coalition of the Baltic States, at that time, received the name of the
Armed Neutrality.

From 1793 to 1800 Sweden and Denmark had again succeeded in
maintaining their neutrality, and, as most other maritime states were
at war, their freedom of navigation had thrown into their hands a
large carrying trade. But, while their profit was thus great, it would
be much greater, if their ships could be saved the interruptions to
their voyages arising from the right of belligerents to stop, to
search, and, if necessary, to send into port, a vessel on board which
were found enemy's goods, or articles considered "contraband of war."
The uncertainty hanging round the definitions of the latter phrase
greatly increased the annoyance to neutrals; and serious disputes
existed on certain points, as, for example, whether materials for
shipbuilding, going to an enemy's port, were liable to capture. Great
Britain maintained that they were, the neutrals that they were not;
and, as the Baltic was one of the chief regions from which such
supplies came, a principal line of trade for the Northern States was
much curtailed.

Sweden and Denmark were too weak to support their contention against
the sea-power of Great Britain. Where there is lack of force, there
will always be found the tendency to resort to evasion to accomplish
an end; and Denmark, in 1799, endeavored to secure for her merchant
ships immunity from search by belligerent cruisers--which
International Law has always conceded, and still concedes, to be
within the rights of a belligerent--by sending them on their voyages
in large convoys, protected by ships of war. It was claimed that the
statement of the senior naval officer, that there were not in the
convoy any articles subject to capture, was sufficient; and that the