The Governments of Europe Part 49

[Footnote 804: Gustavus IV., being a minor at his accession, did not a.s.sume control of the government until November 1, 1796.]

*630. Sweden in the Napoleonic Period.*--Sweden is one of the (p. 572) many European nations which in the course of the Napoleonic period acquired a new const.i.tutional system, but one of the few in which the fundamentals of the system at that time established have been maintained continuously to the present day. Sweden was drawn into the Napoleonic wars at an early stage of their progress. December 3, 1804, Gustavus IV. cast in his fortunes on the side of the foes of France, and although in 1806-1807 Napoleon sought to detach him from the Allies, all effort in that direction failed. The position of Gustavus, however, was undermined in his own country by his failure to defend Finland on the occasion of the Russian invasion of 1808, and March 29, 1809, yielding to popular pressure, and hoping to save the crown for his son, he abdicated. By the Riksdag the royal t.i.tle, withheld from the young Prince Gustavus, was bestowed upon the eldest brother of Gustavus III., who, under the name of Charles XIII., was proclaimed June 5. On the same day the Riksdag ratified formally an elaborate _regerings-formen_, or fundamental law, which, amended from time to time, has been preserved to the present day as the const.i.tution of the kingdom.[805]

[Footnote 805: See p. 589. Bain, Scandinavia, Chap.

14; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Generale, VII., Chap. 23; VIII., Chap. 23.]

*631. Const.i.tutional Development of Norway to 1814.*--During more than four centuries, from the Union of Kalmar, in 1397, to the Treaty of Kiel, January 14, 1814, Norway was continuously subordinated more or less completely to Denmark. The political history and const.i.tutional development of the nation, therefore, had little opportunity to move in normal channels. Prior to the Union the royal power was considerable, and at times virtually absolute, although an ever present obstacle to the consolidation of the monarchy was the independent spirit of the n.o.bility. By the fourteenth century, however, the old landed aristocracy, decimated by civil war and impoverished by the loss of the fur trade to Russia, had been so weakened that it no longer endangered in any degree the royal supremacy. From the end of the thirteenth century we hear of a _palliment_, or parliament, which was summoned occasionally at the pleasure of the king. But at no time had this gathering a.s.sumed the character of an established national legislative body.

From the point of view of political status the history of Norway under the Union falls into four fairly clearly marked periods. The first, extending from 1397 to the accession of Christian I. in 1450, culminated in an unsuccessful attempt on the part of the Norwegians to throw off the Danish yoke. The second, extending from 1450 to the recognition of Frederick I. as king in Norway in 1524, was marked (p. 573) by a still closer union between the two kingdoms. The third, beginning with the accession of Frederick and closing with the Danish revolution of 1660, was a period in which, largely in consequence of the Protestant Revolt, Norway was reduced virtually to the level of a subjugated province. The fourth, inaugurated by the rehabilitation of the monarchy in Denmark in 1660, witnessed the raising of Norway from the status of subjection to the rank of a sovereign, hereditary kingdom on a footing of approximate equality with Denmark. The period closed with a widespread revival of the nationalist spirit, one of the first fruits of which was the obtaining, in 1807, of an administrative system separate from that of Denmark and, in 1811, of the privilege of founding at Christiania a national university.[806]

[Footnote 806: Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 4, 5, 7, 10, 15; H. H. Boyesen, A History of Norway from the Earliest Times (2d ed., London, 1900).]

II. THE SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN UNION, 1814-1905

*632. Bernadotte and the Treaty of Kiel.*--As has been pointed out, the kingdom of Sweden acquired independence of Denmark near the end of the first quarter of the sixteenth century. The liberation of Norway was delayed until the era of Napoleon, and when it came it meant, not the independence which the Norwegians craved, but forced affiliation with their more numerous and more powerful neighbors on the east. The succession of events by which the new arrangement was brought about was engineered princ.i.p.ally by Napoleon's ex-marshal Bernadotte. May 28, 1810, Prince Charles Augustus of Augustenburg, whom the Riksdag had selected as heir to the infirm and childless Charles XIII., died, and after a notable contest, Bernadotte was agreed upon unanimously by the four estates (August 21) as the new heir. November 5 the adventuresome Frenchman received the homage of the estates and was adopted by the king as crown prince under the name of Charles John.[807] By reason of the infirmity of the sovereign, Bernadotte acquired almost at once virtual control of the government. From the outset he believed it to be impossible for Sweden to recover Finland; but he believed no less that she might recoup herself, with the a.s.sent of the powers, by the acquisition of the Danish dominion of Norway. In March and April, 1813, Great Britain and Russia were brought to the point of giving the desired a.s.sent, and by the Treaty of Kiel, January 14, 1814, the king of Denmark, under pressure applied by the (p. 574) Allies, made the desired surrender.[808]

[Footnote 807: Upon the death of Charles XIII., February 5, 1818, the "prince" succeeded to the throne under the name of Charles XIV. He reigned until 1844.]

