Saturday, April 12, 2014

Bombay photos 1810


a view of the gate of Bombay castle 1810

A view of Bombay Castle from the west. 1810.

The Castle and Harbour of Bombay, from the Bunder Pier. 1810.

The Government House, Bombay. 1810.
Bombay Church. 1810.
Bombay Playhouse, 1810.

Bombay Green from the main guard. 1810.

A view of the dwelling house of C. Forbes esquire in Bombay, from the Apollo Green. May 1811.
Forbes & Co.'s office, Bombay. 1810.
The dwelling house of C. Forbes esquire, in Forbes Street, Bombay. 1810.
opium Forbes Charles
6. MP, Sir Bart1, Forbes and Co Bombay, opium Forbes Charles-17383 (George , John , George , Progenitor 2010 ) was born on 3 Apr 1773/1774 in Lochell. He died on 20 Nov 1849.
Sir Charles Forbes Bart1. Contractor military for Wellington. Code-India. Code-red. He is son3. He has three drs. He is of Lochell ,MP, Scotland, India house, agency house, Bombay Merchant. He is investor in Australian Agricultural Company of the 1820s. Inglis/Willis family tree per Iseke. Note re name Stewart that in book by Bulley on Bombay country ships, there is a John Stewart of Forbes and Co. Charles leaves India in 1811 for England, in debate on renewal of EICo charter he supports Indian shipping and freeing of trade, rejects the EICo monopoly,and he is against the introduction of missionaries. At end of French wars is money trouble, one of Pestonjee Bomanjee's associates fails, he becomes an MP, supports the anti-reform position in English life of James Silk Buckingham. By 1839 he becomes a Baronet, became an opponent of opium trade in which he'd earlier participated circa 1804. His uncle John (died 1821) leaves India in 1799. He has uncle John qv who arrives in Bombay in 1784 as a junior writer and starts "the family firm". Per Iseke, and Bulley on country ships, pp. 178ff, this man later tells a parlt inquiry that in 1803-1805, his own partnership and Bruce Fawcett and Co. one supplied the Bombay Treasury with nearly two and a half million sterling, Wm Crawford is of Bruce Fawcett firm; in 1800 the partners of Smith, Forbes and Co. were James Smith, Charles Forbes and Arthur Mitchell Forbes (who was killed in a duel with George Bridges Bellassis in 1826), so the firm becomes Forbes and Co. (?). Hodson lists. He is created Bart (1?) in 4 November 1823. He is Bart2 in http: item. He dies 1829 in Indian Dict Biog (incorrectly?). See re email from Patricia Iseke on 3-2-2001. He and wife in Holland House diaries. Burke's P&B for Forbes of Newe. When Lachlan Macquarie is attacked in Parliament, he is defended by Sir Charles Forbes, Sir James Mackintosh and W. T. Money who had been in India at Bombay. He is a nephew of John Forbes in India, see Ellis on Lachlan Macquarie, p. 98. He and wife had four sons and two drs. He is created baronet in Patent in 1823. He is of Newes and Edinglassie, Aberdeenshire, he is a descendant of Alexander Forbes of Kinaldie, and in 1833 served heir male in general to Alexander, Lord3 Forbes of Pitsligo, father of Alexander, Lord4 Forbes. He is educated at Aberdeen University. then went to India to become head of Forbes and Co of Bombay, so who preceded him there?). He is a Tory of tories, supported Catholic Emancipation. Advocated claims of women for franchise. He thought the 1830s reform bill "a hideous monster". "advocated justice for India". Bombay erected a statue in his honour for improving water supply. On Forbes and Forbes in City in 1847 re cotton and Jamsetjee Jeejeebhoy, money tight in City, See Kynaston, City of London, p. 154. His own DNB entry. He is noted as friend of Lachlan Macquarie in Ellis' biog of Macarthur. See Parker's essay in R. A. Cage on Scots in India, p. 200 re this firm as one of the three biggest agency houses in Bombay, in 1803-1805 he loaned the EICO/Wellington at war with locals, nearly two and a half million pound(s) sterling,this "investment" was centred at Poonah.
Below from an India forum on 11-7-2004 -

