What those provisions were was never known. The interview was over, and apparently the tyrant must have showed to Schwartz his better side, for there was nothing in his actions to indicate any desire for peace or the good of humanity. A despot who pitilessly slew his enemies without mercy, whose officials high and low lived in a reign of abject terror, who had depopulated entire districts with the sword and whose ferocity had not even the limitations of any religious consideration, was hardly the man to appreciate any proposals for peace and goodwill. On the other hand, it speaks well for the influence of a pure and fearless personality like that of Schwartz that he could have instantly inspired respect and attention. When he left Hyder he found a handsome present in his palaquin, which he would have returned forthwith but the officials assured him it would imperil their lives for him to act so contrary to the etiquette of Hyder’s court. Although in his journal no further particulars are given of this interview, amongst the papers of the late Mr. Huddleston was found a note of what Schwartz had told him respecting the attitude of Hyder. “In his very first interview Hyder told him that he was made an instrument to cover intentions and views very different from the purity of his own mind, that the English had adopted the designs of his enemy (the Nabob) and that it was now too late to convince him that they had altered their policy or that they entertained any views really friendly towards him. He then requested Mr. Schwartz not to renew the subject, but assured him that for any other purpose he was welcome to stay in Seringapatam and should receive every attention and might come to his Durbar as often as he pleased, and thus remarkably concluded ‘that he had also his free permission to try to convert any of his people to his religion, if he thought he could succeed, for he was sure he would say nothing improper to them, or that would tend to injure his authority.’” Doubtless the character of the English, as represented by the policy of the East India Company, fully justified the suspicions of Hyder; indeed, in the letter which Schwartz brought back, there was a haughty recital of the misdeeds of the Company, military and civil, and concluding with these terrible words, bespeaking the vindictive spirit of the writer: “_I have not yet taken my revenge and it is no matter._ When such conduct is pursued what engagements will remain inviolate? I leave you to judge on whose part treaties and promises have been broken. You are acquainted with all things, it is right to act with prudence and foresight.”