SELFISHNESS PERJURY. 247 



coincide with that of Bishop Heber, and can oniy be 

 regarded as a theory. 



Between statements thus conflicting it must be difficult 

 to form an impartial estimate. It may be observed, that 

 the Hindoos are universally represented as displaying a 

 polished, courteous, and engaging address, such as in 

 Europe distinguishes only persons of the first rank. On 

 a closer view, however, this appears to be little connected 

 with warmth of heart or the feelings of real friendship ; 

 little even with genuine refinement of character. It is 

 rather the result of the entire subordination of the different 

 ranks to each other ; for every man in India has superiors 

 whose favour it deeply concerns him to gain — before whom 

 he must suppress his sallies of temper and passion, and 

 exert all his powers of pleasing. Every circle is thus, as it 

 were, a court ; a sphere of life excellent as a school of 

 manners, but rarely the abode of sincere and genuine 

 affection. The Hindoo, like the courtier, appears imbued 

 with a thorough selfishness, viewing the mass of mankind 

 only as instruments to promote his own interest and that 

 of his immediate connexions. Within the domestic walls, 

 however, he manifests strong impressions both of duty and 

 affection. For the chief to whose service he has devoted 

 himself, and who has gained his attachment, he appears 

 bound not only by strong ties of honour, but by an enthusi- 

 astic fidelity, to which he adheres often in the utmost 

 extremity. The preceding history has exhibited repeated 

 examples among the greater chiefs of immovable faithful- 

 ness in adversity, checkered, it must be owned, with some 

 instances of the basest treachery and desertion. 



Such an entire absence of a regard for truth, as to make 

 it impossible to rely on a word which he utters, is a charge 

 made by all who have had any intercourse with the Hindoo, / 

 especially in judicial proceedings. Notwithstanding the ( 

 force of his religious feelings and prejudices, no oath, how- 

 ever adapted to his creed, is sufficient to bind him. Com- 

 plaints of the universal prevalence of perjury are reiterated 

 from so many quarters, — by Sir William Jones, Sir James 

 Mackintosh, and other enlightened and philosophic judges, 

 — that it is impossible to doubt of their being well founded. 

 Witnesses brought forward in a good cause endeavour to 

 support it by 6uch palpable falsehoods, that the tribunals are 



