water from the house, whereas all such
waste water was being let out from the front into the street creating a
nuisance (PDC, 24 Oct. 1776). There had been an argument that each house
owner was an absolute owner of the land on which it was built. And
frequently objections were raised when the trees along the compound walls
were removed to widen the roads.76
As individuals daily encroached upon the lands in the city under various
pretences to the prejudice of the EIC, the latter claimed absolute ownership
rights over the entire land in the city irrespective of the native claims to the
contrary. William Ross, Registrar of the Choultry court, drew attention of the
Govt. in June 1778, to the gradual absorption of the EIC land in Black Town:

All the Ground within the Black-town Wall originally belonged to the
Company, and may now be distinguished under the following Heads,
viz., such as the Company have either sold or given a Claim to; such as
the People, from long Possession, have considered as their Inheritance.
(quoted in Love HD, 1913, III, p. 158)

The judgement arose with regard to the increased number and area of lands
mortgaged. If the mortgage was proved fictitious, this ‘Bill of Sale’ could be
made over to the mortgager, or he had an opportunity of purchasing the
premises at the sale, and they were assigned directly over to him. Ross
extended his helping hand to the Court to curtail this malpractice:

If your Honor, &c., sees the Necessity of stopping this Practice, and
will be pleased to make use of my Services, I doubt not but I shall be
able to mark out Ground, belonging to the Company within the Walls of
the Black Town, worth a very considerable Sum.
(Ibid.)

To effect this measure, it was necessary, as drawn by Ross, to have the

assistance of a head-bricklayer, a conicoply, and a peon to be paid at the EIC
expense. He was willing that his own labour should be rewarded according
to his success when the plan was accomplished. Once accepted, he was
ready to provide the further and working details. The Govt. had deferred
consideration of this matter, and a year later, the Committee of Works
advertised the sale by public auction of the EIC waste lands in the town. The
total area was found to be about 664 ‘plots’ (lots?).77 More than half of it
was in Uttapollam or Attapalem, the low-lying region situated between the
two petas.78 Most of the remainder was along the seaside by ‘the Rope
Godown’,79 the Nawab’s House,80 the ‘Vodocaul’ [Vudaka Kaluva] or Water
Channel,81 and the ‘Paddy Godown’.82 There were, besides, smaller areas at
the ‘Salt-pit Gate’,83 and in John Pareira’s Garden. The Committee excluded
from their list a piece of paddy-land in Muthialpet, as a private claim to it
had been preferred, but they believed that it was actually EIC property only.
Stephen Popham, an English town planner, had made an offer for the big
Attapollam ground, but the Committee advised sale by public auction. The
Govt. however, accepted Popham’s proposal. The ground on the beach was
to be sold, excepting a length of 300 yards, which was to be reserved to the
Sea-Customer for the landing of grain when high surf rendered the Sea Gate
difficult to access (see Figure 4.4). The Committee further proposed the
grant to Narrain Kistnama Naik and another of 75 lots of land in
Peddanaikpet in compensation for a similar area which had been taken from
them for the powder mills and the enclosure of Baker’s (seven) wells.84 The
lands near the Black Town wall fetched lower prices. Among all the
allottees, Popham had shown some ambitious development plans.
Figure 4.4 Sea Gate
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 80

Stephen Popham’s (17?–1795) plans formed the basis of the urban

planning of Madras. Popham, who had been trained as a solicitor, came out
in the capacity of secretary to Sir John Day, Advocate-General of Bengal.85
Quarrelling with his patron, he established himself at Madras, where he
became a notable character. He explained to the Govt. in March 1778:

I shall not trouble you with a long History of the Injuries Sir John Day
has wished to do me in return for a Conduct on my part friendly in the
extreme, and uniformly respectful and forbearing in the midst of
undeserved ill-usage.
(quoted in Love HD, 1913, III, p. 160)

It was alleged that John Day, in his anger, used harsh words and strong
language that he would not lose sight of Popham till he had laid his hard-
earned fortunes as prostrate here as they were in England: ‘till he strips me
of the Rags of Character I had filched from the Humanity of the Settlement
and their Ignorance of my true Complexion’ (Ibid.). Popham was threatened
by John Day that his curse might be followed by a corporal punishment. All
this implies that Popham in collusion with some locals had cornered a large
amount of illegal wealth in the name of public service. It seems that Madras
was receptive to all types of adventurers. However, Popham became famous
for his ‘broad-way plans’ and reclamation schemes.86

Reclamation

A land reclamation scheme was proposed by Popham in 1778. He announced

in Sept. 1778 that his house was situated opposite to a piece of marshy and
unprofitable land which had long been a public nuisance. Having in vain
tried to put a stop to its improper use, he offered to purchase the ground. He
twice addressed the Committee of Works in March 1779, repeating his offer
and proposing a scheme of gainful reclamation and development:

I had the honour of addressing the Committee of Works on the 7

September last with a proposal to purchase some waste Ground
opposite to my House, and which Ground has continued … an
unwholesome Nuisance to the Neighbourhood.
(PC cxxi, 13 July 1779)

He enquired about the history of all such lands around and quoted the
opinion of a local landlord: ‘I have conferred with Narrain, to whom a large
Quantity of Ground is due, and he has agreed to assign his Claim for a
valuable consideration’ (Ibid.). Under these circumstances, Popham hoped
the Committee would not object to his receiving the ground in question, as it
was an unprofitable and a ‘very disagreeable spot’. He was ready to
compensate Narrain, the owner of a large portion, after constructing the road
and canal that were necessary for the proper use of the ground. He enclosed
the cost estimates of the proposed road and canal along with other minor and
supplementary works. He promised to turn the remaining ground to better
use. He planned to plant useful and shady trees on the sides of the proposed
road and canal bunds or embankments so as to beautify the environment
devoid of bad odours. He also showed therein some alternatives.
As a second preference, Popham was ready to take it on long lease if the
Committee chose to keep the reversion of the ground to the EIC with the
eventual improvements. He requested the Committee to grant a lease for a
term of 99 years, as was done by Governor Wynch in Nov. 1774, in favour
of the late Captain De Morgan,87 in consideration of improvements made by
him on a spot of ground (PC cxxi, 13 July 1779). The lease of the ground to
Morgan was subjected to a small quit rent in view of the improvements
ensured therein. Quoting some other such cases, Popham preferred to be the
privileged lessee of the ground in question on a moderate quit rent. In return,
he promised to bind himself to perform the particulars set forth in the
estimate, or to perform such other additional matters as the Committee might
think it right to propose (Ibid.). This was an old (Cochrane) canal that
branched off from the Uttaraperu or North-river flowing to the western side
of the Fort.88 It became heavily silted in the course of time, and the reduced
water flow was polluted and stinking since the used water from the houses
on either side was left into it besides throwing into it a number of waste
products.89 Popham’s ideas of land development were supported by the
natives.
Popham’s detailed scheme along with its environmental benefits was
studied by the Committee, specially its economics. The scheme looked
economically sound. The estimate of preliminary expenses, amounting to
Pags. 5,831, provided for digging a channel the full length of the ground,
1,700 feet long and 30 feet wide, building four accommodation bridges
across it, raising the ground level, and constructing cross-drains (PC cxxi, 13
July 1779). The ground was judged to have included a length of the old
drainage channel along the bank of which had been the highway from the
site of Tom Clarke gate.90 This channel had become choked, for Popham
mentioned in his third letter that, during the dry season, some of the land was
submerged three feet, the water surface being four feet below the roadway.
‘Other parts … have been but just freed from the remains of the last
Monsoon, and are even now [in March] more like a Black Bog than
reclaimable Ground’ (Ibid.). It was, in total, an attractive plan because the
Govt. had scarcely any funds to spend on such development activities.91
The Govt. accepted Popham’s offer of purchase on his paying Pags. 3,000,
provided he carried out his plan of reclamation. Popham next applied for a
further strip of land extending from the southern limit of the original block
to the boundary of the Esplanade. The area is not mentioned by name in the
agreement, but judging from the price paid, it must have been more than
double that of the first piece as he wrote to the Govt. on 13 Aug. 1779:

Having learnt that the Committee of Works have advertised for Sale
that Spot of Ground which lies to the Southward of the Waste Piece
sold to me, and which extends to the Esplanade, I cannot, in Justice to
myself and to the Hon’ble Board, delay to represent to your Honor, &c.,
the inconveniences which must follow if the Ground be sold before
such arrangements are made with me as may enable me to fulfil my
Engagements to the Company.
(PC cxxi, 13 Aug. 1779; and also quoted in Love HD, 1913, III, pp. 161–2)

In the first place, Major George Maule, the Chief Engineer, had not yet
decided in what line the water course was to be diverted, though Popham
had already suggested in his plan that it should, following the natural slope,
be towards the east side of the ground, and so to continue it to the Lower
Bridge.92 Maule said that he could not determine in haste, as he needed a
thorough survey of the entire ground and its surroundings. Based on these
problems, Popham begged the Board to postpone the sale of the ground in
question. In the next place, he begged leave to observe that the spot on
which the water course was to be continued as far as the Esplanade was to be
under his inspection, so that he could keep the entire ground and its
surroundings neat and clean and also in thorough repair and planted with
rows of trees. Popham listed in his letter a number of other inconveniences
showing that none other than himself could economically solve these
problems. More such proposals were inserted into his letters so as to attract
Govt. favours.
To prevent all these inconveniences, Popham proposed himself as the
most eligible purchaser of the whole spot. Next his terms followed. In the
first place, he was willing to pay to the EIC any sum at which any of its
European servants might value the ground, after deducting therefrom the
expense of making a suitable water course plus the cost of constructing two
strong bridges. On his part, he promised that in the whole course of the
execution of the plan, he should have in view that disposition of the ground,
and of the houses to be built on it, which would appear to be the most
adapted to the convenience of the EIC civil and military servants and the
other and nearby residents. Popham covenanted to keep a clear, clean, and
wholesome water course for the passage of the monsoon waters without
prejudice to any inhabitant in the Black Town93 including the Mahratta-
town.94 Citing the negligence of the municipal workers, Popham promised
further to keep the surrounding roads, ‘streets, passages and avenues of
every sort’ clean and wholesome. Popham’s application was so detailed that
he listed the names of the nearby residents that supported his reclamation
plans (PC cxxii, 13 Aug. 1779). The sale of the ground was finally
sanctioned in Popham’s favour for Pags. 7,550, with the proviso that no
upper-roomed houses should be built to overlook the Fort. On payment of
Pags. 10,550,95 the EIC grants for both areas were issued, in favour of
Stephen Popham, Benjamin Roe-buck, and James Strange (Love HD, 1913,
III, pp. 161–2).96 The two latter partners ultimately transferred their interests
to Popham in April 1780 for unknown reasons. Being successful in selling
the two marshy grounds to Popham at a reasonable price, the EIC proceeded
further on the same lines and announced the grant of more areas. The
Attapollam grounds were prominent among many such sale grants,
frequently by auctions.

Auctions
Auctions proved far better than lotteries as the latter could not and did not
ensure that scarce resources were allotted to people who valued them most.
Also selling lands to the highest bidder in auctions helped the EIC to
maximise its revenues. Auctions became famous in Madras as one of the
best available means for allotting the scarce resources. Buildable land in the
city was scarce in relation to its demand as indicated by the number of
eligible applications. Land sales by auction began with Attapollam.
Applications relating to the Attapollam97 grounds were preferred by Philip
Stowey, the Civil Architect, and James Stringer (1730–87), the EIC
Bricklayer. Stowey offered to develop the land on behalf of the EIC, or to
purchase it himself. Stringer, whose name was later borne by a street
opening into Chinna-bazar on the west side of Popham’s ground, petitioned
for the land on 13 Aug. 1779: ‘Your Petitioner humbly begs the Honble
Board will be pleased to give him a grant of one and a half or two
Grounds,98 for which your Petitioner will pay, with thanks, whatever may be
thought reasonable’ (PC cxxii, 13 Aug. 1779; and also quoted in Love HD,
1913, III, p. 163). Stringer showed some reasons in support of his
application to the ‘Uttapollam lands’. The ground under sale was located
adjoining to his houses and the ground under present sale was in his use as
the backside path. They were constructed in such a manner that if the ground
under current sale was built upon without leaving an alley in the rear of
them, it would render them almost untenable. Therefore Stringer claimed to
be its most suitable purchaser. Taking advantage of his monopsony, Stringer
did not come up from his very low bidding. On the other hand, the EIC
granted it to the highest bidder; and Stringer was informed that the land was
already sold out to other parties and he could apply for some other ground.
Applicants preferred strong soils that could bear the weight of large
buildings. However, the prices and rents of high lands were equally high
depending upon their distances from the Fort and their infrastructural
facilities. The main deficiency of the land auctions was that poorer sections
were automatically excluded. Also some of the successful bidders had resold
the lands by bitting them into small parcels while others had constructed
houses and let them on rents.
The area was developed fast with the progress of the building activities.
The EIC records provided only sporadic details about Popham’s progress in
developing his lands. The level was raised with earth from Hoghill,99 and the
area was gradually built over (Love HD, 1913, III, p. 163). The main north
and south street was later named Popham’s Broadway. The central canal was
afterwards covered in, but the paved open channel across the Esplanade
continued for a long time. The EIC land on the seafront of Black Town, most
of which the Govt. resolved to sell, consisted of a strip upwards of half a
mile in length and about 100 yards in width. The Committee of Works
reported in Aug. 1779, that it was occupied for varied purposes. Between the
Coir Godown on the Esplanade boundary and the South Paddy Godown, a
distance of 330 yards, the nawab’s house and two bank-salls were private
property, and the remaining land, which belonged to the EIC, was occupied
by merchants’ bank-salls. This portion was to be reserved for the Sea
Customer from the South Paddy-godown to the ‘Wadacaulva’ or water
channel, a length of 190 yards; the ground was occupied by merchants’
godowns with huts in the rear. The portion between the water channel and
the North Paddy Godown, 340 yards, was devoted to bank-salls, huts, and a
garden. Beyond this Paddy Godown, for a length of 66 yards, there were
more huts and bank-salls. The whole of the bank-salls were held by 33
merchants, among whom were Messrs George Moubray, Francis Jourdan,
Andrew Ross, William Carlisle, Alexander Brodie, Charles Oakeley, George
Forster, Benjain Roebuck, and Pelling & De Fries.100 The remainder was in
the hands of natives. The merchants protested against the sale of the land, on
the grounds that the purchasers might refuse to let it, save at prohibitive
rates.101 At the same time, there came forward a number of EIC servants,
merchants, and traders bidding for the other grounds.
John Balfour, a Factor, and Accountant-General of the Mayor’s Court,
came forward with an offer of Pags. 22,750, for the vacant Attapollam
grounds pointing out that, after deduction for a beach road, his offer was
equivalent to Pags. 140 per lot (PC cxxii, 21 Sept. 1779; and Love HD,
1913, III, p. 164). John Douglas, a free merchant, offered Pags. 24,000 for
the same, promising to erect tiled godowns and to let them at reasonable
rates. Benjamin Sulivan, the Govt. Advocate, volunteered Pags. 25,000 for
the piece of ground in the Mahratta-town called the bank-salls, extending
from the grain store house to the powder mills. This last application came
too late, for, the Govt. had already accepted Douglas’s proposition. This
gentleman’s subsequent disposal of the area north of the water channel at
Pags. 350 per lot called forth another remonstrance from the merchants. This
time the Govt. listened, resumed possession, refunded the purchase money,
and granted Douglas a solatium of Pags. 8,000, since the net extra returns
from the new sale had far exceeded this amount. The southern section,
between the Coir-godown and the South Paddy-godown, was allotted to the
Sea Customer, who received instructions in Jan. 1780, to parcel out the
ground lying to the northward of the North Paddy-godown (or French
Prison) for the convenience of the merchants. Problems began to crop up as
some of the areas sold and granted by the EIC Govt. had on them huts and
thatched houses of some fishermen and also of other poorer sections.
Numerous environmental problems arose with the disappearance of all the
vacant lands. Many grasslands, marshes, paddy fields, and gardens shrank or
completely disappeared. Before the town had grown, there were large bogs
near the Black Town on the north and western sides where the garbage was
dumped. But these had been filled up by the 1780s, and the garbage had to
be carted beyond the town limits to a considerable distance, which also
necessitated procuring more carts and buffaloes. Besides, in spite of orders,
the residents were still letting the waste water from their houses out into the
street which was not only ‘very offensive but extremely unwholesome’ (PC
cxxxi, 28 Oct. 1783). The management of urban waste disposal was left to
an officer appointed for the job, known as the Rental General. The cost of
removing and disposing of the garbage was paid out of a tax, the
Scavenger’s Duty, collected from the residents. Their arrears amounted to
43,653 Pagodas by the end of 1783. At the same time, the cost of garbage
clearance and disposal had increased along with the number of houses and
business establishments. The Governor proposed in 1784 that the inhabitants
of the Black Town be called to a meeting where they could be persuaded to
agree to an assessment for cleaning and repairing the streets (PC cxxxii, 17
April 1784). This did not improve the state of the Town and was
unsuccessful. Complaints about the poor quality of ‘town cleaning’
continued, while it was generally felt that it had become unwholesome even
to live in the Black Town. The streets were mired in mud and water when
rained while the street sides were piled with filth and rubbish. It was
proposed in 1785 to advertise for proposals from those who would take up
the cleaning on a contract basis with their own carts and bullocks and also to
level and clear the streets in the town (PC cxxxvi, 23 Aug. 1785). The
natives complained that the EIC was making huge sums by land sales and
spending nothing from that sum on the town cleaning. The EIC argued that
they were in need of money to protect the city from the invaders.102
The native inhabitants gave a petition in 1794, stating that they had paid
scavenger’s duty at the rate of ten fanams per 100 Pagodas on the valuation
of their houses and gardens. When this rate was increased to 30 fanams, they
paid for some time but found it difficult to sustain such a high payment, and
this was the reason for the large unpaid arrears. The assessment was changed
in 1795 to 5% on the annual rent of their property. This was supposed to be
used for cleaning the streets, building drains and so on, and the residents had
cheerfully accepted this since this assessment would be collected only for
two years. But no significant improvement had resulted from this
assessment. The Collectors and Surveyors, however, reported to the Council
that many improvements had been carried out in the town, like repairing
streets and building bridges and underground channels. But the local
residents cared little for cleanliness, and the payment of the scavenger’s duty
was still much in arrears. Residents who refused to pay included
Englishmen, Portuguese, Armenians, and sundry native inhabitants.103 Rich
merchants and institutions continued building activities even at very high
land prices. Meanwhile, the EIC had faced much litigation regarding their
landownership rights. Contrarily, the EIC began to blame the natives for
their illegal claims and ‘fraudulent dealings’. They appointed a regular civil
architect to look into these matters along with a Superintendent of the EIC’s
lands. All these reforms could not successfully check the extent of bribes,
coercive corruption, and many other malpractices in the land dealings.

Malpractices
There had been many malpractices in the land dealings. Rising land values
were the natural concomitant of a growing urban centre, and the absence of
comprehensive registration of property gave rise to encroachment by
fraud.104 One of the tactics used in Madras to get lands at a low price was for
a man to make out a mortgage bond on a piece of ground to another, and
then proffer a complaint in the Mayor’s Court that the mortgage had not
been paid. The court would then pass a decree to sell the land with a proper
bill of sale (PDC, 19 June 1778). A slight variation on this was still easier. It
was customary for a man to fix upon any piece of vacant ground he wished
to possess and lent money to the poor people who were permitted to build
their huts upon it, for which he took their notes of hand and a mortgage of
the ground as a security for the payment. When the time was expired, he
applied to the Mayor’s Court (for they were in general Attorney’s dubashes
who are concerned) for a writ of sequestration, which was granted on his
swearing to the debt. The ground was sold by the Sheriff and bought in for a
trifle by the lender or some of his associates, and a Mayor’s Court Bill of
Sale was granted for the same. Some others had daringly occupied vacant
lands without any kind of documents as to ownership (PDC, 6 Nov. 1781).
The main problem in all such cases was the lack of proper Govt. records and
surveys. Hugh Maxwell, Superintendent of the EIC Grounds,105 drew
attention to the practice of fraudulently acquiring land by a method
analogous to that described by William Ross in 1778. He wrote to the Select
Committee in Nov. 1781:

I take the liberty of calling your attention to an abuse that has existed
for a long time in Madras, and I hope some measures may be adopted
not only to prevent such practices in future, but also to oblige those to
give back to the Company what has been obtained by fraud.
(MC lxxvii, 6 Nov. 1781)

Possession had been taken of large spots in the town by using these
means. Many others had enclosed grounds without going through the
ceremony of applying to the Mayor’s Court: the washing people in particular
had been very guilty of the frauds (Ibid.). The public opinion was that the
EIC had not legally owned any land as it was only a leaseholder from the
Prince of Vijayanagara. Therefore, it had no right to sell land to the settlers.
Moreover, most of the settlers purchased their house sites from their original
owners of the respective villages.106 The EIC had conveniently ignored the
local complaints about the highly complicated malpractices involved in the
land dealings.
In consequence of the representations, a Committee, consisting of Major
Maule,107 the Chief Engineer; Hugh Maxwell, the Superintendent of the EIC
Grounds; and Philip Stowey, the Surveyor of Buildings, was ordered to
survey the Black Town and take possession of the grounds for which valid
titles could not be shown. Attention was drawn to certain land, believed to
have been filched from the EIC, which was to be sold under a decree of the
Mayor’s Court. The Govt. instructed their Standing Counsel to advise
whether legal proceedings should be taken for recovery of such properties
(Love HD, 1913, III, pp. 287–8). The Committee requested Benjamin
Sulivan, an expert advocate of property-related matters, to locate the original
Chandragiri Agreement. Sulivan’s investigation involved a futile search for
the original grant of Madras territory to the EIC. However, Sulivan’s report
to the Select Committee about his searches is of considerable interest:
 Mr. Secretary Hudleston, by letter of the 29th January last, conveyed to
me your Orders that I should take such steps as I should judge proper to
prevent the immediate sale of some lots of Ground advertised to be sold
under a decree of the Mayor’s Court; and that I should examine into the
rights to those Grounds, and, if I should be of opinion that they were
legally the property of the Hon’ble Company, that I should endeavour
to recover possession of them by due course of law.
(Ibid.)

Having in consequence made every possible enquiry in his power relative to

the rights of the EIC versus the so-called ground owners, Sulivan found that
the EIC could not ground their claim in length of possession, the then
occupiers having been in the uninterrupted possession for a long series of
years, and that they could not claim under any other title, the original grant
of Madras and its environs having been either lost or mislaid. He therefore
thought that it would be in vain to attempt to stop the sales or to engage the
EIC in a legal suit which could only serve to expose their inability to support
its legal claims.
Finding the EIC claims weak and legally untenable, Sulivan expressed the
details of his enquiries along with his opinion confidentially to the President:
‘Wishing to come at some certain knowledge of this Grant before I
addressed Your Lordship, &c.’ (MC lxxix, 16 March 1782). After all
searches failed to locate the ‘golden kaul’, Sulivan applied to John
Hudleston and Charles Freeman, the Secretaries,108 as also to Richard
Sulivan and Charles Oakeley, who some time since filled these offices, in the
hope of acquiring some information from them. But none of these gentlemen
knew of any other grants than those that are printed, and nothing of a
particular one for Madras and the small district Chingleput immediately
surrounding it. When the President insisted on further search for the ‘Golden
Rayal Kaul’ Sulivan expressed some hope:

I had still, however, some expectation of finding it, having recollected

Mr. Whitehill saying there was such a Grant from one of the Gentoo
Princes in a Box of old Records in the Civil Secretary’s Office, and
therefore requested Mr. Haliburton, the Persian Interpreter, as I do not
myself understand the Country Languages, to assist me in searching for
it; but much hurried by business in his own Department, he could not
attend till yesterday, when We found a list of Grants that were missing
 at the time Moody Kistna [Muddu Krishna] was appointed to succeed
Paupa Braminy as the Company’s Interpreter,109 [ha]d found that this
particular Grant was the foremost in the list.
(Ibid.)

Enquiring for this valuable ‘Goldengrant’, which he thought might be

necessary on future occasions, had been the reason of his having so long
postponed addressing the President so that the number of land claimants had
increased. All the available information failed to establish the legal right of
the EIC to landownership in Madras town. The EIC knew fully well that it
was not the legal proprietor of the land in any meaning of the word, neither
by conquest nor by outright purchase. At the most, it had only occupancy
rights.110
The EIC had indirectly acknowledged that it had no right of legal
ownership of the lands in Madras as it used to purchase them from their
owners. One instance was that of Mrs. Casamaijor, nee Powney, who was
married to Noah Casamaijor in 1736 and became a widow ten years later.
She owned a house and ground adjacent to the EIC Gardens at Chepauk. She
offered the land property to the Govt. in Dec. 1781, for Pags. 6,000. The
offer was accepted, and the land was absorbed into the Govt. garden. Writing
to England, 26 Jan. 1782, the Council said: ‘Mrs. Rebecca Casamaijor,111
who possessed a Piece of Ground and a small Dwelling House in it, offered
them to us lately for sale’ (Love HD, 1913, III, p. 289). As the ground in
reality forms a part of the EIC gardens, which would render it extremely
inconvenient should it fall into improper hands, the Council thought the
opportunity of purchasing it ought not to be lost, and they had accordingly
granted Mrs. Casamaijor an interest bond for 6,000 Star Pagodas in payment
for the same. Similarly, the ground in Black Town which had been allotted to
her in compensation for her former property on the Island had previously
been purchased for the EIC. This property was exchanged by the EIC and
therefore it thought that it was a genuine title. There are many such cases of
land property sales where the EIC compensated the occupants even in the
case of huts and waste lands. Thus, it was proved beyond doubt that the EIC
did not have any original legal title to the lands since they were only
leaseholders. Consequently, the EIC began land grants on lease so as to
reduce the risk of litigations. The EIC created some suitable policies which
were the least subjected to serious litigations.
Policy
An actively environment-oriented land development policy was started in
1758 intended mainly to face the impending French threats to the city. Land
use was regulated both within as well as outside the Fort. Thorny fences
were raised in the vacant places of the suburbs. Trees were ordered to be
planted around strategic structures like the gun-powder mill and redoubts, as
also around the godowns so as to protect them from the visibility and
bombardment by the enemy as well as to prevent looting. Once the French
siege was lifted in Feb. 1759, environmental considerations took many other
turns.

Conclusions
Madras greenery was increased by the EIC planning of the city on scientific
lines, especially its land policies. A range of economic and political
problems arose when landownership became highly concentrated because it
led to renter behaviour and economic inequalities. Land concentration
affected the housing types though not the green cover. And the EIC Govt. of
Madras had always taken care of the matters of land just distribution and
provision of suitable houses; and in the process, they faced and solved a lot
of related problems. Land use was so planned, controlled, and regulated in
the growing Madras that it helped to increase the extent of greenery and the
variety of trees so as to enrich the city’s environment.
Land development preceded the planning and execution of the
infrastructural facilities. Lands in Madras were sold by the EIC Govt. in
auctions. Facing the increased litigations about the rights of ownership, they
shifted to leases in the name of ‘grants’ for the purpose of development.
Many of the EIC servants and others began to apply for such grants at
nominal annual rental rates. Consequently, the land values began to increase
beyond the paying capacity of the common people. Then began the schemes
of reclaiming the waste and marshy lands in the name of urban development.
Most of the hut dwellers were moved to the outskirts without any
compensation as the EIC claimed the ‘absolute ownership’ of all the lands.
The legitimacy of their ownership rights were frequently questioned by the
elite natives, but the EIC could not provide any satisfactory answers. Rising
land prices led to increased encroachments.112 Population pressure led to
housing problems. The EIC realised that the urban improvements,
development of housing and community facilities, the reclamation of
blighted and underutilised land, and the use of lands in innovative fashions
would solve many problems including those of the paraiyars.
Land use was carefully planned in ‘new Madras’ to suit the infrastructural
plans. Growth, sustainability, greenery, and defence were the chief criteria of
land use. Main economic considerations in the land development were
weavers’ colonies, trade, and proper processing of the export items, mainly
cloth. The Govt. declared its right of ownership to all the lands once the city
rental payment to the nawab was discontinued. They began to allot the vast
stretches of waste lands around the city preferably to the private western
parties for housing and gardening mostly on the basis of a rental price. The
nawab was satisfied with his large bungalows, palaces, and masjids and left
the rest to the EIC which tried to keep the land prices as low as possible so
as to provide cheap land to the garden planters as well as to the builders of
large garden houses. Apart from the extension of the city into the suburbs,
planning of the land use, large-scale reclamation, and regulation of the land
prices by other means were undertaken by the EIC Govt. However, the land
auctions and the consequent malpractices had shrunken the ‘free spaces of
the city’. The EIC Govt. failed to show the residents any records in support
of the landownership rights. Not many natives, except a few wealthy
merchants, could afford to compete with the European investors. Meanwhile,
the commercial motives of the EIC were questioned by the ‘elite
environmentalists’.

Notes
1 Not much information is available about these facilities in the former centuries.
2 Successful cities provide jobs, quality schools, safe and clean neighbourhoods, effective
transportation, pure water, and welcoming spaces for all residents. Cities must be managed
well if they are to remain attractive places to work, relax, and raise a family (see Inman RP
(ed.), 2009). City living should provide social and economic advantages to its residents,
firms, and workers.
3 Railways, telecommunications, bus stations, power generations, and such other concerns
were added in the 19th century while airfields, satellite stations, and their concerns are in
the 20th century.
4 The physical structure of cities and the efficiency of infrastructure services delivered are
driven by efficiencies within individual infrastructure sectors. Lessons learnt across these
sectors and the ability to coordinate and integrate them on efficient lines could generate
economies of scale (see Wellman K and Spiller M, 2012). The magnitude of investment, the
long time frames involved, and the influence of pre-existing infrastructure could increase
the productivity of the given resources.
5 See Angel S et al. (eds.), 1983.
6 When the suburbs are included, the area trebles.
7 They came into prominence during Hyder’s invasions of 1767–9.
8 Much of Pondy’s prosperity along with its wealthy merchants shifted to Madras.
9 They were so closely related that wars were fought mainly for the expansion of trade and
vice versa. Most of the roads and streets in the city were named after the war heroes and the
leading traders and merchants (see Apds. 4–5).
10 James Cordiner (1775–1836) was selected in 1798 by the educationist Dr. Andrew Bell to
head the Madras Male Orphan Asylum (Cordiner J, 1820). He liked his comfortable
quarters in the Fort and conducted his affairs in the outskirts.
11 Blacks served whites and the poor served the rich.
12 The rationale was the particular characteristics of its environment that fostered industrial
innovative behaviour on the part of the resident firms (see Simmie J (ed.), 2001). However,
it was limited by the requirements of the colonists.
13 Britain made a crucial contribution in providing India with its investing in physical and
institutional infrastructure (Lalvani K, 2016). Of course, the drain of its wealth and the
resulting poverty and the local socio-economic problems had caused numerous
impediments.
14 Registration of land sales was a source of income. It also served the purpose of
legitimisation of the EIC’s ownership of city lands.
15 It seems that many of them were converted from the weavers’ castes.
16 Many of the Hindu castes were called after their professions (see Thurston E and
Rangachari K, 2001). They were traditional specialists by custom in the manufacture of the
specified products.
17 The concealed object seems to be the legitimation of their legal ownership rights.
18 There occurred many zigzag movements of the people of the Black Town during this siege
lasting for more than two months (Dec. 1758–Feb. 1759).
19 Kepock or Kilpauk was a village west of Pursewakam already filled with houses.
20 Ensign James West retired from Draper’s Regiment and became a free merchant.
21 There is no evidence of the EIC govt. ever establishing its legal right over the lands. The
sovereignty was grabbed from the titular nawabs and the puppet rajas.
22 A number of Brahmins were engaged as cooks, butlers, accountants, business managers,
and assistants by the rich European households.
23 All litigations against the legitimacy of the EIC landownership rights were almost silenced
by showing the possibility of further French attacks.
24 Governor Pigot, writing of the locality in 1776, mentioned that it was situated at the
junction of the White’s Road with the Mount Road, just opposite Mackay’s Garden.
25 He was a free merchant from 1738 and Mayor of Madras in 1756; and four years later, he
became a contractor for supply and transport to the army (Love HD, 1913, ii, p. 505). He
made riches in a short time by diversified activities. Following his cue, the Choultry Plain
area was built later with a number of large bungalows mostly by the merchants.
26 George Mackay went to Europe with ‘Madras treasures’ in 1761 and returned to Madras in
1766 as a Council member. This example was followed by many others.
27 It seems that he occupied more than the allotted area.
28 Alexander George Mackay inherited his father’s house and other properties (Ibid.). There is
no record of the payments.
29 Blacker’s Gardens stood on the west side of Mount Road, near the village of Teynampet,
and close to it on the same side is a smaller house, which was occupied later by the Duke of
Wellington (Penny FE, 1908, p. 29). He resided with the troops in the Fort, where a house
near the Santhome gate was his quarters.
30 Most of them were former agricultural irrigation wells.
31 Captain Charles Tod commanded sepoys as Town Major in 1759 during the siege of
Madras. He married Frances Empson and received the land grant on the Choultry Plain in
the same year and on the same terms as Mackay (Love HD, 1913, ii, pp. 505–89). He
became rich in a short time at the cost of the natives.
32 The almost continuous wars with the French (1746–61) had depleted the EIC treasury.
33 Eley (Elly) was sergeant (1756).
34 A rich Armenian merchant (1723–97), who owned more than one garden house, including
the Admiraly House.
35 There was a European rush into the Fort for safety reasons in view of Hyder’s attacks,
1767–9.
36 The Gentoo foot was standardised at 12 inches along with the English one in Madras
(Brown CP, 1903). Dictionary: Telugu-English.
37 Whitehill was Governor (1777). Benfield was Engineer Architect 1763–88. Monckton
owned more than one garden house.
38 Brooke was a civil servant sent to Manila in 1762 and was later involved in the nawab’s
corruption charges. Dawson, also a civil servant, joined Clive to Arcot in 1751. Stratton was
the infamous Governor of Madras (1776–7).
39 His application was rejected on the grounds that he was a ‘wire-puller’.
40 It was alleged that their purpose was to resell the allotted lands.
41 Some of the rich applicants had purchased the plots of others to increase the area.
42 The legal rights of landownership and the irrationally heavy taxes continued to be the
burning issues.
43 Now the applications had far exceeded the available land.
44 Henry Brooke, a civil servant of 1751, was the Garrison Storekeeper and Sea Customer as
well as Council member and Paymaster in 1773. He owned large garden houses in Rayapeta
as early as 1764 (Love HD, 1913, ii, p. 615). He was known for his bribery activities in
Manila (1762–3); as Collector of Wall Tax and the Fort Land Tax (1770), he was alleged to
have received from the Arcot nawab considerable bribery amounts.
45 They never produced or mentioned any authorised documents as evidence in the sale
deeds.
46 It was alleged that the lower the land price, the higher was the bribe and so on. There are
no official records on the involved amounts. A rough estimation was that the amount of
bribe was always less than the difference between the market price and allotted rates.
47 Samuel Johnson was a civil servant of 1754. He was in Council and ordered to Manila in
1762. He was the sheriff of Madras in 1766.
48 He was granted six acres at a rent of four Pagodas in Pudupak in 1774 (PC cxii, 19 Sept.
1774). It seems that he submitted a letter of recommendation from the Arcot nawab as also
done by some of his relatives.
49 Col. John Wood (17?–1774) took a prominent but unsatisfactory part in the campaign of
1768 against Hyder. He was tried by court martial with adverse results, and though the
Court refrained from passing sentence on account of his earlier good service, he was
dismissed by the Govt. He owned a garden house in Egmore in 1770. He married Miss
Elizabeth Owen in 1762 and died at Madras.
50 Chambers was among the private traders and Swartz was a priest.
51 Col. James of the Artillery married Miss Sophia Crockett in 1763. He was wrecked in the
Grosvener in 1782 near the Cape.
52 Evidently, this house was not built on the ground granted to Col. Ross.
53 In 1776, George Taswell married in Mrs Honora Pittman, widow of Captain Pittman of the
Engineers. He owned the Taswell Garden in 1781.
54 Firth (17?–1787) became the Resident at Pulicat when that place was captured from the
Dutch in 1781. He lost his life at Coringa, on 20 May 1787, during a terrible storm that
swept away a large number of the residents.
55 In 1773, Turing married Miss Mary Turing, one of the daughters of Dr. Robert Turing. He
was the sheriff and Mayor of Madras in 1767, Alderman in 1779, and Acting President in
May 1790.
56 George Dawson appears to have had an earlier grant of land in Royapet where he owned
the garden house in 1764, by the side of Henry Brooky’s.
57 There is no record of any grant to him in Egmore, where Casamaijor’s Road was named.
Probably he might have purchased his garden house on the ‘river side’ from the Arcot
nawab.
58 Montresor (17?–1773), succeeded Benfield as Engineer in 1770 and married Miss Frances
Cleverley in the same year. As an EIC Engineer, he built many structures including the
Black Town gates (see Figure 4.2) in 1770. He was not allotted land as he had already
owned garden houses.
59 Majendie was a civil servant of 1766, Clerk of the Treasury in 1776, Mayor in 1777, and
one of the loaners to the nawab in 1779. He was one of the rich private traders.
60 Smith was a free merchant.
61 Oakeley married Miss Helena Beatson in 1777.
62 He supported Pigot in 1776.
63 Mordaunt was sheriff in 1775 and was suspended next year on corruption charges.
64 It seems that the EIC had supplied some seeds and seedlings from its nurseries at nominal
prices.
65 The first step started with the French defeat in 1760, followed 22 years later by the death of
Hyder in Dec. 1782. Thereafter, Tipu could not pose any more threats.
66 Gangapeta Narayana Krishnama Naik owned extensive lands in the Peddanaikpet and other
places in the Black Town along with some large buildings.
67 Hastings (1732–1818) was a member of Madras Council 1769–72.
68 It seems that the Parachery lands were lost in two instances, first directly to the powder
mill and next was by allotting to Narayana.
69 Masalgies were torch bearers and lamp trimmers.
70 A pagoda or Hindu temple was represented by its attendants including the pujaris and
trustees. They requested the EIC Govt. to respect the Hindu temples on par with the
Christian churches. The Govt. pretended ignorance.
71 The actual market price of lands had always exceeded the one quoted in the registered
documents for obvious reasons.
72 These chances were widely used by the EIC on occasions of the French siege and later
Hyder’s threats.
73 Once the nawab gave away the jagir to the EIC, the latter began to claim its sovereign
rights of ownership of lands.
74 However, the EIC Govt. failed to show the residents any records in support of the
landownership rights.
75 They used to demand ‘perks’ from the house owners.
76 They used to quote the native examples of private property in land and landed resources.
For example, see Kumar D, 1975. It became one of the controversial concepts.
77 A plot measured 60 feet by 40 feet, or 2,400 square feet. It was afterwards called a ground.
It was considered sufficient to build a comfortable house for a normal family of about five
to ten persons.
78 The description in the records shows that Attapalem, located between Peddanaikpet and
Muthyalapet, had extended southward up to Chinnabazar the border marked by a line of
trees.
79 The Rope Godown or Coir Godown was built in 1760 at Parry’s Corner, the northern limit
of the Esplanade (PC cxxiv, 19 July 1780). Lengthwise, it extended from south to north
along the western side of the road.
80 The Nawab’s House was occupied by Umdatul-Umara, Walajah’s eldest son and his
servants.
81 This channel ran eastward to the sea. The name was preserved in Odacal Street, which
connects Moor Street with Jehangir Street at the north end of the General Post Office.
82 There were two Paddy Godowns, 500 yards apart – one north and the other south of the
Water Channel; the former, on the site of the Custom House. Most of the imported paddy
was stored in these large godowns.
83 Probably on the west side of Black Town Wall, near the site of the Salt [vuppu] Cotaurs,
where the labourers had their huts.
84 The source of water supply to the Fort.
85 Popham, formerly a member of the Irish Parliament, had been appointed by Whitehill to be
his Private Secretary (Hicky’s Bengal Gazette, 29 July 1780). Popham’s wife, Ann, died at
Madras in 1787, and nine years afterwards, John Goldingham, the EIC Astronomer, married
her daughter, Louisa Maria. Mrs. Fay, who was entertained by the Pophams on her first visit
to Madras in April 1780, wrote: ‘We are at present with Mr. and Mrs. Popham, from whom
we have received every possible civility. He is a brother lawyer and a countryman of my
husband, and she is a lively woman. Her spirits have, in some measure, restored mine’ (Fay
E, 1817, pp. 122–3). This adventurous couple was known to be active in matters of public
service (Hicky’s Bengal Gazette, (29–1–1780 to 30–3–1782)). It was a weekly newspaper,
known for its sarcastic and provocative writing style. James Augustus Hicky was its editor
(Spencer A (ed.), 1923). Unlike many newspapers of its time, the newspaper discussed
taboo topics like female masturbation, and proto-class consciousness, arguing for the rights
of the poor and the right to taxation with representation. Hicky tried to cover everything that
might be important to Calcutta. He devoted many pages to politics and world news.
86 Popham showed to Eliza their detailed development plans of the Black Town: ‘Mr. Popham
is one of the most eccentric of beings I have ever met with. Poor man! He is a perpetual
projector, a race whose exertions have frequently benefited society, but seldom, I believe,
been productive of much advantage to themselves or their families. He is at present laying
plans for building what is called the Blacktown to a great extent, and confidently expects to
realize an immense fortune’ (Fay E, 1817, p. 124). He could execute the Broadway, among
his ‘many plans’ and numerous new ideas.
87 Alexander Wynch, Governor of Madras (1773–5), granted six acres of land to Captain
Augustus De Morgan (17?–1778), at a nominal annual rent of 1 Pagoda. Later it was alleged
that Wynch received some favours.
88 This was once a river with clean waters (Reddy MA, 2006, I, pp. 17 and 27). It used to feed
the nearby irrigation tanks.
89 The vegetation on either side of this so-called river was cut down to make place for
residential houses.
90 Thomas (Tom) Clarke (16?–1683), a translator and interpreter of Portuguese and Dutch
owned a large garden house in Muthialpet built in 1644, at the southern end of the (present)
Popham’s Broadway (PC vii, 8 May 1682; also see Love D, 1913, i, pp. 144–466). The gate
was demolished later in the development process.
 91 The Govt. had encouraged private developers primarily by giving their names to the areas,
roads, bridges, streets, and lanes.
92 Walaja Bridge.
93 Black Town included Peddanaikpet besides Muthialpet.
94 Mahratta Town was a part of Muthialpet where the Marathas had their houses.
95 The extra amount, 3,000, was towards the cost of the additional piece of land he applied
for.
96 James Strange was an Under-searcher at the Sea Gate. Benjamin Roebuck was a rich
merchant and entrepreneur owning many properties in Madras.
97 Attapollam = Uttapollam means water oozing low land in local Telugu; Uta = ooz and
pallam = low land.
98 A Madras ground = 2,400 sq. feet. It was so standardised after a model Madras house that
measured 60 x 40 feet, an ideal residence of five to ten persons.
99 It was a high raised mound of pebbly earth near and in the place of the present General
Hospital.
100 All of them were rich merchants. Pelling & De Fries was a trading firm owned by Thomas
Pelling and John De Fries.
101 The complaints were ignored by the EIC in favour of the high bidders.
102 The reference was to the Mysore wars.
103 Their argument was that each separate tax and duty should correspond to the expenses under
that item only; the EIC never explained the details.
104 A person’s economic property rights over an asset were delineated as the person’s ability to
gain from the asset by direct consumption or by exchange. Individuals enhanced their rights
by such actions as close protection and clear delineation of their assets (see Barzel Y, 1997).
Problems arose due to underutilisation, bad maintenance, and unregistered transfer of lands
including mortgages.
105 The duties of the Superintendent included the removal of street encroachments, the
widening of the highways around the city, and the maintenance of roads and avenues of
trees (MC lxxvii, 18 Dec. 1781). He was supposed to submit development plans.
106 The ancestral custom was that all waste lands of the village belonged only to that village.
And anybody that occupied that land had to pay only the land taxes.
107 George Maule entered the service in 1770 and became Lt. Colonel in 1773. He married
Catherine Clayton in 1779. He was killed in action before Pondy in 1793.
108 In the Military and Civil Departments, respectively.
109 Paupa Brahman Junior, in an undated [probably around early 1750s] petition to Governor
Saunders took credit for having made ‘A Catalogue of sundry Grants and Patents’ for the
original kauls (see Reddy MA, 2006, I, pp. 56–75). There was no mention of the kaul of
Madras.
110 The EIC’s claim that the ownership had passed on to it from the Arcot nawab had few legal
grounds. His position was inferior to that of the EIC, and he never owned the site of
Madras.
111 Her son, James Henry Casamaijor, joined the civil service as a writer in 1762; when Chief at
Vizag, he had a narrow escape from death. The sepoys at that place mutinied on being
ordered to embark for Madras in Oct. 1780. They shot down two of their officers, killed one
civilian and wounded another, plundered the place, and threatened to murder Casamaijor
and the remaining members of the civil establishment. On leaving for England in June 1782,
 Casamaijor found his good service handsomely recognized by the Govt. He subsequently
returned to India and became a member of the Madras Council in 1789 (Love HD, 1913, III,
p. 289). The family continued in Madras.
112 The civil litigation had increased with two or more claimants to the same piece of land by
different criteria like the ancestral rights.

