Page images
PDF
[blocks in formation]

bred in 1161, but a powerful baron, Erling, succeeded in getting his son Magnus made king, on the plea that the boy's maternal grandfather was King Sigurd Jorsalfar. Descent through females was not valid in succession to the throne, and to render his son's position more secure, Erling obtained the support of the Church. In 1164 the archbishop of Trondhjem crowned Magnus, demanding that the crown should be held as a fief of the Norwegian Church. Owing to such concessions the Church was gaining a paramount position, when a new pretender appeared. Sverre (O.N. Sverrir) claimed to be the son of Sigurd Mund, and was adopted as leader by a party known as the Birkebeiner or Birchlegs. He possessed military genius of a rare order, and in spite of help from Denmark, the support of the Church and of the majority of barons, Magnus was defeated time after time, till he met his death at the battle of Nordnes in 1184. The aristocracy could offer little further opposition. In joining hands with the Church against Sverre, the local chiefs had got out of touch with the small landowners, with whose support Sverre was able to build up a powerful monarchy. Sverre's most dangerous opponent was the Church, which offered the most strenuous resistance to his efforts to cut down its prerogatives. The archbishop found support in Denmark, whence he laid his whole see under an interdict, but Sverre's counter-claim of his own divine right as king had much more influence in Norway. Sverre died in 1202, his last years harassed by the rise of the Baglers, or “crozier-men,” with a new claimant at their head. His son Haakon III. died two years later, perhaps of poison, but the Birkebeiner party in 1217 succeeded in placing Haakon's son and namesake on the throne (see HAAKON IV.). In 1240 the last of the rival claimants fell, and the country began to regain prosperity. The acquisition of Iceland was at length realized. Haakon's death occurred after the battle of Largs in the Orkneys in 1263. The war with Scotland was soon terminated by his son Magnus, who surrendered the Hebrides and the Isle of Man at the treaty of Perth in 1268. Magnus saw the worthlessness of a doubtful suzerainty over islands which had lost their value to Norway since the decay of Viking enterprise. He gained his title of LawMender from the revision of the laws, which had remained very much as in heathen days, and which were still different for the four different districts. By 1274 Magnus had secured the acceptance of a revised compilation of the older law-books. The new code repealed all the old wergild laws, and provided that the major part of the fine for manslaughter should be paid to the victim's heir, the remainder to the king. Henceforward the council comes more and more to be composed of the king's court officials, instead of a gathering of the lendermand or barons of the district in which the king happened to be. During Magnus's reign we hear of a larger council, occasionally called palliment (parliament), which is summoned at the king's wish. The old landed aristocracy had lost its power so completely that even after Magnus's death in 1280 it was unable to reinstate itself during the minority of his son Erik. Erik was succeeded in 1299 by his brother Haakon V., who in 1308 felt himself strong enough to abolish the dignity of the lendermand. This paralysis of the aristocracy is #. no doubt partly to be ascribed to the civil wars, but *::" in part also to the gradual impoverishment of the country, which told especially upon this class. Russia had long eclipsed Norway as the centre of the fur trade, and other industries must have suffered, not only from the civil wars, but also from the supremacy of the Hanseatic towns, which dominated the North, and could dictate their own terms. In earlier times the aristocratic families had owed their wealth

Magnus,

to three main sources: commerce, Viking expeditions and slave labour. Trade had been a favourite means of enrichment among the aristocracy up to the middle of the 13th century, but now it was almost monopolized by Germans, and Viking enterprise was a thing of the past. The third source of wealth had also failed, for it is clear from the laws of Magnus that the class of thralls had practically disappeared. This must have greatly contributed to shatter the power of the class which had once been the chief factor in the -government of Norway.

Haakon's daughter Ingeborg had married Duke Erik of Sweden, and on Haakon's death in 1319 their three-year-old son Magnus succeeded to the Norwegian and Swedish thrones, the two countries entering into a union which was not definitely broken till 1371. It was during this reign that Norway was ravaged by the Black Death. In 1343 Magnus handed over the greater part of Norway to his son Haakon VI., who married Margrete, daughter of King Valdemar III. of Denmark. Their young son Olaf V., already king of Denmark, succeeded to his father's throne on Haakon's death in 1380, but died in 1387, leaving the royal line extinct, and the nearest successor to the throne the hostile King Albrecht of Sweden, of the Mecklenburg family. The difficulty was met by filling the throne by election —an innovation in Norway, though it was the custom Union of in Sweden and Denmark. The choice fell on King £ Haakon's widow Margree, but a couple of years werian, later, chiefly in order to gain German support in S*** a coming struggle with the Mecklenburgers, the :* Norwegians elected as king the young Erik of Pomerania, great-nephew of the queen, who henceforth acted as regent. Erik had claims on the Swedish and Danish thrones, and in 1397, at Kalmar, he was solemnly crowned king over the three countries, which entered into a union “never to be dissolved.”