Top of Form 2 Re: Anybody know anything about Forbes & Co. Bombay abt 1800 ?
Posted by: Jenna Tong
(ID *****8898) Date: February 24, 2004 at 09:31:14
In Reply to: Anybody know anything about Forbes & Co. Bombay abt 1800 ? <2160 .html=""> by Alistair Gordon
Bottom of Form 2 From FILE - Papers concerning Bombay. - ref. IOR/H/333 - date: 1769-1814 pp. 605-60, Reference to Directors by Bombay Government, 6th Aug. 1804, of a difference with the Firms of Charles Forbes & Co. and Bruce Fawcett, respecting the calculation of Tonnage in the case of the China Ships; pp. 628-32, Methods of calculating tonnage. British Library, India Office Records: Private Papers [Mss Eur F290 - Mss Eur K489] \_ [from Scope and Content] Correspondence of (Sir) Charles Forbes, 1st Bart (1774-1849), of Forbes and Company, Bombay, MP 1812-32, relating to business affairs and social life. British Library, India Office Records: Private Papers [Mss Eur Hodgson - Mss Eur C259] \_ [from Scope and Content] Letters and accounts from Forbes & Co., Bombay, to Mrs Georgiana Anne Heard, c/o Messrs Hoars & Co, London, relating mainly to her holding of 6 per cent Bengal Government Promissory Notes. \_ [from Scope and Content] Letter, dated 29 Oct 1831, from Raja Rammohun Roy (1772-1833), Indian social and religious reformer, to Sir Charles Forbes, 1st Bart (1774-1849), of Forbes & Company, Bombay, MP 1812-32, requesting details of the case of Nawab Hyat Sahib who surrendered Bednur to the British in 1783. Also: Mss Eur C549 Creation dates: 1845 Creator(s): Forbes, Forbes, and Company Extent and Form: 1 volume Immediate Source of Acquisition Purchased. Scope and Content End of year balance sheets, dated 31 Dec 1845, of Forbes, Forbes, and Company, Bombay, listing accounts in General Books (chiefly business clients) and Separate Books (private clients). © 2003, Inc. His own entry by G. B. Smith, in English Dictionary National Biography 2004 edition.

Charles Forbes (politician)Sir Charles Forbes (1774–1849)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sir Charles Forbes (1774–1849), was a Scottish politician, of Newe and Edinglassie, Aberdeenshire. Forbes was the son of the Rev. George Forbes of Lochell. He was a descendant of Alexander Forbes[which?] of Kinaldie and Pitsligo, and was in 1833 served heir male in general to Alexander Forbes, 3rd lord Forbes of Pitsligo, father of Alexander Forbes, 4th Lord Forbes of Pitsligo, attainted in 1745.

Political career

Forbes was educated at Aberdeen University, of which, late in life, he was elected lord rector. Shortly after leaving the university he went out to India, and became the head of the first mercantile house there, Forbes & Co. of Bombay. His name ranked high in the commercial world for ability, foresight, and rectitude of character. On returning to England, he was elected to parliament for the borough of Beverley, and represented that place from 1812 to 1818. In the latter year he was returned for Malmesbury, and continued to represent that town until the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832. As a member of the House of Commons he enjoyed the respect of all parties, for his love of justice, kindly feeling, and plain, straightforward honesty. Though a tory of the tories, he "never allowed his political creed to cloud his fine judgment and keen sense of right and wrong, and his manly spirit was readily engaged in favour of the poor, the weak, and the persecuted".[this quote needs a citation] He warmly supported catholic emancipation; and when the Duke of Wellington incurred great unpopularity in 1830, Forbes pronounced in the House of Commons a warm panegyric on the duke's conduct. Forbes was one of the earliest to advocate the claims of women to the franchise. In the session of 1831 he asked upon what reasonable grounds they could be excluded from political rights, pointing out that ladies had the power of voting for directors of the East India Company, and maintaining that if the right of voting was grounded on the possession of property, there ought to be no distinction of sex. Forbes was a strong opponent of the Reform Bill of 1831–2. During the debates in the former session he spoke of the measure as "the vile Reform Bill, that hideous monster, the most frightful that ever showed its face in that house". He promised to pursue it to the last with uncompromising hostility, and if it were carried to abandon parliament. He put forward an urgent plea for Malmesbury. The borough, after much angry discussion, was left with one member only. Forbes vainly contested Middlesex against Joseph Hume at the general election of 1832.

Philanthropy in India

He was most distinguished in connection with India. From his long residence in the East, he knew the people intimately, and he spent a large portion of his fortune in their midst. In parliament and in the proprietors' court of the East India Company his advocacy of justice for India was ardent and untiring. One of his last acts was the appropriation of a very large sum of money to procure for the inhabitants of Bengal a plentiful supply of pure water in all seasons. His fame spread from one end of Hindostan to the other. When he left India he was presented by the natives with a magnificent service of plate, and twenty-seven years after his departure from Bombay the sum of 9,000₤. was subscribed for the erection of a statue to his honour. The work was entrusted to Sir Francis Chantrey, and the statue now stands in the town hall of Bombay, between those of Mountstuart Elphinstone and Sir John Malcolm. It was the first instance on record of the people of India raising a statue to any one unconnected with the civil or military service of the country. An address, signed by 1,042 of the principal native and other inhabitants of Bombay, expatiated upon his services to the commercial development of the country and the improvement in the position of the natives. In his private charities Forbes was most liberal; he was also a munificent contributor to the leading public charities of Scotland.

