apply the discipline to his own son. Nevertheless, although his training had been defective, and his policy often dictated severe punishments, it does not seem that he was wantonly brutal, or that he took a pleasure in torturing his prisoners. Sad tales might indeed be told of many of his English captives, who were half-starved, and sometimes forcibly circumcised[1]; but the manners of the time were savage, every man's hand being against his neighbour, while the English soldier was regarded by the natives as a ferocious beast who could only be subdued by main force.
He had no compunction in devastating whole tracts of his own country in order to prevent an enemy from subsisting his troops on local supplies, nor did he evince any compassion for the conquered, or show liberality to the distressed. His every action was regulated by a cold calculating temperament, but he rewarded handsomely those who served him well, and thus secured their attachment. In marked contrast to his successor, he was entirely free from bigotry,
- ↑ There is a curious little book, published in 1824, which relates the captivity of one James Scurry, who, having been taken prisoner by the French, was, with several others, handed over by the French admiral Suffrein at Gúdalúr to Haidar, by whose orders the party, which comprised fifteen youths, was sent to Seringapatam, where, having been previously drugged, they were all circumcised. His statement is confirmed by James Bristow, an artilleryman, who, when a prisoner, was compelled to undergo the same rite. This individual, after an imprisonment of nearly ten years, escaped from the hill fort of Hutridrúg, suffering terrible privations till he reached an English camp near Kopal. He speaks in terms of gratitude of the kindness of some Mysore women who supplied him with food on his perilous journey. He published a narrative in 1794.