[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Magnus (I) den Gode - 1035-1047 Harald (III.) Haardraade . io46-1066 £ #" - - # agnus (11. - 1066-1

Magnus #, Barfod. 1093-1 103 Eystein (I.) - 1103–1122 Sigurd (I.) Jorsalfar }. 1103-1130 Olaf (IV.) . . . . 1103-1116 Magnus (IV.) - - 1130-113 Harald Gille - - 1130-113 Sigurd (Ill.) Mund . . . 1136-1155 Eystein (II.) - - 1136-1157 Inge - - - 1136-1161 Haakon (II.) Herdebred . . . 1161–1162 Magnus (V.) . . . . . . 1162-1184 Sverre . . . . . . . . 1184-1202 Haakon (III.) . . . 1202-1204 Haakon (IV.) den gamle . . . 1217-1263 Magnus (VI. . . . . . 1263-1280 # . . . . . . . 1280-1299 Haakon (V.). . . 1299-1319 Magnus (VII.) . . . 1319-1343 Haakon (VI.) - - - 1343-1380 Olaf (V.) - - - - 1381–1387 Margrete . . . 1387-1389 Erik of Pomerania 1389–

Authorities.—P. A. Munch, Det norske Folks Historie indtil 1397 (1852-1863); J. E. Sars, Udsigt over den horske Historie, Deel i..ii. (1873-1877); R. Keyser, Norges Stats- og Retsforfatning (1867). an morske kirke Katholicismen (1856); A. £ Den Angelsaksiske kirkes Indflydelse paa den norske (1891); A. C. Bang, Stadt und Kirche in Norwegen bis zum Schlusse des 15ten Jahrhunderts (Munich, 1875); A. M. Hansen, Landnám i Norge '#' A. Bugge; Studier over de norske Byers selvstyre og handel for Hanseaternes tid (1899); F. Bruns, Die Lübecker Bergenfahrer und ihre Chronistik (Berlin, 1900); articles by G. Storm, Y. Nielsen, E. Hertzberg and others in the Historisk Tidskrift (Christiania) and other periodicals; also the articles by K. v. Armira, O. Bremer, K. Kaalund and V. Gudmundsson in Pauls Grundriss der germanischen Philologie (vol. iii., Strassburg, 1900). The above works are published in Christiania except where otherwise stated. In English, there is a history of Norway by H. H. Boyesen in the Story of the Nations series (London, 1900), and there are historical notes in G. Vigfússon and F.Y. Powell's Corpus poeticum Boreale (Oxford, 1883). The most imrtant original sources are: Snorre Sturlasson's Heimskringla, or ives of the Kings of Norway (up to 1177), of which there is an English translation by W. Morris and E. Magnússon, with a valuable £ volume compiled by the latter, in the Saga Library, vols. iii.vi. (London, 1893-1905). The original £ ed by F. Jónsson (Copenhagen, 1893-1961). For a critical investigation into the sources of Snorri and the contemporary historians, see G. Storm, Snorre Sturlasson's Historieskrivning ( n, 1873, with map of ancient Norway), and F. Jónsson, Den oldnorske og oldistandske Litteraturs. Historie (Bd. ii. Del. ii., Copenhagen, 1901). Of later sagas, Sverre's Saga (Fornmanna Sogur, vol. viii., Copenhagen) is translated by J. Sephton, Northern Library (vol. iv., London, 1899), and Haakon's ' a is given with a translation by G. W. Dasent in vols. ii. (text) and iv. (translation) of the Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1894). Other important sources are: Diplomatarium Norvegicum, ed. {!. Unger, Christiania, and Norges Gamle Love indtil 1397, ed. R. Keyser and P. A. Munch (5 vols., Christiania, 1846-1895). (B.S. P. 1397–1814.—The history of Norway from 1397 down to the union with Sweden in 1814 falls naturally into four divisions. First, in 1450, the triple bond gave place to a union in which Norway became more firmly joined to Denmark. Next, in 1536, as the result of the Reformation, Norway sank almost to the level of a province. After 1660 she gained something in status from the establishment of autocracy in Denmark, and at the close of the period she became a constitutional kingdom on a footing of approximate equality with Sweden. But for the convulsions to which some of these changes gave rise, Norway possesses during this period but little history of her own, and she sank from her former position as a considerable and independent nation. The kings dwelt outside her borders, her fleet and army decayed, and her language gradually 15th gave place to Danish. Germans plundered her coasts century. and monopolized her commerce, and after 145o Danes began to appropriate the higher posts in her administration. When in 1448 Karl Knutsson was chosen king by the Swedes, and Christian of Oldenburg by the Danes, it was by force that Norway fell to the latter. On the 24th of November 1449 the Norwegians protested against Christian's assumption of sovereignty over them, and against separation from the Swedes. Next year, however, the Swedes assented to the separation. Christian I. (1450-1481) gave estates and offices in Norway to his Danish subjects and raised money by pawning her ancient possessions, the Orkneys and Shetland islands, to the king of Scotland. His son Hans (1482–1513) purchased the obedience of the Norwegian nobles by concessions to their power. The imposing union continued in name, but the weakness of the nation and its government was strikingly illustrated when the Germans in Bergen besieged a monastery in which their enemy Olaf Nilsson, a high official, had taken refuge. After the downfall of Christian II. (1513-1524) the position of Norway in relation to Denmark was changed for the worse. She was ruled for a century and a quarter by Danish officials; the churches and monasteries of Norway were sacked by Danes, and Danes were installed as pastors under the Lutheran system, which the Norwegians were compelled to accept in 1539. Soon Norway was dragged by Denmark into the so-called Seven Years' War of the North (1563–70). However, the power of the Hanse League in Bergen was broken. The rule of the Oldenburg dynasty proved neglectful rather than tyrannical, and under it the mass of the peasants was not flagrantly oppressed. Christian IV. (1588-1648), who founded Christiania, may almost be said to have discovered Norway anew. He reformed its government and strove to develop its resources, but his policy involved Norway in the loss 17th of the provinces of Jemtland and Herjedalen, which :... were ceded to the Swedes by the peace of Brömsebro (1645). The Danish war of revenge against Carl X. of Sweden resulted in further territorial loss by Norway. By the

