Robert Raworth's rebellion, 1713
“Robert Raworth late Deputy Governor of Fort St. David has contrary to all Law and Justice assumed a power to himself to keep Fort St. David in his Possession and not render it as it is his duty to the Order of the Honble. Presidt. Of the Council of Fort St. George to whom he is subordinate therefore he can be found none other than a Rebel and a Traitor to his Queen and Country and an Enemy to the Company.”
These were the opening lines of an arrest warrant issued by the Governor and Council of the Honourable East India Company, 13th October 1713. Nine days earlier Henry Davenport had been dispatched from Fort St. George, Madras (1) to become Acting Deputy Governor and send Robert Raworth back to Madras to answer charges against him. Henry and Robert had been colleagues and friends in the Company, but letters and documents in the Lacock archive attest to the complete reversal in their relationship. They also beg the question: why did Robert Raworth as Deputy Governor of the Company in Madras choose to rebel in October 1713?
Fort St George
The East India Company had received a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I in 1600. By the beginning of the eighteenth century they had a monopoly in trading between England and India as well as having major trading links with China and other countries of the Far East. When the new Governor of Madras, Edward Harrison, arrived in 1711 the territories belonging to the East India Company were Madras, part of what is now Tamil Nadu, Bengal and Bombay. The French, Dutch and Portuguese trading companies had their own territories which were staunchly defended, usually by diplomatic negotiation. As well as European rivals some of the indigenous leaders waged local wars against the Europeans in order to regain or maintain authority of their own Provinces. The East India Council also drew up agreements and treaties with the locals in order to facilitate trading.
Governor Edward Harrison
When Edward Harrison arrived at Fort St. George his Deputy Governor was Robert Raworth who had been in India for a considerable number of years. Henry Davenport was a senior member of the Council who arrived in India in 1696. Both Robert and Henry were successful in their posts and had both become wealthy men through their trading both within and on behalf of the Company. Soon after his arrival Governor Harrison became disturbed by reports of serious problems at Fort St. David which was about 60 miles south of Madras and an important trading centre. There was unrest between the local people and the Company, as well as disaffection and drunkenness among the men due to low and sometimes unpaid wages (2). The Governor sent Robert Raworth to Fort St David to exert control. Although not a soldier Robert led several raids and negotiated with the locals, sometimes in collaboration with the French who were at nearby Pondicherry. By 1713 he seemed to have regained an element of control within the area and gained the respect of the soldiers at the Fort.
On his journey to Fort St David Robert wrote a letter to Henry concerning business, but saying "I shall be proud of your correspondence". As well as having various business dealings with Henry including being a joint Attorney for the business affairs of the previous Governor, Thomas Pitt, the two men appeared to remain on friendly terms. In April 1712 Robert thanked Henry for "Your extraordinary civility to my brother in my absence you have been so kind as to take him into your house on his arrival from China". He ends the letter "I am at present preparing for a fresh warre". The following month he wrote "I shall recken myself happy if you continue the correspondence wee have". However the letter ends with an indication that Robert is finding his posting arduous: "I am now so much inured to hardship that neither heats nor colds affect me. I have not injoy’d more than an hour (of sleep) in twenty-four since my arrival here".
Prior to being sent to Fort St. David, Robert Raworth had been the warehouse keeper at Fort St George, in charge of the merchandise that arrived there prior to shipment, he was used to dealing in business and negotiating with the Captains of Merchant ships. Suddenly he found himself in charge of an unruly army whilst having to impose Company control on the local population and also negotiate diplomatic solutions with the French and local leaders. The contrast in roles must have been immense for Robert who had been dispatched to Fort St. David without extra funds or men. The fact that the Council of Fort St George trusted him with the task and considered him to be successful in his duty emphasises the good reputation he had acquired.
Map of Fort St David
However, sometime in either late 1712 or early 1713 some members of the Company appeared to undergo a change of opinion about Robert Raworth. Governor Edward Harrison called for an inventory of the warehouse and it was discovered that a substantial amount of silver was missing. Various people were questioned about the disappearance including Mr. Martin who had been Robert’s assistant and a man called Tonnapa who held the post of Conicopoly which seems to have been an administrative role. The Conicopoly was a post given by the Governor and Council of the Company and Tonnapa was employed by Governor Thomas Pitt who had since returned to England. According to John Shipman, who wrote a memorial in defence of Robert in late 1713, both Robert Raworth and Mr. Martin merely signed off Tonnapa’s account without first checking the accuracy (3). The acceptance of accounts was general practice for warehouse keepers at that time.
