ON HIS SPEECH DELIVERED IN PARLIAMENT, AUGUST 7, RESPECTING ENJOY, Burdett, thy justly foremost fame, Through good and ill report-through calm and storm— For forty years the pilot of Reform! But that which shall afresh entwine thy name With patriot laurels never to be sear, Is that thou hast come nobly forth to chide Our slumb'ring statesmen for their lack of pride- When Britain's lifted finger, and her frown, Might call the nations up, and cast their tyrants down! Invoke the scorn-Alas! too few inherit And shelter'd helpless states!-Recall that spirit, Tell them, we hold the Rights of Man too dear, Of Europe's slavery-from the waste around B Demand, Burdett, why Britons send abroad Shrink, Britain-shrink, my king and country, from the touch! He prays to heaven for England's king, he says- A serpent's slaver deadlier than its sting! That lick the tyrant's feet, and smile upon his crimes! T. CAMPBELL. There is not upon record a more disgusting scene of Russian hypocrisy, and (woe that must be written!) of British humiliation, than that which passed on board the Talavera, when British sailors accepted money from the Emperor Nicholas, and gave him cheers. It will require the Talavera to fight well with the first Russian ship that she may have to encounter, to make us forget that day. (3) THE EVIDENCE ON THE BANK OF ENGLAND CHARTER. Above all things, good policy is to be used, that the treasures and monies in a state be not gathered unto few hands, for otherwise a state may have a good stock and yet starve; and money is like muck, no good except it be spread. BACON. The object of every description of currency should be to make property as steady and as little variable as possible. The truth lay there, and he who solved that pro blem would certainly come to the wisest conclusions. Lord Liverpool's Speech, Feb. 17, 1826. On the 10th of last month the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid upon the table of the House of Commons, the evidence taken before the Secret Committee on the Bank Charter. The evidence is unaccompanied by any report, as is frequently the case where the country has important interests at stake. This useful plan, it has been found convenient, on several late occasions, to disuse in committees where the facts are at variance with pre-conceived and conceited theories. Why the committee came to such a resolution, is best known to themselves, nor do we presume to enter into a full explanation of their motives. The practice itself till of late has been less common, so that much as we dislike the task of speculating on the probable reasons influencing their decision, we cannot neglect the asking ourselves two questions-What are the known opinions of the majority of the members of which the committee was composed? How did the evidence correspond with the previous views of the majority of the committee? This in our estimation is the only satisfactory way to account for the non-production of a report. With the exception of Mr. Matthias Attwood, and Sir James Graham, of whom are the remainder made up? Sir Robert Peel, Sir Henry Parnell, and gentlemen of every hue and shade of theoretical opinion, from Mr. Poulett Thompson to Mr. Warburton, that fluctuate between. We assert, that the composition of the committee satisfactorily accounts for the non-production of a report. Could enlightened men consent to have written a report which would go to stultify themselves, and scatter to the four winds of heaven every preentertained notion they had taken such pains to promulgate, and on which the fame of some of them is for the most part built? No, no! one suicidal act in one parliament is enough. That part of the public which has the greatest interest in this question, and we include ninetynine out of every hundred of the whole population, have a right to complain seriously of the absence of a report, the object of which would. be to concentrate the evidence, naturally of a discursive nature,—to define clearly the meaning of each witness, and to remove doubt and cavil likely to arise from the distracted and straggling manner of asking questions in committees. There is scarce a trick of political intrigue, or manoeuvring, of friendly advice or intimidation, that has not in this instance been resorted to by the friends of the present system; and the stale influence of the charlatan school of political economists has succeeded in quashing the report. The amiable good-nature of Lord Althorp has yielded to his sterner sense, and the evidence is published without the committee having come to any expressed opinion. The evidence itself is indeed a boon ;-sufficient for every purpose of triumph, if the melancholy prostration of industry could for one moment allow a cheer. For practical purposes a report would have been most valuable; on that government could have acted in the event of an emergency, not unlikely to happen before the assembling of the reformed parliament. It would have reduced the points at issue into a debateable form, by preventing the garbling of testimony from the legitimate intention of the witness. At any rate, the public have now the benefit of perusing a series of questions and answers, which will expose the beauty of our monetary laws, that have obtained the eulogy of political doctrinaires, and whose foundations were laid in 1819 by that profound philosopher and statesman-the present Sir Robert Peel. That this inquiry should originate from the very perfection of a system, seems extraordinary; but such is the fate of sublunary wisdom, and the revolution of opinion, that the very axioms of the science are now become a question. These laws have been greatly extolled as the fruits of wisdom and deep research-alas! for system-mongers, the light of experience discloses the emptiness of their brains. Such is the fact, and it will ever attend the assumption of ignorance, miscalling itself philosophy; for now, after many years of bitter suffering, with but one or two brief intervals of remission or rest, the age of empiricism is fast ebbing to its neap. A gloomy satisfaction remains with those whose convictions of injustice have been induced through the severity of their sufferings. Could inflexible justice be administered, a disgorging, as in the case of the South Sea bubble, should be demanded from those whose pernicious doctrines and abandoned principles have led us into the adoption of measures, which have involved the country in unparalleled distress. The evidence of the Bank Charter committee is extensive, and from the late period of the month at which it has been furnished to us, we must confine our extracts to the evidence of one or two of the Bank Directors; but we shall take an early opportunity of going through the whole. The ostensible object of the Bank Charter committee was an inquiry into the propriety of recommending to parliament a renewal or abolition of any or all of its exclusive privileges. The real object of the committee turned out to be an investigation of the principle on which the issues of the Bank of England have been regulated since 1819, which finished the series of attempts to restore cash payments, or the payment in the ancient metallic standard 37. 17s. 10d. per ounce for gold of the national debt, mortgages, royalties, and settlements, contracted in a depreciated currency of 57. 10s. per ounce. From so long ago as 1810,the subject of cash payments, then agitated for party purposes, has been more or less discussed. The sordid advocates of this measure prevailed on the government in that year to appoint a bullion committee, from whence proceeded an elaborate report. The year 1819 is, however, the period from whence must be dated the commencement of the present system. The existing mo |