But the most important illustration of this question, and the only case bearing directly on this point, which, according to my recollection, has ever been diplomatically discussed, is one somewhat famous at the time, known as that of the Swedish Frigate, which will be found in the second series of “Causes Célèbres,” by Baron Charles de Martens.
It seems that in 1825, after ten years of peace, the Swedish Government conceived the idea of parting with ships, some of them more than twenty years old, as comparatively useless. A contract for their sale was made with a commercial house in London. The Spanish Government, by their minister at Stockholm, protested, on the alleged ground, that, though nominally sold to merchants, they were purchased for the revolted colonies in Mexico and South America, and in his communication, dated the 1st of July, 1825, used the following energetic language, which I translate:—
“And what would his Majesty the King of Sweden think, on the supposition of the revolt of one of his provinces,—of the kingdom of Norway for example,—if friendly and allied powers furnished the rebels with arms, munitions, a fleet even, through intermediate speculators, and under pretence of not knowing the result—
I translate literally,—
“intermediate speculators, and under pretence of not knowing the result? Informed of these preparations, would the Cabinet of Stockholm wait till the steel and the cannon furnished to its enemies had mown down its soldiers, till the vessels delivered to the rebels had annihilated its commerce and desolated its coasts, to protest against similar supplies, and to prevent them if possible? And if the protests were rejected, independently of every other measure, would it not raise its voice throughout Europe, and at the courts of all its allies, against this act of hostility, against this violation of the rights of sovereignty, and against this political scandal?”—Causes Célèbres, Tom. II. pp. 472-73.
These are strong words, but they only give expression to the feelings naturally awakened in a Power that seemed to be imperilled by such an act.
In another communication the same minister said to the Swedish Government:—
“It is the doctrine of irresponsibility which the Cabinet of Stockholm professes with regard to the sale of these war vessels, which excites the most lively representations on the part of the undersigned.”—Note of 15 July 1825: Ibid., p. 480.
Mark the words, “the doctrine of irresponsibility.” Then, again, the minister says in other words worthy of consideration at this moment:—