peace of Roskilde (1658) she was compelled to renounce the counties of Trondhjem and Baahus, and although the former was restored by the peace of Copenhagen, two years later, her population fell below half a million. The Swedes had now acquired the rich provinces in the south and south-west of the Scandinavian peninsula, and their ambition to extend their frontiers to the North Sea became more pronounced and more possible of accomplishment. From the middle of the 17th century, however, the Dutch and English made their influence felt, and the political status of Norway could no longer be regarded as a purely Scandinavian affair. The establishment of hereditary autocracy in Denmark by Frederick III. in 1660 conferred many benefits upon Norway. Personal liberty perhaps suffered, but the Norwegian peasant remained a freeman while his counterpart in Denmark was a serf. Norwegian law was revised and codified under Christian V. (1670–1690), who was well served by the Norwegians in his attempt to regain the lost provinces. Under the sons of these monarchs, Frederick IV. and Carl XII., Norway was once more compelled to pay for Danish aggression. Her shipping was destroyed, and in 1716, when driven from continental Europe, the Swedish hosts fell upon her. Two years later, however, the death of Carl XII. at the border fortress of Frederikshald averted the danger. During this war Peter Tordenskjold, the greatest among a long series of Norwegian heroes who served in the Danish fleet, won undying fame. Before the close of the 18th century something had been done towards dispelling the intellectual darkness. Holberg, though he flourished outside Norway, was at least born there, and by stemming the tide of German influence he made the future of Norwegian literature possible. At the close of the century Hans Nielson Hauge, the Wesley of Norway, appeared, while the growth of the timber trade with England gave rise to a great increase in wealth and population. In a century and a half the number of the Norwegian people was doubled, so that by 1814 Norway comprised some 900,ooo souls. In 1788 the oppressive law that grain should be imported into Norway only from Denmark was repealed, and thanks to Danish policy Norway actually drew financial profit from the wars of the French Revolution. The Norwegian national movement was to render a decade at the beginning of the 19th century more memorable in Norwegian history than any century which had passed since the Beginning Calmar Union. In 18oo the Danish government com- or normitted the Norwegians to the second Armed Neutrality, wegian and therefore to a share in the battle of Copenhagen, * by which it was broken up. It was not until 1807," however, that Norway was fully involved in the Napoleonic wars. Then, after the bombardment of Copenhagen, she was compelled by Danish policy to embrace the cause of Napoleon against both England and Sweden. Commerce was annihilated, and the supply of food failed. The national distress brought into the forefront of politics national leaders, among whom Count Hermann Jasper von Wedel-Jarlsberg was the most conspicuous. As yet, however, patriotism went no further than a demand for an administration distinct from that of Denmark, which was conceded in 1807, and for a university nearer home than Copenhagen. In 1811 the government assented to the foundation of the university of Christiania. (W. F. R.) 1814-1907.—After a union of nearly 400 years between Norway and Denmark, the Danish king, Frederick VI., without consulting the Norwegians, ceded Norway to Sweden Events by the treaty of Kiel (January 14, 1814). Some leading to time previously Sweden had joined the allies in their theasion struggle against Napoleon, while Denmark had, un- "" wisely, sided with the French. In 1813 the Swedish * crown prince, Bernadotte, afterwards King Carl XIV., proceeded to Germany and took command of one of the armies of the allies. After the power of Napoleon had been broken at * In 18to he was elected heir to the Swedish throne, in succession to the childless king Carl XIII., who died in 1818.