5
ROADS

DOI: 10.4324/9781003215493-5

Role
Roads and streets are the bones and nerves of a city. Roads are large streets
and vice versa. Streets are the central spatial structures of a city to gauge the
nature of its liveability (see Anderson S, 1978). They are the essential open
rooms of the city that accommodate a wide range of human encounters and
activities as defined by communal agreements, and their walls are
interpreted as the interface between public and private use, with certain
enclaves – shops, hotel lobbies, temples – serving as semi-public extensions
of the street. The street networks provide continuity, differentiation, and
disruption of the urban fabric, and they mould the character of civil and
domestic life of a city. Smaller ones are called lanes and narrow ones are
called bye lanes, alleys, and gullies.1
Streets are the most basic element of the urban infrastructure. They are
public spaces. They are designed to carry vehicular and pedestrian traffic,
transport merchandise, and provide public spaces for social interaction. They
also function as conduits for waste matter and, in modern times, house
sewage, gas, electrical, and water systems below their surface. On a more
fundamental level, streets are essential for access by city dwellers to work
sites, markets, and homes. Political, social, and ideological considerations
figure in their construction, control, and naming. Government authorities are
always concerned with street activities as a function of public order and
safety. The health of the city is closely related to the spaciousness,
maintenance, and greenery of its streets. For example, narrow streets do not
permit the circulation of sufficient air or the diffusion of proper sunlight; and
streets without effective drains breed diseases from stagnant water and waste
matter. Thus, whether the construction of streets is financed privately or by
the government, control over the street rests with public officials.2
Streets in the 18th-century Madras, both in the Fort and out of it, were
well planned and neatly laid with rows of trees on either side. Most of them
were named after some famous persons, landmarks or their connecting
locations (see Apds. 4–5). Thus, Kondichetty, Lingichetty, Rasappachetty,
and Thambuchetty had been the leading merchants, and their residential
streets were named after them. Athapalem street in Muthialpet led to the
village of that name. Mount Road connected the Fort with the Mount. The
streets in the Fort were named after the English highlights. Every street got
its own history. In fact, most of the economic history of Madras is ensconced
in the names of roads and streets which were carefully planned following the
geographical and environmental conditions.
There were only streets, lanes, and bye lanes in the Fort. They were
almost straight north-south as well as east-west. The early road formation
was in the Fort. Outside, there were roads connecting Muthialpet,
Peddanaikpet, and Egmore villages with the old Black Town before 1746 as
depicted in the maps of 1733 and 1755 (Love HD, 1913, II, in pocket at the
end). Mount and Santhome roads started from Triplicane and ran up to these
places. Another road from Triplicane connected on its south the spacious
streets of Weavers and Painters. More connecting roads were there in the
north to the Egmore road. Muthialpet and Peddanaikpet were well connected
from all sides. A road starting from Muthialpet ran up to Ennuru village, via
Caluvoychetty’s Battery connecting numerous gardens on its way on either
side; and further up to the Calastrychetty’s Battery towards sea on the east.
Again, a road started from Calastrychetty’s Battery and ran towards west,
connecting Caluvoychetty’s crossroad, Washing-town, Suncuramachetty’s
Battery, Ganguram’s Battery, Saltpans, and ran through Moormetta plain on
its way up to Vaservady village. Four roads branched off from this road
towards the northern villages at Caluvoychetty’s Battery, Kamachetty’s
Battery, Washing-town and Ganguram’s Battery, respectively. There was a
busy crossroad to the south of Washing-town. Peddanaikpet was connected
with roads running in all four directions. A long road ran to the west through
Purasawakam and Kilpauk connecting Korukupet, Beatlegarden, Moormetta,
Moortown, and Kasipalem on its way. There was another busy crossroad to
the south of Moormetta. Other and small roads connected petas, villages,
temples, inns, batteries, and gardens. All roads were planted with shady trees
on either side.
Streets, lanes, bye lanes, alleys, and gullies were many in the residential
localities. There were four main south-north streets in the old Black Town.
They were named after Moor, Chetty, Middle-gate, and Bridge streets. Most
of its east-west streets were lanes and bye lanes. The second busy residential
place, Muthialpet, had four south-north streets named Fisher, Chetty,
Mootalapet, and Komaty streets. Most of its east-west streets were straight
but shorter than the south-north ones. Muthialpet was separated from the old
Black Town by a vacant place called Green market; and some gardens and a
channel running on its west separated it from Peddanaikpet. The old Black
Town was almost demolished during the French period, 1746–9. Many new
roads and streets were formed while the old ones were widened, extended,
straightened, and strengthened by layers of gravel during the next five
decades.

Development
There were only kachha roads connecting the surrounding villages with the
city around 1750. The pathways were widened into cart-ways; many of
which were straightened, level raised by earth, and gravelled into kachha
roads. Some of them were metalled so as to make them fit for heavy vehicles
in the monsoon rains. Of course, ditches on either side, from which earth
was extracted, were visible. There were reports of some bullock-carts falling
into these ditches when pulled into wrong side by the animals when
frightened by the bright colours and the noise of the jingling bells of the
passing palanquins.
The next position almost just before the end of the 18th century is known
from the map of 1798 (Love HD, 1913, III, in pocket at end). Residential
houses along with their gardens were extended in all directions except in the
east. The city spread in the north up to Satyamgudu and Codongur villages,
and Yerragiri-hills in the NW. Southern border crossed Adyar river; and the
forest on its south bank was cleared for garden houses. The western border
was marked by the villages of Teynampet-west, Chettipet (Chetput),
Ominjikari (Amjikarai), Jenavaram, Saravalur, and Chembiam near
Yerragirihills. Road connections were extended to all these outskirting
villages. Some main roads were paved on either side for walkers. There was
no major change in the basic formation of the streets in the Fort. A few
changes were made here and there. Most of them were strengthened by
gravelling and metalling up to the tree lines.
Drastic changes and extensions of roads and streets, outside the Fort,
occurred by the end of the 18th century as found in the surveyed map of
1798 (see Map 5.1). A road ran from Muthialpet towards the north called the
Pulicat road on which was situated Tondiyarpet. Another kachha road ran
from Peddanaikpet towards NW, via Red hills. This was called the Nel-lore
road. The Egmore road ran up to the town of Poornamallee in the west.
Mount Road extended to Chingleput town and beyond towards the south.
High roads of the city were extended to join the outgoing highways.
The highways that radiated from the Black Town – Santhome Road,
Mount Road, Pantheon Road, North (Nellore) Road, and the Poornamallee
Highway – all began to be studded with luxurious green gardened dwellings
with large compounds. There were numerous lanes between Teynampet and
Mylapore which connected the highways decorated with tree rows on either
side. And locomotion in those days was, for the most part, in palanquins or
sedan chairs moving under the tree shades. The old highways had a width of
about 20 feet (Leighton D, 1902, p. 135). Many new roads, wider than the
old, were formed to connect the new townships with the busy Black Town
(see Apds. 4–5). Lanes were planted with wild trees that could withstand the
hurricane winds.
The streets in the Fort, in the beginning of the 18th century, looked like
those of London and even better in some respects. They were straight and

wide and paved with brick on each side. But the middle way was fitted with
sandy soil for the carts to pass on. There were trees on either side affording
pleasant shade in the sun (Lockyer C, 1711, p. 5). There were five gates in
the Fort: Sea, St. Thomas, Water, Choultry, and Middle gates. The
Governor’s lodgings were in the Inner Fort. The streets were maintained
clean and neat by removing the ever-falling leaves. Rutty roads and rubbish
streets found after the heavy monsoons were thoroughly cleaned and
repaired by the municipal workers. Major reforms and relaying were in the
petas and suburbs.

Reforms
Madras was a city with long roads and straight streets (see Map 5.1). Mount
Road was an interesting public place at Madras leading from Fort to the
Mount, about seven miles. Its reform was in progress in 1795–6 and a
constant stream of carts carrying construction materials was under the Chief
Engineer’s service. This reform seems to have been only the repairing and
gravelling of the road (Rangacharya V, p. 130). An important diversion of
the road was made in 1798 immediately after the bridge on account of the
necessity to improve the Government house. At the instance of Governor
Clive, provision was made for the improvement of the roads in the Black
Town and suburbs. Many roads were widened by removing all the
impediments including the huts on their sides after payment of compensation
to the owners. The old ‘crooked alignment’ between the Triplicane Bridge
and the junction with Peter Road was made straight. As the gardens and
houses came up all along the road, small nalahs were diverted into the
nearby canals so that the road became free of dirty waters. Mount Road
turned smooth as a bowling green, with banian and yellow tulip trees planted
on each side (Graham M, 1813, p. 130). Poornamallee High Road also had
tall trees on either side, and with large banians spreading with their
supporting roots.
Map 5.1 Madras, end of 18th century
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 36

Another improvement of the period was the opening of Binny Road, the
short thoroughfare connecting Mount Road with the Commander-in-Chief’s
bridge, which was then a causeway.3 The Binny family had a close
connection with the Madras of the 18th century (Rangacharya V, 1939, pp.
130–1). The earliest was Charles Binny who came to India in 1769 without a
license. We do not know anything about him till 1778, when he apparently
accompanied Governor Thomas Rumbold from England as his secretary.
Evidently, he had left for England some time earlier than 1778.
Subsequently, Charles Binny became secretary to the Arcot nawab, which
post he held till 1792. His place as the nawab’s secretary came to be filled in
1792 by William Abbott who had been Deputy Master Attendant. Another
Binny, who is mentioned about 1779, was George Binny, Surgeon at
Ganjam. Slightly later was Alexander Binny, purser of one of the nawab’s
ships. Lastly, there was that John Binny who owned the garden house (in the
site of the later Spencer and Co.), and from whom Binny Road got its name.
John Binny, like the members of his family, entered the nawab’s service
about 1797.4 Running from Mount Road southward to White’s Road, was
Patullo Road which arose shortly after. It was named after Captain Patullo of
the Madras Horse, who owned a house there called Hicks’ Bungalow which
later formed part of the Madras club buildings (Rangacharya V, 1939, p.
131). The Commander-in-Chief’s road connected Mount Road with Egmore.
Egmore was developed with its wide and straight roads and streets some of
them being surrounded by green fields.
Egmore had some important roads with green avenues on either side.
From the Walaja Bridge two roads, under double avenues of trees, diverged
to the west and SW across the Island, the first leading to Periamet via
Egmore Redoubt and Poornamallee Road, the second to Triplicane Bridge
via Mount Road. There was the Little Egmore Bridge, near the General
Hospital; but the Old-Garden-House-Bridge to the east of it was demolished.
There was the Naval Hospital on Poornamallee Road. Monteith’s and Cosa
Major’s roads were located in Egmore, south of Vepery. Pantheon Road
extended from the river past the Pantheon to the open ground near the (later)
Court of the Presidency Magistrate. The Commander-in-Chief’s Road started
from the river. There were large houses on this road.5 Out of a group of four
large buildings on Pantheon Road, one was the College Bridge house. The
Pantheon was situated in a compound of immense size. Egmore Fort was a
square redoubt, with sides measuring about 100 yards. Cosa Major’s Road
possessed one large house. The portion of Poornamallee Road eastward of
the Spur tank was narrow and ill-defined. An early and important road at
Egmore was the Pantheon. It was a very long and ancient thoroughfare and
consisted of two branches, one from the College Bridge to the Police
Commissioner Office, a distance of 3,000 feet, and the other from the
western riverside road to the same destination, covering a length of 2,000
feet. The main Pantheon Road took its name from the Pantheon or public
assembly rooms. The Pantheon was originally a big landed estate consisting
of 43 acres from Cosa Major Road to the Police Commissioner’s Road. It
was granted in Aug. 1778 by Governor Thomas Rumbold to Hall Plumer,
civil servant and contractor. The area is described in the original grant as all
that piece of ground in Egmore which was bounded on the NE and NW by
the paddy fields till the SE by a road, and in the SW by Mackay’s Garden.
This garden seems to have been between the Cosa Major road and the river
with a masonry fence.6
Another historic house on Pantheon Road was the Haliburton gardens. It
was named after David Haliburton was appointed writer in 1770. He was a
Persian translator and a member of the Committee of Assigned Revenue in
1782–4. Haliburtons in the varied forms of Halyburton and Hallyburton
began to figure earlier than David. John Haliburton (1717–48) of the Civil
Service was the earliest. Entering service at the age of 19, he became
Resident at Madapollam in 1743–4 and returned to Madras in 1746. A fine
linguist, he played a prominent part in the negotiations with La Bourdonnais.
Subsequently, he took part in the Fort St. David campaign as a volunteer. He
was murdered by a mutinous sepoy during Admiral Boscawen’s attack on
Pondy in 1748. His tomb was in the Cemetery in Sonnaga street, Kadalur
(Rangacharya V, 1939, pp. 142–3).7 Native merchants also built their houses
in this road. Some of them owned retail shops around Pantheon Road and the
neighbouring Marshall Road, still surrounded by some paddy fields and tree
fences.
The Marshall road, which extended from the Commander-in-Chief Road
to Harris road along a distance of 3,350 feet, owes its name to General
Marshall. It was a thoroughfare as early as 1798. Marshall who entered the
army in 1790, was Presidency Paymaster and owner of the house called
East-nook. The road was named after him. Another road in the neighbour-
hood, Monteith road, which extended from Pantheon Road to Marshall’s for
1,900 feet, was already in existence in 1800. It was named after William
Monteith of the Madras Engineers who built his house there. Hall’s road,
which stretched from Cosa Major Road to the Egmore high road, and 1,900
feet long, was named after Hamilton Hall (1761–1827) who entered service
in 1781. Another historical road in Egmore was named after Cosa Major. It
ran from the Spur tank to Pantheon Road along a distance of about 2,000
feet. It came into existence before 1798 and was connected with the name of
James Henry Cosa Major (Rangacharya V, 1939, p. 144). The Cosa Majors
had been in Madras for a major part of the 18th century and the family had a
number of prominent personalities. The village proper of Egmore was
dominated by the local cultivating caste of reddys most of whom had sold
out their agricultural lands to the wealthy merchants. Some of them moved
their agricultural activities to the other side of the river Cooum, the
Nungambakkam fields.
Nungambakkam was a big native village mostly with rice fields and
coconut palm topes. It was all part of the extensive Choultry Plain. Cooum
separated Nungambakkam from Chetput and Egmore. And here it was a
broad, shallow, inland stream broken by stretches of pale sand, shining pools
of water, and belts of emerald green herbage. There were trees everywhere,
always green, and at certain seasons covered with luxuriant blossom. Many
of the roads and houses in Nungambakkam were of historical interest and
connected with names that may be found in the annals of science and
commerce. It was in the very heart of Nungambakkam that James Anderson
(1727–1809), the first Physician-general of the Madras Medical Service,
lived. He occupied a house, afterwards owned by Thomas Pycroft, and later
known as Pycroft’s Gardens (Penny FE, 1908, p. 108). Madras at the end of
the 18th century was more than four times larger in area than when it was
restored to them in 1749 (see Figure 5.1) The rice fields of Nungambakkam
gave place to large garden houses. Many such details are available from
some of their letters. The growing urbanisation had reduced the biodiversity
of the suburban areas and reduced the cultivation activities, giving place to
garden houses. Both the Nungambakkam and the Long tanks of this suburb
were reduced in area, giving place to garden houses. And roads, streets, and
lanes in the city were named after their prominent residents.8
Figure 5.1 Surf boat
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 83

Names
The names of roads and streets help easy location of the houses, shops, and
other establishments in a town or city. They are generally named after certain
landmarks of that street or locality. Madras roads and streets were named
after famous persons, temples, and activities and occupations (see Apds. 4 –
5). The main division of the city was into the White and Black Towns. Only
the Fort was known as the White Town while the rest of the city came under
the Black- or Indian- or Native- or Gentu-Town.9 The divisions and
nomenclatures of the 17th century continued also into the 18th even when
the Europeans constructed their residences and conducted their businesses
largely out of the Fort. The Black Town consisted of the living and working
localities called mostly by a suffix of peta or simply pet. Peddanaikpet was
located NW of the Fort, while Muthyalapet and Pagadalapet were to the
north of the Fort in the 17th century. Beyond Peddanaikpet were the villages
of Egmore, Vepery, Chettipet, Purasavakam, Medavakam, Perumbur, and so
on (Reddy MA, 2006, iii, p. 30). The city stretched by 1746 up to Egmore in
the west and as far as Adyar in the south. It grew conveniently along the
beaches. Madras was well said to be ‘a city of magnificent distances
necessitating easily traversable roads’. Not only were the roads long, but the
private drives, branching from the main roads up to the houses, were of a
considerable length. They were called after their names: Anderson Garden
Road, Devaraya Mudali Road, and so on. Mount Road, Mowbray Road, and
other long roads were ‘bordered with some fine banyans’. Their branches
interlaced overhead and formed a ‘long aisle of wood and foliage’. Garden
trees were separated from the roadside trees by compound walls.
Most of the owners of the luxurious bungalows in Madras had constructed
and also often maintained the roads bordering their buildings, and especially
on the front side. The Adyar club along with the Adyar river had presented a
beautiful natural scenery in south Madras. The compound of the Adyar club
sloped down to the river – one of those smooth and still backwaters, like the
Cooum, that began as a watercourse and spread out into broad reaches. It
was a natural boundary to the southern suburbs of Madras and was
unpolluted by drainage. It had ‘always been the favourite resort of the lovers
of boating’ (Penny FE, 1908, p. 68). The approach roads and the boat stead
were planned, constructed, and maintained by the club owners. But major
roads, like Mount Road and Chamier’s Road were laid and maintained by
the municipality.
 Chamier’s Road ran eastward towards the sea and parallel with the river.
It curved and changed its name before it reached Santhome as Santhome
Road, passing several fine houses standing in well-wooded compounds that
stretched to the river’s edge. One of these houses was the Brodie Castle.
After passing the Castle, the road bended towards Santhome. The road was
raised high on the low-lying marshy lands north of the river as snakes and
alligators were found on either side. It was also called ‘fisherman’s
paradise’. The Adyar beach joined on its north with the marina beach
forming probably the second-largest beach in the world. There were only
pathways across the beach as road construction in the sands was difficult.
The beach was bordered on its west by the fishermen’s huts and hamlets.
This road was reformed many times due mainly to the frequent inundations.
A reform of Mount Road was in progress during 1795–6. A constant
service of carts was placed at the Chief Engineer’s disposal for the new road
lately constructed towards the Mount, and for repairing and gravelling it up
to the Mount (PC cii, 8 Aug. 1795; and ccvii, 29 March 1796). Major-
General Patrick Ross, the Chief Engineer, found that Mount Road needed
further widening at several points to cope with the increased number of
vehicles. There could have been little change in the alignment of this ancient
highway, but the work consisted in re-founding, metalling, and draining by
slopes. Col. Gent10 proposed the construction of parapet walls on the long
bridge near the Governor’s Garden, but the Govt. intimated that repair of the
old teak railings would suffice (PC cc, 25 May 1795). The bridge traversed
by two river channels and an intervening sandbank. A diversion of Mount
Road was made in 1798 near the Garden house. Its level was so raised as to
avoid the inundation during heavy monsoon downpours. Governor Clive
stated that the house needed alteration for the convenient accommodation of
himself and his family. He wanted the road to be widened and level further
raised by removing some huts that were erected immediately adjoining to the
EIC garden (PC ccxxix, 21 Sept. 1798). His family had suffered
considerable inconvenience and disturbance from the noise and fires arising
from the huts and requested therefore that they should be removed, and an
alteration made in the direction of the road and away from the garden
according to a plan which was delivered to the Board. The plan also
recommended that a reasonable compensation be paid to those persons who
had a right to the buildings intended to be removed, or to the ground
proposed to be enclosed, or used for the road. The original crooked
alignment between the Triplicane Bridge and the junction with Pater road11
was made straight, and a considerable area was thus added to the Govt.
garden on its west side. De Silva road repairs were taken next.
The De Silva road near the Luz Church needed repairs and widening as
mentioned in the letter of Major General Patrick Ross to the Govt. as a piece
of ground near the Luz had lately been enclosed by De Silva12 which had
narrowed the road from Santhome by the Luz Church towards the high road
going from the Fort towards Moubray’s garden in one part to 20 feet, and the
road from the Luz towards the before mentioned high road to 28 feet (PC
ccxxvii, 16 July 1798). Because these roads were of considerable
intercourse, Ross begged to submit to the Governor the propriety of their
being widened throughout to the extent of 35 or 40 feet and carry out the
necessary repairs. When repaired, they were to be extended from their
junction to Moubray’s Road. Ross certified further that imagining there
might have been some encroachment on the part of Silva, he had the ground
measured, and, on the contrary, found the grant specified 50,795½ sq. feet
more than the area could possibly contain, as appeared on inspection of the
‘accompanying Plan’ (Ibid.). Such land grabs were added to the roads
wherever possible. If found unnecessary, they regularised to the grabbers
after collecting fines/prime cost at the market prices.
All the illegally occupied lands on either bank of the Cooum were added
to the roads wherever possible and needed; the rest were regularised on
applications or sold out in auctions. At the same time, the corporation bought
the necessary space for widening the roads wherever and whenever needed.
Cooum passed from the edge of the Spur tank near Egmore to Chintadripet
by a deep loop to the southward. The road from Egmore towards Fort was
the chord of the loop, which was bisected by Egmore redoubt. Many such
land bits were found here. Mount Road, running SW, formed a tangent to the
loop opposite the villages of Komaleswaranpet and Pudupet on the northern
bank. The district through which this highway passed from the Govt. garden
to near Mackay’s Garden was known as Pudupak. It included the White’s
Road and Peters’s Road (later called), or part of them. Veerasanoor (called
after Veerasani, a lady?) was contiguous to Pudupak on its SW side. Land
lying between Mount Road and Spur tank to the west of the loop belonged to
Nungambakkam, while the almost circular area within the loop formed the
district of Egmore. Roads were inundated during monsoon downpours at
many lowlying stretches and particularly so near the rivers and irrigation
channels (from tanks). As a policy measure of bettering the road travel,
causeways and bridges were built across the rivers and channel crossings.

Bridges
The necessity of passable and straight roads in Madras was a long-felt desire
of its residents. The dust rose from the laterite soil, a ferruginous, of which
the roads were raised (Penny FE, 1908, pp. 61–2). The laterite was beaten
down with water and bound into a hard, smooth surface that was very
pleasant to drive over. The constant wear of cartwheels and the pounding of
hoofs, equine and bovine, reduced it in time to the finest powder, so fine that
it resembled an ‘ochre paint of Venetian red tint ready ground for mixing’. It
permeated everything and penetrated through clothing to the very skin. It
stained white material with which it came in contact, just as powdered paint
would stain it. Walking over such dust was impossible for ‘a lady who would
wear light garments and keep them spotless’. As for the smells, they were
indescribable. A friend of Pennys, who was on a visit to them, went for a
drive along the marina. The sea breeze had died away and there was a land
wind. The heat in the middle of the day was somewhat trying. The seasoned
old Anglo-Indian adopted the prudent course of wearing a sun hat in his
brougham. Finally, his dress was coloured all red. The dust had settled even
on the trees. Pits on the roads were covered with fine and slippery red mire.
Travel at night turned risky of bumps and fallings. Each ravine and flume
needed a strong masonry wall of aqueduct, causeway, or a bridge.
After the completion of the Exchange with the aid of lottery funds, the
profits of the annual lotteries were devoted to the Male Asylum, roads, and
other works of public utility including bridges. A causeway across the river
Cooum, situated at the site of the Commander-in-Chief’s Bridge, was one of
these works as urged and written by the Merchants of Madras (Association)
to Gov. Robert Hobart in May 1796:

We have the honour to inform your Lordship that, at the conclusion of

the drawing of the Male Asylum and Bridge Lottery, we advertised for
Plans to be laid before us for the construction of a Bridge over the River
between the Gardens of Colonel Richardson and the one lately occupied
by Major Hart, and also for Plans for Making a permanent Causeway
over the River at the same Place.
 (PC ccix, 27 May 1796)

The location was near the Umdabagh garden in Pudupak and the native
merchants contributed the necessary funds.13 The ‘Merchants’ Association’14
received only one plan for the bridge which, along with its explanation, was
submitted to the Chief Engineer for the purpose of ascertaining how far it
was calculated to answer the ends proposed by them. But as doubts had been
entertained regarding the security of a foundation in that part of Cooum due
to the presence of heavy silt and lose soil, the expense of a bridge of solid
masonry was much beyond their finances.
After ‘the most mature consideration’ of all the problems of the proposed
bridge, Col. Gent had proposed to make only a wide causeway for a twoway
traffic of carts, palanquins, and other vehicles. The estimated cost was about,
3,000 Pagodas. The Association reported to the Governor: ‘a Causeway of
this description will fully answer every purpose, and which, with your
Lordship’s Sanction, we shall carry into effect without delay’ (PC ccix., 27
May 1796). The then surplus cash for the last one and the profits of the
present lottery were to be appropriated to other public works on the ‘high
roads’, the first and most material of which was the construction of a
wooden bridge on brick piers over the swamp near the corner of the burial
ground on the road leading to Vepery, and which place the Chief Engineer,
when consulted, had given it as his opinion about the possibilities. Sanction
was duly accorded by the Govt. to the Merchants’ proposals and the bridge
was constructed with small piers. Triplicane road bridge was next in
importance in terms of the number of passing vehicles.
John Brohier, the Assistant Engineer, reported in May 1752 that the arched
bridge on the road to Triplicane was in a ruinous condition and that its repair
would cost upwards of Pags. 3,000. The Govt. decided to rebuild it,
advancing the money themselves and recovering it subsequently from
‘criminal forfeitures’ (PC lxxxi, 25 May 1752). The work was put in hand,
but so much damage was done by a cyclone in the following Nov. (1752)
that progress ceased, and the bridge remained impassable till 1754:

Triplicane Bridge having long been broken down, so that all passengers
and Carriages are oblig’d to wade thro’ the River, which is of great
inconvenience, and even prejudicial to the Settlement, the St. Thome
road being a very great thoroughfare, Temporary Bridge be made in the
place where the old bridge is broken down, of Sufficient strength for
 Carriages as well as foot passengers to pass, and that it be compleated
before the Monsoon sets in.
(PC lxxxiii, 19 Aug. 1754)

The NE monsoon of 1752 was ushered in by a severe storm on 31 Oct. and 1

Nov., and the public buildings sustained great damage. Havoc was played
with doors and windows in all directions. Walls were overthrown, the town
gates blown in, and serious injury was done to the Fort House, ‘the
apartments in General for the Company’s Servants in the inner Fort’, the
European and Coffreys’s barracks,15 hospital, mint, the causeway,16
Triplicane Bridge, etc. ‘The house of Mrs. Madeiros, occupied by the
Honble President…, received great damage’ (PC lxxxi, 5 Feb. 1753).
Brohier estimated, in 1753, that the repair of the EIC buildings would cost at
upwards of Pags. 4,000. The NE monsoon brought heavy floods. Consequent
on such damages the EIC had formed certain rules and regulations regarding
construction and maintenance of roads and bridges.
Construction of large structures was not allowed in small lanes unless
sufficiently large space was left for the purpose of road widening in the
future. Father Ferdinand applied for permission to rebuild and expand the
Capuchin Church in Armenian street. The Chief Engineer, Ross, found that
the site level was 10.5 feet above ‘the bridge near the Chinna Bazar’ and that
the projected building was to be 24 feet in height. He questioned the
propriety of allowing a structure of this altitude to be raised within 700 yards
of the Fort. The proposal was then modified and in its new form was
approved in 1785. Father Ferdinand became angry and requested again, now
directly:

There seems to be so many difficulties for the building a new Church

upon the Emplacement of the old one that I think (in order to displease
no body) to repair only that which is extant, which I hope you have no
objection to.
(Quoted in Love HD, 1913, iii, p. 294)

Ross’s letter of objections was not passed on to the Council. At last, no

objections were raised as it was passed in the modified form and that too in
the name of repairs. Of course, the same type of ‘considerations and
concessions’ were not granted to the ‘temple applicants’. Col. Gent proposed
the construction of parapet walls on the long bridge near the Governor’s
Garden, but the Govt. intimated that repairs of the old teak railings would
suffice. The next important work was the Marmalong bridge designed and
executed by private parties.

Old

Marmalong Bridge across the Adyar river was the credit of an Armenian
merchant of Madras, Petrus Uscan. This noble merchant constructed, in
1726, a long bridge of many arches over the river Adyar at the village of
Marmalong at the southern extremity of Madras known as the Marmalong
bridge. He spent over the bridge a sum of 30,000 Pagodas (each Pagoda
being equivalent to Rs. 3½) and left a fund for its maintenance (Seth MJ,
1992, p. 582). It seems that the amount, by all counts, is exaggerated. A fund
left for the maintenance of Uscan’s Marmalong bridge was administered by
the vestry. In 1785, the Government contributed some money as help in
consequence of the great use they had made of the bridge during the Hyder
war of 1780–2. St. Mary’s vestry reported to the Government in Jan. 1785,
when the ill state of the bridge was laid before him (PC cxxxv, 8 Jan. 1785).
Although a fund was left by the donor for the constant repairs, the vestry
found it insufficient in view of the major repairs. He claimed Govt. funds for
this purpose since the bridge was used for the ‘public service’. The damages,
he claimed, were caused by ‘the frequent passing over of gun carriages’ and
other heavy war vehicles. The stone pavement was worn out. Therefore, it
was necessary to cover it with a new coat of gravel (Ibid.). The necessary
help was extended to strengthen the bridge and the rest was met in the form
of local funds. The surprise here is that the vestry never explained the
neglect of the repairs before the war and threw the blame entirely on the war
traffic. Nor did he explain the use of those funds during the long period of
1726–82. The petition of ‘request for funds’ was signed by naval chaplains
Rev. Benjamin Millingchamp and Richard Leslie. They also reported about
the necessity of repairs to the bridges in and around the Fort.
Most of these bridges were damaged by the French in their occupation of
1746–9 and again in their siege of 1758–9. Watergate bridge on the west
front of the Fort was one of them. The progress of the fortifications on the
west front closed the channel of the river, which swept in a curve along the
old curtain. As Smith’s ditch could not safely carry the freshes, John Brohier
diverted the North- or Elambur river, in 1755, into a passage across the
Island, which had been cut by a flood in 1750. The diversion is plainly
shown in the map of 1755. Watergate bridge, constructed in 1714, remained
until the old bed was levelled up. Smith’s ditch was already traversed by
both a footbridge and a causeway; and it now remained to throw a
permanent work across the new diversion as written by John Brohier to Gov.
Pigot in 1755: ‘As the new Works stop entirely the Current of the River
which formerly passed under Water Gate Bridge, and that I have been
obliged to alter its Course thro’ a Channel, cut by the Freshes in 1750’ (PC
lxxxiv, 27 March 1755). The freshes of the monsoon of 1754 had carried
away the banks of this channel to nearly 180 feet wide, rendering impassable
without a temporary bridge. After the necessary surveys and estimations of
the expenditure, Brohier reported to the Government in March 1755: ‘It is
absolutely necessary to build a substantial one over it, with a Revetment to
the Banks of the Island to the Northward and Westward of this Bridge to
confine the Course of the Current within Bounds’ (Ibid.). Otherwise, the
banks were likely to be washed away in a very short time, rendering it
useless. A detailed item-wary estimate of the expenditure was annexed to the
report. When standard materials were used, the total amounted to Pags.
8,353. The bridge had to be provided with strong revetments on both sides.
The entire structure was likely to be washed away in the heavy floods if the
revetments were not built with quality materials available at some distance
on the outskirts. The matter was reported to the EIC in their letter of Oct.
1755, with all the details.17 The next in importance was the Walaja bridge
over Cooum in view of its heavy vehicular traffic.
Cooum was spanned by no fewer than ten bridges between Chetput and
the sea. Nine of them were fully of stone and worthy of a Presidency town
(Penny FE, 1908, pp. 80–4). The tenth was by no means ugly, but being of
iron, it was less picturesque. It was on the marina, where it carried the road
across the mouth of the Cooum. The most interesting of the stone bridges
was the one across the northern arm of the Cooum near the fort, called
Walaja bridge, erected by order of the Government in 1755 on piers which
had been laid about 1743. The fort gate opening on to the road passed over
the bridge. Major Knipe was appointed Chief Engineer in 1742; he was the
first of a long line to command the Madras corps, which was then in its
infancy. His attention was at once directed to the enlargement of the fort.
Before this could be done, it was necessary to deflect the river, which ran
close beneath the walls. Knipe lost no time in setting about the work in
1743; but it was not until the bed of the river was altered that the piers of the
new bridge could be built. Want of funds prevented him from completing it;
there was so much else that was more important to do (Penny FE, 1908, p.
80). The nawab considered it a great honour to have the bridge named after
him. It seems that he contributed a portion of the funds. Provision of the
infrastructural facilities had often been not only determined by the
availability of funds.

Island

Expecting the approval by the EIC, the Government assented to the

construction of the Island bridge, in 1755, with quality materials: ‘It is
therefore Agreed that sufficient Materials for the Purpose be first collected,
and that then the Work be set about and compleated with all possible
Dispatch, agreeable to a Plan thereof now laid before the Board and
approved’ (PC lxxxiv, 27 March 1755). The work was immediately started,
but there arose the scarcity of ‘skilled workmen’ at reasonable rates of wage.
The estimate shows that the bridge was to be 250 feet long and 24 feet wide,
built with masonry piers founded on wells. Two of the piers were of brick,
and the remainder of cut stone already prepared. The road surface was
composed of laterite blocks, and the bridge was floored beneath to prevent
scour. Training banks of 900 feet in length had directed the new channel to
the bridge site. Progress at first, however, was slow as reported to the
Directors in Oct. 1755: ‘As the Expence was inevitable, We order’d it to be
begun immediately, in hopes that it might have been compleated in about
four Months according to Mr. Brohier’s Proposal’ (quoted in Love HD,
1913, II, p. 493). But by unavoidable delays for want of skilled coolies, the
work was so greatly protracted that even the piers were not yet finished. The
scarcity of labour was due mainly to the low wages offered on the public
works. To meet this deficiency, the Government had passed an order:

It is Order’d that, after the 15th of next Month, no Person whatsoever,

either in the white or black Town, be permitted to employ any
Bricklayers, Carpenters or Blacksmiths, but that all such as can be
found be entertained on the Company’s Account.
 (PC lxxxiv, 27 March 1755)

The public notice was affixed at all the gates of the city. Accordingly, skilled
workers in required numbers were diverted from the private works to the
‘bridge works’.
The work was accomplished in 1756, but at a cost greatly exceeding the
original estimate. Writing to the EIC, the Council noted that the Bridge upon
the Island was completed. They felt sorry to observe that, instead of 8,000
Pagodas at which the cost was first estimated, final cost stood upwards of
18,000 (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 493). However, for convenience, a great part
of the glacis work was included in this bridge expenditure, since the ground
removed from the river bed was carried to form the glacis. At a later date,
the work was named the Walaja bridge, to correspond with the designation
of a new gate of the Fort to which it gave access. It seems that the Arcot
nawab ‘Walaja’18 had made some contribution to these works. Whenever the
private contributions were not forthcoming in required amounts, the
Government resorted to the lotteries.
After all the possible repairs and renovations, roads and bridges in Madras
were in a bad condition around 1790. They were cut up by the carriage of
heavy artillery, ammunition, and commissariat stores, and they required
remaking. The roads were remade on the plan under the direction of Major
TF De Havilland19 of the Madras Engineers – who was known as the best
road maker in Madras (Penny FE, 1908, pp. 31–2). Besides the roads, which
testified to Havilland’s excellent work, several handsome bridges spanning
the Cooum were built at various points, facilitating the increasing traffic of
the town. Charities in England also were benefited by the Madras lotteries.
James Lillyman Caldwell20 was Chief of the Madras Engineers at the time of
the projection of the scheme for building a cathedral in England, and he was
called upon to furnish the plans. He had already distinguished himself at the
taking of Bangalore (1791), where he was wounded and deemed an able and
distinguished officer. It seems strange that the man of war should be called
upon to design a cathedral; but the Government engineer, even in these days,
had to turn his hand to many things which would not be in his province in
England. Caldwell proved himself equal to the occasion and provided the
building committee with plans of which any modern architect might
reasonably be proud. The execution of the design was left to his subordinate,
the road making, bridge building. Havilland carried them out thoroughly and
to the entire satisfaction of the promoters. The Walaja bridge was a famous
engineering marvel that was named after the Arcot nawab. The style was
followed by other bridges. Other minor repairs to the roads and bridges were
carried on by spending the lottery funds. Being short of disposable funds, the
EIC Government had encouraged private lotteries as a justifiable source of
funds.