John Shipman wrote his memorial on 30th December 1713 and presented it to the East India Company Council in London on 5th January 1714. These dates are both after the end of the rebellion which neither John Shipman nor the Council knew had taken place between October and December of 1713. News from India took at least 20 weeks to arrive because of the sailing time between the two countries, it could be even longer if a ship had to take shelter due to poor weather conditions. Therefore Robert must have requested support from Mr. Shipman in about July 1713. Mr. Shipman wrote that "Robert Raworth, now Deputy Governor of Fort St. David has no other friend or relation but that is capable of appearing for him". Mr. Shipman accepted that Robert may be partially to blame for the dishonesty, but that as there had been no inventory for many years. It is likely that his predecessors as well as contemporaries were complicit in acts of embezzlement. He pointed out that Robert had already paid the Company 20,000 Pagodas they said he owed. During the course of 1713 Tonnapa was imprisoned for embezzlement, but no one else was held under suspicion. Mr. Shipman questioned why Mr. Martin was found innocent of any wrongdoing even though he had access to the warehouse. It is not clear how these conclusions of responsibility were reached or why an inventory had been taken for the first time in ten years. In his absence Robert was unable to adequately defend himself and Shipman hinted at Robert having enemies within the Council, but did not supply names. It is worth noting that Henry Davenport also held the title of warehouseman during 1713 and that letters dated from 1713 reveal that his friendship with Robert had deteriorated markedly at this time.
On 16th August 1713 Henry wrote to Robert concerning some money owed to Robert Coppin which had been left in the safekeeping of Robert Raworth when Coppin returned to England. Coppin had also claimed that Henry owed him money from a deal with Robert. "He makes a great clamour in England", wrote Henry when he asked Robert for accounts to conclude the affair. Later in the same month Henry wrote to Captain Gough to arrange his passage home to England, "telling you as a secret that I believe Raworth will be found out before your arrival here, he’s most unaccountably disobeying orders, and using the Merchant’s accts. Barbarously". On 7th September 1713 in a letter to Coppin, Henry accused Robert of paying no-one and says he will complain to the Council. Henry also complained to Robert Nightingale an East India Company official in London about Robert Raworth of whom he said "I take to be no other than a mad man". The long letter mostly contains business matters carried out by Henry on behalf of Mr. Nightingale but he complained several times about Robert’s business dealings and accused him of the "ruin of Executing Mr. Addison’s Estate". A bill brought against Henry by Thomas Pitt in 1718 accused Henry of also misappropriating some of Mr. Addison’s funds.
Henry and Robert were both attorneys for the ex-Governor, Thomas Pitt. In a numbered, 27 paragraph letter dated 3rd September 1713 from Henry to Thomas Pitt he dedicated a third of the letter to denigrating Robert although he was answering a criticism of goods he sent himself from China and India to England. Henry levelled the accusation that Pitt always favoured Robert but that "Raworth makes fair promises but no performances". He also expressed surprise that Robert should complain about him as his own reputation was so good and says that Robert always "blames others first for his own wrongdoing", whilst he blamed Robert for any inaccuracies in Pitt’s account. Six of one and half a dozen of the other would seem to be a more accurate conclusion. Henry also remonstrated that had he been made Governor of Bengal he would have been able to oversee affairs properly and that he would have much more to say upon his return to England. The lack of promotion was obviously a cause of bitterness to Henry.
Henry’s wife had died in December 1712 and he had booked passage to England on the Marlborough for himself, his children and his mother in law, Madam Chardin, who was also widowed. Although Henry explained the return to England as voluntary he was under pressure to answer questions about his business dealings, in fact later in 1713 Robert Raworth claimed that he was also due to leave for England in January, if that was true he may also have been due to face similar legal charges. The Company Council had the ability to charge and confine people who had offended, but an offender had to be returned to England to face formal legal procedures. Certainly in the 1718 Bill to Chancery Pitt accused both Henry and the then deceased Robert of not returning all of his funds, but Henry strenuously denied the accusation. In all likelihood both men were using the system and the distance between their clients in order to bolster their own interests, in common with other members of the Council, Ship’s Captains and Merchants. In many ways the Company in India was a law unto itself.
