In
this sentence we have a characteristic instance of the extreme
carelessness displayed by most writers on precious stones. For, short
as it is, it contains no less than three mistakes, all of which might
have been avoided by a little attention to the facts of the case. In
the first place the stone was never " called the ' Nizam' diamond."
Secondly, it was not " brought from India by governor Hastings," but
sent from India by the Nizam to governor Hastings. Lastly, it was not
"presented to our late gracious Queen Charlotte," but to King George
III. by Hastings at the request of the Nizam. It is, however, likely
enough that it afterwards passed into Queen Charlotte's possession,
although of this there can be no certainty. It is also quite possible
that, for his own purposes, Hastings may have made the most of the part
played by him in the transaction. He was fully aware that his enemies
were both numerous and powerful, and great efforts were needed to
command sufficient influence to obtain a favourable verdict. One of the
means which he freely employed to secure this object was a lavish
distribution of his funds amongst influential members of society.
Hence he was not particularly interested at the time in refuting the
popular impression, that the great diamond was his personal gift to
royalty. A certain amount of interest could not fail to be felt in the
fate of a man who could afford to solicit the favour of his sovereign
by such princely means. Society at the time was not immaculate, and in
any case it was as true then as ever that " every woman had her price," and that when all else failed, diamonds ever commanded success. If
