266 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



then neutral, and was at that time 

 actually garrisoned by a British 

 force, with the British flag hoisted 

 on its walls. As the territory of a 

 belligerent power, it was perfectly 

 competent to that power to exer- 

 cise its means of annoyance there 

 against its enemy; and the seizure 

 in question was therefore justifia- 

 ble and effectual, according to the 

 law of nations. 



Sir W. Scott recapitulated the 

 points of the case, and observed, 

 that though an exemption of this 

 nature might be set up pn the part 

 of a nation strictly neutral, it could 

 not be so on the part of a bellige- 

 rent : the former liad an absolute 

 right to protect its flag from in- 

 jury, and the tranquillity of its ter- 

 ritories from being openly invaded 

 by acts offeree on the part of one 

 belligerent in the prosecution of 

 hostility with another, unless that 

 right is waved by an express per- 

 mission of the neutral nation, for 

 the commission of those acts, or 

 its acquiescence in them, after 

 they have taken place ; in which 

 case, however, the relation of that 

 ration towards the belligerents be- 

 comes materially changed. There 

 is not, however, in the present 

 cases any assertion made, that the 

 tieutrality of the Swedish nation at 

 the time of the seizure is clear and 

 unequivocal ; and if an indepen- 

 dent nation appears to act with an 

 evident bias towards either of the 

 belligerent states, by the adoption 

 of her policy, or the further.ince 

 of her views in any other respect, 

 the Court cannot consider the state 

 acting thus invidiously as entitled 

 to claim a non-interruption of her 

 tranquillity, or any other of the 

 high privileges ordinarily belong- 

 ing to neutral states. 



In order to become so entitled 

 two things are indispensably re- 

 quisite : the one is, that the state 

 making such a claim should be 

 strictly neutral ; and the other, that 

 the place in which the circumstance 

 complained of may originate should 

 be clearly within her territory ; for 

 though an enemy is every where 

 an enemy, yet acts of hostility are 

 not to be deliberately planned and 

 carried on in the territories of a 

 neutral. Sweden had, for a long 

 time prior to the seizure in ques- 

 tion, lent herself to the views and 

 wishes of France ; she had espoused 

 her policy and her interests by the 

 adoption of what had been gene- 

 rally denominated the Continental 

 System, by the exclusion of British 

 vessels from her harbours, and the 

 confiscation of British property. 

 Her conduct, therefore, was of a 

 nature to justify the immediate 

 commencement of war, with all 

 its dreadful train of consequences ; 

 but the British admiral stationed 

 in the Baltic only thought himself 

 justified in seizing the island of 

 Anholt, in the name of his Britan- 

 nic majesty, and hoisting the British 

 flag there, as theonly protection un- 

 der which its various concerns could 

 in future be conducted : the British 

 government sanctioned this act of 

 their agent, and war subsequently 

 took place between the two coun- 

 tries. It has been said, the mea- 

 sure was forced upon Sweden by 

 the superior power of France ; that 

 she acted merely passively in the 

 conduct of it ; and that the British 

 government was contented to ac-^ 

 cept this justification of her con- 

 duct, by not answering it by any 

 proclamation of the altered relation 

 of the two countries towards each 

 other. It is laid down, however, 



