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.

With respect to the fort and district of Hanamantagoody, we observe,
that, on the restoration of the Rajah in 1776, you informed us in your
letter of the 14th of May, That the Rajah had been put into possession
of the whole of the country his father held in 1762, when the treaty was
concluded with the Nabob; and on the 25th of June you came to the
resolution of putting the Rajah into possession of Hanamantagoody, on
the ground of its appearing, on reference to the Nabob's instructions to
Mr. Dupre in June, 1762, to his reply, and to the Rajah's
representations of 25th March, 1771, that Hanamantagoody was actually in
the hands of the late Rajah at the time of making the treaty of 1762. We
have referred as well to those papers as to all the other proceedings on
this subject, and must confess they fall very short of demonstrating to
us the truth of that fact. And we find, by the Secret Consultations of
Fort William of the 7th of August, 1776, that the same doubt was
entertained by our Governor-General and Council.

But whether, in point of fact, the late Rajah was or w