ic text is edit

16th century.

*8th century.

the battle of Leipzig, he advanced against Denmark, and King Frederick soon saw himself compelled to accede to the cession of Norway, which had long been the aspiration of the Swedes, especially after the loss of Finland in 1809. In the treaty of Kiel Frederick VI. absolved the Norwegians from their oath cf allegiance, and called upon them to become the loyal subjects of the Swedish king. But the Norwegians, who had not been consulted in the matter, refused to acknowledge the treaty, declaring that, while the Danish king might renounce his right to the Norwegian crown, it was contrary to international law to dispose of an entire kingdom without the consent of its people. A meeting of delegates was convened at Eidsvold, not far from the Norwegian capital, where, on the 17th of May 1814, a constitution, framed upon the constitutions of America, of France (1791), and of Spain (1812), was adopted. Among its most important features are that the Storthing, or National Assembly, is a single-chamber institution, and that the king is not given an absolute veto, or the right to dissolve the Storthing. The Danish governor of Norway, Prince Christian Frederick, was unanimously elected king. Soon afterwards the Swedes, under the crown prince, invaded Norway. The hostilities lasted only a fortnight, when Bernadotte opened negotiations with the Norwegians. A convention was held at Moss, where it was proposed that the Norwegians should accept the Swedish king as their sovereign, on the condition that their constitution of the 17th of May should remain intact, except with such alterations as the union might render necessary. An extraordinary Storthing was then summoned at Christiania, and on the 4th of November 1814 Norway was declared to be “a free, independent, and indivisible kingdom, united with Sweden under one king.” A month previously Prince Christian Frederick had laid down his crown and left the country. The union was more fully defined by the “Act of Union,” which was accepted by the national assemblies of both countries in the following year. In the preamble to the act it is clearly stated that the union between the two peoples was accomplished “not by force of arms, but by free conviction,” and the Swedish foreign minister declared to the European Powers, on behalf of Sweden, that the treaty of Kiel had been abandoned, and that it was not to this treaty, but to the confidence of the Norwegian people in the Swedish, that the latter owed the union with Norway. The constitution framed at Eidsvold was retained, and formed the Grundlov, or fundamental law of the kingdom. The union thus concluded between the two countries was really an offensive and defensive alliance under a common king, each country retaining its own government, parliament, army, navy and customs. In Sweden the people received only an imperfect and erroneous insight into the nature of the union, and for a long time believed it to be an achievement of the Swedish arms. They had hoped to make Norway a province of Sweden, and now they had entered into a union in which both countries were equally independent. During the first fifteen years the king was represented in Norway by a Swedish viceroy, while the government was, of course, composed only of Norwegians. Count Wedel Jarlsberg was the first to be entrusted with the important office of head of the Norwegian government, while several of Prince Christian Frederick's councillors of state were retained, or replaced by others holding their political views. The Swedish Count von Essen was appointed the first viceroy of Norway, and was succeeded two years afterwards by his countryman Count von Mörner, over both of whom Count Wedel exercised considerable influence. During the first years of the union the country suffered from poverty and depression of trade, and the finances were in a deplorable condition. The first Storthing was chiefly occupied with financial and other practical measures. In order to improve the finances of the country a bank of Norway was founded, and the army was reduced to one half. The paid-up capital of the bank was procured by an extraordinary tax, and this, together with the growing discontent among the peasantry, brought about a rising in

