Tempo:
^
CHAP. VIII
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SIKHS
237
took greater exception still to the decision of the Bri- i8-i4. tish Government with regard to a quantity of coin and and about bullion which Raja Suchet Singh had secretly depo- treasure sited in Ferozepore, and which his servants were buried by detected in endeavouring to remove after his death. ^""^^^^ The treasure was estimated at 1,500,000 rupees, and it ^"^ was understood to have been sent to Ferozepore during the recent Afghan War, for the purpose of being offered as part of an ingratiatory loan to the English Government, which was borrowing money at the time from the protected Sikh chiefs. The Lahore minister claimed the treasure both as the escheated property of a feudatory without male heirs of his body, and as the confiscated property of a rebel killed in arms against his sovereign; but the British Government considered the right to the property to be unaffected by the owner's treason, and required that the title to it, according to the laws of Jammu or of the Punjab, should be regularly pleaded and proved in a British court. It was argued in favour of Lahore that no British subject or dependent claimed the treasure, and that it might be expediently made over to the ruler of the Punjab for surrender to the legal or customary owner; but the supreme British authorities would not relax further from the conventional law of Europe than to say that if the Maharaja would write that the Rajas Gulab Singh and Hira Singh assented to the delivery of the treasure to the Sikh state for the purpose of being transferred to the rightful owners, it would no longer be detained. This proposal was not agreed to, partly because differences had in the meantime arisen between the uncle and nephew, and partly because the Lahore councillors considered their original grounds of claim to be irrefragable, according to Indian law and usage, and thus the money remained a source of dissatisfaction, until the English stood masters in Lahore, and accepted it as part of the price of Kashmir, when the valley was alienated to Raja Gulab Singh. '
1 For the discussions about the surrender or the detention of the treasure, see the letters of Lieut.-Col. Richmond to Government of the 7th April, 3rd and 27th May, 25th July, 10th Sept., and 5th and 25th Oct. 1844; and of Government to Lieut.-Col. Richmond of the 19th and 22nd April, 17th May, and 10th Aug. of the same year. The principle laid down of deciding the claim to the treasure at a British tribunal, and according to the laws of Lahore or of Jammu, does not distinguish between public and individual right of heirship; or rather it decides the question with reference solely to the law in private cases. Throughout India, the practical rule has ever been that such property shall
CHAP. VIII
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SIKHS
237
took greater exception still to the decision of the Bri- i8-i4. tish Government with regard to a quantity of coin and and about bullion which Raja Suchet Singh had secretly depo- treasure sited in Ferozepore, and which his servants were buried by detected in endeavouring to remove after his death. ^""^^^^ The treasure was estimated at 1,500,000 rupees, and it ^"^ was understood to have been sent to Ferozepore during the recent Afghan War, for the purpose of being offered as part of an ingratiatory loan to the English Government, which was borrowing money at the time from the protected Sikh chiefs. The Lahore minister claimed the treasure both as the escheated property of a feudatory without male heirs of his body, and as the confiscated property of a rebel killed in arms against his sovereign; but the British Government considered the right to the property to be unaffected by the owner's treason, and required that the title to it, according to the laws of Jammu or of the Punjab, should be regularly pleaded and proved in a British court. It was argued in favour of Lahore that no British subject or dependent claimed the treasure, and that it might be expediently made over to the ruler of the Punjab for surrender to the legal or customary owner; but the supreme British authorities would not relax further from the conventional law of Europe than to say that if the Maharaja would write that the Rajas Gulab Singh and Hira Singh assented to the delivery of the treasure to the Sikh state for the purpose of being transferred to the rightful owners, it would no longer be detained. This proposal was not agreed to, partly because differences had in the meantime arisen between the uncle and nephew, and partly because the Lahore councillors considered their original grounds of claim to be irrefragable, according to Indian law and usage, and thus the money remained a source of dissatisfaction, until the English stood masters in Lahore, and accepted it as part of the price of Kashmir, when the valley was alienated to Raja Gulab Singh. '
1 For the discussions about the surrender or the detention of the treasure, see the letters of Lieut.-Col. Richmond to Government of the 7th April, 3rd and 27th May, 25th July, 10th Sept., and 5th and 25th Oct. 1844; and of Government to Lieut.-Col. Richmond of the 19th and 22nd April, 17th May, and 10th Aug. of the same year. The principle laid down of deciding the claim to the treasure at a British tribunal, and according to the laws of Lahore or of Jammu, does not distinguish between public and individual right of heirship; or rather it decides the question with reference solely to the law in private cases. Throughout India, the practical rule has ever been that such property shall
©
2026
Lehal.net