[Footnote 808: C. Schefer, Bernadotte roi (Paris, 1899); L. Pingaud, Bernadotte, Napoleon, et les Bourbons (Paris, 1901); G. R. Lagerhjelm, Napoleon och Carl Johan, 1813 (Stockholm, 1891).]

*633. The Movement for Norwegian Independence: the Const.i.tution of 1814.*--In Norway there was small disposition to accept the new arrangement. Instead there was set up the theory that when the Danish sovereign renounced his claim to the throne of his northern dominion the Norwegian state legally reverted forthwith to its former condition of independence. Upon this a.s.sumption 112 representatives of the nation, of whom 82 were opposed to union with Sweden, met at the Eidsvold iron-works near Christiania, and drew up a liberal const.i.tution modelled princ.i.p.ally on the French instrument of 1791, under which was established a national Storthing, or parliament. May 17, furthermore, Prince Christian Frederick, the Danish governor of the country, was elected king of Norway. From the Swedish point of view these sovereign acts were absolutely invalid, and upon Norway's rejection of mediation by the powers Bernadotte invaded the country at the head of a Swedish army. In a short, sharp campaign the Norwegians were hopelessly beaten,[809] and the upshot was that Christian Frederick was forced to abdicate (October 7, 1814), the Storthing was compelled to give its a.s.sent to the union with Sweden (October 20), the Eidsvold const.i.tution was revised (November 4) to bring it into accord with the conditions of the union, and the Storthing went through the formality of electing Charles XIII. king of Norway and of recognizing Bernadotte as heir to the throne. Fifty of the one hundred ten articles of the Eidsvold const.i.tution were retained unaltered; the remainder were revised or omitted. Amended upon a number of subsequent occasions, this const.i.tution of November 4, 1814, has continued in operation to the present day as the _Grundlov_, or fundamental law, of the Norwegian state. No const.i.tution was ever born of a more interesting contest for national dignity and independence.

[Footnote 809: G. Bjorlin, Der Krieg in Norwegen, 1814 (Stuttgart, 1895).]

*634. Nature of the Union.*--The union of the two states was of a purely personal character; that is to say, it was a union solely through the crown. Each of the kingdoms maintained its own const.i.tution, its own ministry, its own legislature, its own laws, its own financial system, its own courts, its own army and navy. The legal basis of the affiliation was the _Riksakt_, or Act of Union, of August, 1815,--an ultimate agreement between the two states which in Norway was formally adopted by the Storthing as a part of the Norwegian fundamental (p. 575) law, but which in Sweden was regarded as a treaty, and hence was never incorporated by the Rigsdag within the const.i.tution. In each of the states the functions and status of the crown were regulated by const.i.tutional provisions; and the character of the royal power was by no means the same in the two. In Sweden, for example, the king possessed independent legislative power and his veto was absolute; in Norway he possessed no such independent prerogative and his veto was only suspensive. There was a common ministry of war and another of foreign affairs; beyond this the functions of a common administration were vested in a complicated system of joint councils of state.

Matters of common concern lying outside the jurisdiction of the crown were regulated by concurrent resolutions or laws pa.s.sed by the Riksdag and the Storthing independently. But in all matters of internal legislation and administration the two kingdoms were as separate as if no legal relations had been established between them. There was not even a common citizenship.