Strained relations between *ing and Storthing.

Hedemarken, the object of which was to dissolve the Storthing and to obtain a reduction in the taxation. The rising, however, soon subsided, and the bountiful harvest of 1819 brought more prosperous times to the peasantry. Meanwhile, however, the financial position of the country had nearly endangered its independence. The settlement with Denmark with regard to Norway's share of the national debt common to both, assumed threatening proportions. In the interest of Denmark, the allied powers asked for a speedy settlement, and in order to escape their collective intervention, Bernadotte, who had now succeeded to the throne of Sweden and Norway, on the death (February 5, 1818) of the old king Carl XIII., accepted England's mediation, and was enabled in September 1819 to conclude a convention with Denmark, according to which Norway was held liable for only 3,ooo,0oo specie dollars (nearly £700,000). But the Norwegians considered that this was still too much, and the attitude of the Storthing in 1821 nearly occasioned a fresh interference of the powers. The Storthing, however, yielded at last, and agreed to raise a loan and pay the amount stipulated in the convention, but the king evidently had his doubts as to whether the Norwegians really intended to fulfil their obligations. As his relations with the Storthing had already become strained, and as he was occupied at that time with plans, which it is now known meant nothing less than a coup d'état in connexion with the revision of the Norwegian constitution, he decided to adopt military preparations, and in July 1821 he collected a force of 3ooo Swedish and 30oo Norwegian troops in the neighbourhood of Christiania, ostensibly for the mere purpose of holding some manoeuvres. In a circular note (June 1) to the European powers, signed by the Swedish foreign minister, Engströmbut it is not difficult to recognize the hand of the king as the real author—the minister complained bitterly of the treatment the king had met with at the hands of the Storthing, and represented the Norwegians in anything but a favourable light to the powers, the intention being to obtain their sympathy for any attempt that might be made to revise the Norwegian constitution. About this time another important question had to be settled by the Storthing. The Storthings of 1815 and 1818 had already passed a bill for the abolition of nobility, but the king had on both occasions refused his sanction. The Norwegians maintained that the few counts and barons still to be found in Norway were all Danish and of very recent origin, while the really true and ancient nobility of the country were the Norwegian peasants, descendants of the old jarls and chieftains. According to the constitution, any bill which has been passed by three successively clected Storthings, elections being held every third year, becomes law without the king's sanction. When the third reading of the bill came on, the king did everything in his power to obstruct it, but in spite of his opposition the bill was eventually carried and became law. In 1822 Count Wedel Jarlsberg retired from the government. He had become unpopular through his financial policy, and was also at issue with the king on vital matters. In 1821 he had been impeached before the Rigsret, the supreme court of the realm, for having caused the state considerable losses. Jonas Collett (1772-1851) was appointed as his successor to the post of minister of finance. The king had by this time apparently abandoned his plan of a coup d'état, for in the following August he submitted to the Storthing several proposals for fundamental changes in the constitution, all of which aimed at removing all that was at variance with a monarchical form of government. The changes, in fact, were the same as he had suggested in his circular note to the Powers, and which he knew would be hailed with approval by his Swedish subjects. When the Storthing met again in 1824 the royal proposals for the constitutional changes came on for discussion. The Storthing unanimously rejected not only the king's proposals, but also several others by private members for changes in the constitution. The king submitted his proposals again in the following session of the Storthing, and again later on, but they were always unanimously rejected. In 1830 they were discussed for the last time, with the same resuit.

Royal proposals for corestitutions f revision.

