Retrofpeit of Domeftic Literature—Theology and Morals. 37% 
dl 
to avoid them, either a limitation in the 
Bank circulation, or an exaét return of 
the higheft amount of its notes in circula- 
tion, to be calied for by Parliament. : 
Mr. Frenp has examined, with. that 
acutenefs which diftinguifhes all his lucu- 
brations, the point in difpute between Mr, 
Boyd and Sir Francis Baring, in a pam- 
phlet, intitled «* The Effect of Paper-mo- 
ney on the Price of Provifions,”’ &c. Mr. 
Frend fhews that both the rival Financiers 
‘have fallen into inaccuracy: Mr. Boyd, 
by afcribing to the increafed circulation 
‘of three millions and a half of notes, an 
effe&t on the price of provifions to which 
it cannot be competent ; and Sir Francis, 
by calculating the profperity of the coun- 
try at lefs than five times that fum, or 
fifteen millions of bank notes. Mr. Frend 
agrees with Mr. Boyd, in attributing the 
rife in provifions in a great mea(ure to the 
Bank, but accounts for its mode of opera- 
tion in a different manner. 
Mr. T. S. Sugr, in his ** Refutation 
of certain Mifreprefentations by Mefirs. 
Boyd and Frend,”’ maintains that the in- 
creafe in the price of provifions has not 
been occafioned by the reftriétion of the 
Bank from ifluing fpecie, becaufe no 
more bank notes have been iffued, than if 
no fuch reftriétion had taken place, nor 
have any been iffued for which value has 
not been received. He accounts for the 
additional circulation of three millions and 
a half by the iflue of the one and two 
pound notes. Mr. Surr appears to have 
a perfonal acquaintance with the opera- 
tions of the Bank of England. 
We cannot enter into the controverfy, 
but recommend tothofe who intereft them- 
felves in fuch fubjeéts, an attentive pe- 
rufal of the pamphlets of thefe gentle- 
men. 
The following are among the lift of 
fenatorial fpeeches, which have lately 
been publifhed :—that of Sir James Pux- 
TENEY on the Failure of the. Expedition 
to Ferrol; the Debate on Mr. Grey's 
Motion in the Houfe of Commons on 
the ‘* State of the Nation;’? Mr. Fox’s on 
the 25th of March, 1801, on the Motion 
for an Inquiry into the State of the Na- 
tion; a Vindication is alfo publithed of 
the Earl of Carnarvon’s Affertion refpect- 
ing the Expenditure of the War, ia which 
the reporter of the fubftance of Lord 
Auckland’s fpeech is charged with having 
mifreprefented his Lordfhip’s ftatement, 
or with having miftaken 126 millions for 
300 millions.—It is time that we proceed 
to the fybject of 
THEOLOGY AND MORALS, 
Our readers will participate in the 
pleafure which we feel at the exertions of 
that moft venerable exile, Dr. Pargest- 
LEY, in diffufng knowledge and happi- 
nefs among mankind: it has of late years 
been the objeét of infidelity —attacked and 
harrafled by the united force of argument 
and evidence, to invalidate the Mofaic 
account of the Creation, by a reference to 
fuperior antiquity in the religious fyftem 
of the Hindoos, from which recondite 
fource it is pretended that the Hebrew 
Legiflator derived. all his knowledge, and 
that his inftitutions are but a fervile copy 
of thofe originals. ‘This idea has been 
fanétioned by {ome perfons not unac- 
quainted with the literature and ‘antiqui- 
ties of the Eaft, and although by other 
writers it has received an occafional dif. 
countenance, the formal refutation of the 
doftrine has, we believe, been left to Dr. 
Prieftley, who, from ‘* A comparifon of 
the Inftitutions of Mofes with thofe of 
the Hindoos and other ancient Nations,” 
has, after a laborious and impartial ex- 
amination, clearly fhewn, that the boafted 
antiquity of the Hindoo nation and reli- 
gion has no real foundation, and that not- 
withftanding there are fome points of re-~ 
femblance betwen the Mofaic difpenfation 
and the fyitem of the Hindoos (which, 
however, is very eafily accounted for) 
yet that the two fyftems diverge to fuch 
an extreme of variance, that it is utterly 
impoflible for them to have been derived 
from the fame fource. The fyitem of 
Mofes rigidly inculcated the .doétrine of 
the Unity of God, and oppofed Idolatry 
wherever it could be found: in the Infti- 
tutes of Menu, the Bramins are directed 
to make obiation to Agni, the god of 
fire, and to the lunar god; and to Dhan- 
wantan, god of medicine; to Cuhu, god- 
defs of the day; to Anumati, lord of 
creatures; Dyava and Prithivi, go sdefles 
of fky and'earth; to the god Soma; to 
the goddefs Bhadacali, &c.—*‘* to all the 
gods afiembled let him throw up his obla- 
tion in open air, by day to the f{pirits who . 
walk in light, and by night to thofe whe 
walk in darknefs.”’ 
tant refpect, therefore, it is obvious that 
the Hebrew inftitutions could not be 
copied from thofe of the Hindoos; the 
latter eftablifhing polytheifm and idola- 
try, and the former inculcating the Unity 
of God as the greateft fundamental prin. 
ciple of religion. Dr. Prietley has fub- 
joined to this valuable work fome « Rex. 
marks on Mr. Dupuis’s Origin of all Re- 
~ digions 
- 
In this moft impor~ 
