PROPRIETORSHIP OF THE GREAT "KOH-INOOR" DIAMOND.

New Zealander, Volume 7, Issue 582, 12 November 1851, Page 3

PROPRIETORSHIP OF THE GREAT "KOH-I-NOOR" DIAMOND.

(From the " Times," May 27.) Lord Ellenbokough is a Napier togatus. He embodies in his own proper person the veritable spirit of his gallant allies. Though not even a commandant of yeomanry or militia, he is as true a red-jacket as any veteran the Army List. From the days when he traversed the field of Maharajpoor in scarlet pantaloons and distributed oranges to the wounded he has consistently supported the character of the soldier's friend. Though a civilian himself", his contempt of civilians surpasses that even of the conqueror of Scinde. He cannot hear of two Commissioners being despatched to the Cape without recording his protest against the appointment of these intrusive " politicals." " Two regiments," as he bluntly told Lord Grey, would have been much more to ths purpose. Last night he took up the cause of the Punjab army, and vindicated the rights of the bayonet against the sweeping claims of the Crown. It is rather sunusing that the proprietorship of the great Koh-i-noor auould be discussed at the moment that a hundred thousand eyes are staring at the precious jewel with such uns.ited interest. The value of this piece of carbon exceeds, we are gravely told, the sum of £2,000,000 sterling, and it is " Exhibited by her Majesty the Queen." Fifty times at least every morning are questions asked as to the capture, sale, purchase, or conveyance of this priceless treasuie. Nobody appears to know exactly bow it passed ftom the jewel-room at Lahore to its present resting-place — whether it became British property by seizure or forfeit, or weether it fell to the Queen by tribute or right. We can hardly, perhaps, say that all these points of inquiry were elucidated in the debate of last evening, but Lord EllenboTough has certainly done bis best to promote the claims of the soldiery by whose valour he conceives these treasures to have been won. We very much doubt whether there is rule or precedent enough to determine the course of proceedings in such matters after a regular fashion. When a Royal cruiser takes a pirate or a slave-ship there are recognized maxims for dividing the fruits of the capture by a graduated scale among sundry classes of recipients ; but these rules will hardly apply to the case before us. The question at issue involves not only the distribution but the definition of prize-money. Property captured in war may devolve by conventional regulations on the actual captors, on the force present in the field, on the whole army at large, on the General commanding, -on the victorious State, or on its Sovereign. There are precedents for all these decisions. In the case of the Lahore jewels thecircumstances were somewhat remarkable. The battle of Sobraon in 1846 gave us possession of the Punjab, and if Lord Hardmge had marched from the banks of the Sutlej to the gates of Lahore and Umritsir in the guise of a cc-nqueror, the treasures of thpse cities might have been considered no lawful prizemoney. Hut we conceived our duties to have been accomplished by the defeat of the invaders, and were preparing to retire after having driven them into their own territories, when they earnestly desired us to occupy the Punjab in the capacity of protectors until order could be restored. This we consented to do, and though the Sikh capital was for that purpose garrisoned by British troops, its treasures remained in the possession of their original owners. So stood matters till 1848, when, upon its becoming apparent that the Sikh chiefs weie bent upon hostilities, the political agent at Lahore gave directions to the officer in command of the garrison to impound the Koh-i-noov — an order which was executed accordingly, without bloodshed or commotion. The property, in short, ns Lord Ellenborough justly phrases it, was " taken possession oh" But was it thus constituted lawful prize ">. It was no part of the spoils either of a well-fought field or a captured city— it was property seized under a kind of embargo, and, indeed, it can hardly be said that at this paiticular period we wer justified in asserting more than a precautionary lien upon these effects. The Lahore Government was still making professions of submission and amity, nor was it yet clear whether the insurrection was the deliberate work of the Sidars in Council, or whether it was confined to the ambition of a single feudatory at Mooltan. Under these circumstances, though the property in question certainly passed into the " possession of her Majesty's forces and the troops of the East India Company during the late campaigns in the Punjab," -we think it may admit of doubt whether it became incontinently such " booty" as Lord Ellenborough would describe it. Looking merely at the simple reason of the matter, all precedent apart, the claims of the Company to the disposal of these valuables would appear tolerably defensible. The Indian Treasury bore the expenses of the war, and was entitled to its proceeds. The Lahore Government was actually indebted to the Exchequer of Calcutta in a sum exceeding the negotiable value of the jewels in question. By the terms of the regulating treaties a subsidy of £220,000 was payable to the Company in discharge of the costs of occupation. This reasonable tribute was never forthcoming, and there can be no great injustice in assuming that the captured property was ! liable in the first instance to the liquidation of these ! arrears. No doubt the claim of soldiers to their booty is valid and lawful, nor will Lord Ellenborough want for sympathy in his advocacy of those by whose arms all victories are gained. But the question is whether

these claims have not been fairly recognized in tbe measures adopted. At, to tbe delay, there is nothing yet to be said upon that score, for of all settlements upon recoid those lospectmg prize-moneys have been the slowest. We doubt whether all the booiy taken m tbe Deccan wars has yet found its way to the pockets of the claimants. It must be remembered that the value attributPtl to the Koh-i-noor is altogether nominal. Two milhorivS sterling would doubtless be an enoiraous defalcation from the prize-money of even 30,000 men, but this price, as indicating the convertible worth of the jewel, is purely fabulous. No diamond ever yet fetched a tenth, and scucely, indeed, a twentieth part of such a sum, nor are princes much richer or more absolute now-a-days than in the times of the Regent Orleans or Catherine or Russia. Where could £100,000, or even £50,000, be found for tbe purchase of a precious stone 1 As a trophy of the war the Koh-i-noor was the most famous prize that could possibly have been taken, and its value was " inestimable" enough to enhance the renown of the captors without any such practical worth as would have greatly augmented their divisible booty. The question of its disposal may have been a doubtful one, but nobody can regret the decision which transferred such a prize to the English Crown, and rendered it what it virtually is at present, the property of the British people for all purposes to which a sparkling can be turned.