Tlie king's insistence was viewed by the people as a sign of absolutist tendencies, and naturally excited fresh alarm. In the eyes of the people the members of the opposition in the Storthing were the true champions of the rights and the independence which they had gained in 1814. For several years the Norwegians had been celebrating the 17th of May as their day of independence, it being the anniversary The stars of the adoption of the constitution of 1814; but as the absolutist tension between the Norwegians and the king increased, the latter began to look upon the celebration in the light of a demonstration directed against himself, and when Collett, the minister of finance, was impeached before the supreme court of the realm for having made certain payments without the sanction of the Storthing, he also considered this as an attack upon his royal prerogatives. His irritation knew no bounds, and although Collett was acquitted by the supreme court, the king, in order to express his irritation with the Storthing and the action they had taken against one of his ministers, dissolved the national assembly with every sign of displeasure. The Swedish viceroy at the time, Count Sandels, had tried to convince him that his prejudice against the celebration of the 17th of May was groundless, and for some years the king had made no objection to the celebration. In 1827 it was, however, celebrated in a very marked manner, and later in the same year there was a demonstration against a foolish political play called The Union, and this being privately reported to the king in as bad a light as possible, he thought that Count Sandels, who had not considered it worth while to report the occurrence, was not fitted for his post, and had him replaced by Count Beltzar Bojilaus Platen (1766-1820), an upright but narrow-minded statesman. Count Platen's first act was to issue a proclamation warning the people against celebrating the day of independence; and in April 1828 the king, against the advice of his ministers, summoned an extraordinary Storthing, his intention being to wrest from the Storthing the supremacy it had gained in 1827. He also intended to take steps to prevent the celebration of the 17th of May, and assembled a force of 2000 Norwegian soldiers in the neighbourhood of the capital. The king arrived in Christiania soon after the opening of the extraordinary Storthing. He did not succeed, however, in his attempt to make any constitutional changes, but the Storthing met the king's wishes with regard to the celebration of the 17th of May by deciding not to continue the celebration, and the people all over the country quietly acquiesced. The following year trouble broke out again. The students had decided to celebrate the 17th of May with a festive gathering, which, however, passed off quietly. But large masses of the people paraded the streets, singing and shouting, and gathered finally in the market-place. There was a little rioting, and the police and the military eventually dispersed

ferredeades.

£m. the people and drove them to their homes with sword of the and musket. This episode has become known as the £ “battle of the market-place,” and did much to

increase the general ill-feeling against Count Platen. His health eventually broke down from disappointment and vexation at the indignities and abuse heaped upon him. He died in Christiania at the end of the year, and his post remained vacant for several years, the presidency of the Norwegian government in the meantime being taken by Collett, its oldest member. By the July Revolution of 1830 the political situation in Europe became completely changed, and the lessons derived increased f" that great movement reached also to Norway. £7. The representatives of the peasantry, for whom the power constitution had paved the way to become the ruling of the element in political life, were also beginning to dispeasantry. tinguish themselves in the national assembly, where they now had taken up an independent position against the representatives of the official classes, who in 1814 and afterwards had played the leading and most influential part in politics. This party was now under the leadership of the able and gifted Ole Ueland, who remained a member of every Storthing from 1833 to 1869. The Storthing of 1833 was the first of the so-called