Lotteries
Not only roads and bridges but some other infrastructural activities were
financed by the proceedings of the lotteries in the 18th century. Lotteries
were organised to fund charities including the construction of churches in
the various locations of Madras. A spot was selected in the midst of the
luxurious homes of the Choultry Plain for a cathedral, and a park-like
enclosure was made and planted with trees: ‘The money was raised partly by
private donations; but the greater portion was the result of a lottery’ (Penny
FE, 1908, p. 30). Public lotteries, which were then legal, were started by
private enterprise in Madras in 1795, as a means of providing money to
support charities – the Male Asylum and others – connected with St. Mary’s
Church in the Fort. The Govt. imposed one condition upon the promoters but
otherwise did not interfere for the first few years. A certain portion of the
sum was to be set aside for the repair of the roads and bridges of Madras by
which the natives and the Europeans would equally benefit. These ventures
were called ‘the Male Asylum and Road Lotteries’, and they speedily sprang
into popularity with all classes. About 14 lakhs of rupees were raised
between 1795 and 1805, of which 13 lakhs went in prizes and one lakh in
charity (Ibid.).21 It seems that a few street temples called pillaiyar koils were
raised by small local lotteries as well as contributions by the rich native
merchants.
After the completion of the Exchange with the aid of lottery funds, the
profits of the annual lotteries were devoted to the Male Asylum, the roads,
and other works of public utility. The Committee of the Asylum and Road
Lotteries wrote to the Govt. in 1799:

In consequence of the Government Proclamation regarding Lotteries in

this day’s [30 Nov. 1799] Gazette, we have the honour to enclose a
 statement of the Produce of the Asylum and Road Lotteries, and of the
appropriation thereof, from their Commencement; and we request
permission to continue the Lottery for the same beneficial and public
purposes.
(quoted in Love HD, 1913, III, p. 516)

Most of these profits were used for infrastructural and welfare activities (see
Table 5.1).

Table 5.1 Male Asylum and road lotteries from 1 Aug. 1795 to 24 Nov. 1799
S.N. Activity paid for Pagodas

1 Repairs of the roads, in the vicinity of Madras 12,170

2 Military Male Asylum 6,000
3 Aid of the Mother Country 5,000
4 Construction of the causeway 2,917
5 Construction of the bridge near the burying ground 2,807
6 Construction of a Protestant church in Black Town 1,500
7 Balance 1,209
Total 31,603

Source: PC ccxl, 6 Dec. 1799

As a measure of encouragement, the Government ordered in Dec. 1799

that the Board so entirely approved the appropriation of the produce of the
lottery under the management of the Commissioners that it was resolved to
permit them to continue it for the same purposes of ‘public good’ (PC ccxl, 6
Dec. 1799). It was so because the financial burden on the Government was
reduced by the lottery profits.
After the death of Popham in 1795, his Black Town property was disposed
of. Chief Engineer Ross subsequently drew attention to the circumstance that
the bills of sale for grounds adjoining the canals in the Black Town
purchased from the representatives of Stephen Popham were not faced with
the conditions under which Popham held the ground. Those conditions,
prescribed on 2 May 1780, provided that 1) a channel should be cut through
the town and across the Esplanade to carry off storm water; 2) upper-roomed
houses might not be built within 100 yards of the Esplanade boundary; and
3) a strait road 50 feet in breadth shall be preserved the whole length of the
ground on the side next to the Mahratta-town, being the east side thereof,
and that such crossroads shall be left through the grounds sold as aforesaid
as may be sufficient for the convenience of the inhabitants to pass from one
side of the Black Town to the other. Ross accordingly enquired how the
channel was to be maintained in the future. The Government replied that the
duty must devolve on the proprietors of the adjacent ground and ordered that
the liability should be set forth on the Bills of Sale (PC ccxxxix, 27 Sept.;
and ccxl, 8 Nov. 1799). This was the ‘Madras method’ that the private
persons had maintained the public works.
At the commencement of direct British rule in the last decade of the 18th
century, the responsibility for roads and bridges came under the Maramut
Department, but the date of establishment of this Department is not clear.
The Department worked through the District Collectors and exercised charge
of all irrigation works, civil buildings, and roads and Collectors being
responsible but receiving no professional aid of any kind. The fact that
Collectors received no professional aid for such technical subjects is another
illustration of how sadly communications were treated in the earlier days.
Later on, regular engineering officers were appointed to assist Collectors and
received a designation of ‘Superintendent of Tank Repairs’. Road repairs
included the repairs of the old bridges and the construction of new ones.
Consequent on the removal to Black Town of the Master Attendant’s
Office and Custom house, the boatmen petitioned for the transfer of their
village, which was close to the nawab’s garden, to a more convenient site
and the necessary roads to be laid connecting their hamlets to the Black
Town. The Chief Engineer stated that their habitations south of the Fort
covered 45 acres, and he proposed to allot them 60 acres north of Black
Town. The Govt. resolved to allow compensation for the huts evacuated and
to build new ones 300 yards to the north of the northern rampart (PC
ccxxxix, 27 Sept. 1789). The new village was occupied on 5 Dec. 1789, but
the boatmen found the surroundings depressing. General Ross said they were
very desirous of removing two burning and burying grounds, and the
‘gibbets on which the male factors condemned by the Court of Admiralty
were lately hung’. The Government met their wishes by ordering that one of
the burial places mentioned in the letter of the Chief Engineer, belonging to
the Parsees, be allotted to them; and also that another spot of ground suitable
for the purpose, according to the notions of that people, might be pointed out
and allotted to them after compensating the owners (PC ccxli, 3 Jan. 1800).
It seems that the boatmen were not satisfied with these changes and pointed
out varied bottlenecks in the transport facilities.

Transport
The purpose of all the roads and streets is to facilitate smooth transportation
for the vehicles and easy movement of people from place to place. Transport
constitutes the most basic link that moves people, goods, and services from
the place of origin to their destination. It is a crucial factor shaping towns
and cities and can be both a driver and a consequence of decisions affecting
land use and the built environment. Urban transportation is a critical issue.
The time and money required for necessary urban travel eat into scarce
personal resources, while construction, maintenance, and operation of roads,
and other transportation modes devour huge chunks of governmental
budgets (see Pederson EO, 1980). Air pollution, energy consumption, and
visual blight are environmental problems directly associated with
transportation and its use. Transportation is essential for the maintenance of
human life and certainly for the existence of cities, but it imposes huge costs
on societies and individuals. Finding ways of achieving transportation goals
while minimising the costs is a major task for experts, governments, and
concerned citizens. Urban transport is a vital function in the daily life of any
city. Various transport modes move people and goods and give rise to forever
changing patterns of activities in a city (op. cit.). Transport is the most
important item of expenditure of the urban infrastructure. The circulation of
people and vehicles is a quintessential element of modern urban life. It was
only during the 18th century that a sophisticated theory of urban
communication flow emerged. Urban intellectuals and public officials
increasingly saw the ability of people and commerce to circulate freely
through the city as a mark of its health. Proper planning reduces the transport
costs.
The 18th-century Madras got a variety of transport, both water and land.
When visiting each other, it was common for people to be carried in covered
beds on the roads, 10–12 bearers were allotted to each palanquin supported
upon their shoulders (Munro I, 1789, p. 25). Such scenes were frequent on
the Chamier’s road and its lanes as also on many other main roads. Masulas
and catamarans were famous on the sea surf. Masulas were called so as they
were famously built in Masuli. Masula was a large but light conveyance boat
the planks of which were sewn together by coconut fibres (Fay E, 1817, p.
123). It was well suited to storm over the violent waves of Madras surf. The
other and safer conveyance boat was called catamaran. It was composed of
bamboos fastened together. Both of them were used mainly as fishing
vessels. Depending on the needs, they were used to transport goods and also
as passenger carriers. Roads and streets were used by a variety of vehicles.
James Cardiner reached the Madras roads on 13 June 1798. He landed safely
on the sandy shore. He found the surf often violent and tremendous. But as
only country boats were used, manned by the natives, there was seldom any
danger. The Madras boats were safely suited to the violent waves (Cordiner
J, 1820, p. 79). They were sewed together with cordage and built without a
single nail, so that, being elastic, they resisted the strength of the waves more
perfectly. While coming out to the shore, the rovers kept the head of the boat
very dexterously to the sea. And when coming on the shore, as soon as the
boat strikes the ground, they jumped out and dragged her on the dry beach.
The Madras roads were safer than many other places.
The boats used for crossing the surf are large and light, made of very thin
planks sewed together, with straw in the seams, for caulking would make
them too stiff; and the great object was that they should be flexible and give
to the water like leather; otherwise, they would be dashed to pieces. Across
the very edge of the boat were the bars on which the rowers sat. Two or more
men were employed at the bottom of the boat to bale out the water; they are
naked all but a turban, and a handkerchief fastened to the waist by a pack
thread. They were wild looking, and their appearance was not improved by
the crust of salt left upon their bodies by the sea water, and which generally
whitened half their skin. At one end of the boat was a bench with cushions
and a curtain for passengers, so that they were kept dry while the surf was
breaking round the boat (Graham M, 1813, p. 124). The boatmen took
special care of the newcomers and foreigners. The catamarans were stronger
than the ordinary boats. They were formed of two light logs of wood lashed
together, with a small piece inserted between them at one end, to serve as a
stem piece. They were always unlashed and laid to dry in the sun when they
came out of the water, as dryness was essential to their buoyancy. When
ready for the water, they held two men with their paddles, who launched
themselves through the surf to fish, or to carry letters and provisions to
ships, when no ordinary boat could venture out (op. cit., p. 127). These men
wore a pointed cap made of matting, in which they secured the papers with
which they were entrusted, though they should themselves be washed off
their catamarans a dozen times before they reach the place of their
destination. The number of catamarans was less than that of ordinary boats.
The particular beach police regulated the catamarans, accommodation boats,
and bar boats; the last only differed from the accommodation boats in being
smaller and less convenient (cited, p. 128). Small ones were called surf boats
(see Figure 5.1). Medals were given to the boatmen who had saved drowning
persons or who had distinguished themselves by fidelity in carrying papers
or conveying provisions and passengers through the high surf in dangerous
weather conditions. Next came transportation on roads and streets.
A variety of vehicles were found on the roads and streets of Madras.
Palanquins and wheel carriages were numerous amongst the higher ranks of
people. The road between the Luz and Santhome, as well as the streets of
Mylapore, presented a gay and busy scene. Palanquins, bright with scarlet
silk and lacquered woodwork, bore the dark-eyed Portuguese ladies to the
market in the city, while a bevy of gaily dressed slaves followed close upon
the heels of the chanting bearers. There was as much rivalry among the
ladies over the brave show made by their household as there was over their
own silken skirts and lace mantillas. The gentlemen, with flowing plumes
and satin cloaks, rode to their warehouses on the restless little Persian
horses. Strings of pack bullocks carrying bales of cotton goods to the seaport
and lines of porters bending beneath their loads of strange treasures that
were sent in exchange for the cotton and other Indian products passed to and
fro in a never-ending stream (Penny FE, 1908, p. 73). The native grandees
were, for the most part, conveyed in a two-wheeled bacary or gudubundy. It
was covered above and was ‘dragged by two or four beautiful white oxen’;
animals were held here in such high estimation, as not only to be used for
draught, but as idols of worship; and the Moorish ladies frequently ride upon
them cross-legged, they being carefully trained for the purpose (Munro I,
1789, p. 25). There were many horse carts on the streets while a few camel
carts were found here and there. Carts drawn by he-buffaloes were found in
the suburbs. Horses, horse carts or tongas, and bullock carts were used in
travelling long distances.
Long-distance travel was facilitated by wayside quarters called chatrams
or choultries. It was customary for travellers to carry their servants and
provisions along with them. They were put up in the wayside choultries,
which were built in convenient situations upon the roads, and in the vicinity
of towns, for the accommodation of passengers during the night or the
sultriest part of the day. These habitations were, for the most part, built from
charitable motives by the opulent Gentoos, as a convenience for the wearied
traveller. Choultries are generally constructed in the form of a square, with
the face open towards the north, and flat on the top (Munro I, 1789, pp. 82–
3). On the shady side of the most magnificent, several piazzas projected,
supported upon pillars, one without another, through which one ascended by
a flight of steps to the inner apartment, where the passenger reposed. His
servants took their stations in the varanda or outer hall. A tank of water and a
temple were always to be found in the neighbourhood of these choultries.
The poor natives generally gave way to the rich, and all those to a European
gentleman, if he chose to exact that deference.22 Vehicular movement in the
city at night was discouraged by the local police. Accidents like slipping and
falling were reported mostly in the rainy season and nights. The peons of
Peddanaick (police) helped the victims and reported the cases to him.
Highway robbers, thieves, cheaters, and fraudsters were punished by fines
and jail terms.

Conclusions
Roads were decorated by tree rows on either side. Vehicles moved, and
people and animals walked comfortably on either side under their shade
especially during the summer months. The infrastructural development –
overhaul, upgradation, and expansion – never lagged far behind the city’s
population growth. The sensitive understanding of the feelings, emotions,
anxieties, and thinking of the people of Madras was largely shaped into their
residential arrangements – houses, streets, roads, and petas with their
numerous lanes, alleys, and gullies. Besides the infrastructure, urbanisation
had been linked to the religious practices that had shaped the nature of urban
growth. Though Hinduism had been the chief religion in the city, people of
other faiths and denominations had contributed their liberal philanthropic
donations to the growth and development of this urban agglomeration during
those turbulent times. All these infrastructural developments displayed the
greatness of the collective labour with age-old memories guiding for a united
future of its inhabitants.
 The progressively extending urbanisation of the city had demanded the
introduction of many new things besides the expansion of the existing
infrastructural facilities. Roads, bridges, building spaces, gardens, and parks
were some of the items. There had been many applications pending with the
Government for spaces to construct temples and churches. All the
environmental and infrastructural developments were planned, shaped, and
constructed in conformity with the residential houses. All those innovative
measures encouraged the expansion of the housing sector that exhibited
many beautiful designs and new styles.

Notes
1 Some of them were called bazars, salais, and veedies in local languages.
2 Some of the stretches were laid and maintained by temples and other institutions.
3 On Cooum.
4 Thus, the Binnys of Madras had played a variety of roles.
5 Later came Ottershaw and Victoria Hotel.
6 It seems that a part of the river bank was reclaimed by revetments.
7 It is dated 27 May 1748. ‘Here lies- John Hollyburton-An Honest and Brave man – and-A
sincere lover of his country-who was basely murdered- on the 27th day of May 1748-By a
mutinous sepoy-At the siege of Pondy where he served-in quality of a Volunteer-Aged 31
years’ (Rangacharya V, 1939, p. 143).
8 Bandicoot alley in the Fort was after the name of that animal.
9 Gentu, Gentue, Gentoo, and Jentue refer to a Telinga person of Telugu race, and also to the
Telugu language; Portuguese, gentio means gentile, heathen (Love HD, 1913, I, p. 37; fn.3).
‘Gentoo castes’ was one of the common terms used to separate the Telugus from the Tamils
called Malabars (cited, iii, p. 128). This misnomer also is traceable to the Portuguese times.
10 Col. William Gent was the Acting Chief Engineer, 1793.
11 General John Pater (17?–1817) owned the house and Pater’s garden near the Madras club.
12 This was Francis De Silva, clerk and publican (vide Grant No. 276 of 14 April 1798, for
255, 471 square feet at the Luz). Further grants of land in the same locality were made to De
Silva in 1801 and 1803, at concessional prices.
13 Umdabagh-garden in Pudupak was owned by a rich merchant, C. Singannachetty, whose
house was in the Fort. It was called Powney’s House valued at 10,000 Star Pagodas in 1799
(Love HD, 1913, ii, pp. 511–12). He was one of the ‘fund contributors’.
14 Some of the merchants that signed the petition were the owners of 1) Colt, Baker, Day &
Co.; 2) Kindersley, Watts & Co.; 3) Chase, Sewell & Chase; 4) Tulloh, Jervis & Brodie; 5)
McDouall, Fraser & Hay; and 6) Stephens & Cockell (PC ccix, 27 May 1796). There had
been also some names of individual merchants including a few natives.
15 Coffreys’s barracks were on the island within Smith’s ditch.
16 The causeway crossed Smith’s ditch.
17 ‘A Channel having been cut by the Freshes cross the Island in the year 1750, the Banks of
it were, by the violence of the Waters, carried away to such an Extent as to become
impassable without Boats or a Bridge; and as temporary Works are in the End much more
expensive than Substantial Buildings at first, We consulted Mr. Brohier, who recommended
 a Bridge of Masonry as absolutely necessary, and estimate[d] the Cost at about Eight
thousand Pagodas’ (quoted in Love HD, 1913, ii, p. 493). Estimates varied with the quality
of the materials.
18 ‘Walaja’ was a title conferred on the Arcot nawab by the Mogul rulers.
19 Col. Thomas Fiott De Havilland (1771?–1866) belonged to a Guernsey family. He joined
the Madras Engineers in 1792 and took part in the crushing of Tipu in 1799 (Penny FE,
1908, p. 32). His name is associated with some other constructions.
20 Caldwell entered the Madras Engineers in 1789 and served in the two Mysore campaigns.
21 The management of lotteries grew beyond the capabilities of the few private individuals in
whose hands it had rested hitherto; and a committee was appointed in 1805 to inquire into
it. By the advice of this committee, a directorate was formed of six members, three being
servants of the EIC and three free merchants; and an agent, who was not in the service of
Government, was to act as secretary and manager on a fixed salary (Penny FE, 1908, p. 31).
Some such works were locally called ‘lottery roads’ and ‘lottery bridges’.
22 The natives respected the whites as doras, meaning lords.

6
HOUSING

DOI: 10.4324/9781003215493-6

Importance
Francis Bacon (1561–1626) said: ‘Houses are built to live in, and not to look
on; therefore let use be preferred before uniformity, except where both may
be had’ (Scott MA, 1908, p. 203). Houses were the basic units for which all
the infrastructural facilities were created. They can, by ownership, be
divided into private and public; and sometimes even corporate houses are
owned by corporate enterprises. Depending on their use, they fall into
residential and commercial categories. The same house unit may sometimes
serve both purposes. Residential houses are mostly privately owned and
generally smaller in size than public buildings which are owned generally by
the State. They are larger and stronger than the residential houses as they are
built to last longer. Places of religious worship also fall under the public
category except in some exceptional cases. Some of the public houses are
treated as ‘public goods’ also.
Housing is at the core of urbanisation.1 And real estate is a universally
flourishing business. The pattern and size of the houses is an index of the
economic status of the residents. Houses of varied sizes and types with
attractive architectural styles were built in the prosperous cities. Four main
types of urban accommodation are government construction, private houses,
squatter housing, and slums (see Pasteur D, 1979). The city’s peripheries and
suburbs supplied the raw materials for its infrastructural and house
construction activities.2 The cities with architectural houses and beautiful
buildings are the primary drivers of economic development.3
A city is made up of houses. The quality of its infrastructure is determined
mainly by the quality of its houses. The economics of housing is
conceptually concerned with the study of the supply and demand for all
types of shelters (see O’Sullivan A and Gibb K, 2002). It covers all aspects
of production, distribution, and pricing of dwellings in a given area. The
quality of the houses is determined by the incomes and tastes of the dwellers
given the geographical, environmental, and climatic conditions. Thus,
housing is both a contributor and an index of economic development. Some
of the economic issues are the land and other input prices, sales and
transactions costs, taxes, and problems related to the infrastructure. ‘Housing
is an inherently complex commodity with special fixity a defining
characteristic, and asset, investment and consumption dimensions to account
for, the economics of housing remains a challenge’ (cited, p. 1). Its
productivity depends upon the type of its use. A commercial building is
costlier than another similar but residential house. The productivity of a
residential building increases when it is used for a school, hospital, or for
producing useful goods. The British housing policy had included many such
alternative uses (Cullingworth JB, 1969). Their policies had adapted
effectively to the changing demands. The English EIC followed a need-
based, flexible, and adaptive housing policy following the house shortages
after their re-entry into Madras.4

Shortages
Shortage of houses was due to the sudden and heavy influx of the people
into the city in 1749. Entering the ‘half demolished’ city in Aug. 1749, the
English found that everything had to be done anew to restore the normal
working life of the city. Housing became an urgent problem to start with.
More than half the houses in the ‘native-town’ were either destroyed or
demolished or damaged while many others were ruined beyond repair.
Proper maintenance and necessary repairs were neglected during the three
long years of French occupation (1746–9). When Boscawen (1711–61) and
Stringer Lawrence (1698–1775) hoisted the union flag once more over the
Fort on 21 Aug. 1749, the merchants came flocking back to their ruined
homes as gladly as if each had received a fortune – ‘a testimony honourable
alike to them and to the English’ (Dodwell H, 1920, Intro.). Madras attracted
so many newcomers in addition to the returnees that it became very difficult
to provide them decent living spaces. Some of them were accommodated
under cloth deras (tents); they leaked often during the heavy monsoon
downpours. The Europeans suffered more than the natives.
Many of the former European residents who abandoned the city had now
returned with a hope of restarting their broken lives and closed businesses.
But the English grew suspicious of the Catholic priests and the Armenians,
because they engaged with the French and extended them sizable funds.
Consequently, the Armenians were asked to withdraw from the White Town
after selling their houses to the European Protestant merchants
(Srinivasachary CS, 1939, p. 161). Enquiries with the residents revealed that
the Armenians were forced to support the French grabbers so as to save their
business establishments while the Catholic priests could not avoid their
temptation of ‘catholic affinity’ with their ‘French brothers’.5 The English
concluded, on several enquiries, that the gentle Armenians were ‘less risky’
than the ‘vicious Catholic priests’. The EIC found this event as an
opportunity to meet their housing shortages by vacating these unfaithful
parties from their spacious bungalows. Orders were immediately issued for
vacation of the ‘unwanted elements’ both from the Fort and the native petas.
Of course, shortage of houses became a popular excuse. However, this
revengeful measure could not fully solve the shortage problem: it was
followed by numerous other developments.
There had been tremendous growth in the Madras housing sector as
incomes rose after the rendition. Housing, in its varied shapes, sizes, and
heights, had accordingly received an unprecedented fillip during the next
half-century. Houses varied widely in size and variety from the White Town
to Black Town; from the grand and stately buildings in the former to varied
types and sizes of houses in the latter surrounded by many tiny thatched huts
in the suburbs. With the restoration of trade and other activities, there had
been a growing number of traders’ and weavers’ families returning. They
began to repair, renovate, and rebuild the old or else built moderate new
houses. Each couple occupied its own house after marriage in Madras while
joint families were not uncommon staying in the multi-roomed bungalows.
Some newly migrated workers, soldiers, and bachelors had shared common
accommodation. Many families bathed outdoors in rivers, tanks, and ponds
in the suburbs. Most of the day was spent outdoors around or near the houses
or fields. Cooking was conducted outdoors in earthen stoves powered by
firewood, dung-cake, and other organic fuels. Water was obtained by hand-
drawn buckets from the nearby wells. Men performed their ablutions in the
designated spots throughout the day. European visitors to the suburban
villages found residents squatting down for an afternoon card game under
the trees or while sitting on charpois (traditional hand-made beds) brought
outside during the day. Most of the people used to visit the nearby temples
early in the morning or in the evening. Consequently, they used their indoor
space primarily to sleep, change dresses, and store grain and other valuables.
In spite of all these ameliorating measures, it was common sight to find a
number of houseless people sleeping on the pavements and in the temple
precincts.6
There was a scarcity of ‘usable houses’ as indicated by high rents. It was
not as easy to repair the houses since the revival and re-establishment of the
businesses had already absorbed their meagre incomes.7 The EIC itself was
in a bad shape after three years of fighting and meagre trade incomes. And
rehabilitation posed numerous problems. Proper settlement of the old
residents in the city seemed to be the only way of reviving any meaningful
business. And sufficient and suitable housing was at the base of
rehabilitation. The shortage of housing in the city could not bear the official
delays. The EIC ordered that Fort St. George should be subordinate to Fort
St. David and appointed Richard Prince8 to be the Deputy Governor of the
former, with Messrs. Richard Starke, John Smith, William Smyth King, and
John Walsh9 as his Council (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 401). Admiral Edward
Boscawen, Foss Westcott, and Alexander Wynch10 also left Madras on 11
Oct. 1749; and, pending the arrival of Prince and the Council, Stringer
Lawrence11 remained the sole administrator. He arrested Barnevall and de la
Mettrie12 on 11 Oct. 1749, but the next day accepted Mrs. Madeiros’s bond
of £20,000, for their appearance in Jan. 1750.13 Shortage of houses was still
acute, but he could not act immediately on these complex issues without
proper directions from the experienced EIC authorities. Therefore, Lawrence
was looking for some temporary measures, mainly acquisitions.

Acquisition
Acquisition of the suitable private houses seemed to be the immediate
solution of meeting the shortage of housing space to the administrative
offices. New constructions were costlier and the gestation period was longer.
Moreover, the EIC lacked the necessary funds. Search began for costless
methods including the least cost acquisitions. Timely, it was alleged that the
French allowed their friends and supporters to settle in the houses vacated by
the fleeing residents. The opportunity was used by some of the Portuguese
elites and priests.14 A list of houses to be confiscated, as belonging to
persons who had lived under French protection, was accordingly prepared
and sent to Boscawen. He ‘agreed that a Letter be wrote to Major Lawrence
containing Our Directions for the Seizure of them’. The list contained the
houses of some of the prominent persons of ‘French Madras’ (1746–9): 1)
Francis Carvalho in Charles Street; 2) de la Mettrie in Thomas Street, and
another in Middle Gate Street, where he resided; 3) Francis Barnewall; 4)
Don Jeronimo; and 5) Bailleau in Choultry Gate Street; 6) the house and
garden of Melon to the northward of the White Town; 7) the house lately
belonging to Signora Estra15 at Mile End; and 8) the Romish Church in the
White Town of Madras, together with its Bell and Branches, but the images,
etc., to be delivered to Father Severini16 (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 402). These
houses could accommodate some privileged categories; natives continued to
stay in the overcrowded dwellings of their relatives and friends. Labourers
were found living on the roadside and under tree shades. The next targets
were the rich Portuguese merchants, Capuchins, and Armenians.
Another immediate measure of relief was planned by Boscawen during his
stay at Madras in 1749. He discovered that Roman Catholics residing at
Santhome, who composed the greatest part of the European inhabitants of
this place, were, by the influence of their priests, attached to the French as
brethren of the same persuasion. By the constant intercourse arising from the
vicinity, the priests of Santhome were enabled to get intelligence of the
transactions of the English at Madras and never failed to communicate them
to Dupleix,17 who announced that Muzafar-jang the subadar (of Deccan)
had made over the property of Santhome to the French EIC.18 To remove the
current inconveniences and to prevent the greater detriments which would
arise by the establishment of a French garrison near Madras, Boscawen took
possession of Santhome, in 1749, for the English EIC. The English flag was
hoisted on many houses in the town, and a small redoubt, capable of
containing about 30 men, was raised at the mouth of the river. But the need
was for more houses, and confiscation was one of the ways to increase the
number of the liveable houses.19 This was followed by the almost same type
of evacuations in the Fort after the necessary notifications.
The Portuguese became an easy target. The Capuchins, who had been
directed to hand over Andrew’s Church by 20 Nov. 1749, asked for more
time, and an extension until 1 Dec. 1749, was granted upon the request of
the Capuchin Missionaries sent to Fort St. David on 16 Nov. 1749:

The Humble Petition of Father Severini of Savoy and of Father

Bernard, likewise of Savoy, Capuchins of the Order of St. Francis,
Apostolick Missionaries at Madras, performing the Curial Office in the
Portugueze Church there, Sheweth That Your Petitioners, having
received Intimation the 13th November 1749 OS [Old Style] from
Major Stringer Lawrence, Governour of Madras, … that the Honble
East India Company does take possession of the said Portugueze
Church, … Likewise of a Chappel and Habitation situated to the West
of Madrass called Vepour;20 and that they and other Roman Catholicks
must depart the Whitetown with their Effects and Appurtenance within
One week from that notice; Do humbly submit themselves to the
pleasure and Will of Your Honour. &c., and are ready to leave the Place.
(quoted in Love HD, 1913, II, p. 403)

They were extremely embarrassed to remove in so short a time the large

‘Gilded Alters’ and other appurtenances and utensils. Expecting a favourable
consideration in view of their services to the Christian religion, they begged
to prolong the term. The Capuchins knew well that the English were
punishing them out as they supported the French in Madras on religious
grounds; and of course, it was necessary also to protect their interests in
those troubled times. The EIC also enquired about the fate of the co-accused,
the Armenians.21
Armenians too were forced to follow the orders. The EIC had, in 1749,
passed that ‘for the future no Armenian whatsoever be allowed to inhabit the
Whitetown; and that such of them as at present possess houses there do
forthwith dispose of them to European Protestants’. After being urgently
informed by the Capuchins, Coja Petrus Uscan (1680–1751) had promptly
protested on 18 Nov. 1749 against the transfer of Vepery Chapel and the
native huts around it. Uscan addressed a long letter with many complaints to
Fort St. David, 25 Nov. 1749:

I cannot help acquainting your Honour, &c., of my great Surprize to

find that there is an Order of Council sent here some Days ago to
deliver up the Chappel and other Buildings at Viparie to the Danish
Missionaries, notwithstanding the Remonstrances I have made by
Letters to the Honourable Governour Floyer to the Contrary, and to
which (by the by) his Honour has not vouchsafed me an answer
hitherto.
(quoted in Love HD, 1913, II, pp. 403–4)

Being a rich merchant with local fame and name as a liberal philanthropist,
he questioned the legal authority of the English Government: ‘It will be a
great Satisfaction to me if Your Honour, &c., will please to let me know by
what Law or Authority you give away my Property at pleasure’ (Ibid.). He
tried to clear himself from the attributed blemishes: ‘It may perhaps be
imagin’d that 1 have made over Viparee Chappel, &c., to the Romish Priests,
and of consequence that it is their Property; but I declare I have done no
such thing’ (Ibid.). As the legal card failed, Uscan resorted to other points.
He reminded the Governor that the Vepery Chapel was originally intended
for the use of the poor beggars of Madras. Stating that he spent a large part
of his money there on the poor, Uscan claimed his money back amounting
upwards of 4,000 Pagodas.22 It seems that Uscan had intentionally
exaggerated his case.23
Uscan knew well that the Government would not reimburse such
philanthropic amounts. Alternatively, he quoted examples that he had no ill
will to the Danish Missionaries nor to any Christian Missionaries. Lastly,
Uscan implored for English justice. The request was considered at length in
view of the past services of the Armenians to the English EIC; but the
Council said finally that, as the Capuchins had claimed a right in it, the
orders must stand and no such exemptions on religious grounds could be
permitted in such difficult times due to the shortage of liveable houses.24 In
reporting the matter regarding the seizure of the houses, Lawrence observed:
‘I find myself greatly at a Loss for somebody who is acquainted with the
Civil Business, and to keep up all the Accounts’ (cited, p. 402). Lawrence
addressed the problems faced in seizing the houses necessary for the ‘public
offices’ in his letters to Fort St. David. He complained that as the help
rendered by Robert Clive (1725–74) was insufficient,25 he wanted more
staff, as there was a ‘good deal of writing’ (Ibid.). He was glad to invite any
civil employ, the EIC pleased to appoint in Madras, to assist him as he was a
stranger here. The owners and residents of the seized houses, chiefly Uscan,
blamed Lawrence as though he was against the Catholics and Capuchins and
ignorant of religious matters.
Religiosity crossed the common rationalities in many of these cases.
Fathers Severini and Bernard, in reporting that they had vacated St.
Andrew’s Church, asked permission to stay near the White Town at such
place as that where the English churchyard was situated, or any other place
that they should think fit to grant them, with the free exercise of their
religion towards those of their Communion as they had hitherto been
allowed. The Council came out favourably in this case and immediately
placed them in possession of the Romish Church situated at Mile End. The
reason for this relaxation of the EIC orders was justified at length in Dec.
1749:

As the papers found in the House of Padre Antonio of Purification at St.

Thome26 were Evident Proofs of their having a firmer Regard for Our
Interest than that of the French; for which reason, and as our Boat
People,27 who are of that Communion, may probably be induced to
leave Us should We expell them Our Limits, It’s Agreed to Comply
with their Request, and that the Romish Church Situated at Mile End28
be delivered over to them.
(quoted in Love HD, 1913, II, p. 404)
The entire sympathy boiled down to the religious grounds that a part of the
Madras ‘boat people’ were converted Christians and they demanded houses
to be constructed around the Romish Church. Extended in this way, first the
Portuguese followed by the Dutch and the French and later the English – all
these civilised European traders-cum-colonial rulers were sympathetic
towards their religious missionaries; and little sympathy was shown to the
numerous Hindu petitioners to places and houses. This partiality was often
shown also in other cases of employment and wages. After religion, bribery
played its own game. As to the houses to be confiscated, Barnevall’s in
Choultry Gate Street and one at the Mount, as well as de la Mettrie’s town
residence and houses and gardens he had bought of Torriano, being all
mortgaged, the two owners were permitted, against the EIC rules, to sell
them. The house lately belonging to Signora Estra was exempted for
unknown reasons. The remainder were appropriated for the EIC. With the
exception of Coja Shawmier, whose house in Charles Street, it was thought,
might be wanted for public purposes, the Armenians were allowed to sell
their property, but only to European Protestants. Coja Petrus Uscan retained
his right of residence in Choultry Gate Street and Shawmier and Gregorio
were allowed to stay for a year out of some special considerations.29 After
exhausting all these short-time measures, the EIC resorted to other
alternatives, mainly repairs.

Repairs
Repairs were far less costly, and the time required was far shorter than
building new houses. Private parties were attracted to repair the damaged
house properties by open auctions and other convenient methods. The
Choultry Court was re-established at Madras before the end of 1749. The
EIC Old Garden, which had been damaged by the French, was let out to
Lingichetti and Guruvappa30 for Pags. 250, and also the paddy fields and salt
pans to the same persons for an annual rent of Pags. 750. Some of their
surrounding properties were leased out to the rich native merchants on
condition of carrying out the necessary structural repairs. Meanwhile, the
Church wardens of St. Mary’s produced their accounts at the end of 1749
and announced that several persons who were indebted to the Church were
ready to pay their dues so that they could arrange housing to the needy and
poor Christians, especially the Europeans (PC lxxvii, 16 Dec. 1749).
A new Vestry was immediately constituted, and a meeting was held on 3
Jan. 1750 to discuss the budget and housing proposals. The prominent
persons present were Richard Prince, Foss Westcott, Richard Starke, William
Smyth King, John Walsh, the Rev. George Swynfen, Nicholas Morse,
Thomas Eyre, Edward Harris, Cornelius Goodwin, Samuel Greenhaugh,
Joseph Fowke, Henry Powney, William Percival, Charles Boddam, John
Pybus, Andrew Munro, Captain John Standard, George Jones, and Captain
Charles Hopkins.31 The list shows that several of the former European
residents were prompt in returning to Madras. The English had encouraged
the church and the Christian missionaries in a way and up to the level that
they were useful in securing and expanding their trade interests. To spread
both of them, the old Madras territory became too narrow in the changed
circumstances. In other words, territorial expansion at least around the half-
demolished ‘native city’ was a sine qua non for its rebuilding. Their future
security and prosperity, they thought, would depend entirely on the pace of
enmeshing the surrounding villages with the city. An unofficial cost-benefit
account arrived at by the previously mentioned ‘gentlemen’ in their meeting
in the church showed that Santhome was the immediate and most
advantageous of the contemplated ventures aimed mainly at solving the
housing shortages.32 Consequent on expansions, the Fort began to lose its
business to the outskirts.
Starting with the rendition in 1749, the importance of the Fort as a place
of ‘White residency’ had declined. They began to construct their palatial
residential buildings mostly out of it; although, owing so much to foreign
ideas, the Fort remained ‘characteristically English’ (Parkinson NC, 1937, p.
39). The fortifications, which costed more than 1½ million sterling, were
intended to shelter the whole white population, but the English drew the line
at this. They would pay for a fort, if there had to be one, but they resolutely
refused to live in it. And, on this principle, they had all gone to live
somewhere else. Consequently, the Fort contained only the offices in which
business was transacted between the hours of 11 and 3. During the rest of the
day, the English inhabitants, including the Governor himself, were to be
found at their garden houses, scattered in the vicinity. Mount Road, a
principal place of resort for their carriages in the cool evenings, was five
miles from the Fort. Even the theatre was in the countryside; so that the
ground to a considerable distance round Madras presented to the view a
multitude of green gardens, spread over an extent so great, as to prevent
persons who reside at the opposite extremities from visiting each other,
unless on horseback or in carriages; the palanquins in many instances were
insufficient for the purpose (cited, p. 40). Some of these gardens were
extremely beautiful, and the houses were in general elegant. Some of them
were neighboured by the residences of the rich native merchants.33 Now the
Fort was called ‘official’ or English or European Madras. The EIC at this
stage began to list out the evacuees.

