Home › The Pigott › The Pigott: India

The Pigott: India

Another point remains to be noted. Murray makes the astonishing statement that "the 'Pigott' diamond was brought to England by Earl Pigott when Governor-General of India." Of course Earl Pigott, or rather Lord Pigott, was never "Governor-General of India," though he was twice governor of Madras. In the interval between the two appointments he visited Europe, on which occasion he was created an Irish peer, apparently about the year 1775. Hence it must have been about this time that he brought the diamond to Europe; for his second tenure of office as is well known, ended fatally, another mournful instance of the strange and relentless destiny which has so frequently followed in the wake of these fascinating but ill-omened gems. Thornton, in his History of the British Empire in India, thus relates the circumstances:-- "At this time a man notorious in the history of the British connection with the Nabob of Arcot, first became conspicuous. The Nabob had hinted that if he was dispossessed of Tanjore, his ability to discharge the debts owing by him to British subjects would be seriously affected. A civil servant of the Company, named Paul Benfield intimated that he held assignments on the revenues of Tanjore for vast sums lent by him to the Nabob, and other assignments on the growing crops for large sums lent to individuals. These allegations were more than suspicious. It was not to be supposed that Benfield brought with him to India any wealth, and he had there enjoyed no opportunity of honestly amassing any. The governor properly demanded some evidence that the claims were just; but none was offered that could satisfy any one not previously prepared to be satisfied. A majority of the members of the Government determined against the claims; but to whatever cause it may be attributed, a change took place, and the Board reversed their own decision by determining that the crop sown during the Nabob's possession was his property; and that the alleged assignments of the Nabob to Benfield gave to his demands the character of public claims. The governor had strenuously opposed these conclusions; but his opinion was disregarded. "This struggle was succeeded by another. A British resident was to be appointed for Tanjore. Lord Pigott proposed Mr. Russell, a civil servant, the majority of the Board supported Colonel Stuart, second in command at Madras. The question was violently debated at several meetings, the governor refused his signature to the papers necessary to carry into effect the will of his opponents, and at length the latter determined to act without it. The governor was equally bent upon maintaining his own rights, and upon two members of the Board affixing their signatures to a paper to which his had been refused, he charged them with acting in a manner subversive of the authority of the government. The persons constituting the former majority now seceded and having forwarded a protest against the conduct of Lord Pigott, assumed to themselves the right of the government. This was followed by the governor declaring all the refractory members suspended, and ordering Sir Robert Fletcher, the commander-in-chief, into arrest, for the purpose of being brought to trial by a court-martial. "The adverse party followed the example of their chief with no slow nor indecisive steps. They determined to arrest him, and on August 24th, 1776, the Governor of Madras became the prisoner of certain members of his own council. He appealed to Sir Edward Hughes, the admiral commanding the squadron in the roads, for protection, and the admiral demanded that safe conduct to the ships should be given him. The ruling body inquired whether Sir Edward would be responsible for Lord Pigott if the request was complied with. The admiral answered that he tendered the requisition in the king's name, and would make no terms. The acting council replied that they had no proof that the Crown empowered its officers to require the removal of any servant of the Company, in such a situation as that of Lord Pigott, from under the authority of the Company's government, and the admiral rejoined that the case was unexampled, that he had done his duty in making the requisition and must leave those who had resisted it to meet the consequences. One of these consequences was lamentable. The constitution of Lord Pigott, impaired by age and an Indian climate, sank under the irritation to which he had been exposed, and the restraint to which he was subjected, and he died, the prisoner of those over whom he had been appointed to preside."

This was in the year 1777, and as his death took place in India, if the stone was brought to England by Lord Pigott himself, it must have been on the occasion of his return to Europe a short time previously.