“peasant Storthings.” Hitherto the peasantry had never been represented by more than twenty members, but the elections in 1833 brought their number up to forty-five, nearly half of the total representation. The attention of this new party was especially directed to the finances of the country, in the administration of which they demanded the strictest economy. They often went too far in their zeal, and thereby incurred considerable ridicule. About this time the peasant party found a champion in the youthful poet Henrik Wergeland, who soon became one of the leaders of the “Young Norway” party. He was a Wergerepublican in politics, and the most zealous upholder land, opof the national independence of Norway and of her £osed by full equality with Sweden in the union. A strong " opposition to Wergeland and the peasant party was formed by the upper classes under the leadership of another rising poet and writer, Johan Sebastian Welhaven, and other talented men, who wished to retain the literary and linguistic relationship with Denmark, while Wergeland and his party wished to make the separation from Denmark as complete as possible, and in every way to encourage the growth of the national characteristics and feeling among the people. He devoted much of his time, by writing and other means, to promote the education of the people; but although he was most popular with the working and poorer classes, he was not able to form any political party around him, and at the time of his death he stood almost isolated. He died in 1845, and his opponents became now the leaders in the field of literature, and carried on the work of national reconstruction in a more restrained and quiet manner. The peasant party still continued to exist, but restricted itself principally to the assertion of local interests and the maintenance of strict economy in finance. The violent agitation that began in 1830 died away. The tension between the king and the legislature, however, still continued, and reached its height during the session of 1836, when all the royal proposals for changes in the constitution were laid aside, without even passing through committee, and when various other steps towards upholding the independence of the country were taken. The king, in his displeasure, decided to dissolve the Storthing; but before it dispersed it proceeded to impeach Lövenskiold, one of the ministers, before the supreme court of the realm, for having advised the king to dissolve the Storthing. He was eventually sentenced to pay a fine of 10,coo kroner (about £550), but he retained his post. Collett, another minister who had greatly displeased the king by his conduct, was dismisscd; but unity in the government was brought about by the appointment of Count Wedel Jarlsberg as viceroy of Norway. From this time the relations between the king and the Norwegian people began to improve, whereas in Sweden he was, in his later years, not a little disliked. When the king's anger had subsided, he summoned the Storthing to an extraordinary session, during which several important bills were passed. Towards the close of the session an The address to the king was agreed to, in which the Stor- national thing urged that steps should be taken to place Norway flag in political respects upon an equal footing with Sweden, * especially in the conduct of diplomatic affairs with foreign countries. The same address contained a petition for the use of the national or merchant flag in all waters. According to the constitution, Norway was to have her own merchant flag, and in 1821 the Storthing had passed a resolution that the flag should be scarlet, divided into four by a blue cross with white borders. The king, however, refused his sanction to the resolution, but gave permission to use the flag in waters nearer home; but beyond Cape Finisterre the naval flag, which was really the Swedish flag, with a white cross on a red ground in the upper square, must be carried. In reply to the Storthing's address the king in 1838 conceded the right to all merchant ships to carry the national flag in all waters. This was hailed with great rejoicings all over the country; but the question of the national flag for genenal use had yet to be settled With regard to the question raised in the address of the Storthing about the conduct of diplomatic affairs, and other matters concerning the equality of Norway in the union, the king in 1839 appointed a committee of four Norwegians and four Swedes, who were to consider and report upon the questions thus raised. During the sitting of this first “Union Committee” its powers were extended to consider a comprehensive revision of the Act peat, or of Union, with the limitation that the fundamental King car conditions of the union must in no way be interfered Johan; with. But before the committee had finished their * report the king died (March 8th 1844), and was suc*** ceeded by his son Oscar I. According to the constitution the Norwegian kings must be crowned in Throndhjem cathedral, but the bishop of Throndhjem was in doubt whether the queen, who was a Roman Catholic, could be crowned, and the king decided to forego the coronation both of himself and his queen. The new king soon showed his desire to meet the wishes of the Norwegian people. Thus he decided that in all documents concerning the internal government of the country Norway should stand first where reference was made to the king as sovereign of the two kingdoms. After having received the report of the committee concerning the flag question, he resolved (June 20th, 1844) that Norway and Sweden should each carry its own national flag as the naval flag, with the mark of union in the upper corner; and it was also decided that the merchant flag of the two kingdoms should bear the same mark of union, and that only ships sailing under these flags could claim the protection of the state. The financial and material condition of the country had now considerably improved, and King Oscar's reign was marked by the carrying out of important legislative work and reforms, especially in iocal government. New roads were planned and built all over the country, the first railway was built, steamship routes along the coast were established, lighthouses were erected and trade and shipping made great progress. The king's reign was not disturbed by any serious conflicts between the two countries. No change took place in the ministry under the presidency of the viceroy Lövenskiold upon King Oscar's accession to the throne, but on the death or retirement of some of its members the vacant places were filled by younger and talented men, among whom was Fredrik Stang, who in 1845 took over the newly established ministry of the interior. During the Schleswig-Holstein rebellion (1848-1850) and the Crimean War King Oscar succeeded in maintaining the neutrality of Norway and Sweden, by which Norwegian shipping especially benefited. The abolition of the English navigation acts in 1850 was of great importance to Norway, and opened up a great future for its merchant fleet. In 1826 a treaty had been concluded with Russia, by which the frontier between that country and the adjoining strip of Norwegian territory in the Polar region was definitely

