The Koh-i-Nur: a Reply

Abstract

IT is a far from pleasant task for me to set about replying to Prof. Maskelyne's criticism of my history of the Koh-i-Nur. I desire to say what must be said with all respect for him, but the tone of some of his remarks renders this a task of exceeding difficulty. All I care about is to get at the truth, and in order to do so I have spared neither time nor labour. I cannot suppose that you would grant me space sufficient for answering in detail all the statements in Prof. Maskelyne's article; nor do I seek for such space, because I deem it to be sufficient for those, several of them experts, who have accorded my views their hearty support and approval—Firstly, to state here in a general way that having very carefully studied Prof. Maskelyne's long article it has not, in my opinion, in the very smallest degree shaken the facts I have quoted, and the deductions from them which are to be found in my appendix to “Tavernier's Travels,” and in the article published in the April number of the English Illustrated Magazine of the present year. Indeed, I might go further, and say that this attack very materially confirms the strength of the position upon which I have taken my stand. Secondly, I shall select a few points only which afford clear issues without any mystification, as to which side the balance of evidence lies upon, and invite readers to draw their own conclusions.