*635. Causes of Friction.*--From the outset the union was menaced by perennial friction. Differences between the two kingdoms in respect to language, manners, and economic concerns were p.r.o.nounced; differences of social and political ideas were still more considerable; differences in governmental theories and inst.i.tutions were seemingly irreconcilable. In Sweden the tone of the political system, until far in the nineteenth century, was distinctly autocratic, and that of the social system aristocratic; in Norway the principle that preponderated was rather that of democracy. Between the two states there was disagreement upon even the fundamental question of the nature of the union. The Swedish contention was that at the Peace of Kiel Norway was ceded to Sweden by Denmark and that the mere fact that, following the unsuccessful attempt of the Norwegians to establish their independence, Sweden had chosen to grant the affiliated kingdom a separate statehood and local autonomy did not contravene Norway's essentially subordinate position within the union. The Norwegians, on the other hand, maintained that, in the last a.n.a.lysis, they comprised an independent nation and that their union with Sweden rested solely upon their own sovereign decision in 1814 to accept Charles XIII. as king; from which the inference was that Norway should be dealt with as in every respect co-ordinate with Sweden. The conflicts which sprang from these differences of conception were frequent and serious. There was no disguising the fact that the administration of the joint affairs of the kingdoms was conducted from a point of view that was essentially Swedish, and the history of the union throughout the (p. 576) period of its existence is largely a story of the struggle on the part of the Norwegians, through the medium of the Storthing, to attain in practice the fully co-ordinate position which they believed to be rightfully theirs. Again and again amendments to the const.i.tution in the interest of the royal power were submitted by successive sovereigns, only to be rejected by the Storthing.

In 1860 the Swedish estates insisted upon a revision of the Act of Union which should include the establishment of a common parliament for the two countries, in which, in approximate accordance with population, there would be twice as many Swedish members as Norwegian.

The Storthing, naturally enough, rejected the proposition. In 1869 the Storthing fortified its position by adopting a resolution in accordance with which its sessions, theretofore triennial, were made annual, and in 1871 the first annual Storthing rejected an elaborate modification of the Act of Union, to which the Conservative ministry of Stang had been induced to lend its support, whereby the supremacy of Sweden would have been recognized explicitly and the bonds of the union would have been tightened correspondingly. Two years later the new sovereign, Oscar II. (1872-1907), gave reluctant a.s.sent to a measure by which the office of viceroy in Norway was abolished.

Thereafter the head of the government at Christiania was the president of the ministry, or premier; and, following a prolonged contest, in the early eighties there was forced upon the crown the principle of ministerial responsibility (in Norway).

*636. The Question of the Consular Service.*--The rock upon which the union foundered eventually, however, was Norway's partic.i.p.ation in the management of diplomatic and consular affairs. The subject was one which had been left in 1814 without adequate provision, and throughout the century it gave rise to repeated difficulties. In 1885, and again in 1891, there was an attempt to solve the problem, but upon each occasion the only result was a deadlock, the Storthing insisting upon, and the Swedish authorities denying, Norway's right, as an independent kingdom, to partic.i.p.ate equally with Sweden in the conduct of the foreign relations of the two states. In 1892 the Storthing resolved upon the establishment of an independent Norwegian consular service; but to this the king would not a.s.sent. Norwegian trading and maritime interests had come to be such that, in the opinion of the commercial and other influential cla.s.ses of the kingdom, separateness of consular administration was indispensable, and upon the success of this reform was made to hinge eventually the perpetuity of the union itself.

Throughout several years the deadlock continued. At the Norwegian elections of 1894 and 1897 the Liberals were overwhelmingly successful, and it was made increasingly apparent that the Norwegian people (p. 577) were veering strongly toward unrestricted national independence. July 28, 1902, a lengthy report was submitted by a Swedish-Norwegian Consular Commission, const.i.tuted upon Swedish initiative earlier in the year, in which the practicability of two entirely separate consular systems was a.s.serted, and, March 24, 1903, an official _communique_ announced the conclusion of an agreement between representatives of the two countries under which there were to be worked out two essentially identical codes of law for the government of the two systems. Upon the nature of these codes, however, there arose serious disagreement, and when, in 1904, the Bostrom ministry of Sweden submitted as an absolute condition that any Norwegian consul might be removed from office by the Swedish foreign minister, the entire project was brought to naught.

*637. The Norwegian Declaration of Independence: the Separation.*--March 1, 1905, the Norwegian ministry presided over by Hagerup resigned and was replaced by a ministry made up by Christian Michelsen, which included representatives of both the Liberal and Conservative parties.

May 23 the Storthing, by unanimous vote, pa.s.sed a new bill for the establishment of Norwegian consulships. The king, four days later, vetoed the measure; whereupon the Michelsen government resigned. The king refused to accept the resignation; the ministers refused to reconsider it. June 7 Michelsen and his colleagues placed their resignation in the hands of the Storthing, and that body, impelled at last to cut the Gordian knot, adopted by unanimous vote a resolution to the effect (1) that, the king having admitted his inability to form a Government, the const.i.tutional powers of the crown had become inoperative, and (2) that Oscar II. having ceased to act as king of Norway, the union with Sweden was to be regarded as _ipso facto_ dissolved. By another unanimous vote the ministerial group was authorized to exercise temporarily the prerogatives. .h.i.therto vested in the sovereign.

