When the Britishers took over the Bombay Island from the Portuguese, a substantial portion of the island was a wasteland as it used to get submerged due to the ingress of sea-water at hightide and during monsoons. As only the highlands used to be visible at these times, Bombay appeared to be consisting of several smaller islands, as is the popular perception. Aungier wrote in 1673 “By the breaches and overflowings of the sea in severall places it seems to make four small Islands in Spring tides, which at low water are passable for man or beast”.

The points from where the sea-water used to rush in to flood the land were generally referred to as breaches. The major breaches were between Sion and Dharavi, between Dharavi and Mahim, between Mahim and Worli and the biggest of them all and called the ‘Great Breach’ was the one between Worli and Malabar Hills. Except the last one, all other breaches were closed by 1712. What was left to be done was the damming of the Great Breach, which alone was responsible for flooding of the most significant portion of the land.

As one turns from Pedder Road towards Worli, a winding road called Lala Lajpat Rai Marg starts at the Kinara Masjid and ends at the NSCI Sports Club. You may not have noticed it but this road is ‘the embankment’ that was constructed to dam the Great Breach.

This is the story of this damming of the Great Breach against the sea.

First the popular lore and it is best stated in the words of someone who should be an authority on such matters – Cecil L. Burns, Curator and Secretary, Victoria and Albert Museum, Bombay. In his book ‘Catalogue of Prints of Old Bombay’ (1918) he writes – “This vellard was built between Love Grove Hill and Breach Candy to stop the inroad of the sea which formerly swept over a large tract of land now comprised within the area between Byculla Flats, and Pydhowni. William Hornby, who was Governor of Bombay from 1771 to 1784, perceived that the first steps towards improving the sanitary condition of Bombay was to shut out the sea at Breach Candy and for this purpose appealed to the Court of Directors for a grant of a lac of rupees to construct the vellard. The permission was not given, but disregarding this, at the approach of the close of his term of office Governor Hornby commenced the work and had it completed within eighteen months. His action was censured by his superiors, but has been praised by posterity.”

This fiction has become a gospel truth today

However, Burns offers no evidence or references to any records that form the basis for his observations. Irrespective, this fiction has become a gospel truth today. And as a result, this embankment came to be referred to as the ‘Hornby Vellard’ in the early 19^th century.

Unfortunately, the story stated by Burns, whatever be its origin, appears to be far from truth.

In fact the work was started full 50 years before Hornby

The actual facts about the construction of an embankment on the Great Breach are, however, quite different. In fact the work on this embankment was started in 1720, full 50 years before Willian Hornby became the Governor of Bombay, and it was completed by 1727. At that time it was simply referred to as ‘the Vellard’ or as ‘Malabar Vellard’. Detailed records of the period are available as the consultations (minutes) of the meetings of the Bombay Council during this period, to attest to these facts.

It is one of the fictions about Bombay

In his book ‘Bombay’, Samuel T Sheppard, the then editor of Times of India, Bombay wrote: “William Hornby was Governor of Bombay from 1771 to 1784. In 1785 it was reported that the “Breach Villade’’ was in great want of repair and the necessary work on it was ordered; so that Hornby cannot have done much, if anything, to it, although he is commonly credited by various writers with having built it. Not content with crediting Hornby with this great work, writers like Maclean and Douglas adhere to the pleasing fiction that he built it in defiance of the Court’s orders. J. M. Maclean, in his Guide to Bombay, says that “about the time the Vellard was finished. Governor Hornby, opening with his own hand the despatches, found an order for his suspension which, his term of office being nearly expired, he put in his pocket until he had finally handed over charge to his successor. The Hon. Court of Directors were excessively irate, and an order came out which, we believe, has ever since been in force that the Governor should never open the despatches in future, but that they should first be perused by one of the secretaries of Government.” There is no record of all this, or of any quarrel about the Vellard with Hornby, in the India Office. It is one of the fictions about Bombay (emphasis mine) – like the story of the embezzlement of the funds for building the Cathedral – that have been handed down from one writer to another.”

In 1750, J H Grose noted – “There has also been another reason assigned for the island having grown healthier from the lessening of the waters by a breach of the sea being banked off. This, however, does not seem to me a satisfactory reason. There is still subsisting a great body of salt water on the inside of the breach, the communication of which with the sea being less free than before the breach was built, must be in proportion more apt to stagnate and breed noxious vapours.”. This is another evidence that the Breach had already been plugged much before William Hornby came on the scene.  

Cecil Burns further says: “The construction of the Hornby Vellard completed in the year 1784 during the Governorship of Mr. Hornby, made the wide area of flats available for cultivation and settlement, and joined the eastern and western sides of the Island into one area.”. How untrue!

land parcels were being leased out in the 1730s and 1740s

In fact, the land parcels were already being leased out, east of the Great Breach, in the 1730s and 1740s. Let us look at the following extract from statement of the land revenue at Bombay from 1744 to 1781:

This table establishes several facts –

• • • • that by 1744 land had already been recovered from the Malabar Breach (Great Breach), hence that the embankment was already in place much before this time
      • that the only significant jump in revenue occurred in 1749-50, which indicates significant increase in the land made available for farming during this period, much before William Hornby came on the scene; and
      • that no increase happened during the period 1770 to 1780 (covering most of the period of Governorship of William Hornby) indicating that there was no change in the land holdings during this period

All this belies Burns statement that Mr. Hornby, made the wide area of flats available for cultivation and settlement.

In Hornby Villard lies the great lie of the Great Breach.

Postscript:

I have intentionally not gone into great detail about the evidence related to the actual construction of the Malabar Vellard in order to keep this post short and of interest to those who may not have serious interest in the history of Bombay under the British. Those desirous of further details of the construction of this vellard, may refer to Materials Towards Statistical Account of the Town and Island of Bombay Vol. III, 264-266, 316-321, 446-447 and 501-503.

Bibliography:

1. Bombay by Samuel T Sheppard, 1932
2. A voyage to the East Indies, Book-I by J H Grose, 1766
3. A Book of  Bombay by James Douglas, 1883
4. Catalogue of Prints of Old Bombay by Cecil L Burns, 1918
5. Bombay in the days of Queen Anne by John Burnell
6. Materials Towards Statistical Account of the Town and Island of Bombay by J M Campbell, 1894