Star.
London, England, 1803-05-28 00:00:00

ON THE WAR.

We have forborn to trouble our Readers with many
obfervations on the nature and complexion of the
voluminous papers that have been laid before the
public refpeOing the late negociations. To have
done fo before we took time to examine and weigh
them would have been prefumptuous--to have done
fo before allowing our readers alto time, would have
been impertinent. We hope that now, however, we
(hall not be thought intrufive if we offer Come re•

marks on the fubjea.
When two great and populous naticns are about
to be involved in the calamities of war—Calamities

which are too well known and underftood to want

;floatation at prefent ; and when one of them is a free
people, who it may be expeaed will exercife their'
privilege of inveßigating every public meafure, it be-
comes our duty to (late to our Readers with accuracy
and impartiality, the grounds and motives of the dif-
pute. This we (hall endeavour to do with as much
clearnefs and brevity as poffible, and to avoid that
confufion which is the inevitable refult of mingling
1 a mafs of extraneous matter with the real fubjea of

inquiry.
When the objea of the war is fpoken of in reference
to this country, there is fome inaccuracy in the expref•
lion. That there are caufer for placing ourfelves in a
pofition of defence at this crifis is true ; but when a
nation is forced into hollilities by the aggreffion of an-
other power, it cannot be laid to have an objea, or
that objet is at molt the natural fentiment of fell-
prefervation and felf-defence.
We muft, however, previoufly obferve, that the
prefeut is a conteft, in which none of the great parties
who have unfortunately at different periods divided
this country, can find caufe for cenfuring the conduit
of Government. The molt zealous friend of the
liberties of mankind, of the Rights of Man, as they
have been kneed, the molt decided Republican, can.
not regard this as a war of Minifters againft liberty,
as a fyitem to fupport any particular form of Govern-
ment, any dynefty of Sovereigns. If liberty ever
ezifted in France, under any form or appearance
whatever, which will be doubted by many, that liberty
is no more. A Government founded upon, and fup•
ported by military tyranny alone ; a Government
where arbitrary arrefts, imprifonments, and tranfpor-
tations, without a trial or a bearing, are praaiced ;
a Government where the prefs is fdenced by defpotic
authority, and the trial by Jury held in deteftation,
cannot deferve the fupport, or claim the ap•'
probation of any admirer of liberty, whether he (Lyle
hienfelf an Englith Whig, or an American Republi.
can. The atrocity of fuch a Government, is increafed
when it is founded on ufurpation ; and whether we
regard France, either as a Monarchy or a Republic,
the prefent Government can only be confidered as a
ufurpation. It is fuels without the nfual mildnefs,
which governs the conduit of thole, who hold their
authority under a doubtful tide. It is a Government
neither acquired by defcent, nor conferred by the rut*.
ft ages of the people.
In filch a comet the two nations mull be :situated

by very oppolite fentiments. Britons mutt feel that
they are contending for their birth•right—for thde
Laws—for that Religion bequeathed them by their
Anceßors—for that incomparable Conftitution which
has flood the tell of time and experience—for that
property which is fecured to them by the Laws of
their Country, by the judgment of their equals, by
that bell of intlitutions for fecuring every civil right,
the Trial by Jury—Frenchmen alas! muft feel that
they are contending for I—But we abilain from de,
tail, lea the expreffion of truth mould be conitrued

into invedlive.
It will be a grofs minake to confider the poffeffion
of Malta, or of any other place, as the objea, or
more properly as the caufe of the prefent war. The
caufe is the Rate of infecurity, of difquietusle in which
the Nation ell Red from the bad faith, the unbounded
'ambition, the refuels turbulence, the infolent vanity
of a cunning and rapacious neighbour. Could Britain
idiftsand her armies, and difmantle her fleets, while 1
France maintained on foot an effeitive force of 400,000
men? For what purpofe of peace should Fisch an army
be maintained ? And if common prudence obliged us
to fupport an equivalent force, in what will fuels. a.
Rate be found to differ from a Rate of war ?
From the moment in which the Treaty of Amiens '
was figned, there was not a tingle feature in the con.
dua of the French Government which indicated a
dilpofition to preferve the peace. No overture was
made for a Commercial Treaty t and what is more,
no overture on that fobje& attraOed attention. On
the contrary, every impediment was affiduoufly op.
pofed to the fair and honourable efforts of the Britifh
traders. Their flips were feized, and their property
was confircated in a time of profound peace, and that
under the operation of laws enalted during war,
avowedly of a temporary nature, and of which the
fignature of the peace fbould have been the fentence
; of repeal. That redrefp was not afforded for thefe
injuries by the Tribunals of France, might be leis
r the rile& of malice than of impotence. It might re.
folt from that wretched rya= of jurifprusleace (if
a fyliem it may be called) which affords proteaion
neither to the Mk& nor to the &ranger. got why
were no meafures aflopted to preient the repetition
I, of fintilar injuries ? Why no Reps taken to place the
, I two Nations on aa Itooottrable footing of eOnftdenee
[and fecofity.