Whatever the truth about the probity of both men the correspondence clearly records the animosity which had grown between them. It was with this background that on 5th October 1713 Henry Davenport was dispatched from Fort St. George to Fort St. David with 20 others, including 14 soldiers to relieve Robert Raworth of his role of Deputy Governor. What could possibly go wrong? Henry had been appointed Provisional Deputy Governor and was to take charge of Fort St. David whilst Robert was to return to Fort St. George to answer the charges against him. He was accused of robbing the Company’s godowns (warehouses), taking silver and rupees to a vast amount, plundering the Company’s merchants and embezzling cash to maintain the Garrison. Henry’s progress and correspondence can be found in Henry Davenport Esq. his journey from Fort St. George to Fort St. David begin ye 5th October 1713 and consultations held (4). Rather than being a personal diary this is an official document for the records of the East India Company and part of the "Fort St. David Factory Records" although later it did spend some time in private hands. Many of the consultations and the great majority of the letters were kept as personal copies by Henry which are part of the Lacock archive. There are a few diary only entries which describe the journey and arrival at Fort St. David and also gives an idea of how many and when some members of Fort St. David followed Company orders to present themselves to Henry and recognise him as their Deputy Governor.
The men travelled from Fort St. George during evenings and very early mornings to avoid the worst of the heat, arriving at Condipah Choultry (5) on Friday 9th October 1713, four days after setting out. On arrival at the Condipah Choultry gate to Fort St. David the party met the officer in charge, Peter Ackman who declared he knew nothing of their arrival, he fired an "alarum" which triggered off a series of other alarms, then the flag for enemy approach was hoisted at the fort. In fact Robert was highly aware of the approach of Henry and he had alerted his guards. On the 8th October he had sent written orders to Captain Patrick Johnston telling him that if a party from Fort St. George arrived they were to be treated with no more respect than a private Merchant and should be forbidden from reading out any papers. On the same day a letter to Ensign Heckman from Ensign Benjamin Hobbs "on order of the Deputy Governor" said he should allow the men to pass but not to present arms (salute) and they were to defend themselves if necessary.
The following day Captain Poirier was dispatched by Henry ahead of the main party to deliver letters to Robert and some of the officers at the fort. They are all dated Friday 9th October 1713. The note to Robert from Henry informs him that Poirier carried a packet from the Honourable Company, presumably containing the official decree from the Council of Fort St. George. Henry asked Robert for a meeting with him and the full Council of Fort St. David. Other letters were sent to John Berlu, Thomas Woodward, Captain Hugonin and Joseph Houghton informing them of the situation, saying that if Robert had not already summoned them Henry expected to meet them in the Fort. A separate one was sent to Lieutenant Hobbs informing him of the change of Deputy, it ends "I shall acquaint you of the distinguishing marks the Honble. Pres. and Council have conferred on you". It appears to be a form of bribery but there is no indication why Hobbs should be singled out in this manner. The use of Lieutenant was a form of flattery, Hobbs signed himself as Ensign which was a grade lower.
Robert returned a letter to Henry immediately. He stated that Henry would be admitted as a "private person" but had no authority to rule and that the President and Company had no power to rescind his Commission: "I have sometime resolved to quit this place in January next and will acquit it very speedily and should be very glad to deliver it up to you sooner than any man in India". Robert wanted to quit the fort on his own terms rather than under orders. There was a complete impasse between Robert and Henry, the latter could not force Robert to leave for fear of bloodshed, the former remained adamant that he would not leave. Governor Harrison and the Council had assumed that everyone would follow the decree without question. A group of men did accept the orders and read them to others immediately. According to a diary entry for 9th October Captain Johnston "put his hand on his sword" threatening to take prisoners and shoot Henry Davenport if he entered and he was supported by Richard Harrison. Over the following two weeks there was a series of letters between Robert and Henry and a general movement of some members of the fort to join Henry.