Death and family

Forbes was of a bluff but kindly nature, diffident as to his own merits, of a straightforward and manly character. On the death of his uncle in 1821 Forbes succeeded to the entailed estates of the Forbeses of Newe, and was created a baronet by patent in 1823. He married in 1811. His daughter, Elizabeth, married General, Lord James Hay, second son of the seventh Marquess of Tweeddale.

The dwelling house of Ormanjee Bomanjee parsee, in Bombay. 1810.
A view of Bombay lighthouse from the south west. 8th May 1811.
A view of Parell House and the signal flagstaff from Lowice Castle. May 1811.

A view of Malabar Point from Colabah. May 1811.

A view of Wallcaser[walkeswar] village, from Malabar Point. October 1811

The ferry-boat, between Bombay and Colabah.

Sportsmen's Hall and Baths belonging to the Bobbery Hunt. Bombay May 1811

The Bobbery Hunt on the Bombay esplainade, 20th October 1811. : News Photo

The Bobbery Hunt on the Bombay esplainade, 20th October 1811.

Bobbery Hunt.
Bobbery Hunt. November 1809.

The Bobbery Hunt's bonfire

The Bobbery Hunt's bonfire

Fifteen Years in India; Or, Sketches of a Soldier's Life: ...

what is bobbery hunt  ?
Robert Grenville Wallace - 1823 - ‎India
There are masonic, sans souci, literary and bobbery hunt societies, and the gentlemen of the settlement make the yearly circuit of the island with much ceremony ...

Inside of the Great Illumiinated Temporary Building, on the Bombay esplainade, at night, 20th May 1811.


freemasons hall bombayfreemasons hall bombay

Midshipman Marriott and the Indian Navy spirit allowance

In December 1843, the Bombay Government wrote to the Court of Directors of the East India Company stating that it had come to their attention that it was common practice in the Indian Navy to give the midshipmen a daily ration of spirits.  This routine had come to the attention of Government because of the conduct of Henry R Marriott, Midshipman of the East India Company's receiving ship Hastings.
Bombay harbour c13640-73Bombay Harbour from James Wales, Bombay views: twelve views of the island of Bombay and its vicinity (London, 1800)  Images Online Noc
On the 13th September 1843, while the Hastings was at Bombay, Midshipman Marriott was left as the officer in charge.  The Commanding Officer Lieutenant Montriou had left the ship on an errand at about 2pm.  It was later reported to the Commission of Enquiry, that at 3pm Marriott ordered the Pursers’ Steward and the Master at Arms to issue him with one week’s allowance of spirits.  By 3.30pm Marriott was discovered passed out in the Captain’s bed, and could not be roused.  Joseph Johnston, the acting Quartermaster, carried the unfortunate Marriott down below to the Midshipmen’s berth.  Midshipman Bode reported to the Enquiry that when he came on board the ship in the late afternoon, he was told what had happened and found Marriott 'Lying down on a chest in the Gunroom, quite unable to move'.  On being pressed for a description of Marriott’s condition, Bode stated 'He was in a dead sleep, half naked and had been vomiting'.

In his defence, Marriott submitted a written statement.   He stated that finding himself in charge of the ship he felt free of the normal regulations which constituted the ordinary duties of a Midshipman, and that '…under the impression that I was free from control, and labouring at the time under the influence of depressed spirits…I was in a unlucky moment induced to take advantage of liberty which I conceived my temporary authority imparted, the result of which has been the unfortunate and degraded position in which I now find myself placed'.

The Bombay Government seems to have taken Marriott’s depression into account.  A stern warning was be issued to him regarding his conduct, along with such admonition as the Superintendent of the Indian Navy deemed most suitable and effectual.  However '…as the general character of Mr Marriott is not reported upon very unfavourably, the Governor in Council is not desirous of proceeding any further'.

Perhaps more ominously for the Indian Navy’s Midshipmen was the Bombay Government’s proposal that the allowance of spirits be altogether abolished, and replaced with some other form of compensation.  In reply, the Court of Directors stated that they thought Marriott had been treated too leniently, and that Lieutenant Montriou had been wrong to leave so young an officer in charge. They also agreed that it would be right to abolish the allowance of spirits for Midshipmen of the Indian Navy, and authorised the Bombay Government in all cases to substitute for their spirit ration an equivalent in money.

John O’Brien
Post 1858 India Office Records  Cc-by
- See more at:

(From  photos on line)