On the part of certain elements in Sweden there was a disposition to resist Norwegian independence, and for a time there was prospect of war. The ma.s.s of the people, however, cared but little for the maintenance of the union. The prevailing national sentiment was expressed with aptness by the king himself when he affirmed that "a union to which both parties do not give their free and willing consent will be of no real advantage to either." June 20 the Riksdag was convened in extraordinary session to take under advis.e.m.e.nt the situation. Dreading war, this body eventually decided to sanction negotiations looking toward a separation, provided, however, that the Norwegian people, either through the agency of a newly elected (p. 578) Storthing or directly by referendum, should avow explicitly their desire for independence. During a recess of the Riksdag a Norwegian plebiscite was taken, August 13, with the result that 368,211 votes were cast in favor of the separation and but 184 against it. Two weeks later eight commissioners representing the two states met at Karlstad, in Sweden, and negotiated a treaty, signed September 23, wherein the terms of the separation were specifically fixed. This instrument, approved by the Storthing October 9 and by the rea.s.sembled Riksdag October 16, provided for the establishment of a neutral, unfortified zone on the common frontier south of the parallel 61 and stipulated that all differences between the two nations which should prove impossible of adjustment by direct negotiation should be referred to the permanent court of arbitration at the Hague, provided such differences should not involve the independence, integrity, or vital interests of either nation. October 27 King Oscar formally relinquished the Norwegian crown.

III. THE NORWEGIAN CONSt.i.tUTION--CROWN AND MINISTRY

*638. The Revised Fundamental Law.*--In Norway there was widespread sentiment in favor of the establishment of a republic. The continuance of monarchy was regarded, however, as the course which might be expected to meet with most general approval throughout Europe, and in a spirit of conciliation the Storthing tendered to King Oscar an offer to elect as sovereign a member of the Swedish royal family. The offer was rejected; whereupon the Storthing selected as a candidate Prince Charles, second son of the then Crown Prince Frederick of Denmark, the late King Frederick VIII. November 12 and 13, 1905, the Norwegian people, by a vote of 259,563 to 69,264, ratified the Storthing's choice, the advocates of a republic recording some 33,000 votes. The new sovereign was crowned at Trondhjem June 22, 1906. By a.s.suming the t.i.tle of Haakon VII. he purposely emphasized the essential continuity of the present Norwegian monarchy with that of mediaeval times.[810]

[Footnote 810: Haakon VI. reigned 1343-1380, shortly before the Union of Kalmar. For brief accounts of the relations of Sweden and Norway under the union see Bain, Scandinavia, Chap. 17; Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chap. 24, XII., Chap. 11; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Generale, X., Chap. 18; XI., Chap. 12; XII., Chap. 7. The best general treatise is A. Aall and G. Nikol, Die Norwegische-schwedische Union, ihr Bestehen und ihre Losung (Breslau, 1912). From the Norwegian point of view the subject is well treated in F.

Nansen, Norge og Foreningen med Sverige (Christiania, 1905), in translation, Norway and the Union with Sweden (London, 1905); from the Swedish, in K. Nordlung, Den svensk-norska krisen (Upsala and Stockholm, 1905), in translation. The Swedish-Norwegian Union Crisis, A History with Doc.u.ments (Stockholm, 1905). Worthy of mention are R. Pillons, L'Union scandinave (Paris, 1899); A.

Mohn, La Suede et la revolution norvegienne (Geneva and Paris, 1906); and Jordan, La separation de la Suede et de la Norvege (Paris, 1906). A useful survey is P. Woultrin, in _Annales des Sciences Politiques_, Jan. 15 and March 15, 1906.]

The fundamental law of Norway to-day is the Eidsvold const.i.tution (p. 579) of April, 1814, revised, November 4 following, to comport with the conditions of the union with Sweden. The original instrument was not only democratic in tone, but doctrinaire. With little in the nature of native inst.i.tutions upon which to build, the framers laid hold of features of the French, English, American, and other foreign systems, in the effort to transplant to Norwegian soil a body of political forms and usages calculated to produce a high order of popular government. No inconsiderable portion of these forms and usages survived the revision enforced by the failure to achieve national independence. Of this portion, however, several proved impracticable, and const.i.tutional amendments after 1814 were numerous. Upon the establishment of independence in 1905 the fundamental law was modified further by the elimination from it of all reference to the former Swedish affiliation. The const.i.tution to-day comprises one hundred twelve articles, of which forty-six deal with the executive branch of the government, thirty-seven with citizenship and the legislative power, six with the judiciary, and twenty-three with matters of a miscellaneous character. The process of amendment is appreciably more difficult than that by which changes may be introduced in the Swedish instrument.[811] Proposed amendments may be presented in the Storthing only during the first regular session following a national election, and they may be adopted only at a regular session following the ensuing election, and by a two-thirds vote. It is required, furthermore, that such amendments "shall never contravene the principles of the const.i.tution, but shall relate only to such modifications in particular provisions as will not change the spirit of the instrument."[812]