Robert absolutely refused to accept Henry as Deputy Governor or that The Company Council had any right to withdraw his commission. On the 12th October Robert declared "I never have deserved the character of Robber, Rebell, Dissenter". Robert’s initial letters are written with indignation about his treatment and proclaim his innocence. In later letters Robert uses the official style of legal documents and they become accusatory, branding Henry, Berlu, Woodward, Houghton, Hugonin and Baker as rebels and traitors and making the point that the official seal has been used. However some of his complaints were for very good reason. In a letter not dated but replying to a letter of 12th from Henry he wrote "I can’t help expressing my gratitude to you who have at the same time Declare yr inclinations to serve me, and as a demonstration of them have publickly punished and threatened to hang my Private slave and servant, Hannibal". A journal entry for Sunday 11th October verifies this accusation. After a description of men who have left the fort it says they were escorted by Robert’s slave carrying a note to permit passage. "The foresaid slave looking upon noe otherwise than a spy was tyed up and whipt to make him confess something of the affair he came about. He prov’d stubborn would tell nothing so the Deputy Governor (Henry) ordered him to be kept prisoner". It is highly unlikely that such a lowly person could have had any useful information about matters concerning his superiors and Henry must have been aware that Hannibal’s "stubbornness" was ignorance. The violence seems purely gratuitous.
Violence was not one sided. On Saturday 17th October the journal records that "Mr. Raworth was so kind as to salute us with an eighteen pounder". Robert had sent a warning letter to Henry on the same day which accused Henry of encouraging deserters and leaving the fort open to attack. He wrote "I now order you to quit that post & give the charge of it to an Officer wch I shall hereafter send wch if you don’t obey you must excuse me if I lay all accidents wch may happen at yor door". Therefore resting blame of death or injury on Henry. In an affidavit of events that day taken on 23rd October and signed by 24 men from the fort garrison they described how a group of men from the fort came to Ensign Hobbs requesting "Granado shells, Carbines, Pistolls & co". They told Hobbs that Mr. Raworth had sent them to take Condipah Choultry, they also reported that Mr. Raworth fired from the fort. Of those defending Condipah Choultry some were wounded and one killed. Henry had to request a surgeon from the French Governor, Monsieur Dulivier, as the Council of Fort St. George had sent no medical support for Henry.
The following day Reverend Lewis and Mr. Warre arrived as negotiators from Fort St. George. It was clear to all concerned that no agreement would be reached between Henry and Robert. Governor Harrison was adamant that attacking Fort St. David was not an option, it would have been tantamount to a civil war within the East India Company. Although there was a small army belonging to the Company it was for the use of incursions by local leaders or as a last resort against other European powers, not their own countrymen. Robert wrote to Warre and Lewis to say that he could not meet them in the Garden as "Mr. Davenport has ordered some persons to surprize me". However he does invite them into the fort with great politeness.
The outcome of meetings with Warre and Lewis concluded with Robert telling them he could only deliver the fort to the Governor. Henry passed on a package to the negotiators for Robert it was under flying seal so that that they could read it first. It claimed that Mr. Raworth had given false representation of the attack on Condipah Choultry and that Henry would seek affidavits from the people there it also told Robert that the Governor would not be able to come. At the same time the Governor was informed that the only method of gaining control would be to starve out the remaining residents in the fort. Henry also requested his own return to Fort St. George in order to prepare for England which was denied. Robert’s reply to Henry was to return the packet saying "not being able to find the gentleman to whom it is addressed". Henry had addressed it to "The Late Deputy Governor".
The men inside the fort were given one last opportunity to leave with a pardon from the Company or face the consequences. Once more for reasons not explained Ensign Benjamin Hobbs received a personal letter from Henry urging him to leave the fort and offering promotion. As the letter was written on the 17th October and Ensign Hobbs led a party to take Condipah Choultry on the 18th it seems that the enticement was effective and Henry wasted no time in applying the inside knowledge of Hobbs who received his reward of promotion by being made a Captain.
On 22nd October Henry reported to Fort St. George that "he breaks open houses and godowns at Tevenapatum and has made his soldiers force some women". He also reported that a Portuguese soldier was severely whipped for reading papers to his men warning them of excommunication from the Catholic Church. The following month Robert denied any knowledge of rape by his men. This is also borne out by affidavits of the men involved who say they were "forced" to carry out the brutality by Captain Patrick Johnston on Patcheree Hill. They make no mention of Robert Raworth giving the order. Johnston seems to have been particularly brutal and was implicated in a number of incidences of violence and murder. He was later convicted of his crimes. Sergeant Murry was also accused of torturing and murdering men at the garrison, he offered them a "passport" to leave and if they accepted they were badly beaten. Again no mention was made of Robert in either condoning or knowing about the level of violence.
