We have thus stated to you the result of our inquiry into the grounds of the dispute relative to Arnee; and as the research has offered no evidence in support of the Rajah’s claim, nor even any lights whereby we can discover in what degree of relationship, by consanguinity, caste, or other circumstances, the Rajah now stands, or formerly stood, with the Killadar of Arnee, or the nature of his connection with or command over that district, or the authority he exercised or assumed previous to the treaty of 1771, we should think ourselves highly reprehensible in complying with the Rajah’s request,—­and the more so, as it is expressly stated, in the treaty of 1762, that this fort and district were then in the possession of the Nabob, as well as the person of the jaghiredar, on account of his disobedience, and were restored him by the Nabob, in condescension to the Rajah’s request, upon such terms and stipulations as could not, in our judgment, have been imposed by the one or submitted to by the other, if the sovereignty of the one or the dependency of the other had been at that time a matter of doubt.

Although these materials have not furnished us with evidence in support of the Rajah’s claim, they are far from satisfactory to evince the justice of or the political necessity for the Nabob’s continuing to withhold the jaghire from the descendants of Tremaul Row; his hereditary right to that jaghire seems to us to have been fully recognized by the stipulations of the treaty of 1762, and so little doubted, that, on his death, his widow was admitted by the Nabob to hold it, on account, as may be presumed, of the nonage of his grandson and heir, Seneewasarow, who appears to have been confirmed in the jaghire, on her death, by the Nabob, as the lineal heir and successor to his grandfather.

With respect to Seneewasarow, it does not appear, by any of the Proceedings in our possession, that he was concerned in the misconduct of the braminees, complained of by the Nabob in the year 1770, which rendered it necessary for his Highness to take the jaghire into his own hands, or that he was privy to or could have prevented those disturbances.

We therefore direct, that, if the heir of Tremaul Row is not at present in possession of the jaghire, and has not, by any violation of the treaty, or act of disobedience, incurred a forfeiture thereof, he be forthwith restored to the possession of it, according to the terms and stipulations of the treaty of 1762.  But if any powerful motive of regard to the peace and tranquillity of the Carnatic shall in your judgment render it expedient to suspend the execution of these orders, in that case you are with all convenient speed to transmit to us your proceedings thereupon, with the full state of the facts, and of the reasons which have actuated your conduct.

We have before given it as our opinion that the stipulations of the treaty of 1762 do not apply to the points remaining to be decided.  But the late act of Parliament having, from the nature of our connection with the two powers in the Carnatic, pointed out the expediency, and even necessity, of settling the several matters in dispute between them by a speedy and permanent arrangement, we now proceed to give you our instructions upon, the several other heads of disputes before enumerated.