Evacuees
The evacuees were of three categories. The first were those whose houses
were confiscated by the EIC. Second were those whose houses were
acquired by the EIC at a nominal price as in the case of the Armenians. All
those persons who sold their houses to the EIC or to the private parties at
market price constituted the third category. The residence of Mrs. Madeiros
in Triplicane was acquired by government a few months later, to replace the
spacious EIC Garden House in Peddanaikpet, which had been demolished by
the French. The new property was gradually developed into the government
house and park as it was always usual for the EIC to allow the President a
house in the country to retire to. And Mrs. Madeiros was willing to dispose
of her house, situated in the road to Santhome, for 3,500 Pagodas. The EIC
agreed to purchase it accordingly and convert it into the EIC Garden House.
Mrs. Madeiros’s property was convenient for that purpose. On a survey, it
was esteemed worth much more than the sum it was offered at (PC lxxxi, 28
Aug. 1753). The house had been acquired in the past by Luis de Madeiros,
but the full name of the previous native chetty proprietor was not known.
The building certainly belonged to Madeiros when the French captured
Madras. The Government took it over before the end of 1753: ‘The
Secretary lays before the Board a Bill of Sale from Mrs. Madeiros duly
executed, and other Titles of the Garden House beyond Triplicane Bridge in
the Road to St. Thome’ (PC lxxxi, 26 Nov. 1753). They agreed in and
ordered that the purchase money of 3,500 Pagodas to be paid. Its actual
worth in terms of market value was much more than this amount since it had
a house with a masonry foundation on a raised ground and surrounded by a
developed garden with many medicinal herbs and fully grown trees, a
number of them being fruit-bearing. Some more suitable houses around were
also acquired at reasonable prices. In spite of all these measures, the
situation of deficiency of houses still continued in view of the increasing
immigrant waves.34 The immigrants had far outnumbered the evacuees.
Once the Presidency was shifted from Kadalur back to Madras in April
1752, the immigration into the city bulged. Leaving the limited and small
places in the Fort, some big traders and the rich EIC servants began to settle
in the Black Town and in the villages beyond. Applications for land units
poured in, following declaration of the Government that it owned all the
vacant lands. Captain Edmund Maskelyne, Clive’s brother-in-law, applied in
July 1753 for a piece of land west of Vepery. He was informed that a grant
would be made directly when the cowle to the renters of the Egmore villages
had expired. Doubtless, he obtained the land, four grounds in the angle west
of the [later] Perambur barracks’ road and north of Pursewakam high road
called later ‘Maskelyne-thotam’.35 Maskelyne’s application to the Governor
had specified that piece of land: ‘there being a spot of ground to the
westward of Vepara, uncultivated, which the renters are willing to let me for
an house and garden upon, to comprehend the extent of 604 square feet’36
(PC lxxxi, 2 July 1753). It was granted on the same terms and conditions
usually allowed in these cases. This was an area in Pursavakam where some
EIC servants had already acquired large plots of lands and built spacious
residential houses after leaving their ‘crammed quarters’ in the Fort. Some of
them got attractive prices for their small houses in the Fort.37 Others had
rented out their houses in the Fort and began constructions on these rural
plots, sometimes measured in acres.
A significant number of persons had to leave the Fort as their houses were
acquired by the EIC mostly for public purposes. Alexander Wynch owned a
house on the east side of St. Thomas Street, by the half-moon battery, and
fronting the east end of St. Mary’s Church.38 On Col. Scott’s
recommendation, the nearby battery was enlarged by absorbing ground
which lay behind the house. A plot on the north side of the building was
accordingly granted to Wynch in lieu thereof.39 Wynch also owned a house
on the west side of the street, next and south of the church. He sold both
residences in 1756 to Captain Dugald Campbell,40 from whom they passed
later to Charles Bourchier. Wynch’s country residence was situated at
Chepauk marked by a large compound and tall trees.41 Some rich native
merchants and landlords owned the surrounding houses. Most of the houses
built by the Europeans in the suburbs had basically resembled those that
were left in the Fort except their size and the surrounding compounds. This
movement turned into a blessing in disguise as the value of the suburban
properties had increased many times. The demand for lands and houses in
Chepauk had increased due mainly to its proximity to the Fort and its
improved infrastructural facilities. The private houses and temples of
Chintadripet became the next target of the EIC. The strongly united
Chintadri devotees (bhakta sangam) fought and safeguarded their temple
and other properties. The EIC could not dare to oppose the weavers, even in
silly cases. The next attraction was the nawaby Chepauk, a privileged
place.42 The demand for lands and houses in Chepauk had increased due
mainly to its proximity to the Fort and its improved infrastructural facilities.
It was preferred by local dignitaries, Muslims, and the nawab’s servants.
Sampati Rau, the Nawab’s dewan, was desirous of purchasing the
property in Chepauk which once belonged to Signora Estra Gregorio,43 and
which passed from her to Lawrence van Buytendyke. The house had lately
been occupied by Deputy Governor Starke. It was a substantial building, and
the dewan offered Pags. 2, 200 for it. There was some divergence of opinion
in the Council as to whether the purchase should be allowed; and it was
eventually decided to refuse permission.44 It seems that the EIC had an eye
on this strategically located property. Sampati Rau subsequently acquired a
large house in Black Town where the EIC too was trying for some such large
houses.45
Next, the EIC faced the problem of a lack of suitable accommodation for
the state guests as stated by the Council in 1754: ‘we have sometimes been
put to great inconveniences in accommodating Strangers; such we mean
whose stations or character entitle them to publick notice’ (quoted in Love
HD, 1913, II, p. 464). At present, for want of a suitably accommodative
place, they were obliged to take up with what conveniences were to be met
with in a punch house. In the absence of hotel accommodation other than
was afforded by the punch houses, the Council had appropriated one of the
confiscated buildings for the reception of distinguished strangers. After it
had been in use for some time, they asked for the formal sanction of the
Directors in Nov. 1754:
 If your Honours will permit us to set apart one of the confiscated
houses for that purpose, and furnish it decently, it wou’d not only
answer that end, but serve likewise to accommodate your servants on
their first arrival from England or from the subordinates.46
(Ibid.)

This had to serve as a temporary accommodation till they otherwise were

provided for. Thus, the confiscated properties, the houses and gardens, were
put to better uses by the EIC than during the time of the French grabbers.47
Consequent on this swift pace of transactions and evacuations, the litigation
had increased in the Madras Courts which were too poorly equipped to deal
with this rush and the resulting problems.

Problems
Litigation about houses and house sites became rampant. Land grabbers and
squatters claimed many unoccupied spots and raised some huts and sheds.
House sites were mortgaged and then sold under false titles (see Chapter 4
supra). Even the EIC house acquisitions could not avoid the all-pervading
litigation, frauds, and corruption. The Mayor’s Court resolved in 1755 to
revive a rule of practice of 5 June 1733 and deal summarily with petty
causes involving values not exceeding Pags. 20 and not less than Pags. 5 (PC
lxxxiv, 15 Jan. 1755). Under the Charter of George II of 1753, suits for sums
not exceeding Pags. 5 were tried by Commissioners of a Court of Requests.
This Court, like that of the Mayor, sat in the Town Hall; but in 1757, a
difference arose between it and the Mayor’s Court as to its accommodation.
In consequence partly of this difference, Daniel Morse, the Registrar of the
Mayor’s Court, addressed the Government in a letter with surprising
information regarding the buildings in use. The house which was occupied
by the Mayor’s Court was a Town Hall since the re-establishment of the
Court. It was mortgaged to the former Court in June 1746 by Joseph Smith,
the then Gunner of Madras for the sum of Pags. 2,000, lent to him by the
Court at 7% per annum (PC lxxxvii, 20 June 1757). It remained so
mortgaged when the Court was re-established; the old Court House48 then
was in a very ruinous condition and not fit to be occupied unless it was
entirely rebuilt, which, he stated, would take much time and require a large
sum, besides having to employ scarce materials which were necessary for
the fortifications. The Court thought it most expedient to use the mortgaged
house for assembling in, even if the whole house had only a ground floor
with a low roof, which rendered the room in which the Court assembled very
close, as it was too small also for the purpose. Holding courts in such a
house constantly once a week, and very often twice, for three hours, and
frequently for five hours, for nearly four years in this hot town had been
found extremely inconvenient. Incidentally, an advertisement appeared at the
Fort gates in Aug. 1756 that the executor of Petrus Uscan was to sell a large
house49 which was built by Petrus Uscan before 1746, in Choultry Gate
Street, then occupied by Ephraim Isaacs.50 The decision to purchase that
house was left to Mayor Mackay and his Aldermen justices so that they
could free it from these ticklish problems.
Mayor George Mackay and the Aldermen considered that that house, by
having a more spacious and airy upper-room hall, with proper rooms on each
side in good repair for offices, was in every respect more suitable and
convenient for the Mayor’s Court than any other house that was likely to
offer in the future. And the Corporation found, upon examination, that the
funds which they possessed would go nearly, if not be quite sufficient, for
the purchase of Petrus’s House. Therefore, it was agreed that the Corporation
should as much as possible avoid putting the EIC to any ‘extra expence’ for
building or purchasing a court house (Ibid.). The Mayor reported the matter
accordingly to the President; and the latter desired him to signify to the
Corporation that there was no intention of purchasing the House for the EIC,
nor had he any objection to its being purchased by the Corporation for their
own use. And further likewise, the President acquainted the Mayor that the
President and Council had leave from the Court of Directors to build a town
hall, but that the members of the Court must be very sensible that it could
not, without great inconvenience, be undertaken till the fortifications were
properly erected. Hereupon, the resolution which the Corporation had come
to, at their former meeting, for purchasing the house was confirmed; and it
was further proposed that, if the money which the Corporation possessed
should fall anything short of the purchase money, the deficiency might be
taken up as a loan to the Corporation under the head of ‘sundry persons
unknown’.51 But they had not found it necessary to put in execution the last
part of the purpose of the Corporation, as there had been no occasion to take
up any money at all for completing the purchase of the house. They bought it
cheap for Pags. 5,000 on 26 Aug. 1755, to be delivered on the first May
thereafter, and the money to be paid fully at the delivery. Another large
house was acquired by the EIC at a favourable price of Pags. 3,150. This
house was mortgaged by Joseph Smith and sold by his representatives. No
persons whatsoever appearing as original owners, the whole sum of the
purchase money was completed. It was thought that there would be no
further problems.52
But the picture took an unexpected turn. Almost all the preserved cash
books of the former Courts from 1688 to July 1746 were thoroughly
searched; and it appeared that the Mayor’s Court, which was established by
the EIC’s Charter in 1687, had ‘Grants of Revenues and Fines’, etc., which
produced enough funds for building a town hall, bridges, and other public
works, and also left some stock to the (municipal) Corporation. And some of
these revenues were lessened by some means not particularly known at this
distance of time, before the Charter granted in 1727 came into operation in
Madras. Yet such revenues as continued from the old Corporation to that
which was then re-established in 1749 seem for some years to have exceeded
the current expenses of the Court. Finding the revenues much decreased, the
Court gave up, in 1743, to the President and Council on behalf of the EIC,
their rents and revenues for the bank-sall, Sea Gate and weighing duty, etc.,
on condition that the EIC should bear the expenses of court keeping as it
served public needs. The Corporation was thus finally provided with a house
after clearing all litigations. However, the housing problems did not end
here.
The Corporation found it necessary to represent to the Directors that the
Gaol,53 which belonged to the Court, was bad and inconvenient for the
confinement of the debtors, or even felons. It was the ground floor room of
the old Court House in a ruinous condition.54 The only part of that house that
then remained was not so properly situated as it ought to be. The
Corporation was of opinion that the one-storey house which stood behind
their present house, belonging to the Church, and likewise a warehouse
which stood betwixt that house and the Church, belonging to Suncu
Ramachetty, a Gentoo merchant, ought to be purchased, as they faced the
new Barracks.55 And a proper Gaol might be made that would be close to the
Court House and rendered as convenient and comfortable to poor debtors.
These purchases and alterations would not cost a great deal. The Court of
Requests was established by His Majesty’s Charter for easy and speedy
recovery of small debts. The Corporation did not hesitate as to the
reasonableness of accommodating that Court with a proper place to hold
their Courts in the house lately purchased and now possessed by this
Corporation (PC lxxxvii, 20 June 1757). This information was in the letter
from Daniel Morse, Registrar, dated 6 June 1757. In forwarding this letter to
England, the Government suggested that the ground floor of the new Town
Hall should be converted into a Gaol. They had permitted the Court of
Requests to sit in ‘the General-hall under the Consultation Room in the Fort-
house’ (Love HD, 1913, II, pp. 500–1). This statement throws some light on
the internal arrangements of the Fort House. Meanwhile, Madras was under
the French threats of destruction in 1758, with likely demolitions.
The doubts proved true very soon. The Town Hall and adjacent buildings
sustained serious damage during the French siege of Madras, 1758–9. The
Mayor’s Court drew attention in Dec. 1759 to their proposal for a new gaol
and stated that the houses behind the Town Hall, being in ruins, could be
acquired for a small sum. They also asked for an advance of cash for the
repair of the Court House. The Government was not satisfied that the Town
Hall was the Corporation’s property. They pointed out that the former
Corporation being dissolved by the capture of Madras in 1746, their property
passed to the EIC on the restoration of the place in 1749. They also called to
mind that, in 1744, the Corporation resigned their revenues to the EIC on the
latter becoming responsible for expenses. They promised to undertake the
repairs on the receipt of a conveyance to them of the Town Hall (PC Ixxxix,
20 Dec. 1759). The Corporation contested this view, and the dispute was
referred to England (PC xc, 29 Jan. 1760). The Directors agreed with the
Council and informed Madras in 1762: ‘The claim of the present Mayor’s
Court to succeed to the Effects pretended to belong to the late Mayor’s Court
is, in our Judgment, totally without foundation’ (quoted in Love HD, 1913,
II, p. 501). The inference was that all the money which appeared to have
been applied to the purchase of the present Town Hall belonged to the EIC,
and not to the present Corporation or the Mayor’s Court. And as that Court
had been long forming a plan to make itself independent of the EIC, the
Directors ordered: ‘we direct that you acquaint the Gentlemen of the
Mayor’s Court that we insist upon their making or passing a formal
Declaration or Act under their Seal that the Town House is the property of
the Company’ (Ibid.). The Directors opined that the Corporation was only a
local administrative body and had no independent financial powers except
those sanctioned by the EIC:
 We will take upon us the Expences of repairing and maintaining the
Court House and of the Mayor’s Court; as to the Demand the
Corporation make of Rent for the Town House, you will of course
consider it as ill founded, And we desire you will not pay them one
single Pagoda for such Rent.
(quoted in Love HD, 1913, II, pp. 501–2)

The matter was, however, referred to the EIC’s Standing Counsel, Charles
Sayer,56 who was of opinion that the House, ‘Regalia’, and Legacy57 of the
former Court were the property of the EIC, as the present Mayor’s Court
could have no rights antecedent to its own creation. On learning this opinion,
the Corporation agreed in 1767 to pass a deed of conveyance of the Court
House. Further, the Govt. sanctioned in 1776 the adaptation of the old
Artillery barracks, south of the Sea Gate, as officers’ quarters, and the
conversion of the armoury in the south block of the Fort Square into eight
sets of public offices. The disputes, petitions, debates, and controversies
about the spaces and house properties had been numerous and now they
spread to the Black Town and its suburbs with the spiralling prices and the
consequent growth of the sophisticated and active ‘house markets’.

Markets

House markets were more active than those of lands since lands were
intended mainly for the construction of houses. Housing in the Black Town
presented a number of problems regarding ownership, land rights, upkeep,
disposal of waste and sanitation in the surroundings, and grabbing of some
space belonging to the adjacent roads or streets and parks. The ground on
which a medical school was built near the town wall was claimed by some
natives whose houses were demolished for building that wall (see Figure
6.1). However, claiming that this was a public institution, the litigation was
cleared by paying no compensation to the claimants.
Figure 6.1 Medical school
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 32

Then arose the issue of market spaces and huts in Black Town. The EIC
felt that the zigzag and disorderly markets had to be controlled and regulated
so as to improve their efficiency. An Overseer of Markets was appointed at
Stratton’s instance58 in March 1777: ‘The President acquaints the Board that
it has been usual from time immemorial for the Governor’s head dubash to
superintend the Markets and regulate the Prices of Provisions amongst the
Black people’ (PC cxvii, 11 March 1777). In fact, the White people
requested the Governor to regulate the commodity prices in the markets.
That an authority so extensive, employed under the sanction of the ‘grabber
Governor’s name’, was open to great abuse, and had, in many instances,
been the cause of much grievance. Although Stratton had a very good
opinion of his own dubash, he did not wish him to possess any influence of
this kind. At the same time, it was necessary that someone should constantly
be employed in superintending the markets. After asking his dubash about
the suitable natives to this post, Stratton recommended Vira Perumal, a man
whom he understood to be very well qualified for this service. He was
appointed the Overseer of the Markets and provided with all the required
official paraphernalia. By way of distinction, a palanquin was given to him
in the EIC’s name, and a couple of peons allowed him (Ibid.). This was one
of the major steps in controlling the locally grown institutions by the
Government with an aim to garner their tax revenues.59 Vira Perumal, an
influential local elite, was largely incentivised for this purpose. Taking
advantage of Vira Perumal’s tactical powers, the EIC had covetously eyed
the temple lands.
Being incited by Governor Stratton in expectation of ‘attractive revenues’,
Francis Jourdan, the Rental General and Scavenger in his capacity as a
member of Council, advocated the exercise of state control over Hindu
temple funds and lands:60 ‘There are annexed to every Pagoda Lands and
Privileges which are put under charge of certain Persons under the
Denomination of Church Wardens or Trustees for the uses of those Pagodas
or other publick Charities’ (quoted in Love HD, 1913, III, p. 129). These
Church Wardens or Trustees, Jourdan accused, rendered no account of their
receipts or disbursements to any, and numberless abuses occurred from such
practices. It was therefore proposed by Jourdan that the
 Church Wardens and others receiving the produce of Lands, of Houses,
Fees, Customs, Duties for and on account of any publick Charities,
Pagodas, &c., shall be obliged to deliver in an Account of all Receipts
and Disbursements to the President and Council, with the present Stock
belonging to each.
(Ibid.)

Jourdan showed that this measure would largely bulge the EIC revenues
without any considerable corresponding expenditure.61 As Stratton promised
rewards to each Council member, this was easily passed. The Government
ordered that the trustees of the several pagodas within the Black Town and
the districts around Madras be required to deliver annually on 31 Dec. to the
President and Council an account of their receipts and disbursements, with
the remaining stock of each pagoda or temple (Ibid.). The natives, who were
already agitating about the recent mass religious conversions and imposition
of taxes without any legal rights of landownership, rose en masse against the
orders and threatened to reconvert all the ‘new Christians’ back into their old
Hindu faith as many of them happened to be the temple functionaries. After
a few reconversions, the Government began to inquire into the other and
accompanied consequences. This type of ambitious and unnecessarily
overactive interference by the Govt. had hurt the religious-minded natives
and Jourdan had fallen into problems.62 Vira Perumal could cleverly extra-
dite himself from this outrageous imbroglio; and in token thereof, he began
his own schemes of reforms.
Vira Perumal, according to Jourdan, was an experienced person with
excellent native knowledge of commercial complications. As desired by the
Governor, he formulated some new developmental measures. The proposals
relative to the Office of Overseer having been delivered directly to the
President by Vira Perumal, the same were then read, and the orders passed
by the Council thereon with necessary amendments (PC cxvii, 11 March
1777; and Love HD, 1913, III, pp. 128–9). Perumal’s first proposal was that
the ‘Grand Bazar or Market’ should be located on a wide space before the
Esplanade. It was accepted by the Council which added in its orders that the
Grand Bazar must be at the ‘Foot of the Esplanade’, but there must be
‘inferior markets established in Black-town for the convenience of people’.
The second was that that ‘no Gentleman’s servants or Compradors buy fish,
&c., more than their Master’s family wants’, as these servants often sell at a
considerable profit the superfluity of what they buy, which was done easily,
as the people respected them on their ‘Masters’ Account’. The Board
approved it that ‘any Servant offending in this respect’ to be punished
accordingly. The third was that the ‘Palanquin Boys, &c., wanting much to
be regulated’. It was necessary for the ‘Chief Palanquin’ to attend daily at
the Choultry Office and control and discipline the boys. This measure was
appreciated by the Board. Perumal’s final proposal was that at least 25
sepoys and some of the Poligar peons should attend at the Choultry Office
24 hours to prevent riots, secure the quiet of the bazar and the streets, and at
night patrol the streets to pick up disorderly people, or those who could give
no proper account of themselves. The Board amended the proposal but
reduced the number of sepoys and compensated with the Poligar peons.63 It
was Jourdan who was behind these proposals and at the most Vira Perumal’s
greed for the post was intended to keep the natives silent over the increasing
tax burden and declining living spaces. Following Stratton’s disorderly and
hurried plans, ambitious Jourdan stretched his imagination beyond his
powers. One such example was his ‘war on the Hindu temple lands’ that had
landed him in serious troubles.64 His corruption and threats were exposed by
some ‘bold trustees’, and Jourdan turned to the dubashes for solutions. Most
of the dubashes being Hindus took a strong stand in support of the temples
and exposed Jourdan’s ‘sizable revenue plans’.
Jourdan was relieved by Stratton in 1777, following the advice of his own
dubashes. William Ross65 was appointed as Land Customer, Rental General,
and Scavenger. Ross exposed the instances of Jourdan’s corruption. After
local enquiries, he reported in Sept. 1777 that about Pags. 16,000, out of
Pags. 41,500 due as quit-rent for the period 1770–4, was outstanding and
promptly added: ‘Mr. Jourdan obtained from the late Administration that
some Waste and other Grounds belonging to the Company, which lay along
the Beech and which people possessed without any right, should be put
under his management’ (PC cxvii, 12 Sept. 1777). Of this ground, he
parcelled out a part into bank-salls and lent them to different merchants for
the space of three years at a monthly rent of ½ a Pagoda for every piece of
ground containing 2,400 (Ibid.). It seems that the natives concerned had paid
sums to Ross for doing the necessary favours. Accordingly, he drew a plan
of the lands involved in Jourdan’s corruption and reported to the Govt:
 According to a Plan in my possession, a considerable Space continues
covered with small Huts, which may be cleared away with little loss to
the present Inhabitants, and the ground on which they stand laid out in
the manner practised by Mr. Jourdan.
(Ibid.)

Following Ross’s rubbish plans, the power-hungry Govt. began to claim not
only the waste and vacant lands, but also resorted to evacuate the huts and
houses from the costly lands. Most of these vacated lands were rented out to
the private parties. Their eyes fell, this time, on the ‘unconverted Pariahs’.66
The eviction of the huts around Mount Road was one such instance.
The rise of numerous large houses on either side of Mount Road and in
Pudupak in place of huts led naturally to the perfection of the road from the
standpoint of engineering. Col. Sydenham (17?–1801)67 had completed it in
1788.68 A convenient bridge had been added to the road in 1786 over the
channel which flowed across it carrying the surplus water of the Mylapore
Tank.69 At the same time, there arose many problems regarding the
numerous houses owned by the Arcot nawab who insisted on the
development of proper roads and also the removal of all the huts around his
houses. He owned as many as 37 houses in different parts of the city, giving
rise thereby to considerable litigation and legal embarrassments
(Rangacharya V, 1939, p. 129). He purchased the Fourbeck building70 on
Mount Road. There was, for example, the Amir-bagh Palace, built by the
nawab and occasionally lent to Governor Clive for public entertainments71
as his own house was not big enough (see Figure 6.2). A slightly later
building was the Umdabagh palace which is mentioned in the survey map of
1798. It was probably named after nawab Umdatul-Umara (1795–1801). The
nawab along with his cousins claimed the ownership of many attractive
buildings around Mount Road, but documentary evidence of the means and
methods of their obtaining them was meagre and legally weak. On the other
hand, the chetty community among the natives had purchased lands and
constructed a number of large buildings on either side of Mount Road along
with the Europeans.72 The rising market prices of lands in and around the
city gave rise to litigation of ownership and legally valid titles.
Figure 6.2 Clive’s house
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 16
 The houses were designed based on the nature of the soil. Writing to
Stephen Sullivan, the Secretary to the Govt. in Sept. 1779, Major George
Maule gave his opinion on the limiting height of the houses to be built on
Popham’s ground. ‘I think all the buildings thereon intended to have upper
Rooms should be kept as far retired as possible from the Esplanade’ (PC
cxxii, 15 Sept. 1779). The defence-oriented policy of the Govt. was that the
heights of the surrounding houses should not exceed the glacis of the Fort.
The terraces of houses already erected in front of the Esplanade, though
consisting only of a ground floor, were higher than could be wished, when
their vicinity to the Fort was considered. That house inhabited by Cottrell
Barret at the corner of Stringers Street was about two feet above the
prescribed level, and that of John Bell73 somewhat less. All the heights of the
other houses in the area were less than these two. At the distance of 45 yards
only from the line of the Esplanade was located an upper room house
belonging to Edward Rylands (Rylance), an influential free merchant. And
another house belonging to Peter Bodkin, another free merchant was located
at 55 yards. Exempting these two old houses, no upper room buildings were
suffered to be erected nearer the Fort than these were. Maule wished that
none were allowed to be nearer than 100 yards from the boundary of
Esplanade (quoted in Love HD, 1913, III, p. 163). The information is scarce
to verify whether these norms were followed by the landowners and
builders. Many land developers came forward with attractive building plans
within the EIC regulations. One such instance was the military housing in
different places.
Military
The military housing is important here that it enclosed a large extent of
greenery in its compounds. Military accommodation had been a contentious
problem right from the rendition in 1749 as the military had been bulging
since then. It was sometimes lean during the peace times in between the
wars. One reason was that the EIC Government never expected large-scale
wars as happened in the next more than half a century. Second, the EIC
Directors discouraged spending on the unproductive activities. Third, it was
thought that the stationing of the military forces was temporary and that they
would return to England once their purpose was over. Fourth, it was thought
that it was cheaper to hire the required accommodation in Madras or in
Trichy where a lot of private houses on rent were available. Fifth, there had
been a lingering doubt in the minds of the EIC Directors that their prolonged
stay in a common place would lead to unwanted activities, including
mutinies. Sixth, it was a delicate matter to deal with the sepoys who had
large families, and further they hailed both from Hindus and Muslims with
distinctly separate living habits. Seventh, the Madras EIC was not so rich
that it lacked the necessary funds to fight the wars, and not to speak of the
construction of the expensive military quarters. Eighth, not many of the
White recruits were married; and some of the married too did not prefer to
bring their families to India for climatic and economic reasons. Finally,
space was scarce in the Fort and many vacant lands outside were involved in
litigation and seemed risky to undertake any large-scale housing activities.74
Therefore, the EIC tried to accommodate them in the Fort quarters, or else
hired some decent and large houses in the Black Town and suburbs.
The Portuguese square and part of the Fort square were in use at this
period as quarters for civil servants, including both junior and senior
merchants. For the convenience of the troops, a bazar was established near
the Sea Gate on the eastern side of the Fort square. The picturesque range of
shops erected against the face of the square is depicted in Daniell’s75 view of
about 1791, which also shows part of the Sea Gate colonnade. The President
acquainted the Board with the necessity of having a regular bazar within the
Fort for supplying the troops with those articles which they would be obliged
to go for to the Black Town, and under that plea frequently commit
irregularities, had induced him to give permission for the building of 30
boutiques, in the room of those taken away when the Sea Gate was pulled
down. They were accordingly built by the Chief Engineer in an ornamental
appearance against the east face of the Fort square (PC cxxiii, 25 March
1780). Thomas Daniell shared the credit of the drawings with Francis Swain
Ward (1734–94), another south Indian painter-artist of fame. Ward painted
many views of large structures in south India, among which there were four
views of the Fort St. George drawn about 1785. Though trained as an artist,
Ward entered into the EIC military service early in 1773 and became Lt. Col.
1786. He was pensioned in 1787 and died at Nagai in 1794. Both these
celebrated architects of Madras had served also the needs of many civilians.
The EIC buildings designed by them included the ‘Mount Officers’ quarters’
along with many others.76
The officers’ quarters at the Mount, which had been built by Col. Matthew
Horne77 as a speculation, were acquired by the Government. They consisted
of two blocks, one 290 feet and the other 120 feet in length, containing
accommodation for 14 officers, and carrying an annual rental of Pags. 1,680
(MC lxv, 16 Dec. 1778). Next came the Poornamallee officers’ quarters.78
Next in order were the Poornamallee quarters which were sanctioned in Aug.
1779, for the use of Macleod’s Regiment,79 (MC lxvii, 28 May 1779).
Meanwhile, the war with Hyder came in 1780 when the Govt. began to
search for housing accommodation for the troops.

War period

Great pressure was put during the war on the residential accommodation. A
big house in Santhome Street was hired in 1781 at Pags. 80 per month for
the use of the officers, and in 1783 two houses in Black Town for the fleet
captains. The civil servants were accommodated as usual in the Fort square
and Portuguese square.80 And the distribution of both civil and military
quarters was revised in Nov. 1781, following a strong representation to the
President, the latter submitted the details to the consideration of the Board
(PC cxxvi, 9 Nov. 1781). He ordered that all the apartments in the Fort
square and Portuguese square be declared vacant, except those allotted to the
two secretaries and their deputies. These new arrangements during the war
time were intended to meet the requirements of the increased number of civil
servants and soldiers.
The new arrangements had accommodated more numbers. After
examining the new arrangements in the military quarters of Madras, the
select committee ordered in Oct. 1782 that officers doing duty with the
Europeans to be first provided with quarters, the sick and wounded to be
next considered. And when quarters in the Fort were filled up, houses were
to be taken for hire in the Black Town for their accommodation as near the
hospital as possible. The number of military officers was increased to face
Hyder’s threats. Smith’s choultry in far off Vandalur also was used for the
war purposes. It was granted by the nawab to Joseph Smith as a shotrium.81
House rents ruled high in Madras as the population began to increase
faster than the accommodation. Houses being wanted in 1789 for the
commodore and naval captains, the steward stated that for the ‘large House
situated on the Sea line’ a monthly rent of Pags. 180 was demanded. Two
captains, but not more, might find accommodation in a house near the North-
gate which was to be let for Pags. 60 a month (PC clvi, 2 June 1789).
Eventually, John Maxwell Stone’s82 house in Santhome Street was taken for
the captains. The reports by the stewards contained details of problems and
expenses incurred on the maintenance of the houses and quarters.

Quality
European Madras within the Fort appeared rich and beautiful. During
Governor Palk’s rule (1763–7), Madras was visited by a lady Mrs.
Kindersley who toured a number of places around Madras: ‘The town is laid
out in streets and squares: the houses neat and pretty, many of them large: in
all the good houses the apartments are upstairs … the rooms are large and
very lofty’ (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 617). The greenery of its grand gardens
was praised by her. Most of this description had aptly applied to the White
Town and its residents. William Hodges who visited Madras in 1780 had
described the beauty of the houses in the Fort. He found them to be planned,
neat, and shining in the moonlit nights. Houses were covered with ‘chunam
stucco’ that was as compact as the finest marble; bearing high polish, the
elegant chunam looked splendid (Hodges W, 1793, p. 2). The style of the
buildings was handsome and grand. They consisted of long colonnades with
open porticoes and flat roofs. Most of them faced east or west and were well
ventilated. The road crossings were mostly at 900. It was for the most part an
assemblage of country houses situated in the midst of gardens and scattered
over an extent of several miles. The houses were light and elegant, having
columns covered with the fine composition of shell limestone chunam. The
art was covered with verdure, a somewhat arid soil. Some of the houses were
seen that their front portions were decorated with the south Indian colams of
varied shapes and intricate designs.83 This traditional drawing was
commonly found in the native streets. The Black Town was extensive, and
its minarets and pagodas, mixed with trees and gardens, were striking from a
distance, with large compounds. Tall trees interspersed by vegetable gardens
were found in many of these compounds. On the other hand, the White Town
enclosed by the Fort had large houses with small or no open spaces or
compounds but trees grown mostly on the roadsides. Houses were
constructed or demolished taking into consideration the changing
requirements, particularly of defence and business.84 The EIC had adopted a
modern housing policy to suit the climatic conditions besides affordability
and maintenance economics.
Economics and convenience were the two chief considerations of the EIC
housing policy in Madras. They found, immediately after rendition, that the
property values had fallen far below than what they had been before the fall
of Madras in 1746. And most of the buildings were either damaged or
needed repairs. One of the prominent buildings in the old Madras was the
Silver Mint in the NW angle of the White Town. It was completely
demolished in the course of the realignment by the French of a part of the
western curtain adjacent to it. The matter was reported to Richard Starke85
by Paymaster John Smith in March 1752: ‘I have been with Linga Chittee86
to survey the place where the Silver Mint stood’ (quoted in Love HD, 1913,
ii, p. 461). But Lingachetty, who had been closely connected with the Silver
Mint, said that it was impossible to rebuild it there, for the French, by
building a wall, had taken away great part of the ground, so that there would
not be sufficient room unless one took in the horse stable. He then showed
Smith a suitable and large place at the foot of the glacis near the EIC
pagoda,87 which he thought would be ‘convenient for the purpose’ (Ibid.).
This proposal was not accepted due to the defence considerations, and the
matter was postponed. Saunders, on arrival, directed Starke and Smith to
select a suitable spot for a new mint within the Fort. They reported in favour
of the original site, enlarged by taking in some godowns belonging to the
estate of the late Petrus Uscan (PC lxxx, 6 and 20 April, 1752). The damaged
stables were converted later into a timber yard with a few structural changes.
The prison for debtors adjoining to and under the old Court House was still
in use in 1753, when it and the rooms above were thoroughly repaired. Also,
the government was actively considering to acquire the strategically located
private houses as they were cheaper and time saving while planning for the
defensively strategic new buildings.88 Residents near and around the Fort
were willing to sell their houses as they were planning to move to the
spacious suburbs. They had to spend a considerable amount on the
maintenance of these garden houses.

Maintenance
Many houses and buildings including some temples and churches incurred
slight damages during the Mysore wars. Vepery and St. Mary’s churches
were put to profane use during the war period. Rev. John Philip Fabricius
(1711?–91), the English missionary, repeatedly complained of the damage
done by British soldiers who were quartered at the Mission buildings in
Nov.–Dec. 1782. Following petitions to the Govt., their civil architect
inspected the places in March 1783, but the repairs were delayed. Fabricius
betrayed some impatience and reported the matter to Governor in June 1783:
‘The excessive great Damage and Destruction which His Majesty’s Troops,
lately quartered here two Months, have made to the English Mission
constraineth me to make this humble Address to your Lordship’ (PC cxxx,
18 June, 1783). The desolation was so bad as ‘If Hyder’s Horses were come
to Wepery, they would not have made such a Desolation as these our [army]
Friends have done’ (Ibid.). They had damaged the church in such a manner
that, in the condition it was in, no use could be made of it. All the doors and
rails within the church ground gone, the schoolhouses were not inhabitable
as they were deprived of all the doors and windows. And also the unruly
troops had pulled down the roofs of two houses here in the street near the
church, which were built for weavers. The actual damages of private
properties around the Vepery church were much more. Several garden
houses which were taken up for the use of the troops needed extensive
repairs after evacuation. Among them was Mackay’s Garden on Mount
Road. James Taylor, executor of the late George Mackay, claimed Pags. 491
from the Govt. Among the items claimed there were89 about 400 reepers90
for the teal house, windows in the slave boys godowns, and three windows
in the Pedgeons house. The Government had carried on the necessary repairs
to the church and other missionary properties. It seems that they had also
compensated other and similarly damaged neighbouring shops and other
properties in the Fort. However, similar compensation was not paid to the
properties damaged by the enemy soldiers in the city suburbs, and temples
were not compensated for unknown reasons. The civil architect in his report
had mentioned the usual damages to the houses and their normal
maintenance costs. Maintenance of the houses and sometimes along with
furniture offered to the housekeeper presented difficult problems in Madras
(Dodwell H, 1926, p. 170). The walls were generally covered with
whitewash, but in the finest houses, the plaster might be polished, and
sometimes they were hung with ‘China paper’. Jourdan asked, in 1771, for a
square with which to cover the hall of his garden house. And six rolls of
China paper hangings with six sheets to the roll were sold in 1759 at Madras
for Pags. 3. The chief item of maintenance was the white washing and
painting of the houses including the compounds.

Painters

One such famous lady painter was Katherine Read.91 She had a brother
William, a surgeon on the Madras establishment, and a nephew, Alexander
Read, an ensign in the army, but destined to be the first collector of Salem.
She was employed during her short stay at Madras in painting for the nawab.
David Young, who of course knew all about her, for she came from Dundee,
wrote:

The old lady is vastly liked by everybody, and has been visited by the
young Nabob; I hear she is going to draw his picture, and she may have
a chance to draw their ladies’ pictures; if this should be her fortune, it
will be a great thing for her.
(quoted in Dodwell H, 1926, p. 171)
They lived very retired. The old lady had not the least inclination for show,
but rather too much inclined to the contrary in this country. She loved to hear
of her friends making money (Ibid.). But though employed chiefly by the
nawab, she certainly did some Europeans. Young was involved in a dispute
with James Call, of the Covenanted Service, for whom Miss Read had
painted a portrait of Miss Shutter. The portrait was damaged, and Young in
vain attempted to persuade Call to pay for it. John Paxton, a portrait painter,
was licensed to proceed to Madras for five years in 1776. He was living, in
1778, in Jourdan’s house in the Fort. It seems that he had completed some
‘Madras portraits’. There had been other painters about whom not much
information is available in the records as some of them did not have valid
permits.
Another skilled painter was George Willison who arrived in Madras in
1774 without a valid permit and was living in the Fort (Love HD, 1913, II, p.
620, fn.1). He had been introduced, to the house owner by George
Dempster92 as ‘a very near relation of mine now at your presidency, Mr
Willeson, painter, whom you will find an amiable modest man as well as an
ingenious artist’ (Dodwell H, 1926, p. 171). The families of professional
artists included John Smart, miniaturist, and his daughter who came to
Madras in 1785. Nor does this exhaust the list. There were Thomas Hickey,
George Chinnery, and Carrier Deah. But the oddest painter who ever set up
his easel frame at Madras was infallibly the first complaisant husband of the
second Mrs. Hastings (Dodwell H, 1926, p. 171). The passages from Warren
Hastings throw a queer light on this famous transaction. Hastings wrote to
Surgeon Hancock, over whom he had nearly quarrelled with Clive: ‘In my
last, I desired you to take the trouble to enquire for a lodging for Mr Imhoff
who proposes to try his fortune as a miniature painter in Bengal’ (cited, p.
172). Imhoff lived and painted in Madras.93

Conclusions
All through the early part of the 18th century, a house in the Fort was
necessary to every considerable family, not only for protection from possible
enemies or marauders, but also for business which centred round the Sea
Gate, the Custom House, and the governor’s residence. There were all the
large offices, public and private; houses of agency had their godowns in the
Fort. There were all the shops displaying the costly and chosen imports from
Europe; and there only had been the places of meeting and amusement until
the theatre was moved from the island to the Choultry Plain in 1790 and the
Pantheon rooms set up in 1793. Nevertheless, men had been glad to escape
from its narrow dusty streets into the open country beyond the walls. Until
the very end of the 18th century, the Fort was frequented for business and
needed for protection. In early Mysore wars, looters raided the outskirts of
the city and drove the inhabitants within the shelter of the walls. In spite of
the expansion into the spacious suburbs, housing problems continued in
Madras.
Housing problems could not satisfactorily be solved in spite of all the
shady measures repairs and acquisitions. It was decided that only the
construction of new buildings would go a long way in meeting the problems
of housing and it would also help to increase the business prospects.
However, acquisitions continued mainly on religious and anti-English
grounds.94 The repairs became too costly as they could not last long.
Therefore, building new houses was allowed, after 1760, in the suburbs.
Planting of gardens preceded the construction of houses on the allotted
suburban house sites. The housing needs of the ever-growing population
were met only by large-scale construction of the private houses followed by
the public and administrative buildings. The movement had begun even
before 1746, but it became rapid after the middle of the 18th century and
towards its end was stretching southward to the banks of the Adyar.95 Rents
of the house of the same size in the suburbs had been about ½ of those in the
Fort, and the houses were airy and spacious.
The EIC at first tried to check this emigration, which it attributed merely
to the folly and vanity of merchants in having the parade of country houses
and gardens. The Council, in obedience to the wishes of their Directors,
resolved that no grants of land should be made for such purposes except to
those of higher degree than that of a Writer. But the movement went on
nonetheless, and their gardens became the joy and pride of the Madras
residents. Nor were they really an extravagant hobby. At the end of the 18th
century, the smaller houses could be rented at Pags. 20 a month. The lively
Hickey,96 who had decided to join the Madras Army, stated how on his
arrival he was conducted by a friend to his garden house. He visited a few
years later the garden of Dawsonne Drake of the EIC civil service;97 he
found a much more luxurious welcome – the veranda with its rattan chairs
and couches from Canton, the drawing room set out with card tables and
armchairs of ebony and rosewood, the boor of alternate black and white
squares covered here and there with Persian rugs, the white walls hung with
mirrors and engravings, the dining-room with its well-polished mahogany,
the bedrooms with their mirrors, and wardrobes and bed steads hung with
mosquito curtains.