As well as supplying a surgeon Monsieur Dulivier arranged passage and safekeeping of money, arms and provisions sent from Fort St. George. He also agreed to stop sending provisions into Fort St. David so that Henry could starve out the residents. However Henry discovered that food was being delivered to the fort and protested strongly, he had not considered that Robert had his own network of people who would help. Robert was being supplied by local French merchants and businessmen, notably Monsieur Cordier and Monsieur Dormieux. The latter protested to Henry about his workers being refused entrance at the fort gates and referred to "the noble Mr. Raworth". Robert had built up local relationships and found people still willing to support him.
In the midst of the conflict on 4th November Robert wrote to Henry politely requesting the return of the wet nurse for Richard and Mrs. Harrison’s baby. Mrs. Damilla had left the fort with her husband. Robert appealed to Henry as a father: "You have children of your own". He asked Henry not to let his antipathy towards himself prevent him from helping the distressed child and parents. Henry promptly returned the nurse with a rather pompous message which said saving a child’s life was "a Duty incumbent upon every Christian and is greater when showed to the Child of those who look upon themselves as ones Enemys". Henry did request that the nurse should suffer no punishment as she had said that she had left because she had been threatened with whipping for her husband’s actions. Robert returned thanks in a restrained manner. The incident shows that despite being at loggerheads both men could agree to act humanely.
Soon after that incident Governor Harrison arrived at Fort St. David in an attempt to break the impasse, remove Robert and prepare the fort for a new Deputy Governor, Mr. Frederick. Despite his promises to Mr. Warre and Reverend Lewis that he would hand the fort to the Governor, Robert still could not let go of his command. On 8th November, Robert wrote to Governor Harrison saying how sorry he was that he had been forced to leave Madras due to the behaviour of Henry Davenport. He refused to meet the Governor outside of the gates as it would be "ungarrison like", but said that he would do so if the Governor insisted saying "for I am tired and have been for a long time so indifferently treated in my station that it has been a burthen to me". In his "Terms" for leaving Robert said he had defended the fort from Henry Davenport. He refused to deal with the Governor’s council if Henry, Berlu, Houghton, Hugonin, Baker and Woodward were members. He also requested that his personal papers should be untouched, access to his Chief Dubash (accountant), and asked that the soldiers be paid their arrears and treated well.
The following day, 9th November, Mr. Warre and Lieutenant Roach requested Robert meet the Governor outside the gates. He refused to do so unless he could return and resume his post of Deputy Governor. He feared he would be confined when told he would only lose his Commission and not be allowed back into the fort he declined. They then asked if the Governor could enter with 50 men, Robert refused saying he could come singly and threatened to shoot over the head of Roach should he come too close. Robert then told them that the Governor could not lawfully evict him and he insisted that he had the right of succession to Fort St. George. He went on to write to the Governor "I still do acknowledge you the supream of this place". For some reason Robert could not let go and he seemed to be locked in a conflict within himself as well with the Council. He acknowledged that he had superiors in rank yet in the same sentence would deny that they had an influence on his position.
On 13th November Governor Harrison wrote to Robert to complain about being shot at. He told Robert that his commission was revoked and that he could force the Dubash into the fort against his will. Robert replied by claiming that the Governor had broken his promise and that he had never been denied access: "When such a parcell of men have deserted I cannot know what duress they are putting you under". He reiterated that he would not have his commission revoked, in a letter which is almost frenzied in its writing, apropos to nothing else in the letter he wrote "I heare you design to poison our water". The negotiation of terms and accusation and counter accusation continued until the end of November with Robert revising his terms almost daily. Robert demanded that he should be allowed to go to the French at Pondicherry and no-one must speak to him when they entered the fort. Towards the end of November Henry returned to Fort St. George which was no doubt to ease at least one tension in the process of regaining the fort.
Finally, three months after the onset of the rebellion, on 2nd December 1713, "Lieutenant John Roach marched into ye Fort". The Governor was surprised to discover that there were still 136 people inside and that many were good soldiers. They had expected that all but the desperate and few of those would have continued to accept Robert’s orders. On the same day Governor Harrison wrote to Henry explaining that negotiations had continued to the last minute "Mr. Raworth delivered the Fort very handsomely and with as negligent air as if nothing had happened". The Governor tried to persuade Robert to go to Fort St. George, but he insisted it must be to Pondicherry. The Governor also tried to engage him in conversation, "he begged so heartily to be gone and repose himself and seemed in such apprehension of foul play that I readily released him". Governor Harrison concluded the letter by admonishing Henry that it was a bad hindrance that Henry had taken away the cash account as the books had not been balanced since June. A suspicious person may wonder why Henry did take away the account.