#" delimited; but in spite of this treaty Russia in 1851 #is demanded that the Russian Lapps on the Norwegian

frontier should have the right to fish on the Norwegian coast, and have a portion of the coast on the Waranger fjord allotted to them to settle upon. The Norwegian government refused to accede to the Russian demands, and serious complications might have ensued if the attention of Russia had not been turned in another direction. While his father had looked to Russia for support, King Oscar was more inclined to secure western powers as his allies, and during the Crimean War he concluded a treaty with England and France, according to which these countries promised their assistance in the event of any fresh attempts at encroachment on Norwegian or Swedish territory by Russia. In consequence of this treaty the relations between Norway and Sweden and Russia became somewhat strained; but after the peace of Paris in 1856, and the accession of Alexander II., whose government was in favour of a peaceful policy, the Russian ambassador at Stockholm succeeded in bringing about more friendly relations. Owing to the king's ill-health, his son, the crown prince Carl, was appointed regent in 1857, and two years later, when King Oscar died, he succeeded to the thrones of the two countries as

Carl XV. He was a gifted, genial and noble personality, and desired to inaugurate his reign by giving the Nor- Death of wegians a proof of his willingness to acknowledge the Oscar I., claims of Norway, but he did not live to see his wishes accession in this respect carried out. According to the constitu- ##" tion, the king had the power to appoint a viceroy for Norway, who might be either a Norwegian or Swede. Since 1829 no Swede had held the post, and since 1859 no appointment of a viceroy had been made. But the paragraph in the constitution still existed, and the Norwegians naturally wished to have this

stamp of “provinciality” obliterated. A proposal for the abolishment of the office of viceroy was laid before the Questies Storthing in 1859, and passed by it. The king, whose of Norsympathies on this question were known, had been : ".

appealed to, and had privately promised that he would sanction the proposed change in the constitution; but as soon as the resolution of the Storthing became known in Sweden, a violent outcry arose both in the Swedish press and the Swedish estates. Under the pressure that was brought to bear upon the king in Sweden, he eventually refused to sanction the resolution of the Storthing; but he added that he shared the views of his Norwegian counsellors, and would, when “the convenient moment” came, himself propose the abolition of the office of viceroy. In the following year the Swedish government again pressed the demands of the Swedish estates for a revision of the Act of Union, which this time included the establishment of a sweal." union or common parliament for the two countries, on proposas the basis that, according to the population, there for reshould be two Swedish members to every Norwegian, vision of The proposal was sent to the Norwegian government, £ of which did not seem at all disposed to entertain it; but añon. some dissensions arose with regard to the form in which its reply was to be laid before the king. The more obstinate members of the ministry resigned, and others, of a more pliable nature, were appointed under the presidency of Fredrik Stang, who had already been minister of the interior from 1845 to 1856. The reconstructed government was, however, in accord with the retiring one, that no proposal for the revision of the Act of Union could then be entertained. The king, however, advocated the desirability of a revision, but insisted that this would have to be based upon the full equality of both countries. In 1863 the Storthing assented to the appointment by the king of a Union committee, the second time that such a committee had been called upon to consider this vexatious question. It was not until 1867 that its report was made public, but it could not come on for discussion in the Storthing till it met again in 1871. During this period the differences between the two countries were somewhat thrust into the background by the Danish complications in 1863-1864, which threatened to draw the two kingdoms into war. King Carl was himself in favour of a defensive alliance with Denmark, but the Norwegian Storthing would only consent to this if an alliance could also be effected with at least one of the western powers. In 1869 the Storthing passed a resolution by which its sessions were made annual instead of triennial according to the constitution of 1814. The first important question which the first yearly Storthing which met in 1871 had to consider was once more the proposed revision of the Act of Union. The Norwegians had persistently maintained that in any discussion on this question the basis for the negotiations should be (1) the full equality of the two kingdoms, and (2) no extension of the bonds of the union beyond the line originally defined in the act of 1815. However, the draft of the new act contained terms in which the supremacy of Sweden was presupposed and which introduced important extensions of the bonds of the union; and, strangely enough, the report of the Union committee was adopted by the new Stang ministry, and even supported by some of the most influential newspapers under the plausible garb of “Scandinavianism.” In these circumstances the “lawyers' party,” under the leader. ship of Johan Sverdrup, who was to play such a prominent part in Norwegian politics, and the “peasant party,” led by Sören

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »