86] 
from any European rival in India ; 
and he was confident that we fhould 
have nothing there to fear from the 
combination of any Indian powers, 
fo long as we continued to preferve 
our prefent good faith toward them, 
and trod in the path we were 
now in, that of moderation. It was 
well known, he obferved, that there 
was a prince, who, inheriting all the 
ambitious and turbulent views of his 
father, pofleffed the fame rancorous 
fpirit againft the Englith, whom he 
ever had, and moft likely ever would 
endeavour to extirpate from India, 
That prince had, however, loft no in- 
confiderable portion of the confe- 
quence he formerly was poffeffed of; 
and his opinion was, that our efta- 
blifhments had for fome time been 
more than fufficient to repel any at- 
tack he could make. Other circum- 
ftances had recently occurred, which 
fill rendered us more formidable, 
and our eftablifhments fill more 
competent to bear a reduction, with- 
out endangering the public fafety. 
Thecircumftances he alluded to were, 
the ftate of the French fettlement at 
Pondicherry, and a requifition which 
had been made from the king of 
the T avancore country (one of the 
old -{t and beft allies of the Englith 
in India) for a confiderable body of 
our troops to be taken into his pay, 
for the purpofe of covering the fron- 
tier of his territory to the weftward, 
which requifition would be complied 
with, and orders fent out for the 
purpofe in the courfe of the prefent 
year. By this arrangement our 
military eftablifhment at'Tellichery, 
would in a great meafure be fuper- 
feded; and thofe of Madras and 
Bombay might fafely be diminifh- 
ed. He concluded by ftating, as 
an additional proof of the prof- 
perity of the affairs of the company 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1790. | 
_all the right honourable gentleman’s — 
see 
in India, that the difcount on their 
bonds at Bengal, which were at 
eight per cent. on the commence~ — 
ment of the government of Lord — 
Cornwallis, had fallen to the incon- , 
fiderable difcount of lefs than one 
and a half. 
Mr. Huffey was of opinion, -that — 
to judge fairly of the Company’s — 
fituation, their affairs at home and 
abroad ought to be confidered toge-~ 
ther; he could not confider their af- 
fairs at home to be in a profperous 
way, while. they were continually — 
borrowing; and had borrowed from | 
the year 1781, no lefs a fum than — 
5»800,000], | 
Mr. Francis made a long reply @ 
to Mr. Dundas. He infifted that ~ 
the true, the proper, and the only f 
intelligible proof of the propofitions _ 
in queftion, would have been to have © 
produced a fhort and fimple account — 
of debts paid off, ofan inveftment pur-— 
chafed with a furplus of reyenue, of 
nett profit upon that inveftment, and — 
of a thriving, happy, induftrious 
people in the Indian provinces un- 
der our dominion. What fignified — 
arithmetic, when the notorious facts — 
were, that we had no return from 
India, but a return or transfer of © 
debts, which the Company could not — 
pay, and which fooner or later muft | 
fall upon the fhoulders of England — 
when the Company, inftead of difs 7 
charging their bonds, and clearing © 
themfelves from the burthen of their ~ 
debts at home, were every year 
coming to parliament for affiftance, 
for leave to borrow more and more — 
money, for an authority to increafe 
their capital, or for the direct power 
of the legiflature to protect them 
againift their creditors, either by au- 
thorifing them not to accept, or not 
to pay the bills they had aR BLES Fy 
and, 
\ 