In January 1714 Henry and his family returned to England and Robert set sail for France under the protection of the French King. The East India Company were powerless to prevent it and therefore unable to question Robert further. In April Henry wrote to the Governor from the Marlborough which was moored at the Cape to say that he had seen Robert on board a French vessel bound for St. Helena. He also informed the Governor that news of the events in India had not reached England according to people on a vessel bound for India. After his arrival in England Henry wrote to the Governor to say he had told the Company Directors about Robert and he took credit for placing the Governor in better standing with the directors. The Company apologised to Henry for causing him to come back to England. It is interesting because Henry had told everyone that he was returning for the children to be educated in England after the death of their mother but the Company letter infers he was recalled. In a later addition to the same letter Henry stated that "notorious stories" were circulating and he was accused of cheating clients, especially Thomas Pitt.
Henry also informed the Governor that Robert had died in France: "Between St. Helena and France he got the Bloody Flux, which was his death soon after his arrival at Ms. Hebert’s house we can’t hear that he left anything behind him so there is an end to as vile a wretch as was ever in India". Having expressed the prediction and hope that Robert would commit suicide in 1713, Henry had not mellowed in his opinion. It would be interesting to know what Henry thought Robert might leave and why he had taken the trouble to investigate the possibility that had been left. He may have feared incriminating evidence, but with Robert’s death Henry could put his own side of the story without contradiction.
Henry and Robert developed a pathological hatred of each other which escalated during the rebellion. It almost certainly grew out of business dealings, with each blaming the other for dishonesty. Backbiting under a cloak of formal civility was common among members of the East India Company as they rivalled each other for a greater share of profit. It was an ethos based on personal gain and greed under the respectable umbrella of a large Company with Royal approval. This being the case it seems inconceivable that Robert Raworth should behave in the way he did when he could possibly have talked himself out of trouble. He was a highly successful man, second in command of a prestigious Company, next in line for Governor of Fort St. George and seemingly rich. He certainly engendered loyalty among many who knew him, more than 100 men chose to support him to the end and many others had been slow to desert him at the beginning of the rebellion. So although he was called vile, wicked and a madman by Henry and others he also cultivated friendship and loyalty. Even towards his final days at the Fort he requested kind treatment for his soldiers. Therefore he cannot just be portrayed as a rogue and villain.
It is only speculation but it appears that maybe Robert was having a nervous breakdown and became fixated on protecting Fort St. David. He was already at the end of his tether and possibly suffering from nervous and physical exhaustion when Henry arrived. He mentioned lack of sleep in several letters and he was forced into physical skirmishes despite a lack of military training and all in extreme heat. Certainly his letters gradually became more excitable in their tone and fixated on Henry and the first group of men to leave the Fort, always naming each in turn, so it reads almost as a mantra. He reached the stage where he never left the confines of his rooms and feared harm, although the latter sentiment was probably justified. Robert also displayed a bizarre polarity between holding on to Fort St David as his personal right which could not be removed whilst emphasising his absolute loyalty to the East India Company and Governor Harrison. Even in quitting the fort the Governor reported Robert handed over the keys as if nothing had happened but became agitated and apprehensive when spoken to.
We will never know why Robert Raworth decided to pursue his course of action but it seems so extraordinary and out of character that a mental health crisis might explain the Robert Raworth Rebellion.
Jean Waltham, Lacock Unlocked volunteer
1. Now Chennai, I have used place names contemporary to 1713 as used in the documents and correspondence.
2. ‘The Strange Case of Lord Pigot’ by Sudip Battacharya, Newcastle Cambridge Scholars, 2013
3. India Office Private Papers IORE/1/4, letter 382: Memorial of John Shipman to the court. British Library.
4. IOR/G/18/2(3) British Library
5. The settlement of Condipah Choultry along with some other names of people and places has a number of different spellings, e.g. Caundapau, Caondipah. Condapah. Presumably these are best guess phonetic spellings. I settled on Condapah for main text as it is used most often and use whichever spelling the writers chose in quoted text.
ALL PREFIX WRO2664/3/2B: 35, 39, 77, 124, 131, 141, 142, 148, 150, 152, 158, 164, 165, 171.
British Library: IOR/1/4, IOR/G/18/2(3)
Battacharya, Sudip: The Strange Case of Lord Pigot, Newcastle Cambridge Scholars, 2013
Davison, Henry Love, Vestiges of Old Madras, Murray, 1913