OBSERVATIONS ON—=WHY DO WE GO TO WAR? | 
nity of laneuage, insults that very tem- 
perate and argumentative author; and, 
in the true spirit of the anti-jacobin 
school, vomits at him a spawn of nick- 
names and abuse, instead of refutation. 
He says (page 6) that” the war is just, 
because the people have been unanimous 
in arming to defend the independence of 
the country. A highwayman may de- 
fend himself against a constable; does it 
follow that the attack is unjust? He 
says (page 7) that the preparations in 
4Aolland, which were very trifling, and 
robably intended to carry out troops to 
pees formed a sufficient ground for 
attributing hostile intentions to France. 
He examines one by one the eight grounds 
of hostility; and fails one by one in 
proving that they amount to any thing 
more than proofs of a subsisting recipro- 
¢al jealousy between France and Britain; 
a jealousy which every one knows to be 
perpetual, but which surely does not con- 
stitute a ground of perpetual intermin- 
* able war. 
_ The seventh charge, or charge of ag- 
Brandizement, as this writer calls it, ap- 
341 
proaches nearest to a ground of war; 
but a voluntary war, to resist the ag- 
grandizement of a neighbour, is plainly 
absurd, if not likely to be successful. 
Now there was no probability of the as- 
sistance of Austria to free Switzerland, 
or of the assistance of Prussia to free 
Holland at the time of the declaration 
of war, and consequently no prospect of 
remedying the grievance in question.' 
The cighth charge, about Malta, mighg 
have been made more of; yet, if this be 
our ground of war, it is plain that the 
declaration of hostilities should have 
been left to Bonaparte, and not have pro- 
ceeded from us; for as long as we re- 
tained possession unmolested, we had no- 
thing to complain of on our side. 
At last, however, as if aware that the 
war is wholly premature, this writer (at 
page 47) has recourse to the old pre- 
tence, the balance of power; but, alas! 
neither our finances, nor the foreign bat- 
talions, are as yet sufficiently recruited 
for the old interchange of subsidies and 
aids, 
Art. XXXVII. Obseruations suggested by a Pamphlet, entitled, Why do we go to War? 
in a Letter to a Friend. 
THESE observations are drawn up 
with the respectful urbanity to which 
the author of “ Why do we go to War?’ 
was, by his temper and talent, entitled. 
They maintain very truly, that the Bri. 
tish ministers have been actuated by a 
Pacific spirit; that they overlooked the 
gross ayuse of French power, in the 
judgments respecting the Fame packet 
‘and the George brig; and that no ac- 
tive encroachments on their part have 
“brought on a rupture between the two 
countries. The lrench, on the contrary, 
are justly stated to have proceeded with 
an insolent consciousness of superio- 
rity; their consuls were furnished with 
dangerous instructions, and with the 
insidious protection of military rank ; 
they quibbled about the harbouring of 
“emigrants, and the liberty of the press, 
while they were rivetting the fetters of 
_ Switzerland, and preparing the annexa- 
_ tion of Holland; they endeavoured to 
enforce, by a threat of war, the evacua- 
tion of Malta, which was the only ob- 
“ject of real ambition they could not at- 
-tain by the mere exertion of physical 
force. Yet it cannot be denied, that 
their diplomatic conduct has been di- 
rected with superior skill; that they 
Svo. pp. 32. 
have regularly submitted to every re- 
pulse on topics, in which they were the 
aggressors; and that they have made 
their stand with resolute defiance, pre- 
cisely wheré the apology of Great Bri- 
tain was most dificult and most equi- 
vocal; thus they have thrown on us both 
the fact and the reproach of aggression, 
in a war certainly not sought, not desir. 
ed, not deserved by our ministers. But 
if a country, from the personal character 
of the prince, from the structure of the 
constitution, from the venality of its ta- 
lent, or from the apathy of the people, 
or, which is perhaps the case, from the 
credulity of mere statesmen, in the hopes 
of some gambling merchants, chooses 
not to withstand loudly the first tenden- 
cies to bickering, not to insist loudly on 
the promotion of its pacific and princi- 
pled talent, it must abide by the incurred 
evil, and by a subsequent process check 
the tendency to a repetition of the blun- 
der. 
After so skilful a defence of the decla- 
ration of war as this, few can hope to 
succeed in its defence. The ambitious 
mind of France is abundantly proved, 
and the determination to proceed in its 
views, with a contempt for British re- 
Z 3 