Notes
1 Housing had become such a prominent sector in the US economy that a false housing policy
(1998–2006) producing a ‘housing bubble’ led to the large-scale evictions and foreclosures
resulting in the serious financial crisis of 2008.
2 Gravel and soil for bricks were taken from the tanks, fields, and mounds. Sand was collected
from the streams while the stones were extracted from the quarries or cut from the
surrounding hillocks.
3 Explosive economic growth occurs from urban import replacement. Import replacement
occurs when a city begins to locally produce goods that it formerly imported (see Jane J,
1969). Madras had produced many of its requirements and exported the surplus.
4 The same might be applicable to their other cities.
5 Unlike the natives, they could not flee the city into the hinterland; only a few had left for the
neighbouring Dutch settlements. Natives found that ‘French friendship’ was unavoidable
along with a ‘show of conversion to Catholic order’ so as to save their businesses.
6 It was alleged by the English that the temple priests were harassed by the French and their
lands were auctioned but found no takers.
7 Many businesses were restarted in thatched sheds. Markets of perishables like vegetables,
fish, and flowers and leaves were conducted under tree shades.
8 Richard Prince, who entered the civil service in 1736, had lately been Chief at Vizag. He
married Elizabeth Simpson in 1743 (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 401, fn.1). His annual salary as
Deputy Governor was £100 per annum along with other benefits.
9 Starke joined the service in 1735, and Smith five years later. King and Walsh were of the
same standing as Clive (cited, fn. 2). John Smith was the civil servant of 1740. Smyth King
arrived in Madras in June 1743, as a writer. John Walsh was a writer, in 1723, in Madras.
10 Admiral Boscawen sailed for England on 19 Oct. 1749, leaving Commodore R.N. Lisle
with five ships on the Coast (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 401, fn. 3). Foss Westcott was the civil
servant of 1740. And Alexander Wynch was a ‘monthly Writer’ in 1738.
11 Stringer Lawrence (1698–1775) was known later as the ‘father of Indian army’.
12 Francis Barnevall and de la Mettrie were penalised by the English for carrying on
treasonable correspondence with their enemy, when hostilities with France were in progress.
After the punishments were over, Barnevall pursued the avocation of free merchant at Fort
St. George from 1754 to 1773 (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 318). He owned at least two houses in
Madras.
13 Mrs. Madeiros saved many victims from ‘EIC injustice’. The sums lent by her to the EIC
in the middle of 1745 were Pags. 40,000 and Arcot Rs. 30,000. It seems that she lent and
donated many unaccounted sums to the EIC officials.
14 The French elite who were comfortably placed in Pondy refused to move to Madras. Also
there had been doubts about the French retaining Madras.
15 Francis Carvalho was a free merchant (1745) owning two houses, one in the Fort and
another at the mount. Jeronimo or de Sallazar (16?–1751), was an influential person in the
Fort. His house was next to that of Barnevall’s. It seems that he owned another house in the
Black Town (Love HD, 1913, II, pp. 468–69). He married Francisca Melique in Madras.
Bailleau was a free merchant.
16 Severini was appointed the ‘Superior of the Capuchins’ in 1742. The Capuchins were
members of a Christian religious order in Madras.
17 Dupleix (1697–1764) was the French Governor of Pondy.
18 This statement served as an excuse to occupy the strategic Santhome that yielded attractive
revenues. Also, some of the leading Madras merchants and traders had shifted there during
the French period. Moreover, the self-declared new nawab Chanda was likely to claim it on
some inimical grounds.
19 Boscawen ordered a search of illegal occupations under the French and the town was
cleared off all the French signs and weapons.
20 The place was differently spelt in the French and Portuguese records as Vepuru, Vepapuri,
Vepary, Veperu, Viparie, Viparee, Vepara, etc.
21 Armenians were given prominence in the ‘old Madras’ as they were the rich merchant
donors (Reddy MA, 2006, ii, pp. 23–5). They sponsored some bridges and roads.
Portuguese sufferers, however, suspected that some rich Armenians bribed the English.
22 He conveniently omitted from this amount the share of local subscriptions.
23 Armenians, as shown in the correspondence, had a low look on the English in religious
matters.
24 The local argument was that the rich Armenian community could provide for themselves.
The labour of the prisoners and local subscriptions were largely used in the construction of
the churches and the living quarters; and therefore, they belonged to the local residents.
25 It is a known fact that Clive spent most of his time playing cards and games.
26 Padre was arrested on grounds of espionage and later deported to Europe along with others.
27 Christian converts were preferred for employment, and they were also paid higher wages
than others. Thus, Christianity was spread among the fisher folk and boat people mainly by
economic incentives.
28 Mile End was a place in Chepauk. It was so-called as it was exactly one mile away
measured from the south wall of the Fort. This place, to the north of Trip-licane, was given
to some newly converted Christians.
29 It was suspected that they offered large sums in their secret dealings. The same seems to be
the case with Signora Estra’s house.
30 Lingichetti was a rich merchant-cum-contractor and ‘mint-undertaker’ who owned a
number of lands and houses. Guruvappa Gyarlapati was a rich arrack distiller who dared,
along with Marakkayala Gopalu, to complain against Gov. James Macroe (Love HD, 1913,
II, pp. 224–5). The case related to his commercial dealings in diamonds.
31 At the fall of Madras, Eyre and Harris were members of Morse’s Council, and Goodwin,
Greenhaugh, Fowke, Powney, Percival, Boddam, and Pybus were civil servants at Fort St.
George. All appear to have been unemployed in Jan. 1750. Andrew Munro was the Surgeon.
Captain John Standard, a seafaring man who had been in India since 1716, came to Madras
from Bombay before 1733, when he owned a house at Chepauk. George Jones, a freeman,
was appointed Factor in 1745. Captain Charles Hopkins (?–1757), a seafaring man since
1730, or earlier, was entertained as Factor in 1750 and became Chief of Devikota. He
married Phyllis Bright in 1736 (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 407, fn.1). She was living, around
1772, in his Peddanaickpet house.
32 It is difficult to quantify the shortages with any accuracy. However, a small but risky
approximation can be made from the available information regarding the ‘Old Black-town’
that was demolished by the French. It was located immediately to the north of the Fort
 having about more than 2,000 housing units with more than 10,000 persons in the 1740s
(Reddy MA, 2006, ii, Chapter 7). There were also many huts in the surroundings, but no
details are available. Moreover, there is no information about the number of the ‘returned
residents’ along with the new entrants.
33 There had been many advantages of living outside the Fort. They included sweet water,
low-paid servants, and so on. Moreover, once Pondy was destroyed in 1761 and arch enemy
Hyder died in 1782, the city was free from any external threats.
34 As Pondy was down after 1754 and demolished in 1761, immigration into Madras
increased.
35 The developed property was bought by the nawab in 1762 after Maskelyne had left the
country (PC xcii, 15 Feb. 1762). It was immediately occupied by one of his ‘extended
family’ members.
36 Based on the Gentu scale of measurements, the area contained 4.060 square yards.
37 The Fort continued to be considered a safe place to the Europeans.
38 Wynch bought the house in 1751 from the executor of John Saunders (Bills of Sale, no. 6,
4 Sept. 1751). Housing market was active as indexed by many such sales.
39 PC lxxxii, 20 May 1754; and bill of sale, no. 8, 20 May 1754. Wynch felt that it was too
small for his requirements.
40 Bill of sale, no. Ii, 16 July 1756.
41 Map of 1755.
42 The main attraction was the security of the nawab’s palace.
43 It was located at the Mile End and near the nawab’s premises. She ran a bread-making firm
there.
44 It is possible that the EIC did not want the inquisitive dewan to stay near their ‘nerve centre
of all affairs’ (PCs lxxxi, 4 Dec. 1753; and lxxxii, Jan. 1754).
45 It seems that the EIC was interested to plant some secret agents around Sampati Rau’s
residence.
46 Subordinate factories.
47 English economics prevailed over the French squanderings.
48 The old Court House was the Town Hall in Thomas Street. It was badly damaged by the
French.
49 Father Severini, as Executor of Petrus Uscan’s will, was directed in May 1756 to sell
Uscan’s property in Choultry Gate Street within three months – that is a house and godowns
next to the Mint on the west side of the street, and a private residence on the east side. The
former was required by the Government for the extension of the Mint (PC Ixxxv, 25 May
1756). The Government offered a very low price.
50 Isaacs was a free merchant with house property in Madras.
51 This was an item of EIC budget to meet small and miscellaneous expenses.
52 Now Madras housed a number of stout litigation lawyers.
53 A round-shaped jail or prison, a temporary place to keep the criminals.
54 It was reported that its roof was leaking and falling down in pieces.
55 The new barracks, forming a prolongation to the northward of the old range, were built in
1755–6, in view of the ‘French fears’.
56 He was also one of the taxation experts.
57 The Regalia were the maces and other insignia which had been saved when Madras fell to
the French in 1746. These were sold after new insignia had been supplied by the EIC. The
Legacy was a bequest to the former Court by William Jennings (Love HD, 1913, II, p. 502
fn.1). Also, there were other small items.
58 Being a power usurper, Stratton tried to show himself as a reformer and real performer so
as to increase the income of the EIC.
59 All these days, the Govt. was restrained with the constraint of its weak landownership
rights.
60 The temples in South India owned sizable assets in lands from times immemorial (Reddy
MA, 1987, p. 1). Also, temples in Madras had extensive non-land properties.
61 It was alleged that Jourdan demanded a substantial amount from the temples. When refused
by the trustees, he threatened to impose taxes on their incomes and finally to sell their lands.
62 At the same time, the Govt. could not ascertain its original landownership rights.
63 The peons were paid by the Poligar.
64 Many of these temples showed the edicts, inscriptions, and epigraphical carvings as the
rightful owners of the lands in and around their precincts and edifices.
65 Ross was a civil servant dating from 1770, with required experience on land matters.
66 Some Pariahs refused the incentives and turned into critics of Christianity that looked
down upon their caste deities and ancestral moorings.
67 Lt. William Sydenham was Aide-de-Camp to Brig. General Robert Fletcher (17?-1776) in
1775.
68 No account of compensations is available in records.
69 There was, in front of the Lushington Garden at Sydapet, a monument in the form of an
obelisk (Rangacharya V, 1939, pp. 128–9).
70 Adrian Fourbeck (1712–83) was a free merchant who came here in the 1730s.
71 Later on, it became the Court of Suddar-adalat, then Agra bank and then Elphin-stone
hotel.
72 There is a possibility that some of them were purchased from the nawab.
73 Cottrell Barrett, victualler, came to Madras in 1760. John Bell applied for some land in
Duprepet near the Black Town wall; his application was rejected citing strategic reasons.
74 The Portuguese square was a less congested place as most of the Portuguese traders had
sold out their old houses to rich merchants.
75 Thomas Daniell, a trained draughtsman, was a famous Madras painter. He shared the credit
of his neat drawings of the Fort square with Francis Swain Ward (1734–94), another south
Indian painter-artist who learned many ‘Madras techniques’.
76 The so-called Madras techniques had mostly been from temple structures.
77 Horne was Lt. of artillery in 1759 and served in the Manila expedition, 1762.
78 Poornamallee town was strategically selected as most of the past invaders came on this
route and often looted the place.
79 John Macleod, also called John Mackenzie, commanded the 73rd King’s Regiment that
reached Madras in 1780 in 14 ships (Love HD, 1913, III, p. 169). There had been much
indiscipline among them due to excessive intoxication and other bad practices.
80 Edward Hughes, plenipotentiary, 1774, was provided with a corner house in the Fort (PC
cxxxi, 17 Oct. 1783). He complained about the lack of minimum facilities.
81 Shotrium or shrotriem, in its original meaning, was an assignment of revenue for sacred or
vedic purposes (shruthi = veda). The EIC continued the same tenurial word for different
purposes.
82 Stone was a civil servant of 1755. He was one of Pigot’s supporters and owned two houses
in the Fort. The other was in Charles Street. The two houses were valued in 1799 at 32,500
Star Pagodas (Love HD, 1913, iii, p. 510). The actual value was more than that in view of
the rising prices.
83 Colam (Tamil) is an auspicious and artistic but erasable drawing of chunam powder
generally found in front of the residential houses. Fresh ones were drawn every day in the
morning times.
84 Certain businesses required large house spaces for living, working, and storing purposes.
Spacious ‘food houses’ were found at street crossings.
85 Richard Starke succeeded Richard Prince as Deputy Governor. He encouraged the repairs.
 86 Lingichetti was the ‘mint undertaker’ in the old Madras and later became ‘mint contractor’
and ‘mint manager’ in the new Madras.
87 The EIC pagoda was the officially recognized the ‘great gentu pagoda’ in old Black Town.
It was located immediately to the north of the Fort and it seems that the EIC servants prayed
there on festivals. The native festivals and celebrations started from this temple which got a
plethora of artistes and musicians.
88 Now the policy was to move away from the sea sands.
89 Later, the property passed on to Alexander George Mackay, son of George Mackay (MC
cxiii, 6 Aug. 1786).
90 Reepers were battens laid across the rafters of a roof to carry tiles.
91 Elizabeth Read, whom Alexander Wynch married in 1791, might have been related to
Katherine Read.
92 Dempster was a sea captain (Love HD, 1913, iii, p. 351, fn.6). He liked artists.
93 It seems Imhoff could not be sponsored by the nawab of Arcot.
94 All those suspected of helping their ‘French enemies’ were punished in appropriate ways.
The main method was the acquisition of their houses.
95 There were now no external threats to the city and its suburbs.
96 Most probably, Thomas Hickey, a reputed artist, who came to Madras in 1780. He painted
the portraits of Eyre Coote and Mornington (Love HD, 1913, iii, pp. 461–2, fn.1 and 3). It
seems that he had to his credit many other Madras paintings.
97 Drake was a rich merchant of Madras who became the Deputy Governor of Manila in 1762
(Love HD, 1913, ii, p. 586). He owned large garden houses.

7
BUILDINGS

DOI: 10.4324/9781003215493-7

Estates
Beautiful buildings on the impressive estates are the attractions of the
progressive cities. At the same time, large buildings have major
environmental implications. The built environment directly affects the
quality of urban living and creates a sense of place (RCRE, 2007, Para, 5.2).
The ways in which people interact with the built environment give rise to
diverse environmental impacts, including carbon dioxide emissions, floods,
and water resources. All the public buildings in 18th-century Madras were so
planned as to suit their environment. Not only were they surrounded by
appropriate greenery, but they were also so well ventilated that their
occupants could read and perform other indoor works without any artificial
light.1 Oil lamps were lighted mostly outside the buildings only during
nights. Some of them were constructed after the famous Vijayanagara and
Chandragiri palaces2 but styled with large open spaces, doors, and windows
after Britain’s best stately homes, magnificent manor houses, and other
mansions. The oldest and the most decorated building was the Fort House.

Fort House
The Fort House was the oldest building of Madras. It was originally the EIC
factory built by Andrew Cogan, in green surroundings. The old ‘Factory-
house’ was demolished and rebuilt into a larger structure in 1693 (Love HD,
1913, I, pp. 556–7). This ‘Great-house’ of the Fort had been the Governors’
official residence. It was a three-storey building that had accommodated
many offices. A spacious ‘consultation room’ and the Governors’ quarters
had always been on the top floor till 1746. The ‘general dining table’ was on
the first floor while the bomb-proof rooms on the ground floor were used as
offices (Ibid.). They were concealed in the surrounding greenery, most of
which was cut out during the French occupation (1746–9). Coming to the
period of New Madras (1749–), the Fort House was damaged in the
monsoon rainstorm in Oct.–Nov. 1752 (op. cit., II, p. 462; and PC lxxxiii, 19
Aug. 1754). It was added, extended, and improved during the period of next
50 years. It was reported in 1758 by John Call the Engineer that the house
was large but its floors were not very strong. It was specially protected in the
French siege of 1758–9, as there had been stored the EIC bales of woollen
cloth and other costly goods on its roof (cited, pp. 536 and 545–6). Governor
Pigot was arrested from the heavily guarded Fort House on 24 Aug. 1776,
while he was sitting in his ‘spacious and airy room’. The Council Chamber
being out of repair and its outer paint coverings falling down, Philip Stowey,
the EIC Civil Architect, was directed in April 1782 to survey the whole of
the Fort House and submit a detailed plan of the required repairs after
assessing the stability of the whole structure. The civil architect wrote to the
Govt. in July 1782 about the details of his plan of repairs conformably to
their orders (PC cxxvii, 19 July 1782). The plan included elevations for the
intended alterations and repairs, and the details of the proposals were
annexed thereto. He undertook to finish externally the south end according
to the proposed elevation, fit up the governor’s apartments in the attic front
with new windows and doors and wall recesses. He was to paint the ceilings,
windows and doors, and walls with fine chunam. He was to erect two new
flights of back stairs. The estimated sum was Pags. 1,943. Any additions
were left to his convenience. Now the civil architect got second thoughts
about the suitability of his proposals and the sufficiency of the funds.
Stowey then submitted a revised and larger plan based on his further and
minute surveys. Accordingly, he planned to complete, as far as the plan and
elevation directed, the whole front, fit up the consultation room in handsome
style with a strong wooden floor, a ceiling, cornice,3 frieze,4 door and
window architraves, book cases, etc., besides erecting two flights of stairs
suitable thereto, properly floor and chunam the whole within and without,
paint the doors and windows with Europe Oil, and fix on proper lock or
fastenings to each, those of the consultation room to be of brass mortise
locks, and the walls and frieze of the room to be variegated with oil colours,
for the specific sum of Pags. 6,680 (PC cxxvii, 19 July, 1782).5 By the plan
now submitted, no part of the walls of the house would undergo further
alteration than the fixing in new windows and doors, the veranda being the
only additional building required, and as that was meant to extend to the
wings and serve as a communication thereto, the staircases might be
removed, and the ground they occupied on each floor turned into useful
apartments. The second staircase would give access to the rooms in the body
of the house (Ibid.). If started immediately, Stowey promised that it would
require six months to complete, and more if further additions were made or
alterations required. If the budget was sanctioned, Stowey hoped that the
entire work would be completed by early 1783. Taking the immediate
requirements for space into consideration, the Govt. accepted these
proposals. Following his report, extensive alterations were eventually carried
out, including a new veranda on the east side.
But, in the course of the execution of the work, the condition of the
building proved to be worse than was at first assessed, apparently as reported
by the civil architect to the Govt. in March 1783. During the prosecution of
the work, he discovered such general decay to prevail in almost every part of
the building that he considered it ‘dangerous in the highest degree’ for the
EIC to continue the use of it in its ruinous condition’ (PC cxxix, 12 March
1783). The walls, which made a principal part of the structure, were well
worth preserving, but the timbers of the floors, the staircases, and other
internal work were so rotten and defective as to be in hourly danger of
falling in. Lately, the floor of the ‘accountant’s office’ sunk many inches
merely from the shock of a few carpenters working upon it. Externally, there
was neither a door nor window in any tolerable degree of repair, or capable
of being made so. Stowey had, upon a thorough survey of the premises,
taken the liberty to devise such plans and measures to be pursued for the
preservation of the sound parts of the building as it then stood; and for such
additions and amendments to the whole as to him appeared indispensably
necessary, he promised to ensure real utility. These particulars were
explained further in the annexures of the report. The total amount of expense
attending the completion of the work was likely to exceed the original
estimates. It crossed Pags. 20,000 (see Table 7.1).6 The report served as the
timely remainder to the Govt. about the precarious condition of the Fort
House as well as other old buildings.

Table 7.1 Cost of renovations to the Fort House, March 1783

S.N. Item Pags.

1 Work contracted for and is contained within the South and 8,263
West fronts (contracted)
2 North and East fronts, and extend to finishing all the 8,263
remaining rooms, staircases, communications, & co.,
throughout the building (not contracted)
3 The Eastern veranda and other parts 3,670
4 Total 20,196

Source: PC cxxix, 12 March 1793

The Govt. did not hesitate to spend on the renovations as it was one of the
oldest and symbolically prestigious buildings in the Fort that outlived its
founders.
The Council, after inspecting the Fort House, sanctioned the revised
estimate, and in the following Aug., reported their action to the Directors.
‘The Council Chamber and the adjoining Apartments in the Fort House
being 100 Years old and very much out of Repair, We last year directed the
Civil Architect to survey them’ (quoted in Love HD, 1913, III, p. 286). They
furnished other details too in their report so as to justify their spending,
attaching his final report where they agreed to allow him star Pags. 6,680 for
the expense necessary to render them habitable and ordered him to begin the
work immediately. The Council justified their sanction as the amount was
not high. They then tried to justify the increased expenditure due mainly to
the finding of the unexpected weakness of the entire structure and increased
cost of materials. They reported that the Council visited the Fort House
accordingly and found it to be in the state described by the civil architect.
After assessing the prevailing costs of the materials and wage rates, they
contracted with Stowey to give it a most substantial repair for the additional
sum of star Pags. 13,1967 to be paid by bills on Bengal, and the work was
now very nearly completed: ‘We flatter ourselves your Honors will approve
of our having consented to this Expence, as it appeared absolutely requisite
for the Preservation of the only Building you possess at this Presidency fit
for public Offices’ (Ibid.). It seems that the Directors had accepted it as
already the construction work was in progress. Next in importance was the
EIC Garden House with its ups and downs.

Garden House
The EIC Garden House had undergone many changes before it finally
disappeared. The French used it during their siege of Madras in 1746 for big
gun emplacements; afterwards while in occupation of the Fort, they pulled it
down completely lest the English, trying to recapture the Fort, should use it
for the same purpose. When therefore the English reoccupied Madras in
1749, the Garden House had disappeared (Crombie AD, 1939, p. 18). The
then Governor Saunders was naturally restive at having lost his privilege of
living outside, so the site with a large green compound with house belonging
to Madeira was rented for him; and within a year (1753) purchased for a sum
of Pags. 3,500 (about Rs. 12,250). The EIC considered that they had made a
good bargain in the prevailing market prices. The acquisition, extensions,
and additions to the new Garden House was a long story. Some grounds
were added to in 1756 by a further purchase of neighbours’ lands. But the
French again besieged Madras in 1758–9, and their advance guards occupied
the Garden House. They damaged it badly and the Govt. could not repair it
immediately (see Figure 7.1). Surprisingly, when Pondy was finally captured
in 1760 by the English, Lally the French leader was brought to Madras and
lodged in those apartments of the Garden House which had escaped his fury
at the siege in 1758–9, till a vessel was available to take him to England. The
next important step in the history of this house was taken by Governor
Edward Clive in 1800. He proposed alterations and additions, which would
enable him to dispense with the use of his house in the Fort which could then
accommodate the Board of Revenue. He estimated that a saving would thus
be involved, but his figures proved very incorrect. Instead of costing only
89,500 Pagodas as estimated, the alterations actually costed 176,350
Pagodas, which called forth an expression of dissatisfaction from the EIC
Directors. Stated in rupees, the alterations to the Govt. House costed more
than Rs. 300,000 and the grand banqueting hall alone costed Rs. 250,000
(see Figure 7.2).8 The surroundings were planted with trees and carpeted
with grass.
Figure 7.1 Govt. House before repairs
Source: Crombie AD, 1939, facing p. 18
Figure 7.2 Govt. House after repairs
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 74

The Govt. Garden House turned into a beautiful and spacious structure after
the repairs (see Figure 7.2). Some of the historic events in which the Govt.
Garden House had figured since it was acquired are interesting. As part of
his invasion of the Carnatic, Hyder surrounded Madras city in the last
quarter of 1767. His son Tipu, at the head of a body of horsemen, made a
sudden raid on the city. The troopers scampered about the well-laid-out
grounds of the Garden House, looting the villages on either side. According
to accounts, Governor Bourchier and his Councillors were there when the
raiders came, and they would assuredly have been caught had they not
managed to escape in a boat that was conveniently tied up on the bank of the
Cooum. More than one Governor of Madras had died at the Garden House,
and it was there that Governor Pigot died in extraordinary circumstances.9
The Garden House was finally transformed into the Govt. House (see Figure
7.2). Its extensive compound was called ‘Company gardens’. The compound
was extended later into the adjoining grounds. The next famous public
building was the Admiralty House.

Admiralty House

The Admiralty House10 in Charles Street, with grownup trees all around, had
been used, since the time of Du Pre (1770–3), as the Governor’s town
residence in place of the Fort House. It had been an Armenian property. It
was a ‘great-house’ owned by Coja Nazar Jacob-Jan before the French
occupied Madras in 1746. He willed it to Coja Sultan David who passed it
on to Shawmier Sultan. It was occupied by the deputy governors, Prince and
Starke in 1749 and 1752, respectively. Since then it had been retained by the
Govt. (Love HD, 1913, II, pp. 338–9 and 494–7). It had been repaired and
remodelled with alterations so as to meet the needs of the successive
occupants. Admiralty House became the Governor’s town residence later in
the 18th century; and in Edward Clive’s11 time, it was used for the
celebration of state functions until the new banqueting hall (1802)12 was
erected. It was later utilised as the accountant-general’s office. However, the
zigzag story of the Admiralty House in the later 18th century had taken
many shifts and turns.
 Shawmier Sultan, son of Sultan David, and on behalf of his father and
himself, petitioned in 174913 that they be permitted to continue in the White
Town as their family was associated with the EIC interests since a long time.
Shawmier received instructions in Nov. 1749, through Stringer Lawrence, to
refrain from selling his property, as the house, with two large godowns
attached, might be required by the EIC. Shortly afterwards, Prince entered
the residence and occupied it during the whole term of his deputy-
governorship with a few repairs. That the owner had no difficulty to recover
the rent for the occupation of the house from 17 Nov. 1749 to 10 July 1752
is clear from the number of his petitions. Its occupiers included ‘Colonel
Clive and others’. Shawmier applied in Feb. 1752 for the payment of rent
and enquired whether the EIC proposed to purchase the house (PC lxxx, 3
Feb. 1752). Decision was deferred pending orders from England. The patient
Shawmier petitioned again about the end of 1757. His letter is of interest, for
it disclosed the fact that Robert Clive occupied the house, probably at the
time of his marriage (Ibid.). The petitioner delivered his said house and two
large godowns belonging thereto, with all the household furniture that were
contained in the same, to Richard Prince, then Deputy Governor of Madras.
Prince dwelt therein comfortably all the time of his Govt. till his departure
for Europe in 1752. Sometime before Prince’s leaving India, the petitioner
demanded of him the rent of his house and godowns. Prince replied that the
EIC would pay the rent, and he advised the petitioner to apply for the same
to the current governor. Accordingly, the petitioner addressed the President
and Council; they answered in writing, setting forth that they deferred
coming to any resolution on the subject till the arrival of the expected orders
from Europe that season. The house continued in the possession of the EIC
from the time of Prince’s departure till 10 July 1752, during which interval
Richard Starke and Captain Speke14 lived in it. The house was finally
delivered over to the petitioner after the removal of the Presidency to Madras
with pending rental payments. It thus appears that the building was restored
to Shawmier in July 1752, after which he let it on rent to Clive and others.15
The issue did not end here. Its rental payment by the EIC became a
problem. Shawmier made several applications to Saunders, during 1752–4
for the payment of the rent of his Admiralty House and godowns. But the
governor had always answered that his time was so much taken up with the
war and other affairs that he could spare none to settle that matter. At the
same time, the petitioner was directed by Saunders that he should acquaint
him and the Council when he might determine to sell his two houses in
White Town, standing to the southward of the Admiralty House. Finally, the
petitioner was intending to dispose all of them, including the two
neighbouring houses (PC lxxxviii, 9 Jan. 1758). Now Pigot was the governor
and he was willing to purchase them as a step in his defence preparations
and wanted Shawmier to furnish all the details. He accordingly provided an
account of the rent received from Col. Clive and other occupants, as was
also an account of some furniture left in the house by the petitioner when the
house was bought by the EIC at the desire of Pigot. The furniture was valued
at prime cost. Coja Shawmier Sultan had appended to his petition an account
of the rent of the house and also the two godowns due from the EIC. He
claimed that he charged at the same rate as paid by other persons in the
surroundings (see Table 7.2).16

Table 7.2 Shawmier's rental account, 1758

S.N. Item Pags.

1 Rent for the house from the 17 Nov. 1749 to 10 July 1752, at 930
Pags. 30 per month
2 Ditto for the two godowns, at 6 Pags. each 372
3 Subtotal 1,302
4 Interest on Pags. 1,302 for 5 ½ years 564
5 Total 1,866

Source: based on Love HD, 1913, II, p. 495

Shawmier also added an account of furniture left in the ‘great-house’ and

charged at their first cost (see Table 7.3). He claimed very low prices for
furniture items.

Table 7.3 Shawmier’s furniture account, 1758

(price in Pagodas)
S.N. Item Price

1 2 marble tables 200

2 2 large looking glasses 100
S.N. Item Price

3 2 medium looking glasses 60

4 1 large lanthorn 25
5 1 medium lanthorn 20
6 8 small lanthorns Total 32
Total 437

Source: based on Love HD, 1913, II, p. 496

The house was ultimately acquired by the EIC, but Shawmier did not give
the date of purchase, nor did he mention whether he or some other person
was the immediate seller. It was recorded that Pigot’s Govt., at the beginning
of 1755, bought a large house in Charles Street, with godowns attached,
from David Lopez Fernandes and Samuel De Castro (PC lxxxiv, 6 Jan.
1755). The President acquainted the Board that he had discoursed with
Messrs. Lopez and De Castro about the purchase of their house in Charles
Street and that they consented to dispose of the same for 6,000 Pagodas. The
Board agreed that the said house be purchased of Messrs. Lopez and De
Castro at the price previously mentioned. As there was no time to construct a
new one, the EIC wanted to purchase the old accommodation. Sometimes it
was cheaper, more convenient as well as advantageous to acquire such
furnished houses and godowns. Next came in line the beautiful buildings of
the Black Town, among which the Pantheon got the first priority as it was
used for public functions.

Pantheon
The original Pantheon, a place for public entertainments, balls, banquets, and
theatricals in the 18th century, was the nucleus from which developed the
latter-day Madras Museum and its annexe of the Connemara Public Library.
The structure was known as the Public Rooms or Assembly Rooms. The
Pantheon, enclosed by a large green compound with tall trees, was located in
Egmore. It was a fertile rice field converted into a multiple complex of a
variety of social entertainments. It had for years been the centre of the social
life of the Europeans in Madras, an association which perpetuated revues,
entertainments, and theatricals of the Madras Dramatic Society, who held
their regular performances in the Museum-theatre. It was utilised for grand
dinners, balls, and dramatic performances in the last quarter of the 18th
century. It was extended by public subscriptions in the 1780s. The famous
EIC botanist, Dr. John Anderson, cultivated his mulberry plantation in its
extensive gardens (Madras Government, 1999, p. 59). The natives too
participated in some of the functions involving dance and music. The
audience and spectators consisted mostly of the rich and elite classes. The
Pantheon contained a very pretty theatre, card rooms, and varandas besides a
decorated ballroom (Graham M, 1813, p. 130). There had been monthly
assemblies during the cold season, with occasional but well-conducted balls
all the year. The Pantheon was a handsome building; it was used as a
freemasons lodge of modern masons, among whom almost every man in the
army and navy who visited Madras had enrolled himself. Also, there were
many women members.17
The Pantheon has an interesting history behind the name. At the time
when it figured in the pages of the Madras Courier, it was the property of
Hall Plummer, who was a civil servant and contractor for Public Works, a
combination too strange to comprehend. Governor Rumbold, on behalf of
the EIC, granted to Hall Plumer on 21 Aug. 1778:

All that Piece or Parcel of Ground situated and lying in Egmore,

bounded on the NE and NW by paddy fields, SE by road, and SW by
Mackay’s garden, ‘and of the form and dimensions expressed in the
drawing’ thereto annexed.
(Raghavan MD, 1994, pp. 113–15)

It measured 1,899,257 square feet or about 43 acres. The lease was for 99
years at an annual rent of Pags. 18, together with a payment of Pags. 30 at
intervals of every 30 years.
The Pantheon had been associated with many disputes among which the
famous one was that of Jodrells who stayed there as tenants-cum-caretakers
for some years. An announcement was published in the Madras Courier, 21
Oct. 1789:

the directors of the Female Asylum had unanimously resolved to signify

to Sir Paul Jodrell by their Secretary, that it was desired Lady Jodrell
 should retire from her situation as Principal Directress of the Asylum,
and that the Managers of the Public Rooms had also unanimously
resolved to require, by their Secretary that Sir Paul Jodrell and his
family should absent themselves from the Public-rooms until they
vindicated themselves from the reports generally prevalent against
them.

They were again mentioned in the Courier, 18 May 1791, when in the
course of an appeal for the cultivation of mulberry, Dr. Anderson included
the gardens of the Public Rooms among the gardens in which the Board of
Revenue should encourage the cultivation of the mulberry trees. A number of
governors and prominent visitors to Madras were entertained in these rooms
(PC clix, 22 Dec. 1789). The date of the establishment of the original
Assembly Rooms or Pantheon has not been precisely determined, but it must
have been before Dec. 1789, when Hugh Boyd addressed the Govt.
regarding the exclusion of Paul and Lady Jodrell from the Public Rooms.
The cases ran for some years.

Owners
Paul Jodrell (17?–1803) was a physician to the Arcot nawab. He came to
Madras in 1788 at the request of the nawab. It was alleged that he was
corrupt and misused the Public Rooms of the Pantheon for unauthorised
purposes. Jodrell defended himself and filed a case against the editor of the
Madras Courier for damages. His wife Jane Jodrell was the Directress of the
Female Orphan Asylum and was found to have been involved in financial
misgivings. On the whole, they had financial problems. Fearing arrest for
debts, he requested the nawab to grant him the status of his ‘family member’
so as to get exemption from the EIC’s civil processes. It seems that the
request was promptly granted by the nawab. Taking advantage, Paul Jodrell
addressed the Govt. in 1793 to ‘ameliorate his lot’. The Govt. expressed
some concern but refused exemption as there had been many other similar
cases. At the same time, a number of instances of the misuse of the ‘public
rooms’ came to light. The Govt. could not act immediately but showed some
solutions. Some of them were followed by Hall Plumer, the legal owner of
the property who was in dire financial problems.18 The next occupier was
James Anderson whose claims were supported by his neighbouring
landowners.
Dr. James Anderson (1737–1809) mentioned mulberry plantation in the
gardens of the Public Rooms in 1791. Cornwallis was lavishly entertained in
the building on 10 Oct. 1793, when Madras felicitated him on the success of
his war operations against Tipu. The property was at that time owned by Hall
Plumer, civil servant and contractor for public works. Shortly after the
entertainment for Cornwallis, the house and grounds were acquired by a
committee of gentlemen, who regulated the Madras amusements. Edward
Clive gave balls and suppers at the Pantheon in 1802. From thence,
subscription dances were regularly held there under the control of a Master
of Ceremonies, Mark Roworth. The building was also utilised for dramatic
performances.
Hall Plumer, who had built a house on the property and planted a garden,
assigned the ground on 18 Dec. 1793 through his attorney, Josias du Pre
Porcher, together with the dwelling house thereon erected, to a committee
consisting of the ‘Madras gentlemen’: Ernst W. Fallofield, Basil Cochrane,
Col. Henry Malcolm, Lt. Col. John Richardson, Lt. Col. Barry Close, Lt.
Col. William Gent, Thomas Lewin, Benjamin Sulivan, Benjamin Roebuck,
Daniel Ince, William Abbott, George Powney, Charles Floyer, Thomas
Hurdis, Charles Baker, Lt. Henry C. Montgomery, Richard Chase, Henry
Sewell, William Linley, William Brown, Mark Wilks, Henry Burnaby, James
Brodie, and Edward Watts19 (Love HD, 1913, iii, p. 420). Before becoming
the Museum, the property had changed many hands. Several plots of the
original ground had been sold, the residue being substantially the present
Museum Compound (site of the Land Customs House) bounded on the east
by Pantheon Road, on the west by Hall’s Road and on the North and South
by plots of garden houses. Next in importance was the Sea Customs House.

Custom House
During the rebuilding of the east front of Fort, the Custom House was moved
from the Sea Gate to temporary buildings outside, but it was eventually re-
established again at the gate. The letter from Robert Hughes, the Sea
Customer, to Governor Macartney in Dec. 1781 described its vicissitudes
and showed that the Sea Gate colonnade was used as a granary before St.
Mary’s Church was appropriated to that purpose. Hughes started his work
from a thatched house located in the Black Town due to the shortage of
houses in the war period: ‘when I was appointed Sea Customer, the business
of my Office was principally carried on in a Straw Shed a little to the
Northward of the Fort’ (PC cxxvi, 7 Dec. 1781). He thought it proper to
remove the books and accounts into his residential apartments, as the
thatched shed in question could not contend with either fire or rain water.
Shortly after Eyre Coote’s arrival from Bengal in 1780, the Esplanade was
ordered to be cleared of all buildings, and Charles Smith, the Provisional
Governor (1780–1), directed the Chief Engineer George Maule to prepare a
part of the sea line20 as a temporary Custom House, which was accordingly
done. Hughes took possession thereof in the beginning of 1781. But he soon
found that the place given to him was not fit to his requirements. In this
context, he traced the changes of the Custom House in the preceding one
decade:

About seven or Eight years ago the Godowns of the Custom House
were situated to the right and left of the Entrance from the Sea, with the
Piazza21 in Front, and would contain all the Goods that were landing
from Eight or Ten Indiamen and as many capital Country Ships.
(Idem.)

When the Custom House was brought back into the Fort, he pointed out to
Joseph Smith22 the angle between the Sea Gates23 as the fittest place for the
purpose, and he gave him reason to hope that he should have taken
possession thereof some months ago. Edward Garrow, the contractor for
repairs, had orders for making the required doors and windows. But the work
was so slow that hitherto the earth was not removed from within and in
front, but might easily be done, according to Hughes, in a few days. Hughes
hoped: ‘This Building and what I now hold, with the Piazza which is now
made use of as a Granary, will enable me to give your Lordship every
possible Satisfaction’ (Ibid.). The Piazza, in former times, had been the
public resort of all merchants and considered the ‘Exchange of the Place’; it
was always open for the reception of all kinds of traffic of the EIC and
others that could not lay out at the hazard of the weather. Hughes suggested
a better alternative: ‘and for the want of it for this purpose, I have lately seen
very valuable Property lying upon the Beach’ (Ibid.). The Govt. resolved that
the bomb-proofs by the Sea Gate should be allotted to the Sea Customer and
that a sufficient part be fitted up as an office for that employ in view of the
changed safety norms.
As trade had increased, there arose a need for a separate sea-customs
house with all the required facilities. Since the founding of Madras, sea
customs had ever been collected at the Sea Gate, save only during the
reconstruction of the east front of the fortifications, when temporary sheds
were provided for the Sea Customer on the beach of the northern Esplanade.
It was left to Edward Clive to transfer the Custom House to Black Town.
The Board of Trade was desired in 1798 to report on the suitableness of ‘the
building now occupied by the French prisoners of war’ (PC ccxxii, 6 Jan.
1798). This structure, a large square of 300 feet side, built round an interior
court or quadrangle on the beach, about 1¼ miles north of the Sea Gate, was
the old North granary, which had repeatedly been used as a place of
confinement for prisoners of war. The Board of Trade, consisting of Messrs.
E.W. Fallofield, C.B. Dent, John Chamier, and Roger Darvall, reported in
favour of the conversion of this grand edifice into a Custom House and
Marine yard. They had consulted James Call, the Sea Customer, and George
Taswell, the Master Attendant. The latter stated that the northern half of the
building would suffice for the Sea Customer, and he asked that the
remainder should be allotted to the Master Attendant and Marine
Storekeeper (PC ccxxiii, 16 Feb. 1798). Adjoining the granary, on its south
side, was land belonging to the nawab, and Taswell advised that a strip
measuring 300 yards north to south, and of the same depth as the building,
should be acquired to form a Naval yard. This was one of the plans.24
While the subject was under discussion, claims for space in the Fort
compelled the Sea Customer to vacate his office and betake himself to tents
on the beach. He complained in the sweltering month of June that

the Servants of the employ have suffered very much from the extreme
heat, the land wind blowing over the Glacis carrying with it such a
vortex of sand that the greatest part of the Merchandize at present
landing is liable to be wholly damaged.
(PC ccxxvi, 11 and 13 June 1798)

Remarking that the sea had receded sufficiently to allow of goods being
landed nearly opposite the old Custom House, where the Sea Gate and
godowns afforded security to property, he asked to be allowed to return to
his former offices. Secretary Josiah Webbe replied that the fiat had gone
forth for the Custom House to be permanently established in the Black Town
and that the question of return to the Fort could not be entertained.
Temporary sheds, however, might be erected on the beach (Idem.). As the
lands in the Black Town were far cheaper than in the Fort, the same amount
could fetch a larger space. Along the North-beach road, some other sites too
were considered as alternatives. But the Govt. was too slow to decide on any
of these sites. The reason was stiff opposition from the European merchants.
The Sea Customer remained in the tents on the beach for about 1½ years,
and that exposure contributed to the Sea Customer James Call’s sudden
breakdown and death in July 1799. As an immediate alternative, the Chief
Engineer Patrick Ross advised in April 1799 that the repair of the paddy-
godown on the NE beach, lately occupied as a French prison, be carried out
while the building was still untenanted (PC ccxxxiv, 5 April 1799). The
transfer of the Custom House from the Fort was no more agreeable to the
European mercantile firms than it was to the Sea Customer. On hearing the
proposals of its shifting outside, they addressed in the name of the merchants
of Madras a strong remonstrance to Mornington25 at the end of March 1799:

Understanding that it is the intention of Government to remove the

Custom House from the Fort, where it has been time immemorial
(except for these last few Months), to the French Prison, We humbly
beg leave to represent to your Lordship in Council the consequences
which such removal will have upon private property in the Fort, and the
enormous expence we shall be put to in Conveying our Goods, when
landed, to our Store-House.
(PC ccxxxv, 10 May 1799)

They stressed on two points of the effects: on the value of the properties in
the Fort and as also the problem of security in case of wars and sieges. The
crucial factor was that most of the English merchants resided in the Fort and
were afraid of the falling values of their house properties.
The English merchants did not like their business administration to go out
of the Fort. They argued that the shifting of the Custom House would
discourage the coming of the future business houses into the Fort:

But should this removal take place, it would appear as a prelude to

some further Steps for removing Merchandize altogether from the Fort,
 it having been understood in a former Government that it was in
Contemplation to forbid any Shops to be opened in the Fort.
(PC ccxxxv, 10 May 1799)

The merchants stated that it was too expensive to carry their goods so far to
the north of the Black Town:

We trust that, when we represent the Expence we have already been put
to in the conveyance of our Goods in Consequence of the Removal of
the Custom House to the North Glacis, where it now is, without any
Public Cause of Necessity which we can perceive, we shall not still be
put to a farther expence by having it removed to the French Prison, a
Place perhaps the most inconvenient to us of any which could be
pitched upon for the purpose, situated near a Mile and a half from the
Fort, and considerably to the Northward of any part of the Black-town
inhabited by Europeans, Portuguese or Armenians; and we hope that
your Lordship will be pleased to Order it to be removed to its former
Situation in the Fort.
(Idem)

They added a long list of the expected costs and benefits of such a shift
involving their own contemplations:

We have further to add that, in case it had been the intention of the
Honble Company to have made the whole of the Buildings of the Fort
their own Property, and have made it solely a Military Garrison … there
have been abundance of Opportunities for so doing.
(Ibid.)

