and fecurity of all that we poffefs; and all that we hold dear in the world? Our perfons, our wives, our children, our liberty, and all our property, if it were not for the interference of government, would foon become a prey to the lawless and difobedient; and probably fome of thofe men, who are now met diligent in telling us, that we are oppreffed by government, a thing that we fhould never have fufpe&tde, if they had not told us, would then become our plunderers, and oppreffors indeed. The time is not yet diftant, when in many parts of our country, we were obliged to pay contributions to public robbers, who lived by spoil and rapine, for the fafety of what they were pleased to leave us. And fhall we think it an hardfhip, to pay, at leaft, an equal proportion, for the fupport of that government, under whofe wings we dwell fafely, every one in quiet poffeffion of his paternal inheritance, or of the fruits of his own induftry; or to express it in the language of the prophet, we dwell, every man under his vine, and under his fig tree, and none to make us afraid?. On the PRESENT War, and the STAGNATION of CREDIT, as connected with it. EVERY man who has either the reafon or the feelings of humanity, will be convinced, without arguments, that war is a bad thing: and ought to be avoided, as long as it can be avoided, without incurring a greater evil. Every Christian, in Britain, or in Europe, will earnestly defire a speedy termination of the prefent war, and pray for it. He will even look forward, with ardent longing, and with a lively hope, to that bleffed period, when nation will no more lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. But it must be allowed, both by Chriftians and others, that there are fome cafes, when war is both lawful and neceffary. And after all the outcry that is made against the prefent war, and all the fcurrilous abufe that has been poured out upon Government, for engaging in it, and for continuing it, I am perfuaded, that if ever Britain, fince the became one nation, was engaged in any war, that could be justified, upon the principles of justice, of policy, of religion, or even of neceffity, the prefent is that war. This war was neceffary, to maintain inviolate the public faith, and fulfil thofe treaties, by which the nation has been bound, for almost two centuries back. It has long been known to all Europe, that by the treaty of 1609 whereby the Dutch were fet free from the yoke of Spanish defpotifm, and acknowledged an independent state, the navigation of the Scheld and the Meufe, was given up to them. And this treaty was guaranteed, both by France and England. It is as well. known, though it has not been known fo long, that the French convention, on the 21ft of Nov. 1792, fent an order to their general, enjoining him, to take every meafure, for opening a free navigation of the Scheldt and the Meufe: and that this order was executed, to the utmost of their power. If France, because the changed her government, thought herself free from those engagements, by which the nation had fo long been bound, furely that was no fufficient reason, why Britain should violate her faith in the fame manner. If the treaties of nations are not binding, individuals may likewife violate their obligations, affoon as they have it in their power: and then the foundations of all focial intercourse are diffolved. Our patriots acknowledge, that by this meafure, the trade of Amfterdam would have been ruined; "but," say they," the merchants of Amfterdam would "have removed to Antwerp, and their trade would "have followed them." This is just as if the convention should also take poffeffion of the navigation of the Thames and then tell us, "We do you no injury to "be fure we ruin the trade of London; but what of "that? Your merchants have only to come over to Pa"ris, and there they may find that trade, which they ❝can no longer carry on in their own country." "But that antiquated treaty was inconfiftent with "the "the rights of man, and therefore, is not to be regard"ed. Are not all rivers free? Has not every nation, "and every person an equal right to the element of wa"ter, to use and occupy it as he pleases?" Perhaps it may appear fo by the new philofophy; but mankind, hitherto, has never thought fo: nor has the practice of nations been ever conformable to that doctrine. Rivers, while they continue within the territories of any state, have ever been confidered as belonging to that ftate, and fubject to that authority by which it is governed, as much as the land on either fide of them. Yea, afk any pri vate gentleman, through whose estate a river flows, and he will tell you, that he confiders the fishing on that river, as his property, in the fame manner as the adjacent fields, unless barred by a previous contract. How would Britain take it, if the convention fhould tell her, that they have the fame right as fhe has, to the navigation of the Forth or the Thames? Will the French allow to Holland an equal right with themselves, to navigate the Seine and the Loire? Are not narrow feas, as well as rivers, confidered as fubject to thofe Aates, whofe dominions ly on both fides of them? Does not the king of Denmark levy a toll on all fhips that pafs the Sound? Have ever any of the nations of Europe demanded it as their right, that the Turks fhould open the navigation of the Straits of the Dardanelles? And was it not after long and bloody ftruggle, that Ruffia obtained a fhare in the navigation of the Black Sea? Why then fhould not the people of Holland have the fame right to the navigation of their own rivers? And if Britain has engaged to defend that right, how could the fee it invaded, and fit ftill? "But," fay they "the Dutch were not asking our r protection in that caufe: and furely it was foon e nough, "nough, to enter into a war on their account, when "they applied to us for that purpofe." And, pray, who told you that they did not apply? Are all the fecret negociations of the courts and cabinets of Europe to be found in the Edinburgh Gazetteer? Suppofing that they did not apply to us, that was no fufficient reason why we should not have given them affiftance. Should I, in paffing through the streets, come up to a puny republican, of four feet high, engaged with fome brawny ariftocrate, who held him by the throat with the one hand, and was ready to knock out his brains with the other; would it be my duty to pafs on, without attempting to rescue him, on pretence that he did not call to me for affiftance? Should I do fo, he would probably never call out more. This was precifely the cafe, between France and Holland. The Dutch, taken by furprize, and in a state of confufion among themselves, knew that they were no match for France. They protefted against the invasion of their rights: but they durft do no more,, till they had a profpect of fome effectual affistance. And if Britain had not ftept in to her relief, it is probable, that Holland had been an 86th department of Fran. e, before the could have made a formal demand of the itipulated affiftance, The war was proper, and neceffary, to preserve the balance of power in Europe. Was it ever confidered. as unwarrantable, for King William or Queen Anne, to make war upon France, with a view to restrain the ambition of Lewis XIV. and put a stop to the conquefts he projected? And was it not as dangerous to Europe, for a French convention to acquire univerfal dominion, as if it had been a French monarch? They faid, indeed, they meant not conqueft, but fraternity. But was not their fraternization a real conqueft, whatever name they |