The attitude of a neutralized State can be reckoned on beforehand by all parties. In proportion to its military importance and position, a neutral country constitutes in many ways a security to all the powers. It is in close connection with neutralization that in these days an ever-growing need is becoming apparent to localize wars as much as possible; that is, to confine them to those who begin them. As a result of the extraordinarily rapid development of world-wide trade and intercourse, and the consequent community of interests, a war between two States necessarily occasions more or less derangement to the rest. In this increasing solidarity lies the surest guarantee that neutrality will be respected. We may already be justified in drawing the conclusion that the security of neutral States will continually increase. * * * * * Supported upon these foundations of history and of international law, a discussion was raised on the neutralization of Sweden, in the First Chamber by Major C.A. Adelsköld, and by myself in the Second, in the hope thereby not only to oppose the King's bill for the extension of the war department, but also especially to open the way for a profitable solution of the tough, old, threadbare question of Defence.[18] Before this resolution was brought into the Riksdag, I had read it to seventy members of the Riksdag, who unanimously accepted it, as did also, later on, in the main, a majority of the [Norwegian] Storting. [19]And as soon as the purport of the resolution became generally known through the press, there came in from popular meetings all over Sweden numerous congratulatory addresses to Major Adelsköld and myself. But from its very commencement the proposition met with an unconquerable opposition from those in power.