As the properties had been frequently resold in the last 25 years, they
advised the Govt. to purchase a suitable property in the Fort. They were
hopeful of the influence of their long petitions.26
Governor (General) Mornington turned a deaf ear to all these solicitations.
He definitely resolved on the adaptation of the old granary and ordered the
Chief Engineer to divide it between the Sea Customer and Master Attendant
and have it ready for occupation by the end of Oct. 1799. At the beginning of
that month, Ross reported required progress of the works: ‘The Buildings
have been divided by a Wall carried across the square from the East to the
West face, the North side of which is appropriated for the Custom House,
and the South side to the Marine Store’ (PC ccxxxix, 8 and 10 Oct.; and ccxl,
8 Nov. 1799). Repairs to three sides of the building, as well as to two long
sheds within the square, were finished. The alteration of a portion of the east
face, 136 feet in length, to accommodate offices had been delayed through
the loss of the plan prepared in Feb. 1798 by George Taswell and the late
John Call, but the cost of this further adaptation, including an upper storey
and the construction of verandas 20 feet wide both above and below, was
estimated by Colonel William Gent, the Executive Engineer, at Pags. 10,486.
The Govt. expressed dissatisfaction at the delay. Ross was engaged to have
the buildings ready for occupation by the end of Nov. 1799 (Ibid.). The
European merchants seem to have thought that the Govt. was favouring the
natives so as to get their cooperation in the expansion of their imperial
interests.27
The assertion of the merchants that a considerable number of the buildings
in the Fort were private property was borne out by an extract from the long
petition of Messrs. Harrington, Watts & Co. and others addressed to the
Governor Edward Clive in Jan. 1800:

Understanding it to be the desire of Govt that all Houses of Business

shall be transferred to the Black-town in order that the Fort may be
exclusively appropriated for the Military and for such of the Publick
Offices as may be found convenient to continue therein, we are anxious
to meet your Lordship’s wishes upon such terms as may appear
reasonable, and have the honor to enclose you a Statement of the large
Property possessed by Individuals within the Fort, which we are ready
to dispose of to the Honorable Company at a fair valuation.
(PC ccxlii, 4 Feb. 1800)

This petition on behalf of the merchants was forwarded by Harrington, Watts

& Co., who were Attorneys for Josias Du Pre Porcher, the Founder Director
of the Carnatic Bank. They provided, in support of the falling property
values, a list of about 50 prominent house properties in the Fort along with
the names of their legal owners and values (Table 7.4).

Table 7.4 Houses of leading individuals, Fort, 1800

S.N. House Value/ Pags. Belonger

1 Mosses’s 25,000 F. Latour & Co.

2 Storey’s 14,000 F. Latour & Co.
3 Pasley’s 13,200 F. Latour & Co.
4 Mackay’s 13,500 F. Latour & Co.
5 Stone’s 2 32,500 F. Latour & Co.
6 Hollond’s 9,000 F. Latour & Co.
7 1 NE Face 25,000 Roebuck, Abbott & Co.
8 1 the Parade 10,101 Roebuck, Abbott & Co.
9 1 Court Street 3,200 Roebuck, Abbott & Co.
10 Two of justices 15,000 Andrew Ross’s
11 Another on Parade 20,000 J. Tulloch
12 1 in St. Thome Street 8,000 J. Tulloch
13 1 in Noah’s Ark 16,000 Edward Dent
14 1 in York-ally 5,000 Edward Dent
15 1 in Gloucester-ally 5,000 Edward Dent
16 Three near mint 15,000 Geo. Garrow
17 1 in Court Street 9,500 Adrian John
18 1 in Middle Gate Street 4,000 Adrian John
19 1 in St. Thome Street 6,000 Thos. De Mello
20 1 Powney’s 10,000 C. Singannah
21 1 Op. Charity School 6,000 Ravanappa
22 1 Middle Gate Street 12,000 Ravanappa
23 1 Op. Justices 5,000 Vencatarama Chetty
24 1 Walaja Gate 15,000 Henry Sewell, Executor
25 1 NE Face 10,000 W. Gent
26 John Hunter’s 6,000 John Hunter
27 Bold’s 3,000 Bold & Riorden
28 Tyapah Mu dally’s 4,000 Collinga Roy
29 Dobbyn’s Estate 8,500 Chase & Co.
30 Cecil Smith’s 6,500 Harrington, Watts & Co.
S.N. House Value/ Pags. Belonger

31 Porcher’s 12,500 Harrington, Watts & Co.

32 Board of Trade 10,400 Hope, Card & Reynold
33 Milven’s near Admiralty 18,000 A. Melvin
34 Milven’s other 6,500 A. Melvin
35 Colt & Baker’s 8,500 _
36 Wright & Hurst’s 5,000 J. Wright
37 Powney’s South end 4,500 Ranga Pillai
38 Powney’s North end 3,000 Ranga Pillai
39 South of Warehouse 2,000 Ranga Pillai
40 Mrs. McIntosh’s 5,000 J. Tulloh
41 Court Street 6,000 Ganapathy
42 Admiral’s 4,000 Francis De Silva
43 North Gate Street 4,500 J. Hunter
44 2 7,000 Mrs. Fairney
45 3 go downs 2,000 Roebuck, Abbott & Co.
46 Hunter’s 3,500 C. Vencata Narayana
47 Admiralty Street 7,000 Lingappa Chetty
48 Exchange godowns 30,000 John Abbott
49 Moubray’s 7,500 J Hunter
50 Shamier Sultan’s 9,000 -
Aggregate 490,901 -

Source: based on Love HD, 1913, III, pp. 510–1; and PC ccxlii, 4 Feb. 1800

Even after understanding their anger and discontent about the falling
prices of their properties, the Govt. resolved to decline the previously
mentioned offer, the Board having no occasion for the houses tendered for
sale to the EIC (Ibid.). Their environmental concerns were so strong that
they did not want to increase the pollution in the Fort. Consequently, some
European merchants began to shift their businesses to the Black Town from
the Fort in view of the Govt. offices shifting to these spacious
surroundings.28 The whole debate had some environmental concerns
especially felt by the Govt. The Fort was becoming clumsy and polluted
while the Black Town was more spacious with rich green environment. The
falling property values in the Fort were to be more than compensated by
their rise in the Black Town. The next long discussion had been about the
Lighthouse.

Lighthouse
A large lighthouse was a sine qua non in a major port like Madras. Lack of a
proper lighthouse in Madras port had been a serious problem to the
navigators. Active plans began in 1791. Sea Captains William T. Money,
T.D. Foulkes, and A.J. Applegarth, commanders of Indiamen, represented to
the Govt. in Feb. 1795 the advantage to navigation which a lighthouse would
confer. They said that ships nearing Madras at nightfall from southward were
compelled to lie and risk the shoals of Covelong, while those approaching
from the northward had to guard against the sand banks of Armagon and
Pulicat. A fixed light would enable vessels to enter the roadstead at all hours.
The Govt. assented and informed the commanders that their wishes would be
met. At this period, the church seems to have possessed only a tower, the
summit of which would have been a convenient situation for a light
chamber. Before, however, his ultimate sanction was to be passed, the
Governor thought it proper that his wishes should be communicated to the
Chaplains. They were then consulted on the eligibility of the steeple of
Mary’s Church as a site. The proposal was at once sent by Robert Clerk, the
Secretary to the Govt., to the Rev. Benjamin Millingchamp (Chaplain) as it
was related to the church: ‘I am directed to inform you that a proposal has
been made to the Right Honble the President in Council for the erection of a
light house on the steeple of St. Mary’s Church’ (PC cxcviii, 14 Feb. 1795).
In their reply, the Chaplains drew attention to the engagement made in 1680
that the church should be put to no secular use, and at the same time they
reminded the Govt. of their promise of 1793 to contribute towards the
rebuilding of the spire. The Chaplains had explained their opposition to the
Govt. proposal by citing their historical promise: ‘At the dedication of St.
Marys, … the parties respectively promised for themselves and their
successors to refuse and renounce to put the Church or any part of it to any
profane or common use whatsoever’ (PC cxcviii, 27 Feb. 1795). Moreover,
other Chaplains, Richard Leslie and A. Bell, had joined Millingchamp in
putting forward their pending demands:

We beg leave to add that the Parishioners assembled in Vestry on the

12th Instant requested the Chief Engineer to superintend the Building of
a Spire, agreeably to a former resolution sanctioned by the Court of
Directors; and by Government.
(Ibid.)

After their discussions, the senior church warden informed the Govt.: ‘The
Vestry, at a meeting held the 29 Dec., 1792, having taken into consideration
the propriety of rebuilding the Steeple of St. Mary’s Church, which has
remained long in a mutilated and decaying condition’ represented to Govt.
their inability to execute the work (PC cc, 5 May 1795). Their low funds was
the reason. They represented to the Govt. their inability to execute the work
owing to the low state of the Church funds. They solicited the aid of the
Board to contribute at least a proportion of the expense for this purpose. As
there was no quick response from the Govt., the Vestry met again and
repeated their request for funds:

the measure of rebuilding the steeple of St. Mary’s Church having again
been resumed, it was resolved to be carried into execution, and that the
sum29 which the Honble Board had consented to contribute should be
applied for.
(Ibid.)

This time it was forwarded by John Tulloh, partner in the firm of Tulloh,
Jervis, & Brodie. The religious sensibilities ran too high to permit the
Lighthouse on the church steeple. The Govt. finally bowed to the religious
sentiments and began to search for the next best alternatives.
After enquiries with the leading merchants, the Govt. finally selected the
roof of the Exchange as the position for the light. The Lighthouse, which
was a framed iron structure, carried a lantern, reflectors, and 12 lamps
burning by coconut oil. It was completed by the end of 1796 as informed by
the President of the Exchange Committee to Governor Robert Hobart in
Council: ‘the Light House … was resolved to be built by the Exchange
Company, is completed, and will be ready to be opened at such time as your
Lordship shall be pleased to appoint’ (PC ccxxiv, 23 March 1798). The
details of the construction and its strength were reported by Benjamin
Roebuck (17?–1809).30 The tall new structure on the top of the Exchange
building withstood the severe gale of ‘last monsoon when incomplete, and
the bad weather it had stood this monsoon’ without the smallest effect
produced on it enabled him to say that it would be adequate to withstand any
weather which it might experience in the coming years. Once the Lighthouse
was installed on it, the Exchange building turned into a more conspicuous
landmark on the shore as depicted by some of the observers. ‘The Exchange
and Town Hall’, a large three-storey building was erected within the Fort. Its
lower floor was let out for shops, and part of the first floor was a Tavern.
There was a Lighthouse and signal-station upon the roof. The roadstead was
opposite the Fort, and vessels anchoring there, though small, were very
numerous. Not only was the approach of every ship, but also the direction
from which it was coming signalled. And there was also great
punctiliousness in the giving and returning of salutes to the King’s ships and
those of the EIC. For important personages, the battery at Chepauk joined.
Madras had then a character to maintain as an important naval station
(Leighton D, 1902, p. 244). Its height was more than that of the church, the
spire, and the surrounding tall trees.
The Govt. ordered its use since the end of the year 1796. Josiah Webbe,
the Secretary, expressed satisfaction at the completion of the Lighthouse and
recommended that it might be opened immediately, since ‘this was the
season of the year at which it was reckoned most useful to ships coming into
the roads’ (PC ccxii, 22 Nov. 1796). Once the Govt. ordered its regular use,
problems of its upkeep and maintenance arose. Roebuck, who watched
through its construction, had forwarded a letter from Peter Massy Cassin,
who had superintended the Lighthouse since its construction:

Having carried into execution a plan of a Light House given in by you,

and superintended the Management of it to the present time, I can …
assure you that it requires no small degree of attention to keep those
who attend [up] to their duty.
(Love HD, 1913, iii, p. 497)

The situation in which he lived having given him an opportunity of seeing it

at all hours of the night, he had often found it necessary to dispatch a trusted
person to the Exchange building to keep the peons and sergeant active in
their duty. And frequently he came here himself before the gates were shut,
as he was well aware of the mischief that might arise to the vessels
approaching the roads at night on such a guide, and not finding it. Roebuck
reported in 1798 the cost of maintenance of, and improvements to, the
Lighthouse, and proposed a ‘Light duty’ on vessels at the rate of 1¼ Pagodas
per mast, part of which was to be used in defraying the original cost of
construction. This measure was supported by Cassin, as the Lighthouse had
saved a lot of searching time to the ship navigators.31
A detailed enclosure was attached by Cassin about the vessels and their
masts of the trading vessels of different classes that came into the roads of
Madras from 23 Nov. 1796 to 23 Nov. 1797 (see Table 7.5).

Table 7.5 Memorandum of trading vessels, 1796–7

Masts
Class of ship
Each Total

147 ships 3 441

44 brigs, ketches, and snows 2 88
707 sloops, cutters, and small donies* 1 707
44 company’s ships 3 132
2 company’s brigs 2 4
Total masts - 1,372

Source : PC ccxxiv, 23 March 1798

*Donies = dhonies (Tamil); toni = small native craft

The total amount collected was star Pags. 1,715 at 1¼ Pagoda per mast
(Idem). Cassin offered to meet maintenance charges if he were granted an
allowance of Pags. 100 a month. On the recommendation of the Board of
Trade, the Govt. approved a scale of ‘light dues’ based on tonnage. The rates
ranged from 1 Pagoda for a vessel of 50 tons to Pags. 5 for one of 900 tons.
The collections were to be paid to the Exchange Committee (PC ccxxv, 11
May 1798). According to a note published in successive issues of the
Madras Almanac, the Lighthouse on the Exchange was erected by the
Exchange Committee, with the sanction of the Govt. in Dec. 1796. The light
was 90 feet above the level of the sea at high water; it could be seen from the
decks of the EIC ships about 17 miles, and from their mastheads nearly 26
miles from the Fort (Love HD, 1913, III, p. 498). The facility was highly
useful to the local vessels.32 The Lighthouse was surrounded by greenery,
but the height of trees was less than that of the building so that the light
would be visible to the vessels. The other and semi-public buildings were the
castles and palaces. The military had often resorted, as temporary
accommodation, to the castles and other large private palaces.

Castles

Leith

A handful of mighty edifices were either built by the nawab or belonged to

him. Next came the ‘castles’ raised by the rich European traders among
abundant greenery. Leith Castle, the house of James Leith (17?–1829),33
stood in Santhome (Raghavan MD, 1994, pp. 117–18).34 In the grounds of
the house were seen the remains of the Santhome Red-out, executed in 1751.
At the end of the 18th century, Leith Castle was already in ruins when John
Brathwaite applied to the EIC for a grant of the site, which was accordingly
granted. A spacious residence was built there by him (see Figure 7.3). The
EIC did not maintain it for unknown reasons. Next in line was the Brodie
Castle in Adyar gardens.
Figure 7.3 Leith Castle
Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 42

Brodie

Brodie Castle was built by James Brodie (17?–1802), an EIC civil servant of
1789 in the midst of a fully grown garden (see Figure 7.4). Brodie was an
outstanding person in the early European society of Madras. Like many a
fellow servant of the EIC, he engaged himself in business on his own, under
the name ‘Jarvis and Brodie’, apparently denoting the firm under which
name he carried on commercial transactions. He figured as one of the many
gentlemen to whom Hall Plumer assigned the Pantheon and its grounds on 1
Dec. 1793, a body of men who later constituted the Pantheon Committee,
responsible for the management of the Pantheon, the centre of the social life
of the city.35 He drowned in the floody Adyar river in 1802, near Brodie
Castle, his residence (Love HD, 1913, iii, p. 420). He faced many ups and
downs because of his adventures.

Figure 7.4 Brodie Castle

Source: Barlow G, 1921, p. 45

Private trade by public servants was absolutely forbidden towards the

close of the 18th century. Brodie was one of the civil servants who was
called on to resign the service or withdraw from commercial pursuits. What
he elected to do is not known. His commercial prosperity did not long
continue, and his firm failed, though he was still a gentleman of means and
led a comfortable life. William Taylor spoke of him: ‘I often saw Mr. Brodie,
he being a regular attendant on the morning Sunday service at St. Mary’s in
the Fort’ (Raghavan MD, 1994, p. 116). He was rather tall and slender, with
a calm placid countenance, of fine but pale complexion. He wore powdered
hair with a queue behind, a sky-blue coat, with two or three large cloth
buttons and a collar with lappets, in the fashion of the close of 1790s. He
married Miss Ann Storey in 1790, and his daughter Isabella was married to
Captain Archibald Erskine Patullo of the Madras Cavalry.36 On the bank of
the Adyar stood the house which bears his name, Brodie Castle, built on a
grant of land 11 acres in extent, assigned to him by the EIC in 1796 on the
Quibble Island, an extensive area originally an island formed by two
branches of the Adyar river. The house was large, embanked by sloping
walls, with two castellated turrets on the north front and entrance. Following
the reverses in his fortune, he let his house on rent, and with the favoured
situation it presented on the bank of the river, the house had never been in
want of tenants. It had been the residence of a long line of prosperous
civilians. The militaries that arrived during the war times were placed
temporarily in the large private palaces.

Places
The houses of the qiladars and other local chiefs and rich men were ‘large
and luxurious’. Some of them were constructed and enlarged gradually over
years and generations. One such house that belonged to the raja of
Thiruvannamalai is described in the Tiger of Mysore: ‘On passing the doors,
the great hall was at once entered; its roof, of elaborately carved stone, was
supported by two rows of pillars with sculptured capitals’ (Henty GA, 1896,
p. 63). The floor was made of inlaid marble, and at one end was raised a foot
above the general level. Here stood a stone chair on which the Raja sat when
he adjudicated upon disputes among his people, heard petitions, and gave
audiences, while a massive door on the left-hand side gave entrance to the
private apartments (Ibid.). These were all small in comparison with the
entrance hall. The walls were lined with marble slabs, richly carved, and
were dimly lighted by windows, generally high up in the walls, which were
of great thickness. The marble floors were covered with thick rugs, and each
room had its divan, with soft cushions and rich shawls and covers. The
dining room had been specially furnished and decorated in English fashion.
The windows here were low and afforded a view over the garden. Next to it
were several apartments, all fitted with divans, but with low windows and a
bright outlook; they could be darkened during the heat of the day by shutters.
With the exception of these windows, the others, throughout the house
contained no glass, the light entering through innumerable holes that formed
a filigree work in the thin slabs of stone that filled the orifices (Ibid.). It was
remarkable that many such palaces around Madras, constructed during the
Vijayanagara period, were standing still even after more than a century of
chaos of misrule or no rule but local feuds and horrible invasions.37
The palaces of the dons were later occupied by elite Hindu gentlemen,
whose families lived in the retirement of the thickly wooded compounds,
some of which were enclosed with high walls. The gardens round the houses
were encircled with hedges, from which came a breath of the sweet scent of
the honeysuckles. One could see on the grounds through open gateway, or
chance breach in wall and hedge, glimpse of silken garments and flash of
golden ornaments; with the sound of the merry voices of children playing
among the oleanders and roses. The mynas and parrots chattered and
screamed. The crows were vociferous upon the veranda roofs, and the
squirrels, with jerking tails, scudded shrieking along the walls. The song of
the gardener came from the well as he drew water for the garden; and
occasionally, the sound of a tom-tom might be heard, as some domestic
festival was being celebrated within the jealously screened halls (Penny FE,
1908, p. 74). Each bungalow was self-sufficient in the matters of water,
drainage, and sometimes with respect to vegetables and fruits.38 Many of
them were provided with a small hut for domestic servants. The Adyar
clubhouse was one such resting palace.
The Adyar clubhouse had an interesting history. It belonged to the
Portuguese Roman Catholic Mission at the Luz, to which it was bequeathed
by De Monte. Petrus Uscan, the son of an illustrious Armenian who came to
Madras early in the 18th century had settled there. He built up a flourishing
trade with Manila in the Philippine Islands and accumulated a large fortune.
His name is connected with the Marmelong Bridge and with the steps to the
church on the Mount. When he died in 1754, his commercial mantle fell
upon the shoulders of a merchant named De Monte, ‘the descendant of one
of the proud old Portuguese dons’ who settled at Mylapore. Business
prospered with De Monte as it had done with Uscan, and a fine fortune was
made. He had an only son whom he sent to England to be educated (Penny
FE, 1908, p. 68). During his absence, De Monte built the house later used as
a club and furnished it with every luxury that money could buy. The time
approached for the young De Monte to return to join his father. The white
sails of the ship appeared in the south, and the distant boom of cannon
announced a little later that the vessel had come to anchor in the roads. De
Monte hurried to the beach as fast as his Arab horse could carry him. The
Muckwas rowed him out through the surf, and he climbed the gangway
ladder with an eagerness he could not control. His eye scanned the company
as he came on board, but he searched in vain; his boy was not there to meet
him. Then the captain came forward, and a hush fell upon the passengers as
they drew away and left the two together. It was a sad tale that the captain
had to tell of a foolish quarrel followed by a duel. Only the evening before
had the disputants crossed swords and De Monte had been killed. Bowed
with grief, the broken-hearted father was conducted to his son’s cabin where
the dead body lay. He bore the beloved remains to the house by the Adyar,
and afterwards to the cemetery at Mylapore. When he died, he left the house
and grounds to the Portuguese Mission in the Luz (Penny FE, 1908, p. 69).
Most of the luxurious bungalows in the outskirts of the city had got one or
two such stories.
Apart from the previously mentioned, there were many public, semi-
public, and private buildings with well-developed gardens in Madras. The
choultries, hospitals, schools, and temples were some of them. The Monegar
Choultry was one such lush green compound (see Figure 7.5). It seems that
it was donated by a village accountant in the olden days as a meeting and
resting place for the village accountants called monegars. It was one of the
oldest and largest of the privately maintained choultries (inns) of Madras
with a large green compound. It was run by a trust to serve the ‘sick charity
poor’ (Love HD, 1913, pp. 274, 514 and 607). It was later amalgamated with
the Native Hospital.
Figure 7.5 Monegar Choultry
Source: Mudaliar AL, 1939, facing page 56

Architects
The architects of Madras were great environmentalists. They designed both
private houses and public buildings with wide and airy windows and high
doors both topped by beautiful arches. There were ventilators on them but
just below the ceiling roof. The appointment of the Civil Architect39 dates
from the early 1770s as written by the EIC to Madras in July 1777.
Christopher Macklin,40 the Master Bricklayer, was the first appointee to the
post of Civil Architect. He resigned his post in 1774, when the Directors
recommended Philip Stowey who was well suited as was an ‘able Architect,
Draughtsman and Surveyor’. They appointed Stowey as ‘Civil Architect,
Surveyor, and Master Bricklayer’ for which several employs41 he was to
have an annual salary of £ 100 to commence upon his arrival at Madras
(Love HD, 1913, III, pp. 131–2). Also the Madras Govt. was instructed to
permit him to do any ‘private business’ as a Civil Architect provided it did
not interfere with his duties to the EIC. He proceeded to Madras on one of
the ships in 1777. The Directors remarked in a subsequent letter that Stowey
having

acquired considerable Reputation for his Skill and Talents in his

Profession, We have no doubt of your finding him able and useful in the
Superintending of such Public or other Buildings as may be committed
to his Management in the Character of principal Architect and
Surveyor.
(cited, p. 132)

It seems that this pre-emptive support from London was intended to ward off
the rumours that Stowey had been engaged in his private business at the cost
of the official duties. Receiving this support from the Directors, the Madras
Govt. had put aside all its complaints against him. It is probably to Stowey’s
talent that Madras owes the design of some of those handsome and spacious
private residences which, situated in park-like compounds, were the envy of
Calcutta and Bombay in those days. Beautiful arches were designed and
built in different angles and shapes. Some of them were finished with curves
and bow shapes. There were a number of public buildings beautifully
designed by Stowey in Madras including some military quarters. Climate,
materials, geography, and environs were his main considerations. There was
high demand for his services.42
One such demand was from the Christian associations for building
beautiful churches in Madras and suburbs. The Govt. received, in 1796, an
address in which upwards of 100 of the chief Christian residents of Black
Town represented the need for a Protestant church in that locality. They
proposed to erect a building by subscription and asked assistance from the
public purse. At the same time, Rev. Richard Kerr, who had lately been
transferred from Elur, stated that a project for a church at that station, to
which the Govt. had contributed Pags. 1,000, had fallen through, and he
suggested that the materials collected and the unexpended balance of cash
should be devoted to the Black Town scheme. He offered to volunteer as
clergyman without emolument provided the plan was carried out (PC ccxi, 9
Sept. 1796). The Govt. promised to contribute if sufficient subscriptions
were raised. Kerr applied himself to this object, and in 1798, he sought a
grant of land, suggesting a site purchased from Popham for the purpose of
making compensation to the inhabitants of Hog Hill. The Chief Engineer
Major-General Ross reported favourably to the Govt.: ‘I am not aware of
any inconvenience that can arise from its being appropriated to that purpose’
(PC ccxxvii, 24 July 1798). This place was formerly allotted for building a
spacious square for the accommodation of the European merchants who
might find it convenient to follow the Custom House from the Fort to the
Black Town. Ross had cleverly sidelined the idea, saying that should the
whole extent was ‘scarcely sufficient for the purpose’ for building the
‘merchant square’ (Ibid.). The merchants could as well purchase another and
conveniently large plot to build their ‘square’. The ground was then valued
at a cheap price of 100 Pagodas each lot, far less than the market value. The
objections raised by the trustees of the demolished temple were ignored by
the EIC.
Although the scheme of a Merchants’ Square was not carried out,43 the
choice of a site for Kerr’s chapel ultimately fell on that piece of ground
which had been set apart for the Theatrical Society 13 years earlier along
with that of the merchants’ square, but never utilised by either. Major-
General Ross wrote to Mornington about this matter in 1799: ‘I have the
honor to lay before Your Lordship a Plan of the ground appropriated for the
purpose of erecting a Protestant Chapel’ (PC ccxxxiv, 5 April 1799). No
reason was assigned for declining to grant the same first to the Theatrical
Society and later for a temple that was demolished in the process of
widening of the road. Ross understood the interest of the Govt. and
submitted his favourable recommendation:

On referring to the Books in the Engineers Office, I find this Ground

was applied for by the Theatrical Society in June 1786, but there is not
 any Record in the Office by which it appears to have been granted; and
it has ever since remained unoccupied untill the Chapel was built.
(Ibid.)

Ross added that the ground formed part of an area purchased in 1781 by
Maxwell, Superintendent of the EIC Lands, for allotment to the Hoghill
claimants. One portion, bought from a man named Bhadrayya for Pags.
14,116, had, however, been reserved for building sepoy barracks, and the
remainder, containing 62 lots and including the chapel site, had not yet been
acquired owing to disputed ownership. Kerr reported in Dec. 1799, that the
new church, designed and built by John Goldingham,44 was nearly finished,
and he proposed to open it on the first Sunday in 1800. The cost, Pags.
4,500, had been met by donations and public subscription. The Asylum
Lottery had contributed Pags. 1,500; St. Mary’s Vestry, Pags. 800; the Govt.,
Pags. 748; and the Black Town residents, Pags. 886. The Govt. resolved to
apply to the Bishop of London for authority to consecrate the building (PC
ccxl, 13 Dec. 1799). Thus, the church was built in the place of huts. The
building of churches was given priority over the temples. Many small
temples like the pillaiyar kovils were demolished in the process of the
widening of roads and streets and without considering the local
complaints.45 Meanwhile, it was alleged that bribes and other types of
corruption were frequent in most of the land dealings.

Estimation
All public buildings were surrounded by gardens with large avenue trees.
Madras public buildings were large, looked beautifully white with spacious
rooms and elevated verandas, surrounded by greenery and bordered by
compound walls. Edward Ives, a traveller, found the houses and public
buildings, in 1755, strong and well planned and shining with fresh coat of
white chunam. The buildings at Madras ‘were handsome and built in the
modern European stile’ (Ives E, 1773, p. 47). He moved to the streets and
petas of the native town and found the contrast: ‘the houses of the Black-
town are very low and flat-roofed; some of them are tiled, and others
thatched, but neither the one nor the other have any chimney’. The natives
commonly dressed their victuals without doors; and should they make a fire
within, which seldom happened, the smoke was obliged to make its way
through the eaves of the house, which had scarcely ever any upper rooms.
This was the state of the houses of the merchants and mechanics, who
resided within the town; and as to those of the poorest sort, who lived in the
suburbs, and in the country, they were nothing but huts covered with Cajan
(Borassus flabelliformis) leaves, and were so exceedingly low, that their
miserable inhabitants could not stand upright in them, and whenever they
entered, were obliged to creep in on their hands and feet (Ibid.). The house
and garden belonging to these country people measured about 600–700 sq.
yards. Huts in general were made of wooden poles and roofed with a variety
of locally available grasses.
The buildings and residential houses of Madras in the last quarter of the
18th century were praised by many European travellers. The Fay couple who
stayed there in April 1780 found that so ‘Many of the houses and public
buildings are very extensive and elegant’ (Fay E, 1817, p. 121). The lime-
coated white structures had attracted their view in the moonlit nights: ‘They
are covered with a sort of shell-lime which takes a polish like marble, and
produce a wonderful effect’ (Ibid.). They were decorated with the ‘utmost
taste’ and resembled to them the stately buildings they saw in Italy. The
houses in Madras, particularly in the White Town, resembled those of
London in many respects. Through the spread of formal visiting, the
proliferation of affordable ornamental furnishings, the commercial
celebration of feminine artistry at home, and the currency of the language of
taste, even modest homes turned into arenas of social campaign and
exhibition (see Vickery A, 2010). The new bungalows built in Egmore and
on the Choultry Plains were larger than those in London and had more
spacious rooms (Fay E, 1817, pp. 122–3). This wealthy city with its mosaic
population and highly decorated houses, particularly the white, looked
beautiful.

This idea is still further heightened by the intermixture of inhabitants,

by seeing Asiatic splendour combined with European taste exhibited on
every side, under the forms of flowing drapery, stately palanquins,
elegant carriages, innumerable servants, and all the pomp and
circumstance of luxurious ease and unbounded wealth.
(cited, p. 122)
The stately houses in the suburbs too were large and beautiful; ‘the whole
vicinity being ornamented with gentlemen’s houses built in a showy style of
architecture and covered with that beautiful chunam’. Walls on the outside
were skirted with granite slabs.
Houses and office buildings of varied sizes and types were built by the
traders in Madras. Each one was unique in its style. The beauty of Madras
was aptly described by Mrs. Kindersley, a keen observer in 1765:

Madras is … strongly fortified, and the walls and works, as well as the
barracks for the army, the storehouses, and every other public building
are so calculated as to be both convenient and an addition to the beauty
of the place.
(Love HD, 1913, II, p. 617)

The town was laid out in streets and squares; the houses neat and pretty,
many of them large. In all the good houses, the apartments were upstairs,
and all on one floor. The rooms were large and very lofty; most of the houses
were built with a veranda, which was a terrace on a level with the rooms in
the front, and sometimes in the back part of the house, supported by pillars
below, and a roof above supported likewise by pillars, with rails round to
lean on. The verandas gave a handsome appearance to the houses on the
outside, and are of great use, keeping out the sun by day, and in the evenings
were cool and pleasant to sit in. But what gave the greatest elegance to the
houses was a material peculiar to the place. It was a cement or plaster called
chunam made of the shells of a very large species of oysters found on this
coast. The shells when burnt, pounded, and mixed with water formed the
strongest cement imaginable. If it was to be used as a plaster, they mixed it
with whites of eggs, milk, and some other ingredients. When dry, it was as
hard, and very near as beautiful as marble. The rooms and staircases were
covered with it. The greenery of its grand gardens was praised by Kinder-
sley. Most of this description had aptly applied to the White Town and its
residents.
The colonial Govt. of Madras had followed a standard housing policy that
had been cost effective and high-revenue yielding. It had two main options:
to build new units or to acquire the private houses at a cheaper price.
Whenever it was urgent or cheap, they followed the second option. They
collected high rates of house taxes that a part of the surplus revenues were
used for constructing public buildings. Most of the private houses were built
following vastu that had taken into account the local climate, soil, and other
religious considerations. The EIC Govt. added some tastes of Western styles
that are suited to the local hot climatic conditions. Most of the houses were
so directed in their design as to get the maximum sunlight and air through
their doors and windows showing the education of its architects and the
health consciousness of its occupants.46 The foregoing brief analysis about
the green urban environment of colonial Madras in the 18th century may be
closed by listing a few inferential conclusions.

Notes
1 It was their health economics.
2 The locally available materials, that is masonry, sand, chunam, etc., were almost of the same
quality.
3 Cornice is a continuous horizontal projecting course or moulding at the top of a wall or
building.
4 Frieze was the horizontal band between the architrave and the cornice of a classical
entablature or temple above the columns.
5 It was rounded off later to 7,000 Star Pagodas.
6 Increasing prices of materials often hiked the estimates.
7 Out of the revised estimate of 20,196 Pagodas, 7,000 were already paid against the original
estimate, leaving a balance of 13,196 Star Pagodas.
8 The main alterations are a third storey and an extension of the porch and a veranda (Crombie
AD, 1939, p. 18). The space was increased by additional rooms.
9 Pigot was arrested by his Councillors, with whom he had quarrelled, and he died in
confinement in the Garden House.
10 It was so-called from having been bought for the accommodation of the admirals when
ashore (Dodwell H, 1926, p. 165). It was a landmark residence of sea admirals.
11 Edward Clive was governor of Madras, 1799–1803.
12 The old banqueting hall had been there in the times of Old Madras (up to 1746).
13 When the English EIC passed orders that all non-English residents should vacate the Fort
premises (see Chapter 2).
14 Henry Speke was the captain of the flagship Kent. He was one of the occupiers of the
‘Great House in Charles-street’ in 1750s.
15 The list includes Richard Starke and Henry Speke, 1755–63. Rental rates were enhanced
by some pagodas.
16 He did not claim the increased rates.
17 There was also a good library for readers.
18 Plumer incurred heavy losses in his contracts.
19 1) Ernst William Fallofield (17?–1816) entered the civil service in 1767 and Council
Member in 1794. 2) Basil Cochrane, civil servant, 1776, built the Cochrane canal and
owned two garden houses. 3) Lt. Colonel Barry Close was aide-de-camp to General Stuart
in 1783. 4) Gent was Chief Engineer. 5) Lewin was bank director. 6) Sulivan was Attorney-
General. 7) Roebuck was military Paymaster-General, 1790. 8) Abbott was Courier agent,
1790. 9) George Powney and Charles Floyer were civil servants of 1780 and 1781,
8
CONCLUSIONS

DOI: 10.4324/9781003215493-8

Environment
This study analyses many current environmental problems from a historical
point of view when economics prevailed in decision making. Greenery was
encouraged in the process of urbanisation. Madras grew with a green
environment. It comes out here as the central thread that held all other
things together in this study. Amazingly, the greenery was maintained, and
it was further developed by the EIC administration with a conscious eco-
friendly environment on par with the cities in Britain. Burgeoning
population and rapid infrastructural development had tremendously
compressed the numerous water bodies of the city in the 18th century,
largely reducing their area and affecting the quality of the water. The
Government tried to minimise the damage by promoting greenery by all
means. The environment was preferred by the English EIC over the
economic development when there was a trade-off between the two.1 Being
an essential provider of basic food and health, greenery was encouraged by
the EIC Govt. and as well as the private organisations. It had pre-empted
and prevented many health havocs and disorders and reduced the spread
and intensity of the prevailing diseases. No doubt that there had been
environmental depletions in the colonial period in the hinterland Carnatic.
But Madras was fortunate that its greenery, which facilitated healthy living
conditions, was largely improved. It was the self-interest of the EIC
Government, but it enriched the urban environment of the city including its
suburbs.

Infrastructure
Proper infrastructural planning with abundant greenery all over the city was
the motto of the EIC Government. Greenery dominated its infrastructural
development activities. It was encouraged in the process of urbanisation by
the EIC in Madras for multiple reasons. It was pleasant to the eye and
cooled down the city in hot summers. Vehicular traffic passed comfortably
under the tree shades. Building materials, furniture, firewood, and charcoal
were derived from the dried wood. Some of the trees provided fruits and
flowers. Green leaves were consumed by the elephants, camels, cows,
buffaloes, sheep, goats, and other animals. Some roots and leaves were used
as vegetables and also in the preparation of medicines. The rest of the
leaves were composted into manure. Greenery in the form of gardens was
raised both in the White and Black towns. Large gardens were planted in
the suburbs2 while trees and bushes were raised in the house compounds of
the main city. Lands were allotted to the house builders on the condition
that they should plant and grow gardens. Large gardens, by the end of the
18th century, were more than 120 while the number of house gardens had
far exceeded that number (see Apds., 1 and 2). All the roads had trees on
either side while the streets, lanes, and bye lanes had shady trees.
Urbanisation had increased the green trees.

Urbanisation

Urbanisation is a general index of economic development.3 Urbanisation in

the developed world is higher than that of the developing nations. It has
advantages as well as disadvantages. Industrialisation and wealth creation
are the chief benefits while environmental degradation, pollution, and the
resulting diseases are its main costs.4 Urbanisation in modern India began
with the arrival of the European trading companies. Among the four
competing European companies, only the British could establish their
colonial empire in India while the French and the Portuguese were confined
to small enclosures on the coasts.5 Being unable to conduct their trading
activities from the existing native coastal towns, the Europeans founded
new factory towns in their vicinity. Thus sprang the urban clusters of
Madras from Masuli, Bombay from Surat, and Calcutta from Murshidabad
as the new centres of trade and commerce.
Urbanisation in the 18th-century India and the growth of Madras city had
been synonymous. Urban development was left mostly to the private
organisations. It was chiefly the result of the settlements of the traders in the
coastal port towns,6 mainly Madras. It was a basic element of capitalism
that facilitated easy accumulation of wealth. Urbanisation had improved
trade and other developmental activities. Madras grew into a model city in
South India for intermeshing the Indian commerce with the rest of the
world. It grew into a rich and flourishing town once it was rendered back to
the English in 1749. Madras demonstrated that an Indian city could assert
itself as a centre of Western forms of professional, commercial, and
technical organisations and education while retaining its native culture and
traditions. It also got some other advantages.

