. 
334 
First one hears about the Fame packet 
detained in December 1801, and con- 
fiscated. Mr. Adolphus well defends 
the justness of our complaint ; but mi- 
nisters chose tolet the matter drop. As 
a ground of war it probably appeared 
to them trifling ; it was in one respect 
inexpedient, for a.cry of maritime ar- 
rogance and tyranny is easily raised on 
the continent against Great Britain, and 
the public opinion and commercial opi- 
nion of the continent greatly affect our. 
obtaining allies theres so that it is al- 
ways desirable to hinge a war on some 
interest, in which the continental public 
is likely to sympathize. If this confis- 
cation, and another which followed, did 
not occasion a war early in 1802, it can- 
not be pleaded in excuse for the declara- 
tion of war in 1803. 
Mr. Adolphus next examines the pro- 
tection afforded tothe emigrants. Here 
again he convincingly shews that the 
conduct of the English ministry, in re- 
fusing to comply with the demands. of 
France, was becoming: The French 
seem to have thought so themselves ; 
they only bring it forward to retaliate 
our captiousness about the pretender, 
and presently they drop the ground of 
complaint altogether. Are we to go to 
war with them, because they are satis- 
fied with our conduct? 
The freedom used in some publica- 
tions, in descanting on the government 
and rulers of France, is then considered. 
It appears to have escaped the attention 
of our ministers, although observed to 
them by Lord Whitworth, in his letter 
from Paris of the 27th January, 1803, 
(Offic. Corr. No. 35), that this complaint 
originated with 'Talleyrand himself. Who 
that has read the American transactions 
jo X Y and Z, can misunderstand this? 
‘It was a ground of complaint which it 
depended on the agents of Great Britain 
to intercept from the ears of the first ° 
consul. They had only to fee an offici- 
ous translator to be idles and no wind 
from England would have had the force 
to blow enmity and hatred quite home 
to St. Cloud. 
Some impertinencies of the French 
press are produced and censured by our 
author: but as neither party accompa- 
nied the expression of their wishes, on 
this subject, with the slightest hints of 
threat, in case of non-compliance, it is 
preposterous to talk of the liberty of 
,the press as any ground of war at all 
between them. 
‘ 
HISTORY, POLITICS, AND STATISTICS. 
The question of Malta busies out 
author at considerable leugth: the tenth 
article of the treaty of Amiens, which 
respects that island, was become incapa- 
ble of strict execution; but it has been 
so nearly compiied with on the part of 
the French, that to retain it would, ina 
case of private life, be called quibbling 
and chicanery. 
The memoirs of Sebastiani, of Rhein- 
hardt, take their turn; they are cases of 
the liberty of the press; they are dis- 
avowed in a manner which, if it does 
‘not satisfy, gives satisfaction. 
The disposition to assist the Swiss 
friends of liberty was thus far a duty in 
the British government, that on former 
occasions the antijacobin ministry were 
supposed to have patronized the oppo- 
site cause, and to have put money at 
the disposal of Steiguer and his adhe- 
rents, the ascendancy of whose unpopu- 
lar party was-the provocation which 
induced the Swiss to throw themselves 
into the hands of France. These Al- 
pine disturbances might have been made 
into honourable grounds of war; but 
as the geographical situation of Swit- 
zerland prevents any efficacious assist- 
ance from this country, it was most hu- 
mane not to inflame an ineffectual resist- 
ance. 
Something of the same kind might be 
alleged against interfering, at present, 
in the affairs of Holland. Without the 
prospect of Prussian co-operation, there 
is little chance of Dutch liberation. The 
conduct of the French in Holland justi- 
fies, however, much stronger remon- 
strances than any which were presented 
by our ministers. If they chose to go 
to war, this was the most important 
interest of the nation involved in the 
discussion, and should have been selected 
as the fulcrum of indignation. It would, 
however, have been better not to choose 
to go to war; but to have laid# before. 
Be a the official correspondence,, 
without the previous recal of Lord 
Whitworth, or without any aggressive 
declaration. The public opinion of Eu- 
rope would have been influenced by the 
debate ; it would have rung with the 
applause of Mr. Fox, then again, as in 
the case of the Russian armament, the 
hope and bulwark of Europe, of the 
world, against needless devastation. To- 
wards obedience to the voice of equity, 
temper, and wisdom, both parties would 
somewhat have bended; they would 
have been urged so to’do by the writers 