Strategic
There was a strategic military superiority of Madras over Calcutta and
Bombay: to occupy its coast was the most effective way of preventing the
French from coming. ‘Come they certainly would, if an opening was left for
them. Once there, they would threaten Bengal’ (Parkinson NC, 1937, p. 39).
Pondy was a weak fortress and one which could easily be neutralised by a
place of greater strength planted to the northward, between it and Bengal.
Just such a place was Madras. And herein was its military importance.
Madras, with its inland territory, kept the French capital in check. In point
of fact, whenever the French fortified Pondy, an English army promptly
stormed it and carefully demolished the works. They prevented the French
from repeating 1746. One of their aims in occupying the suburban villages
surrounding Madras city was to face the enemy far before entering the Fort.
Protective thorny fences, masonry ramparts, dreadful redoubts, formidable
batteries, and high-raised outposts all around the city were raised to pre-
empt the enemies. The development of infrastructure and construction of
houses in the city had brought out the organisational adjustments and
cultural admixtures.7

Infrastructure
Housing was followed by the provision of appropriate infrastructural
facilities while environment was reshaped by these two sectors. The town
planning in the Fort followed that of London with the necessary
adjustments for climate and geography. The native town had automatically
followed the traditions of the local towns and especially that of the
Vijayanagar from where a significant number of merchants hailed. It was
said that Madras rose from the ashes of Vijayanagar that had been the south
Indian pride for more than three centuries. Finally, it evolved into a
convenient synthesis of the Western structures with the Eastern decorations.
Madras city had been the main plank of traditional economic
development. It was the result of the growth of colonial trade and the
related administrative activities and defence structures. Development of the
infrastructure, like roads and waterways, formed its basic amenities. This
leading centre of economic development had progressed fast after its
rendition in 1749, despite it being followed by the hardships of continuous
warfare up to the end of the 18th century. As the Fort area was already fully
settled, the increasing population moved mostly to the outskirts. The
number of houses and public buildings with gardens increased in number;
consequently, the demand for infrastructural facilities like roads, bridges,
and waterworks was accelerated. The nature and extent of its infrastructure,
especially its efficiency, depended first on its planning for the fast-growing
economy and resources.
Its modern town planning was emulated in the other colonial cities. It
required the preparation of a layout of the entire urban space and the
regulation of urban land use. Planning was inspired by a vision of what the
city should look like, how it would be developed, and the way in which
spaces should be organised and developed. The ideology of such urban
development presumed the exercise of state power over the urban lives and
properties. They also considered the tropical climatic conditions of Madras
while formulating the plans and the concerned rules and regulations.
 By the late 18th century, the English felt the need for some public rules to
regulate the development of vacant lands and construction of public
buildings and residential houses as well as roads with side drains. Many
obstructions, including some places of worship, were removed and the
streets were broadened and straightened. Huts and slums were moved to the
outskirts. The planners tried to extend the Fort model to the native town but
with wide spaces to move especially in case of attacks from outside as
happened during 1758–9 when the French seized the city and during 1767–
9 when Hyder surrounded it. Scientific and technological developments had
helped to improve the living standards of the residents. Extension of the
infrastructural facilities had encouraged the construction of quality houses.
Madras city had been the main plank of traditional houses built in
European style. Resident Europeans began to move out of the Fort as the
English consolidated their power after the horrible defeat of the French and
the demolition of Pondy in 1761. Garden houses first started coming up
along the two main arteries – Mount and Poornamallee roads – leading
from the Fort to the Cantonments. Wealthy Indians too started to live like
the Europeans. Consequently, many new suburbs were created from the
existing villages around old Madras (see Reddy MA, 2006, III). This spread
was possible because of the improvement of transport facilities and also the
spending power of its residents. The poor continued to settle in the places
near their work spots. The gradual urbanisation of Madras had absorbed the
surrounding villages. The English boasted much of a delightful Mount
about seven miles distant, where the Governor and others had garden
houses which were both cool and elegant. Madras had greatly impressed
Mrs. Kindersley who visited it in the 1760s (Love HD, 1913, II, pp. 617–8).
The neatness and uniform simplicity throughout was ‘universally pleasing’.
They were expensive in horses, carriages, palanquins, and number of
servants; were fond of entertainments, dress, and pleasure; sociable with
each other; and hospitable and politely civil to strangers. The summer heat
was excessive, but the climate was esteemed healthy, and people frequently
came here for the recovery of their health from Bengal; for the soil was dry,
and the benefit of the sea breeze, which constantly blew from between 12
and 1, at noon till the same time at night, was a ‘great advantage’. She felt
that Madras was far better than crowded Calcutta and busy Bombay,
particularly in health aspects. At the same time, it had its actively
functioning property markets.
 Property was passed on from the extensive to the intensive users mostly
through the market mechanism. Forests were cleared and planted with
crops. Agricultural fields and waste lands were purchased or transferred to
the house-building activities.8 Land prices had increased along with its
intensive use. Land under commercial housing commanded the highest
prices. Land property turned into the single largest source of wealth in
Madras. Mortgage debt became a common affair. The expanding urban
settlement was in need of proper machinery manned by skilled workers and
administrators. Necessary skills were imparted by a variety of educational
institutions. And hospitals were required to protect the people’s health and
cure diseases.9
The strategic importance of Madras city is illustrated by the history of
Anglo-French campaigns in the Indian seas. There was seldom a strong
English squadron stationed in India before 1757, and there was no general
action with the French until 1758. The fighting on 29 April 1758 took place
between Fort St. David and Pondy on the Coromandel Coast. The eastern
seas saw eight other naval actions between the French and English during
the remainder of the 18th century. Every one of them was fought in the
same waters, somewhere between Madras and Point de Galle. And every
one of them, without exception, was fought during the SW monsoon
(Parkinson NC, 1937, p. 38). It was more than a coincidence that all the
fighting should take place between April and September in a strip of water
about 300 miles in length. They noted that Madras became an important
British naval base and the administrative centre of the growing British
dominions in southern India. Even then, there had been some conspicuous
gaps and natural deficiencies. The city was far from ideal from the maritime
point of view. Some locational drawbacks and inconveniences to the
visitors of Madras were pointed out by the European tourists of the 18th
century. One such list was drawn by the Fay couple in the early 1780s (Fay
E, 1817, p. 121). There was no shelter, and the water shoaled so gradually
that large ships had to anchor two miles from the shore. There they would
lie rolling and straining in the heavy swell and cut off from the shore by a
belt of surf which only the native masula boats could cross. Passengers had
to entrust themselves to these risky craft; they sometimes upset, a serious
matter in these shark-infested waters. The surf varied. It was literally
impassable, on some days, even for the masulas; and then a flag was
hoisted at the beach house and all communications with the shore were cut
off. The roadstead was never satisfactory, owing to the strong currents and a
high surf even in the calmest weather.
It is likely that Madras was administered less excellently while it was a
subordinate factory, than when it had been the ‘head-place’ upon the Coast.
The Chief was Richard Prince, of whom little is known, but that little is
unfavourable. The EIC at all events believed that he exacted heavy
contributions for allowing the old inhabitants to return. Rangapillai at
Pondy heard stories of the injustice he inflicted on various persons, one of
whom perhaps was a grandson of the famous adventurer, Constantine
Phalkon, who degenerated into a mere captain of country shipping. On one
occasion at least, Prince’s dubash was summoned before the Council for
extortion – an indignity which his master bore but sulkily (Dodwell H,
1920, p. xii). The EIC prospered on exploiting the private enterprises. They
grabbed many private house properties under one guise or other. They
acquired many properties under threats. They entered directly into the
housing markets and purchased private houses at low prices for public
purposes. They misused the religious places like churches and temples
under the impending threats of Mysore wars and failed to pay them the
assured compensation. They entered the market as ‘cheap buyers’ and ‘dear
sellers’ showing that profit was a ‘public motive’. The EIC officers used
both under-reporting and over-reporting to their Directors and pocketed the
difference. Sometimes, lootings were published as ‘prizes’ and incentives or
awards and rewards. They used their dubashes as the proxies for their cases
of corruption. Their Directors were happy that they defeated the French and
thereby cornered enormous trade profits. For the same reasons, the natives
felt happy that they proved better administrators than their native satraps
and the ‘French fanatics’.
The English picture of Madras was not pure and simple. Urbanisation of
Madras had produced some unwanted side effects. They included undue
exploitation, flagrant corruption, debauchery and prostitution, consumption
of alcoholic drinks, and religious conversions and social perversions (see
Rao DV, 1938, pp. 131–3).10 Urbanised Madras served the English interests
in multiple ways (see editorial, The Hindu, 16, April, 1894; The Hindu,
1878). First, they led luxurious lives. Second, vices like alcohol and
prostitution were practised. Third, they exploited the vast Indian resources
including the forest products in the name of trade (see Saravanan V, 1998;
Rao VG, 2008). ourth, their internal trade had destroyed the native trade.
Fifth, their urban towns were at the cost of the native urban centres like
Masuli, Murshidabad, Surat, and other coastal ports. Sixth, they imported
into India their ‘unwanted goods’ and imposed them on the unwilling Indian
buyers. Seventh, their educational system and institutions imposed English
at the cost of Sanskrit and other Indian languages. Eighth, their costly
allopathic medicare had destroyed the cheap local health care systems.
Ninth, their public administrative institutions, including police and
judiciary, led to corruptive practices. Tenth, they encouraged and exploited
the caste clashes and religious differences to suit their principle of divide
and rule. Eleventh, they impoverished the country by almost continuous
warfare since the first Carnatic war of 1740s. Twelfth, they shipped
valuables like diamonds and art pieces of India, including the treasures of
Tanjore and Mysore, to their motherland. Lastly, based in their urban
haunts, they occupied the entire country by hook or crook by the end of the
18th century. This list may be prolonged by further researches.11

General
Certainly, humanity on this planet is not doomed as being predicted by
some pessimists. There are ways to reverse the present trend, and not to
speak of delaying it. The colonial economy of about two centuries is only a
phase in the long economic history of India and the world. Its study shows
some sustainable solutions that could arrest the present downtrends. The
present study, though minuscule in that direction, shows that development
of greenery everywhere in all possible ways goes a long way in solving
many of the environmental degradation problems. Modern development
activities are accompanied by a number of negative effects too. The area of
different rivers and their tributaries flowing in the city was occupied by
different agencies including infrastructural facilities. The area of water
bodies had largely been diminished by the expansion of the city.
Mushrooming modern structures had interrupted their natural flow
mechanisms, giving rise to many environmental problems.
The basic Indian urban environmental problems at present include
lopsided urbanisation, faulty urban planning, inadequate housing, pervading
slums, environmental degradation, traffic snarls, problems of sewerage and
garbage, inadequate and unwholesome water supplies, and vehicular
pollution. Adequate and appropriate greenery may offer cheap and cost-
effective solutions to many of these vicious problems.
Finally, the need of the day is serious studies that help urban renewal and
resuscitation without affecting the ecological balance and environmental
sustainability.12 It depends largely on the international economic behaviour,
particularly of the economically powerful nations.13 The declining Europe
is helpless. Shrinking Britain, the colonial superpower, is mired in post-
Brexit problems. The stagnant US is suffering from environmental
havocs.14 The debilitated Russia is disinterested. China with its huge
economic surplus is pursuing aggressive policies at the cost of
environment.15 India’s inefficient economy is in tatters. What are the
available measures to ameliorate the downtrend? Adoption of unlimited
greenery all around seems to be the essence of survival in these uncertain
times.
The present study, based on the historical experiences, infers some
suggestions to the administrators, urban planners, and policymakers.
Sufficient urban places should be maintained in the form of parks and
gardens.16 Their costs would be lower in the suburbs than in the already
crowded city centres. For example, the present private farmhouses can
conveniently be transformed into public gardens. Marshy lands, rivulets,
and other streams and tanks should be protected at all costs. Roads should
be planted with shady trees. At the same time, the average height of the
residential houses and other public structures should not exceed that of the
height of the trees in that compound. Cities and towns should be
encouraged to spread horizontally as distance is not a big problem in the
technologically advanced modern times. Non-polluting and sustainable
sources of energy should be promoted. Anti-pollution incentives should
liberally be extended in all countries by both the government and the
private sector. All these measures can contribute to the reduction of
economic inequalities. COVID-1917 is already bringing a kind of universal
uniformity. The revenge of nature is unstoppable. Nature prevails!

NOTES
1 The EIC colonial economic policies in India were formulated based on their contemporary
‘classical economics’ (see Ambirajan S, 1978). They applied the principle of ‘maximum
 gain with minimum loss’ in Madras in the use of environmental and natural resources.
2 The suburbs constituted a number of villages between Ennore in the north, Adyar in the
south, and Poonamally in the west. Only Egmore and its hamlets – Pudupak, Vepery,
Purasavakam, and Kilpauk – are analysed here. An analysis of other suburban tracts may
reveal more interesting variations.
3 If we suppose the population of India in 2021 is 1,400 million and its urban population is
about 560 million, the urbanisation index is 560/1,400x100 = 40%.
4 The urbanites are affected more than the ruralites by the recent coronavirus.
5 The Dutch had their colonies in SE Asia.
6 Since international trade depended mostly on the port facilities.
7 This picture of urbanisation would be better understood by further and detailed studies on
the related and other activities of the EIC, including its trade, wars, and territorial
expansions.
8 Kadu nadaaye, nadu nagarambaaye: Tamil.
9 Therefore, there is a necessity of a study about the schools and hospitals.
10 Many more drawbacks were highlighted later by the Indian Nationalists.
11 A rough cost-benefit analysis of colonialism may be conveniently built to unravel and
correctly concretise most of these variables.
12 Environmental protection is the need of the day (Prakruti rakhati rakhitah). Nature
protected would not only pre-empt but solves many human and biotic problems. It is no
doubt costly and has to be met by taxing the polluting agencies (see Smith S, 2011).
Carbon tax is one of them. How much should be spent on pollution control should be
decided by the standard measures of the healthy environment in a given climate and place
and time. It is worth reducing pollution to zero or to an unavoidable minimum level
because of the economic benefits associated with it. The benefits that people get from a
less-polluted atmosphere should be assessed from a long-term and secular point of view by
using the relevant socio-economic variables. ‘People respond to incentives’ (Landsburg
SE, 1993). To save the environment, the ‘armchair economists’ should think about the
proper incentives.
13 They should rethink, recalibrate, and reset their goals and methods of economic growth
without disturbing the ecological equilibrium and at the same time following the necessary
environmental safeguards.
14 Of course, the ugly race of nuclear weapons is there posing unprecedented level of
threats.
15 It is the largest polluting nation in the world and also the original source of the COVID-19
deadly virus.
16 The economic growth models have to take care of the natural systems of local biodiversity
and ecosystems.
17 The science community in general, and particularly virologists, think that the COVID-19
virus prefers natural haunts like forests and other wild habitats, and rarely human
habitations. See work published in Journal of Medical Virology, special issues on the novel
Coronavirus, vol. 92:4. April, pp. 399–459.
APPENDICES

1 Gardens of Madras
1 Gardens of Madras
S.N. Name(s) Owner Location Year

1 Adams Reynold Adams Luz 1770

2 Addison Gulston Addison - 1730
3 Adyar Club George Moubray Adyar 1785
4 Anderson James Anderson Nungambakkam 1778
5 Azeernbaugh Vide, nawab Pudupak 1798
6 Aziz Bagh Vide, nawab Nungambakkam 1796
7 Bishop Joseph Pugh Adyar 1800
8 Blacker Valentine Blacker Teynampet 1800
9 Botanic-Old Elihu Yale Fort 1690
10 Botanic-New Archibald Campbell Saidapet 1788
11 Brabourne John Brabourne Peddanaikpet 1709
12 Bridger John Bridger Fort 1681
13 Brooke Henry Brooke Rayapet 1764
14 Bulkley Edward Bulkley Peddanaikpet 1710
15 Call James Call Egmore 1790
16 Campbell Archibald Campbell Saidapet 1788
17 Capuchin Portuguese Chepak 1721
18 Cathedral Richard A Maitland Teynampet 1793
19 Chardin Daniel Chardin Peddanaikpet 1710
S.N. Name(s) Owner Location Year

20 Chase Chase Choultry Plain 1791

21 Chinnaiya Chinnaiya Chetty Pulicat Road 1730
22 Cama Chetty Kama Chetty Pulicat Road 1730
23 Conway THS Conway Kilpauk 1798
24 Cooke Thomas Cooke Egmore Island 1717
25 Dare James Waddell Kilpauk 1798
26 Dawson George Dawson San Thome 1770
27 Dent Cotton Bower Dent Pudupak 1798
28 Desvoeux Charles Desvoeux Veerasanur 1770
29 Disney Fownes Disney Kilpauk 1798
30 Elephant Murthiappa Dora Peddanaikpet 1706
31 Empson Mathew Empson Peddanaikpet 1709
32 Fleetwood Edward Herrys Peddanaikpet 1678
33 Fletcher Robert Fletcher Pudupak 1775
34 Four Brothers (Four chetties) Muthialpet 1744
35 Franco Solomon Franco Peddanaikpet 1755
36 Gambier Edward Gambier Adyar 1800
37 Guava - Peddanaikpet 1686
38 Haliburton David Haliburton Egmore 1770
39 Hanson James Hanson Nungambakkam 1800
40 Hart Major Hart Egmore 1800
41 Heathfield John Heathfield Peddanaikpet 1707
42 Herrys Edward Herrys Peddanaikpet 1675
43 Horticultural - Society Teynampet 1800
44 Hudleston John Hudleston Adyar 1800
45 Jarrett Thomas Jarrett Egmore 1798
46 Kuppu Chetty Kuppu Chetty Tandavada 1785
47 Landon James Landon Kilpauk 1778
48 Lawrence Arcot nawab Mount 1111
49 Lushington S R Lushington Chittapet 1775
S.N. Name(s) Owner Location Year

50 Mackay Old George Mackay Pudupak 1744

51 Mackay New Hector Mackay Egmore 1760
52 Mackay Agl. Donald Mackay Nungambakkam 1780
53 Mahfuz Mahfuz Khan Peddanaikpet 1798
54 Malangawar Malangawar Muthialpet 1705
55 Manucci Niccolao Manucci Muthialpet 1678
56 Marriette Peter Marriette Rayapet 1761
57 Moonia Pillai Moonia Pillai Teynampet 1796
58 Moore George Moore Nungambakkam 1790
59 Morison Morison Nungambakkam 1800
60 Moubray George Moubray Adyar 1789
61 Munro Innes Munro Choultry Plain 1781
62 Munro Hector Munro Mount 1781
63 Munro RD Munro Egmore 1775
64 Murtiyappa Murtiyappadora Muthialpet 1710
65 Nabob Arcot nawab Nungambakkam 1759
66 Napier Johnston Napier Chetput 1800
67 Narayan G Narayana Peddanaikpet 1776
68 Nawab Arcot nawab Chepauk 1780
69 Nopalry Andrew Berry Marmelon 1794
70 Padre Thomas Padre Thomas Muthialpet 1730
71 Padry Padry Muthialpet 1735
72 Pantheon Hall Plumer Egmore 1786
73 Pater John Pater Triplicane 1790
74 Pereira John Pereira Peddanaikpet 1655
75 Physick EIC Fort 1692
76 Playhouse - Choultry Plain 1791
77 Popham Stephen Popham Muthialpet 1780
78 Pois Maria Pois Muthialpet 1709
79 Powney Thomas Powney Triplicane 1755
S.N. Name(s) Owner Location Year

80 Pugh’s Joseph Pugh Adyar 1795

81 Purushotam Purushotham Muthialpet 1654
82 Pycroft Thomas Pycroft Nungambakkam 1778
83 Richardson W Richardson Pudupak 1795
84 Rodrigues B Rodrigues Peddanaikpet 1687
85 Samson Samson Peddanaikpet 1710
86 Scrimsour John Scrimsour Peddanaikpet 1752
87 Serle E Greenway Adyar 1795
88 Sherman JS Sherman Vepery 1798
89 Silva Manoel Silva Luz 1800
90 Sladen Ramsay Sladen Kilpauk 1798
91 Smith George Smith Santhome 1770
92 Smith Joseph Smith Santhome 1770
93 Spring F Spring Nungambakkam 1800
94 Stewart Hall Stewart Peddanaikpet 1794
95 Stratton George Stratton Pudupak 1770
96 Stuart James Stuart Peddanaikpet 1781
97 Sudder Sudder Luz 1798
98 Sulivan Benjamin Sulivan Luz 1798
99 Sunku Rama Sunku Ramachetty Chintadripet 1735
100 Sydenham Sydenham's Vepery 1798
101 Taswell George Taswell Peddanaikpet 1781
102 Theosophical Society Adyar 1798
103 Torriano George Torriano Egmore 1733
104 Troutback Samuel Troutback Egmore 1770
105 Tulloch Alexander Tulloch Nungambakkam 1778
106 Turing Robert Turing Pudupak 1758
107 Umda Bagh Arcot Nawab Pudupak 1798
108 Venkatachalam Sunku V Chalam Chintadripet 1735
109 Walajah Bagh Arcot Nawab SpurTank 1798
S.N. Name(s) Owner Location Year

110 Walsh Walsh Peddanaikpet 1752

111 West James West Rayapet 1761
112 White JD White Pudupak 1800
113 Whitehill John Whitehill Veerasanur 1775
114 Yeldham Riochard Yeldham Teynampet 1800

Agl. = Agricultural
Source: based on Love HD, 1913,I—III and others
Note: The year refers to the existence of the garden.

2 Garden Houses
2 Garden Houses
S.N. Name(s) Owner Location Remarks

Original in
1 Admiralty House EIC Santhome
Fort
2 Adyar House John de Monte Adyar Moubray
3 Albany EIC Nungambakkam Chetput
4 Ameer Bagh Arcot nawab Triplicane Pycroft Road
5 Army Clothing EIC Mount Road Near Cooum
6 Beachborough John de Monte Adyar Moubray
7 Beachborough John de Monte Adyar Moubray
8 Ben John de Monte Adyar Moubray
9 Blenheim George J Hadow Nungambakkam Hadow Road
10 Brodie Castle James Brodie Adyar River bank
11 Brooke Henry Brooke Rayapet Old
12 Brooke Henry Brooke Choultry Plain New
13 Brunton Villa James Brunton Adyar River bar
14 Bridge Garden EIC Peddanaikpet Island
S.N. Name(s) Owner Location Remarks

15 Capper House Francis Capper Kistampet Near sea

James
16 Casamaijor Egmore East Island Cooum
Casamaijor
17 Cathedral Gardens Maitland Teynampet 1790
Castles-East &
18 TF Havilland Pudupak Mount Road
West
19 Catholic School Carey Lalande San Thome Of Brunton
20 Church Park - Teynampet -
21 Clarke Thomas Clarke Muthialpet Broadway
22 College Bridge Basil Cochrane Egmore Montieth Road
23 Commercial Club - Triplicane -
24 Connemara Hotel - Pudupak -
25 Cooke Thomas Cooke Egmore Leased
26 Cupola George Moubray Adyar 1792
27 Court House J De Fries Egmore 1798
28 Dawson George Dawson Rayapeta 1764
29 Dent Cotton B Dent Vepery 1798
30 Dobbin-thota James Dobbin Perambur 1795
31 Dobbin Hall. James Dobbin Vepery 1798
32 Doveton House James Hanson Nungambakkam 1798
33 Dunmore House LG Keith Murray Luz 1793
34 East Nook Josiah Marshall Egmore 1798
35 Egmore House Basil Cochrane Egmore 1798
36 Eley John lly Egmore 1756
37 Elphinstone John Elphinstone Egmore Victoria Hotel
38 Empson Matthew Empson Spurt Tank 1740
39 Fallofield EW Fallofield Rayapet 1798
40 Gambier - Adyar -
41 Garrow Edward Garrow Nungambakkam 1794
42 Hadow House GJ Hadow Nungambakkam 1798
S.N. Name(s) Owner Location Remarks

43 Harland's Robert Harland Choultry Plain 1770

44 Heathfield's Mrs. Heathfield Peddanaikpet 1700
45 Hicks' Bungalow Erskine Patullo Pudupet 1798
46 Hunter House John Hunter Vepery 1795
47 Imperial Hotel John Binny Pudupak 1797
Charles
48 James Bourchier's Chintadripet Family house
Bourchier
49 Kobe Lodge George Westcott Pudupak 1764s
50 Leith Castle James Leith Santhome 1781
51 Linden Towers James Anderson Nungambakkam 1798
52 Lucas Colley Lucas Egmore 1794
53 Luz House Richard Yeldham Teynampet 1796
54 Madras Club - Vepery 1798
55 Mansion Andrew Berry Nungambakkam 1798
56 Marine Villa Nawab Chepauk 1792
57 Marooth's Marooth Black Town 1791
58 Marriette Peter Marriette Rayapet 1761
59 Monteith House Wil Monteith Egmore 1798
60 Moorat Edward Moorat Nungambakkam 1800
61 Morison W Morison Nungambakkam 1798
62 Munro Innes Munro Choultry Plain 1775
63 Myrtle Villa Myrtle Rayapet 1800
64 Napier - Mount Road -
65 Observatory Edward Garrow Nungambakkam 1790
66 Octagon. Nawab Chepauk 1792
67 Old College B Roebuck Nungambakkam 1800
68 Ottershaw WH Torriano Egmore 1733
69 Pater John Pater Madras Club 1790
70 Palm Lodge - Mylapore 1798
71 Pantheon Hll Plumer Egmore 1778
S.N. Name(s) Owner Location Remarks

72 Parry Castle Thomas Parry Adyar 1795

73 Poor House John de Monte Madha Kovil 1795
74 Pycroft Pycroft Nungambakkam 1794
75 Rayapet House - Rayapet 1798
76 Red Craig - Nungambakkam 1798
77 Royal Hotel Ravanapa Chetty Pudupak 1798
78 Stowe Hall C.B. Dent Vepery 1763
79 Stratton George Stratton Rayapet 1764
80 Stuart James Stuart Luz 1798
81 Turing John Turing Vepery 1790
82 Umda Bagh Nawab Pudupak 1800
83 Victoria Hotel L De Fries Egmore 1800
84 West James West Rayapet 1761
85 Wood John Wood Egmore 1770
86 Yale John Nicks Peddanaikpet 1733

Source - based on Love HD, 1913,I—III: and other and miscellaneous

sources.
Note: Most of the gardens belonged to the institutions while the garden
houses were owned by individuals. Practically, they are two separate
entities.

The year 1798 is more frequent since there was a surveyed map prepared in
that year. Its preceding maps date back to 1768, 1749 (Paradid), 1733
(George Morton Pitt), and 1710 (Thomas Pitt). Many small gardens might
have been missed from these maps.

3 Suburban house sites granted, 1774

3 Suburban house sites granted, 1774
 Area
ed Annual
S.N. Village/grantee’s name grant Location
rent Pags.
acres

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Pudupak
NE of Pigot’s
1 Reynold Adams 6 1
Road1
2 Patrick Ross 10 4 Choultry Plain
near the Brick
3 James Taylor 8 2
Kilns
Near Stratton’s
4 Thomas Powney 8 2
house2
S-E of Turing’s
5 John Hollond 8 2
Garden
6 Edward Monckton 11 4 Choultry Plain
7 Alexander Wynch 14 6 in the country
adjoining to
8 Henry A. Cosby 5 1
Wynch’s
9 James West 8 3 old grant
Near the nawab’s
10 Abdul Rasid Khan 6 4
place
near Robert
11 John Sulivan Veerasanur 10 3
Fletcher’s
12 Edward Saunders 7 2 East of Mackay’s
13 Charles Desvoeux 11 4 South of Mackay’s
adjoining
14 Paul Benfield 7 1
Saunders’
15 Augustus Morgan 6 1 Choultry Plain
16 JohnWhitehill 27 15 old grant
Moses De Castro
17 6 1 old grant
Nungambakkam
18 Richard J Sulivan 6 1 West of Mackay’s
 Area
ed Annual
S.N. Village/grantee’s name grant Location
rent Pags.
acres

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

19 Robert Wood 5 1 N-W of Mackay’s
20 James Daniell 6 1 West of Mackay’s
21 Donald Mackay Egmore 6 6 West of Mackay’s
22 William Petrie 11 4 S-W of Munro’s3
23 Joseph Smith 15 7 East of Darke’s4
East of Darke’s
24 Eyles Irwin 11 5
Garden
S-E of
25 Richard Mathews 11 4
Troutback’s5
26 Charles Bromley 6 1 Near Egmore Fort
side of Wood’s
27 James Call 6 1
Garden
28 George Smith Vepery 11 5 old grant
William Harcourt between Egmore
29 6 1
Torriano San Thome and Vepery
30 George Dawson 17 8 North side

(1) (6) Grantee’s details

1 A free merchant arrived in 1764, Master Attendant to George Baker
2 Chief Engineer, thrice between 1770 and 1802 3 Entered civil service in
1764, Paymaster of Sepoys and Registrar of the Mayor’s Court
4 A free merchant from 1750 5 A civil servant of 1760 6 Joined civil service
in 1762, Assaymaster, son-in-law of Pigot
7 The Governor (1773–1775)
8 Adjutant-General 1774, died in 1787 9 Free merchant and married Ann
Innis in 17616
10 Related to the Arcot nawab7
11 Civil servant of 1765 Veerasanur
12 Civil servant, 17628
13 A civil servant9
14 Civil Architect and a famous ’wire puller’ of Madras
15 Writer10
16 A civil servant of 1752 and Chief at Masuli in 177311
17 He was a free merchant in Madras since 176612 Nungambakkam
18 A civil servant of 1768 and a resident at Carnatic Durbar13
19 Wood (17?-1781) was Town Major in 177714
20 A civil servant of 176115
21 Son of George Mackay16 Egmore
22 Civil servant of 1765 and resident at Nagur in 1780 23 Ensign in 1746
and Army Commander 1773–5 24 Civil servant of 1768 and Superintendent
of the EIC Grounds17
25 He commanded in Malabar and surrendered to Tipu in 1783 26 Attorney
and notary and was solicitor for Stratton and Stuart
27 Civil servant of 176518
28 Free merchant from 175419 Vepery
29 Civil servant of 176620 Santhome
30 Civil servant of 175121
Source: based on Love HD, 1913, III, pp. 57–61, and other records.

4 Roads of Madras, 1803

4 Roads of Madras, 1803
S.N Name Location Origin

1 Anderson Nunganbakkam 1778 - James Garden; 35 acres

2 Atkinson Vepery 1783 - Edward, Civil Servant
3 Barber’s Bridge Krisnampeta 1794
4 Beach North of Couum 17th ct.
1794 - Andrew of Male
5 Bell’s Chepauk
Asylum
S.N Name Location Origin

1790 - Paul, Engineer-

6 Benfield’s (Walaja) Triplicane
Contractor
7 Binny’s Pudupak 1797 - John Merchant
8 Blacker’s Pudupak 1800
1798 - Christopher, Free
9 Breithaupt’s Vepery
Merchant
10 Brick-kiln Pursewakam 17th ct. - Brick-kilns
11 Brodie’s Adyar 1796 - James, Castle; 11 acres
1798 - James Henry, Civil
12 Casamaijor Egmore
Servant
13 Cathedral Teynampeta 1798-
14 Cenotaph Teynampeta 1800 - of Cornwallis
15 Chamier’s Adyar 1803 - John, Civil Servant
16 College Nunganbakkam 1792 - College near Cooum
Commander-in-
17 Egmore 1798 - Residence of C-in-C
Chief
18 Cutcherry Santhome 17th ct.- Old Office
19 Edward Elliot’s Mylapore 1820
20 Ekambareswar Koil Muthyalapeta 17th ct. - Saiva temple
Elepatha Madhav
21 Adyar river-north 18th ct. - temple
Koil
22 Elephant Gate Black Town 17th ct. - Elephants Garden
23 Ennore Ennore 18th ct. - towards Black Town
24 Farran’s Pursewakam 1788 - Charles, Army Major
25 First Line Beach Beach 18th ct.
26 Flower’s Kilpauk 1803 - Austin, Civil Servant
27 Fraser’s Bridge North of Fort 1685 - William, Civil Servant
28 Gantz Vyasarpadi 18th ct. - J, Press owner
29 General Collins’s Vepery 1765 - Edward, Army Major
S.N Name Location Origin

1797 - Henry Sulivan, Civil

30 Graeme’s Nunganbakkam
Servant
31 Greenway’s Adyar 1797 - Edward Croft, Judge
32 Hadow’s Nunganbakkam 1805 - George John, Collector
33 Hall’s Egmore 1781 - Hamilton, Army
34 Hanover Square Fort 1768
35 Harrington’s Chetput 1784 - William, Business
36 Hunter’s Vepery 1787 - John, Banker
37 Ice House Krishnampeta 18th ct.- Ice House
38 Luz Church Mylapore 18th ct.- Church
39 Marshall’s Egmore 1798-J, General
1798 - Robert, Master
40 McNichol’s Chetput
Attendant
41 Monteith’s Egmore 1798 - William
42 Moors Nunganbakkam 18th ct. - George, Garden
43 Moubray’s Adyar 1798 - George, Accountant
44 Mount To Th. Mount 17th ct.
45 Murray Gate Luz 1793 - LGK, Collector
46 Mylapore Bazar Mylapore 17th ct.
47 Naval Hospital Vepery 18th ct.
Nungambakkam
48 Nungambakkam 18th ct.
High
49 Oliver Luz 18th ct.
50 Orme’s Kilpauk 18th ct. - Robert, Historian
51 Pantheon Egmore 1778 - Public Rooms
52 Pater’s Pudupak 18th ct.
53 Patullo’s Pudupak 1798 - AE, Cavalry
54 Perumbur Barracks Perumbur 1755 - Barracks
55 Peters Triplicane 1798 - Thomas Captain
56 Pigot Triplicane 1755 - George, Governor
S.N Name Location Origin

Police
57 Egmore 18th ct.- Office
Commissioner
Fort
58 Poornamallee 17th ct.
Poornamallee
59 Pugh’s Teynampeta 18th ct.
60 Pursewakum High Pursewakum 17th ct.
61 Pycroft Nungambakkam 1778-Thomas . . .
62 Rosary Church Santome 17th century - Church
63 Rundall’s Vepery 1798 - Charles, Colonel
64 San Thome High Santome 17th ct.
65 Second Line Beach Beach 18th ct.- Beach
66 Serman Vepery 18th ct. - John Standiver . . .
67 Silva Luz 1798 - Francis de Publican
68 Spur Tank Chetput 17th ct.
69 Sterling Nungambakkam 18thct.- L.K.
70 Sydenham Vepery 18th ct.- William,Town Major
71 Taylor’s Kilpauk 1798 - James
72 Triplicane High Triplicane 17th ct.
73 Vepery High Vepery 17th ct.
74 Walaja Triplicane 18th ct.- Nawab
75 Wall Tax Peddanaikpet 18th ct.-
76 Westcott Pudupak 1764 - George, Civil Servant
77 Whannell Vepery 1798-Peter, Major
78 White’s Pudupak 18thct.-JD
79 Wood’s Pudupak 1800 - Edward, Secretary
80 Yeldham’s Teynampeta 1800 - Richard, Merchant

Source: - Love HD, 1913,I—III; and others

Note: ct. = century
5 Streets of Madras, 1803
5 Streets of Madras, 1803
S.N. Name Location Origin

1 Admiralty Fort 18th ct.

2 Anderson Muthyalapet 1781 -James, Physician
3 Angappan Muthyalapet 1769
4 Armenian Muthyalapet 17th ct. Armenians
5 Arundale Mylapore 17th ct.
6 Attapollam Muthyalapet 1750s-village
7 Back Lane Old Black Town 17th ct.
8 Bhadraiah Muthyalapeta 17th ct.
9 Bandicoot Alley Fort 17th ct.
10 Boundage Lane Old Black Town 1720-Fence
11 Bridge Gate Old Black Town 1709
12 Cameron Black Town 1786 - David, Tavern
13 Charles Fort 1688
14 Chinna Bazar Old Black Town 17th ct. - North boundary
15 Chittee Old Black Town 1655 - Chetty
16 Choultry Alley Old Black Town 17th ct. - Choultry
17 Choultry Bazar Old Black Town 17th ct.- Choultry
18 Choultry Gate Old Black Town 17th ct.-Choultry
19 Church Fort 17th ct.-Church
20 Church Lane Fort 17th ct.-Church
21 Comatee Muthyalapeta 1681-Vysyas
22 Coral Merchant’s Pagadalapeta 1646 - village-north
23 Court Fort 17th ct. - Court House
24 Davidson Peddanaikpet 1785-Alexander. . .
25 Devaraya Mudali Peddanaikpet 1759
26 East Curtain Fort 17th ct.- York Lane
S.N. Name Location Origin

27 Elephant Peddanaikpet 1706-Elephant

28 Gangaram Peddanaikpet 1758
29 Garden Old Black Town 17th ct.
30 Garden Lane Old Black Town 17th ct.
31 Gloucester Alley Fort 17th ct.
32 Gloucester Fort 17th ct.
33 Govindappa Naik Peddanaikpet 1755
34 Great (Pedda) bazar Peddanaikpet 1758
35 High Fort-north 1658
36 Humpherson Peddanaikpet 1782 - Thomas. ..
37 James Alley Fort 17th ct.
38 James Fort 17th ct.
39 Jandravari Peddanaikpet 1687 -weavers
40 Jahangir Muthyalapeta 17th ct. - merchant
41 John Pereira’s Garden Peddanaikpet 1792
Popham
42 Jones 1790
Broadway
43 Katchali Kovil Black Town 1749
44 King’s Fort 18th ct.-Palace
45 Kondi Chetti Black Town 1770
46 Linga Chetti Muthyalapeta 1743 - merchant
47 Lynn Pereira Santhome 1794
48 Macky Moota Mudali Black Town 18th ct.-
Mada Balakrishna
49 Muthyalapet 1781
Chetti
50 Mahfuz Khan Black Town 1798-garden
51 Manady Black Town 1781
52 Market Old Black Town 1652 - Peddabazar
53 Merchants’ Lane Old Black Town 1681 - retail shops
54 Merchants’ Old Black Town 1681 - large shops
S.N. Name Location Origin

55 Merchants’ Walk Old Black Town 1692 - rich merchants

56 Middle Old Black Town 17th ct. - north of Fort
57 Middle Gate Old Black Town 17th ct. - north of Fort
58 Mint Black Town 18th ct.-
59 Moor Muthyalapet 1692
60 Moors Muthyalapet 1692
61 Muddu Krishna Mudali Peddanaikpet 1775
62 Nainiappa Naik Peddanaikpet 1717 -weavers
63 Nandar Coil Black Town 18th ct.- temple
64 Narayana Black Town 1800
65 North Gate Fort 18th ct.
18th ct. - Moor and
66 Odacal Muthyalapeta
Jehangir
61 Old Jail Old Black Town 1720
68 Palace Fort 1770 - nawab
69 Park Fort 18th ct.
70 Peddabazar Old Black Town 17th ct.-
71 Peddanaik Peddanaikpet 1709-village head
72 Perianna Maistry Black Town 1794 - contractor
73 Perumal pagoda Old Black Town 1749-temple
74 Popham’s Broadway Black Town 1782-laid by
75 Portuguese Church Peddanaikpet 1750
76 Powney’s Fort 1800
77 Rasappa Chetti Black Town 1769
78 St. George Fort 1770
79 St. James Fort 1770
80 St. Thomas Lane Fort 1687
81 St. Thomas Fort 1687-St. Thome
82 St. Thome Fort 1687-St. Thomas
83 Sampathi Rau Triplicane 1763-vakil
S.N. Name Location Origin

84 Sembudas Black Town 1794

85 Seven Wells Black Town 1781
86 Sollay Black Town 1800
87 South Curtain Fort 1770
88 Stringer New Black Town 1780-James . . .
89 Thambu Chetty Muthyalapeta 1658 - merchant
90 Tom Clark’s Black Town 1736
91 Umpherston Black Town 1800-Thomas. . .
92 Vanamali Das Black Town 1800-(vide Anderson)
93 Varadaraja Perumal Black Town 1759-temple
94 Washing Washermanpet 17th ct. - (vide mint)
95 Weaver’s Peddanaikpet 1717 - (vide Nainiappa)
96 York Alley Fort 1687
91 York Lane Fort 1687
98 York Fort 1687

Source: - Love HD, 1913,I—III; and others

Note: ct. = century

6 Pariars’ Petition, 1779

‘The humble Petition of all the Pariar Cast residing in Madras. Humbly
Sheweth That, from time immemorial and from the establishment of the
British nation on this Coast, certain Grounds were allotted unto your
Petitioners’ Ancestors at the great Parcherry, and upon which they built
Houses according to their respective circumstances, and enjoy the same to
this day, and, as menial Servants, were and are exempted and indulged from
paying any quit rent. That, at different times and in three different
Governments, commencing in Governor Du Pre’s Administration, one
Gongapetta Narrain sought means to dispossess your Petitioners of part of
the said Ground by applying for the same in lieu of a desolate Ground
which he had bought some years before for a trifling Sum, which the
Honble Company was under the necessity of taking as a convenience to
their Magazine near the said Bound Edge. That, on the 4th of this month
December, certain Lascars and Cooleys, said to be by Order of the Engineer
in Chief, came to demolish, and accordingly did demolish, part of your
Petitioners Houses, and to dispossess your Petitioners of the Ground upon
which the ruins now stand, supposed to be for and on account of the said
Gongapetta Narrain. That Your Petitioners are but menial Servants to the
Gentlemen and Ladies of this Settlement, such as Butlers, Butlers’ Mates,
Cooks, Cooks’ Mates, Roun-dell Boys, Coachmen, Palanqueen Boys, Horse
Keepers, Grass Cutters, Dry and wet Nurses, Water Wenches, Scavengers,
Cart Drivers, Totys, Women Sweepers, and Lamp Lighters, &c., and their
pay is very small and insufficient to maintain themselves and Family; and,
further, your Petitioners are of the meanest Cast, and in case of troubles
from any Country Powers, your Petitioners Cast will be entirely exposed to
the Mercy of the Enemy if your Petitioners should be dispossessed of their
Houses and the said Ground, as no other Cast will entertain them in their
Houses within the bound Edge, which is not the case with the said
Gongapeta Narrain. Your Petitioners therefore most humbly implore your
Honor, &c., will graciously vouch-safe to order your Petitioners the quiet
and peaceable possession of the said Ground and Buildings situated not far
from within the Bound Hedge,22 and other Ground be allotted to the said
Gongapetta Narrain adjoining to his own House beyond the Bound Hedge’.

Notes
1 Reynold Adams owned a garden house in San Thome. Pigot’s Road was newly laid east
and west in Pudupauk, later called Peter’s Road after Captain Thomas Peters of Madras,
who died in 1798. Here was the residence of the Peters.
2 George Stratton, who joined as a writer in 1751, was Chief at Vizag in 1773. He was a son
of John Stratton of the civil service. John Stratton left two sons, George and William, and a
daughter, Sarah, who married George Mackay (Register of Bills of Sale, No. 16, 1 Sept.
1758). George Stratton married Miss Hester Elea-nora Light in 1768 and owned a large
house.
3 Robert Duncan Munro was a civil servant of 1765 and son of Dr. Andrew Munro. He
married Miss Elizabeth Williamson in 1782. The Munros owned a garden house.
4 Charles Darke was a free merchant from 1770. His daughter Rebecca married Col. John
Floyd in 1791.
GLOSSARY

Ayurveda Indian native science of medicine

Bania business class
Chetty title of traders’ caste
Chunam a kind of cement in white colour
Chutney a crushed curry
Colam decorative drawing
Conicoply or kanakkupillai accountant
Cooly labourer
Cowle lease
Dera temporary shelter
Dewan minister
Dora lord
Dubashi interpreter/translator
Gaddi throne
Jagir free gift if territory is in recognition of merit
Jati Kinship group
Kachha rough
Kaniyatchi a form of land control prevailing around Madras
Killedar head of fort
Kus-kus or koos a variety of grass (Poa cynosuroides )
Maistry head-worker
Mamool a customary collection
Maramut repair
Masula a country boat (called after Masuli)
Nalah small stream or drain
Nattar local head-man
Nawab provincial governor
Pagoda 1 Star Pagoda = 45 fanams = 3600 casus = 3 ½ EIC Rupees
Paraiyar a scheduled caste
Pargana district
Peddanaick village head-man
Pet or peta a part or division of the city
Pujari worshipper priest
Puramboku =waste land
Reddy a caste of agricultural cultivators
Santa a temporary market
Sepoy an Indian native soldier
Subadar governor
Tatty screen
Thotam garden
Tope large grove of trees
Yatam water-lifting structure
REFERENCES

Abbreviations

AES Asian Educational Services (Madras and Delhi)

Anon. Anonymous (author not known)
Count. Cor., Country Correspondence
MC Military Consultations
MDC Military Department Consultations
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
PC Public Consultations
PDC Public Department Consultations
Uni. University

Agger GS, 1979: Urban Self-Management: Planning for a New

Society, ME Sharp Inc., White Plains, New York.
Aiyar VV, 1939: ‘Some Business-Houses in Madras’, in Tercentenary,
pp. 263–78.
Allen B (ed.), 1982: Making the City Work: Enterprise and Democracy
in Urban Europe, Glasgow District Council, Glasgow.
Ambirajan S (1936–2001), 1978: Classical Political Economy and
British Policy in India, Vikas, New Delhi.
Anas A, 1987: Modelling in Urban and Regional Economics, Harwood
Academic Publishing, London.
Anderson N, 1959: The Urban Community: A World Perspective,
Routledge, London.
Anderson S (ed.), 1978: On Streets, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Anderson WP, Newland CA and Stillman RJ, 1983: The Effective
Local Government Manager, International City Management
Association, Washington, DC.
Angel S, Archer RW, Tanphiphat S and Wegelin EA (eds.), 1983: Land
for Housing the Poor, Select Books, Singapore.
Arnold D and Guha R, 1995: Nature, Culture, and Imperialism: Essays
on the Environmental History of South Asia, Oxford University
Press, New Delhi.
Ashford DE (ed.), 1980: Financing Urban Government in the Welfare
State, Croom Helm Ltd., London.
Ashraf A, 1977: Government and Politics of Big Cities: An Indian
Case Study, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi.
Bahl R, Holland D and Linn J, 1982: Urban Growth and Local Taxes
in Less Developed Countries, Syracuse University, New York.
Ballhatchet K and Harrison JB (eds.), 1980: The City in South Asia:
Pre-Modern and Modern, Oxford University Press, London.
Banga I (ed.), 1991: The City in Indian History: Urban Demography,
Society, and Politics, South Asia Publications, New Delhi.
Barlow G, 1921: The Story of Madras, Oxford University Press,
London.
Barton GA, 2002: Empire, Forestry and the Origin of
Environmentalism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Barzel Y, 1997: Economic Analysis of Property Rights, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge (1989).
Beddome RH (1830–1911), 1863: Trees of the Madras Presidency,
Asylum Press, Madras.
Beddome RH (1830–1911), 1873: Ferns of Southern India, Asylum
Press, Madras.
Beddome RH (1830–1911), 1869–73: Flora Sylvatica of the Madras
Presidency, 4 vols., Asylum Press, Madras.
Beinart W and Lotte H, 2007: Environment and Empire, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Benfield RW, 2013: Garden Tourism, CABI Press, Abingdon, England.
Bharadwaj RK (1905–), 1974: Urban Development in India, National
Publishing House, New Delhi.
Bhargava G (ed.), 1981: Urban Problems and Policy Perspectives,
Abhinav Publications, New Delhi.
Bills of Sale: Sale Deeds, Govt. of Madras, 18th Century.
Bingham RD and Zhongcai Z, 2001: The Economics of Central City,
Neighbour-hoods, Westview Press, London.
Blanford WT (1832–1905) (ed.), 1888: The Fauna of British India,
Including Ceylon and Burma, Boulenger, George Albert, London.
Bobbio T, 2015: Urbanisation, Citizenship and Conflict in India,
Ahmedabad, 1900–2000, Taylor and Francis, London.
Bose A, 1980: India’s Urbanisation, 1901–2001, Tata McGrawhill,
New Delhi.
Brandt W, 1983: Common Crisis: North-South Cooperation for World
Recovery, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Breese G, 1966: Urbanisation in Newly Developing Countries,
Prentice Hall of India, New Delhi.
Brown CP (1798–1884), 1903: Dictionary: Telugu-English, ed. by
Venkata Ratnam M, Campbell WH and Veeresalingam, K. RBK,
Madras.
Brunn SD and Williams JF, 1983: Cities of the World: World Regional
Urban Development, Harper and Row, London.
Bulsara JF, 1964: Problems of Rapid Urbanisation in India, Asia
Publishing, Bombay.
Burke E, III and Pomeranz K, 2009: The Environment and World
History, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Chan MWH, Hoare RWM, Holmes PR, Law RJS and Reed SB (eds.),
1985: Pollution in the Urban Environment, POLMET 85 (Book) |
OSTI, The United Nations Environment Programme and Imperial
College, London.
Chandler T, 1987: Four Thousand Years of Urban Growth: An
Historical Census, St. David’s University, Lewiston.
Chaudhuri BB and Bandopadhyay A (eds.), 2004: Tribes, Forest and
Social Formation in Indian History, Manohar, New Delhi.
Chaudhury KN, 1978: The Trading World of Asia and the English East
India Company, 1660–1760, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Chelliah RJ and Mathur OP, 1993: Reforms in the Urban Sector: Some
Perspectives, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy, New
Delhi.
Cherunilam F, 1984: Urbanisation in Developing Countries, Himalaya,
Bombay.
Christian JW, 1980: Housing Finance for Developing Countries,
International Union of Building Societies and Savings
Associations, Chicago.
Clarke ES (ed.), 1989: Urban Innovation and Autonomy: Political
Implications of Policy Change, Sage, New Delhi.
Clarke TN, 1981: Urban Policy Analysis: Directions for Future
Research, Sage, New Delhi.
Cordiner J (1775–1836), 1820: A Voyage to India, Brown of Aberdeen
and Long-man, London.
Corrie D (1777–1837), 1847: Memoirs of Right Rev. Daniel Corrie,
Burnside and Seeley, London.
Crombie AD, 1939: ‘Government Houses in Madras’, in Tercentenary,
pp. 15–20.
Cullingworth JB, 1969: Problems of an Urban Society, George Allen
and Unwin, London.
Currie L, 1976: Taming the Megalopolis: A Design for Urban Growth,
Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Damodaran V, Winterbottom A and Lester A (eds.), 2015: The East
India Company and the Natural World, Palgrave Macmillan,
Basingstoke, England.
Datta A (ed.), 1980: Municipal and Urban India, Indian Institute of
Public Administration, New Delhi.
Davey K, 1983: Financing Regional Government: International
Practices and Their Relevance to the Third World, John Wiley and
Sons, New York.
Desai AR (1915–94) and Devadas PS, 1970: Slums and Urbanisation,
Popular Prakashan, Bombay.
Desouza A (ed.), 1983: Indian City: Poverty, Ecology and Urban
Development, Manohar, New Delhi.
Dobers H (ed.), 1980: Requirements of Development Administration,
Mainz, Hase and Koehler Verlag, lnstitut fur Internationale
Solidaritat, Konrad.
Dodwell HH (1879–1946) (ed.), 1920: The Cambridge History of
India, Vol. V: British India, 1497–1858, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Dodwell HH (1879–1946), 1926: The Nabobs of Madras, William and
Norgate, London.
Doebele WA (ed.), 1982: Land Readjustment: A Different Approach to
Financing Urbanization, DC, Heath and Company, Toronto.
Dorothy GM, 1965: London Life in the Eighteenth Century, 4th ed.,
Capricorn Books, London (Cox and Wyman Ltd, 1925).
Douglas M and Friedman J (eds.), 1998: Cities for Citizens: Planning
and the Rise of Civil Society in a Global Age, Academy Press, New
York.
Ericksen GE, 1954: Urban Behaviour, Macmillan Company, New
York.
Fay E, 1817: Original Letters from India: Containing a Narrative of a
Journey through Egypt and the Author’s Imprisonment at Calicut
by Hyder Ally, to Which Is Added an Abstract of Three Subsequent
Voyages to India, Printed at Calcutta.
Fitzgerald J, 2010: Emerald Cities: Urban Sustainability and
Economic Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Forrester JW, 1969: Urban Dynamics, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Fox RG, 1971: Kin, Clan, Raja and Rule: State-hinterland Relations in
Pre-industrial India, University of California Press, Berkely, CA.
Fryer J, 1992: A New Account of East India and Persia Being the 9
Years’ Travels, 1672–1681, 3 vols., AES, London (1909).
Gadgil M and Guha R, 1992: This Fissured Land: An Ecological
History of India, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Garson GD and Williams JO, 1982: Public Administration: Concepts,
Readings, Skills, Allyn & Bacon Inc., London.
Ghurye GS, 1962: Cities and Civilization, Popular Prakashan,
Bombay.
Gibbs JP (ed.), 1961: Urban Research Methods, D. Van Nostrand
Company, Inc., Princeton, NJ, Toronto, London, New York.
Glaeser E, 2012: Triumph of the Cities, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Gopi KN, 1980: Urban Growth and Industrial Location, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
Graham M (1785–1842), 1813: Journal of My Residence in India,
Constable and Company, Edinburgh; and Longman, Hurst, Rees,
Orme and Brown, London (1810).
Graves PE, 2007: Environmental Economics: A Critique of Benefit-
Cost Analysis, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.
Grove RH (1955–2020), 1995: Green Imperialism: Colonial
Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and Origins of
Environmentalism, 1600–1860, Oxford University Press, New
Delhi.
Grove RH, Vinita D and Satpal S (eds.), 1998: Nature and the Orient:
The Environmental History of South and South-East Asia, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
Guha S, 1999: Environment and Ethnicity in India:1200–1991, Volume
4 of Cambridge Studies in Indian History and Society, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Gupta GR (ed.), 1983: Urban India, Vikas Publishing House, New
Delhi.
Habitat Conference Secretariat (ed.), 1978: Aspects of Human
Settlement Planning, Pergamon Press, New York.
Hall P, 1979: The World Cities, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Hamburg.
Hansen, P et al., 1987: Systems of Cities and Facility Location,
Harwood Academic Publishers, Chur, Switzerland.
Hanumappa HG, 1981: Urbanisation Trends in India, Ashis, New
Delhi.
Harvey C, 1982: Analysis of Project Finance in Developing Countries,
Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London.
Henty GA (1832–1902), 1896: The Tiger of Mysore: A Story of the War
with Tippoo Saib, Blackie and Son, London.
Hibbert C, 1989: The English: A Social History, 1066–1945, Grafton
Books, London (1987).
Hicks JR (1904–89), 1969: A Theory of Economic History, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Hicky’s Bengal Gazette (1780–82): Weekly newspaper from Calcutta.
The Hindu: ##One of India’s national (daily) newspapers started in
1878, Madras.
Hirsch WZ, 1973: Urban Economic Analysis, McGraw Hill, New
Delhi.
Hodges W, 1793: Travels in India during the Years 1780–83, J.
Edwards, Pall Mall, London.
Houser PM, 1965: The Study of Urbanisation, John Wiley and Sons,
New York.
Hughes DJ, 2001: An Environmental History of the World:
Humankind’s Changing Role in the Community Life, Routledge,
London.
Ian D, 1983: The Urban Environment, Edward Arnold, Baltimore.
IJE, 1971–2: Water, Air, & Soil Pollution: An International Journal of
Environmental Pollution (aims and scope), Springer Nature,
Switzerland.
Inman RP (ed.), 2009: Making Cities Work: Prospects and Policies for
Urban America, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Irwin DH (1958–), 2006: Extinction: How Life on Earth Nearly Ended
250 Million Years Ago, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Ives E, 1773: A Voyage from England to India in 1754 and an
Historical Narrative, Edward and Charles Dilly, London.
Irwin E, 1787: Series of Adventures in the Course of a Voyage up the
Red Sea on the Coast of Arabia and Egypt, 2 vols., Printed for J.
Dodsley, London.
Jain PC and Anantharaman MS, 2016: Palaeobiology/Palaeobiology,
Vishal, New Delhi.
Jane J (1916–2006), 1969: The Economy of Cities, Vintage, New York.
Jasanoff M, 2005: Edge of Empire: Lives, Culture and Conquest in the
East, 1750–1850, Alfred A Knopf, New York.
Josh R-C, Toby L and Laurie M, 2017: Rethinking the Economics of
Land and Housing, Zed Books, London.
Joyce F (ed.), 1982: Local Government and Environmental Planning
and Control, Aldershot, Gower Ltd., London.
Kincaid D (1855?–1937), 1938: British Social Life in India, 1608–
1937, George Routledge and Sons, London.
King AD, 1976: Colonial Urban Development: Culture, Social Power
and Environment, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Korman S, 1996: The Right of Conquest: The Acquisition of Territory
by Force in International Law and Practice, Clarendon Press,
Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.
Kulkarni KM, 1981: Urban Structures and Interaction, Concept Co.,
New Delhi.
Kumar A, 2014: Indian Economy since Independence, Persisting
Colonial Disruption, Vision Books, New Delhi.
Kumar D (1928–2001), 1975: ‘Land Ownership and Inequality in
Madras Presidency 1853–54 to 1946–47’, The Indian Economic
and Social History Review, 12:3, pp. 229–61.
Kumar SJ, 2021: Vruksha vedam, Green India Challenge, Hyderabad.
Kuriyan G, 1939: ‘Growth of the City of Madras’, in Tercentenary, pp.
295–315.
Lalvani K, 2016: The Making of India, the Untold Story of British
Enterprise, Bloomsbury, London (2004).
Landsburg SE, 1993: The Armchair Economist and Everyday Life,
Free Press, New York.
Lawson C, 1905: Memories of Madras, Sonnenschein and Co.,
London.
Leighton D, 1902: Vicissitudes of Fort St. George, A.J. Cambridge and
Co., Madras.
Levine CH (ed.), 1978: Managing Human Resources: A Challenge to
Urban Governments, Sage Publications, London.
Lewis CW and Sternheimer S, 1979: Soviet Urban Management: With
Comparisons to the United States, Praeger Publishers, Eastbourne.
Lockyer C, 1711: An Account of Trade in India, Containing Rules for
Good Government in Trade, Price Courants and Tables…, Samuel
Crouch, Cornhill, London.
Love HD (1852–1927?), 1913: Vestiges of Old Madras, 1640–1800:
Traced from the East India Company’s Records Preserved at Fort
St. George and the India Office and from Other Sources, 3 vols.
(published for the Government of India), John Murray, London
(ASE, 1996).
Lynne L and Tietenberg TH, 1984: Environmental and Natural
Resource Economics, Scott, Foresman & Company, London.
Madras Government, 1999: The Madras Government Museum
Centenary Souvenir (1851–1951), The Principal Commissioner of
Museums, Government Museum, Chennai-8, Madras-8 (1951).
Manzoor AS, 1988: Urbanisation in Developing Countries, Asia
Publishing, New Delhi.
Marron C, 2013: City Parks: Public Places, Private Thoughts, Harper,
London.
McCaffery J and Mikesell JL, 1980: Urban Finance and
Administration: A Guide to Information Sources, Gale Research
Company, Detroit.
MC: Military Consultations, Govt. of Madras.
MDC: Military Department Consultations, Govt. of Madras.
Miles S, 1979: Eco-Development and Third World Urban Regions: A
Prospective for International Development Cooperation Policy,
Department of the Environment, Ottawa.
Misra, GK and Sarma KSRN, 1979: Distribution and Differential
Location of Public Utilities in Urban Delhi, Indian Institute of
Public Administration, New Delhi.
Mizushima T, 1986: Nattars and the Socio-Economic Change in South
India in the 18th and 19th Centuries, Mr. & Mrs. Vincent, Tokyo.
Mudaliar AL, 1939:‘A History of Medical relief in Madras’, in
Tercentenary, pp. 51–60.
Munro IH (1726–1805), 1789: A Narrative of the Military Operations
on the Coromandel Coast, against the Combined Forces of the
French, Dutch, and Hyder Ally Cawn, from the Year 1780 to the
Peace in 1784: In a Series of Letters in Which Are Included Many
Useful Cautions to Young Gentlemen Destined for India: A
Description of the Most Remarkable Manners and Customs of the
East Indians, London.
Muttalib MA and Umapathy N (eds.), 1981: Urban Government and
Administration, Osmania University, Hyderabad.
Nef JU, 1941: ‘The Responsibility of Economic Historians’, The
Journal of Economic History, December, Supplementary, pp. 1–8.
Nordhaus W, 2013: The Climate Casino: Risk, Uncertainty, and
Economics for a Growing World, Yale University Press, New
Haven, CT.
Orme R (1728–1801), 1861: A History of the Military Transactions of
the British Nation in Indostan, 2 vols., 4th ed., Madras Pharoah,
Madras (1803, London).
O‘Sullivan A and Gibb K, 2002: Housing Economics and Public
Policy, Wiley Blackwell, Oxford.
Palen JJ, 2002: The Urban World, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Park RE, Burgess EW and McKenzie RD (eds.), 1967: The City,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1925).
Parkinson, NC, 1937: Trade in the Eastern Seas, 1793–1813,
Cambridge University Press, London.
Pasteur D, 1979: The Management of Squatter Upgrading: A Case
Study of Organization, Procedures and Participation, Saxon
House, Farnborough.
Patrick G (1854–1932), 1915: Cities in Evolution, Williams and
Norgate, London.
PC: Public Consultations, Govt. of Madras.
PD: Public Department, Govt. of Madras.
PDC: Public Department Consultations, Govt. of Madras.
Peach GCK, 1968: Urbanisation of India and Its Problems, Oxford
University Press, New Delhi.
Pearce DW (1941–2005) and Kerry TR (1948–), 1990: Economics of
Natural Resources and the Environment, Johns Hopkins University
Press, Baltimore.
Pederson EO, 1980: Transportation in Cities, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Penny FE, 1908: On the Coromandel Coast, Smith, Elder and Co.,
Waterloo Place, London.
Raghavan MD, 1994: ‘Some Old Madras Houses’, in Tercentenary, pp.
113–22.
Raj B, 1986: Trends in Urbanisation in India, 1901–1081, Rawat
Publications, Jaipur.
Raj KN (1924–2010) et al., 1985: Essays on the Commercialisation of
Indian Agriculture, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Ramagowda KS, 1979: Urban and Regional Planning, Mysore
University Press, Mysore.
Ramana Venkata G, 2008: ‘Madras Merchants and English Trade on
the Coromandel’, in Rao VG, ed., pp. 158–73.
Rangacharya V, 1939: ‘A History of Some Place-Names of Madras’, in
Tercentenary, pp. 123–46.
Ranson CW, 1938: A City in Transition: Studies in the Social Life of
Madras, Christian Literature Society for India, Madras.
Rao AP, 1986: Financial Policy: Development in Urban Government,
Mani Publ., Hyderabad.
Rao DV, 1938: British India Charithra (Telugu), Andhra Grandhalaya
Mudrakshara Sala, Bezwada, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Rao VG (ed.), 2008: Clio: Dr. M. Pattabhirama Reddy
Commemoration Volume, MSS Centre for Historical Studies,
Nellore, India.
Rapoport A, 1977: Human Aspects of Urban Form: Towards a Man-
Environment Approach to Urban Form and Design, Pergamon
Press, Oxford.
Rasmussen DW, 1973: Urban Economics, Harper and Harper, New
York.
RCRE (1972–), 2007: The 26th Report by the Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution, Presented to Parliament by Command of
Her Majesty, March 2007, London.
Reddy MA (1944–), 1987: ‘Rich Lands and Poor Lords: Temple Lands
and Tenancy in Nellore District, 1860:1986’, The Indian Economic
and Social History Review, 24:1, pp. 1–33.
Reddy MA (1944–), 1996: Lands and Tenants in South India: A Study
of Nellore District, 1850–1990, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Reddy MA (1944–), 2006: Trade and Commerce of the English East
India Company in India (Madras), 3 vols., Associated Publishers,
Ambala, India.
Reddy MA (1944–), 2008: ‘Dugarajupatnam to Chennapatnam’, in
Rao GV, ed., pp. 195–255.
Rigved, 1995: Rigveda Samhitha (sanscrit), Chowkhamba Samskrutha
Prathistan, New Delhi.
Ross R and Telkamp GJ (eds.), 1984: Colonial Cities: Essays in
Urbanism in a Colonial Context, Martnus Nijhoff, Derdrecht, The
Netherlands.
Rothschild E, 2011: The Inner Life of Empires: An Eighteenth-Century
History, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Roy T, 1962: India’s Urban Future, Oxford University Press, Bombay.
Roy T, 2012: The East India Company: The World’s Most Powerful
Corporation, Allen Lane, Penguin Books India, New Delhi, India.
Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s report on the Urban
Environment Government Response, 2008: Department of
Environment (DOE), Sustainable Development Unit, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Nobel House, 17 Smith
Square London.
Russell P, 1796: An Account of Indian Serpents Collected on the Coast
of Coromandel, 2 vols., W. Bulmer and Co., Shakespeare-Press for
George Nicol, London (1781).
Saberwal S (ed.), 1978: Process and Institutions in Urban India,
Vikas, New Delhi.
Safa H, 1982: Towards a Political Economy of Urbanisation in the
Third World, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.
Samal KC, 1990: Urban Informal Sector, Manak Publishers, New
Delhi.
Saravanan V, 1998: ‘Commercialization of Forests, Environmental
Negligence and Alienation of Tribal Rights in the Madras
Presidency: 1792–1882’, The Indian Economic and Social History
Review, 35:2, pp. 125–46.
Saravanan V, 2017: Colonialism, Environment and Tribals in South
India, 1792–1947, Routledge, London.
Saravanan V, 2018: Environmental History and Tribals in Modern
India, Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore.
Savani NV, 1966: Urbanisation and Urban India, Asia Publishing,
Bombay.
Saxena HM and Khan MZA, 2016: Urbanisation, Environmental
Degradation & Quality of Life, Rawat Publications, Jaipur.
Scott MA, 1908: Essays of Francis Bacon, Charles Scribner’s Sons,
New York.
Scott R, 1824: The History of England during the Reign of George III,
4 vols., J. Robins and Co., London.
Seth MJ, 1992: Armenians in India: From the Earliest Times to the
Present Day, AES, Delhi (1937).
Simmie J (ed.), 2001: Innovative Cities, Spon Press, London.
Singh BR and Singh O, 2012: Study of Impacts of Global Warming on
Climate Change: Rise in Sea Level and Disaster Frequency, Intech
Publishing, Rijeka, Croatia.
Sinha R, 1936: Malwa in Transition or a Century of Anarchy, DB
Taraporewala and Sons, Bombay.
Sivakumar C and Sivakumar SS, 1993: Peasants and Nabobs:
Agrarian Radicalism in Late Eighteenth Century Tamil Country,
Hindustan Publishing Corporation, New Delhi.
Smith A (1723–90), 1937: An Enquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations, Modern Library, New York.
Smith S, 2011: Environmental Economics: A Very Short Introduction,
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Spencer A (ed.), 1923: Memoirs of William Hickey, 4 vols., Hurst &
Blackett Ltd., London.
Srinivasachary CS, 1939: History of the City of Madras, P.
Varadachary and Co., Madras.
Srivastava AK, 2013: ‘Leaders of Slum Dwellers: A Study Based on
Slums of Jaipur City’, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social
Science (IOSR-JHSS), 8:2, pp. 18–24.
Stern PJ, 2011: The Company-State: Corporate Sovereignty and the
Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Stretton H, 1978: Urban Planning in Rich and Poor Countries, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Survey, 1755: ‘The Council Ordered on the Last Day of 1754, That a
Survey of the EIC Bounds of Madras Be Made by Messrs’, Hume
and Sausure under the Direction of Brohier (PC lxxxiii, 31st Dec.
1754). Their report was submitted, in 1755, with maps and notes.
Tarr JA, 1996: The Search for the Ultimate Sink: Urban Pollution in
Historical Perspective in Environmental History Series, ed. by
Martin M, A & M Press, College Station, Texas.
Taylor JL and Williams DG (eds.), 1982: Urban Planning Practice in
Developing Countries, Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Tercentenary, 1939: Madras Tercentenary Commemoration Volume,
ed. The Madras Tercentenary Celebration Committee 1939,
Madras, Humphrey Milford, Oxford University Press, London.
Thackar MS, 1965: India’s Urban Problems, Mysore University Press,
Mysore.
The Hindu, Editorial, 16, April, 1894.
Thurston E and Rangachari K, 2001: Castes and Tribes of Southern
India, 7 vols., AES, New Delhi (1909).
Tokyo, 1980: Plain Talk about Tokyo: The Administration of the Tokyo
Metropolitan Government, Metropolitan Government, Tokyo.
Torrens WM, 1880: The Marquess Wellesley, Architect of Empire, an
Historic Portrait, Chatto & Windus, Piccadilly, London.
Travers R, 2007: Ideology and Empire in Eighteenth-Century India:
The British in Bengal, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Tumer R (eds.), 1962: India’s Urban Future, University of California
Press, Berkeley.
Vickery A, 2010: Behind Closed Doors: At Home in Georgian
England, Yale University Press, New Haven and London.
Werner HZ, 1975: Urban Economic Analysis, Tata McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Watson IB, 1980: Foundation for Empire: English Private Trade in
India 1659–1760, Vikas, New Delhi.
Watt G (1851–1930), 1889–93: The Dictionary of Economic Products
of India, 9 vols., Printed by the Superintendent of Government
printing, Calcutta (1885).
Watt G (1851–1930), 1908: Commercial Products of India, John
Murray, Albemarle Street, London.
Weber M, 1966: The City, Free Press, New York.
Wellman K and Spiller M, 2012: Urban Infrastructure: Finance and
Management, Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ.
Wilson JE, 2008: The Domination of Strangers: Modern Governance
in Eastern India, 1780–1835, Cambridge Imperial and Post-
Colonial Studies Series, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
World Bank, 1979: National Urbanization Policies in Developing
Countries, World Bank, Washington, DC.
Zhang X and Shan Z, 2012: ‘The Research Review of Land-Use and
Land-Management Problems in the Joint of Urban and Rural Area
for the Last Two Decades’, Energy Procedia, Beijing, 16:Part A,
pp. 353–8.
INDEX

acquisition 133–6
Admiralty House 168–70
Adyar: beach 114, 156; club 113; clubhouse 185, 186; garden 182; river 28, 35–6, 38, 46, 60–1, 70,
108, 113, 118, 183; village 36
Africa 1
air pollution 124
Aix-la-Chapelle 22
Alvarpet 28
Anderson, J. 51, 53–5, 112–13, 172
Anderson, S. 106
Anglo-French rivalries 24
architects 187–9
Arnold, D. 2
asramas 42
auctions 92–5

Bacon, Francis 43
bandicoot 57
Barlow, G. 33, 34, 53, 71, 72, 73, 89, 109, 126, 145, 149, 167, 183, 184
Bingham, R.D. 69
biodiversity 3, 47, 50, 113; urban 17
birds 42, 44, 48, 58–9, 61, 64
Black Town 21, 26–8, 35–9, 45, 47, 65, 70–5, 77, 85, 87–8, 92–4, 96, 98, 108, 110, 113, 122–3, 132,
138, 140, 144, 146, 150–2, 170, 173–9, 188–9, 195
boatmen 23, 123–5
Bobbio, T. 68
Boscawen, Edward 25, 111, 131–4
Brandt, W. 3
bridges 115–18
Brodie, James 182
Brown, C.P. 2

Calcutta 6, 8–9, 64, 86, 103, 187, 195, 197

Capt. Brohier 32
Capuchin(s) 133–5; Church 117; fathers 18; missionaries 134
Caribbean 1
Carnatic 10, 12, 21, 63, 168, 194; Bank 177; hinterland Carnatic 194; war 11, 199
castles 12, 182–4
Chamier’s Road 113–14, 125
Chennai 6, 12
Chepauk 28, 36, 45, 97, 139, 180
Chintadripet 27–8, 32, 36, 38, 77, 115, 139
Choolai 27, 35
choultries 27–8, 127, 186–7
Choultry Plain 28–31
cities 17–18
colonialism 7
Cooum 27, 28, 32, 36–7, 56, 70, 83, 112, 115–16, 119, 121, 168
Cordiner, J. 125
Coronavirus 8
Corporation’s property 143
COVID-19 2, 200
Crombie, A.D. 165, 166
Cullingworth, J.B. 131
customs-house 173–9
cyclone 62, 63, 117

decline 5, 10, 12, 21–2, 177

de Roos, John 32
Desai, A.R. 6
De Silva road 114
Devadas, P.S. 6
development 9–12, 20, 23–5, 38–9, 55, 60, 68, 74, 81, 88–9, 91, 127, 148, 200
Dodwell, H. 18, 23, 51, 131, 154, 155, 198
Doebele, W.A. 77
Dorothy, G.M. 24
Douglas, M. 5
Drake, Dawsonne 156
Dupleix 21–3, 25, 38–9, 133

East India Company (EIC) 8, 10–13, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 31–2, 36–9, 42, 64; botanists 51; Court 55;
Directors 24; garden 27, 45–6, 83, 97–8; Garden House 27, 138, 165; judges 7; land grants 47;
military 38; naval forces 39; policy 83; property 88; records 31; servants 24, 27–8, 30, 38, 45;
ships 74; trade 7
ecological balance 1, 23, 25, 38, 200
economic development 1–5, 9, 11, 68, 74, 130, 194–6
Egmore 32–4
encroachments 86, 99
Ennur 61; creek 46, 61, 70; river 60–1; village 70, 107
environment 1–2, 8–10, 12, 20–3, 194
environmental concerns 177
environmental degradation 2, 3, 4, 7, 195, 200
environmental ecology 3
environmental economics 3, 4, 11, 51
environmental enrichment 11
environmental exploitation 2
environmental history 3, 4
environmental policies 6, 7
environmental pollution 2, 4, 6, 7
environmental problems 94, 124, 200
environmental restoration 24
Ericksen, GE. 17
estates 20, 76, 162
evacuees 138–40
expansion 26–8

faunae 56–9
Fay, E. 36, 58, 74, 124, 190, 198
Fort-house 162–5
French occupation 37, 63, 131, 162
French siege 70, 98
Friedman, J. 5
Fryer, J. 45

Gadgil, M. 2
garden-house 165–8
gardens 42
General hospital 27, 56
Gerald, B. 7
Ghurye, G.S.
Gibb, K. 130
Glaeser, E. 5
global warming 3
Govt. gardens 53
Graham, M. 55, 110, 125, 171
grandeur 18–21
grants 77–83
greenery 10, 42–3
Gregorio, Signora Estra 30, 139
growth 17
Guha, R. 2
Guha, S. 47

Harris Bridge 46
Henty, G.A. 43, 44, 48, 184
Heyne, Benjamin 51
Hibbert, C. 20
Hicky, William 37, 50
Hodges, W. 152
hospital 63, 72
hurricane 1, 54, 61, 62, 74, 108

improvements 24–5
India 7–9
infrastructural development 69, 72, 74, 127–8, 194, 196
infrastructure 68–9, 194
integration 35–7
Island 120–1
Ives, E. 189

Jasanoff, M. 51
Josh, R.C. 69

Kadalore 22
Kincaid, D. 45
Kindersley, Mrs. 37, 152, 197
Korman, S. 7
Krishnampet 28
Kumar, A. 7
Kuriyan, G. 27, 35, 38

land development 68, 90, 98–9

land management 69
land ownership 45, 69, 75–7, 86, 95, 97–9, 146
land property 97
lands 68
Lawson, C. 73
Leighton, D. 24, 108, 180–1
Leith, James 182
lighthouse 179–82
location 18
Lockyer, C. 110
lotteries 121–4
Love, H.D. 26, 29, 36, 39, 44, 53, 55, 62, 78–9, 84, 87, 92–3, 98, 107–8, 118, 120, 122, 132, 143,
146, 152, 155, 162, 164, 168, 170, 173, 178, 182
lucky Madras 24
Lunatic Hospital 72
Luz Church 114
Lynne, L. 1

Mackay Garden 31, 55

Madras 9–10
maintenance 153–4
Male Asylum 32, 33, 116, 121–2
malpractices 95–8
management 69–77
mansions 30, 32–3, 37–8, 46, 162
markets 144–9
Marmalong 70, 79, 118
Marron, C. 45
merchandise 18, 106
military 150–1
mongoose 57
Morse choultry 35
mosquitoes 50, 57–8
Mount Road 30, 31, 35–6, 38, 46, 56, 83, 107–8, 110, 111, 113–15, 137, 148, 154
Mudaliar, A.L. 186
Munro, I. 49, 50, 56–9, 62, 75, 124, 126, 127
Muthialpet 23, 26–8, 45, 68, 88, 107–8
Muzafar-jang 133
Mylapore 9, 25, 28, 36, 38, 43, 70, 108, 125, 148, 185–6
Mysore 10, 11, 45, 70, 199
Mysore wars 153, 155, 199

naval hospital 72
nopalry garden 54
North America 1
Nungambakkam 32, 36, 38, 51, 53, 70, 78, 82, 112–13, 115; fields 112; tank 35

Old Black Town 26–7, 107

Orme, R. 63
orthography 12–13
O’Sullivan, A. 130
owners 172–3

painters 154–5
palanquins 62, 74, 108, 116, 125, 138, 190, 197
Pantheon 170–2
Pantheon Road 108, 111–12, 173
paraiyars 84–5, 99
Parkinson, N.C. 74, 137, 196, 198
Pasley, Gilbert 51
Pasteur, D. 6, 130
Patullo Road 111
Peddanaikpet 23, 26–8, 30, 38, 70, 88, 107–8, 113, 138
Pederson, E.O. 124
Penny, F.E. 30, 36–7, 44, 46, 49, 60, 61, 64, 77–8, 83, 112–13, 115, 119, 121, 126, 186
Pigot road 54, 56
pillaiyar kovils 189
places 184–7
planning 86–9
plants 47–51
Plassey 9
poisonous pollution 3
policy 98
pollution 1, 3, 4–6, 9, 11, 63, 177, 195
Pondy 18–19, 21–2, 25, 39, 70, 79, 112, 165, 196, 198
Poornamallee High Road 35
Popham, Stephen 35, 88–92, 122–3, 188
Portuguese 2, 9, 25, 49, 95, 126, 133–4, 136, 176, 195; Church 83; Roman Catholic Mission 185–6;
square 150–1
prices 84–6
private property 93, 177
property 69, 76, 81, 94–6, 133, 135–6, 138–40, 144, 152, 171–6, 179, 197; resources 12, 39; sales 98
Pudupak 31, 54–6, 81–2, 115–16, 148
Purusawakam 27

quality 152–3

Raghavan, M.D. 171, 182, 183

Raghuvamsam 43
Raj, K.N. 2
Ramana, G.V. 18
Rangacharya, V. 31–2, 54, 56, 110, 111, 112
Ranson, C.W. 8, 9
Rao, D.V. 199
Rao, V.G. 199
Rayapet 31, 36, 56
reclamation 89–92
Reddy, M.A. 18, 21, 25, 32, 62, 76, 113, 197
reforms 110–13
repairs 136–8
research 51–6
residential development 77
restoration 22–3
Robert Sayer 19
Robins, Benjamin 25
role 106–7
Roman catholics 133
Ross, Patrick 56
Roxborough, William 51
Roy, T. 11
rural development 74
Russell, Patrick 51, 52
Ryne, Jan Van 19

Santhome 25–6, 28, 30, 35–8, 43, 54, 76, 61, 68, 82–3, 86, 114, 125, 133, 135, 137–8, 181
Santhome Road 107–8
Santhome Street 151–2
Saravanan, V. 4, 199
Scott, M.A. 43, 130
Scott, Robert 1
Seth, M.J. 118
Shan, Z. 69
shortages 131–6
silkworms 53
Sivakumar, C. 76
Sivakumar, S.S. 76
Smith’s ditch 27, 119
Spencer, A. 37, 50, 57, 58
Srinivasachary, C.S. 21, 131
Stern, P.J. 7, 43
storms 61–3
strategic 78, 153, 195
strategic structures 98
streets 106

tamarind tree 25, 49

Tarr, Joel 7
technological development 68, 197
Teynampet 28, 36, 38, 43, 68, 78
Teynampet-west 108
Tietenberg, T.H. 1
Tipu 11, 32, 83, 168, 172
Torrens, W.M. 59
transport 124–8
Triplicane Bridge 27, 30, 38, 110–11, 114, 117, 138

Umdabagh garden 116

urban development 6, 12, 69, 77, 99, 195–6
urban economics 5–7, 10
urban environment 36, 191
urbanization 4, 195
urban pollution 9

vehicular pollution 200

Vickery, A. 190
Vijayanagar 196

war period 151–2

Washermenpet 26, 35
watering 60
water pollution 3
Watson, I.B. 21
weavers 21
Wilson, J.E. 7

Zhang, X. 69
Zhongcai, Z. 69