[Footnote 811: See p. 589.]

[Footnote 812: Art. 112. Dodd, Modern Const.i.tutions, II., 143. An English version of the Norwegian const.i.tution is printed in Dodd, ibid., II., 123-143, and in H. L. Braekstad, The Const.i.tution of the Kingdom of Norway (London, 1905). The standard treatise on the Norwegian system of government is T. H. Aschehoug, Norges Nuvaerende Statsforfatning (2d ed., Christiania, 1891-1893); but a more available work is an earlier one by the same author, Das Staatsrecht der vereinigten Konigreiche Schweden und Norwegen (Freiburg, 1886), in Marquardsen's Handbuch. The most recent and, on the whole the most useful, treatise is B. Morgenstierne, Das Staatsrecht des Konigreichs Norwegen (Tubingen, 1911).]

*639. The Crown and the Council.*--The government of Norway, like (p. 580) that of Sweden and of Denmark, is in form a limited hereditary monarchy. The popular element in it is both legally and actually more considerable than in the const.i.tutional system of either of the sister Scandinavian states; none the less, the principle of monarchy is firmly entrenched, and, as has been pointed out, not even the overturn of 1905 endangered it seriously. The const.i.tution contains provisions respecting the succession to the throne, the conduct of affairs during a minority, and the establishment of a regency, which need not be recounted here, but which are designed to meet every possible contingency. In the event of the absolute default of a legal successor the Storthing is empowered to elect.

Supreme executive authority is vested in the king, who must be an adherent of the Lutheran Church, and who at his accession is required to take oath in the presence of the Storthing to govern in conformity with the const.i.tution and laws. a.s.sociated with the king is a Council of State, upon which, since the king may be neither censured nor impeached, devolves responsibility for virtually all executive acts.

The Council consists of a minister of state, or premier, and at least seven other members. All are appointed by the crown, and all must be Norwegian citizens not less than thirty years of age and adherents of the established Lutheran faith. The king may apportion the business of state among the councillors as he desires. There are at present, in addition to the ministry of state, eight ministerial portfolios, i.e., Foreign Affairs, Justice, Worship and Instruction, Agriculture, Labor, Finance, Defense, and Commerce, Navigation and Industry. All ministers are regularly members of the Storthing, though by the const.i.tution the crown is authorized for special reasons to add to the Council members who possess no legislative seats. The heir to the throne, if eighteen years of age, is ent.i.tled to a seat in the Council, but without vote or responsibility.

*640. The Exercise of Executive Powers.*--Most of the powers which are possessed by the king may be exercised by him only in conjunction with the Council. Like the fundamental law of Sweden, that of Norway stipulates that, while it shall be the duty of every member of the Council to express his opinion freely, and of the king to give ear to all such opinions, it "shall remain with the king to decide according to his own judgment."[813] None the less, the acts of the crown are, as a rule, those not only, legally, of the king _in_ council but, actually, of the king _and_ council. With the exception of military commands, all orders issued by the king must be countersigned by the minister of state, and ministers may be impeached at any time by (p. 581) the Odelsthing before the Rigsret, or Court of Impeachment; so that, in effect, there is a close approach to the parliamentary system of ministerial responsibility. Under these conditions, the crown appoints all civil, ecclesiastical, and military officials; removes higher officials (including the ministers) without previous judicial sentence; pardons offenders after conviction; regulates religious services, a.s.semblies, and meetings; issues and repeals regulations concerning commerce, customs, industry, and public order; and enforces the laws of the realm. The king is commander-in-chief of the land and naval forces, though these forces may not be increased or diminished, or placed at the service of a foreign sovereign or state, without the consent of the Storthing. And the king has the power to mobilize troops, to commence war and conclude peace, to enter into and to withdraw from alliances, and to send and to receive amba.s.sadors.[814]

[Footnote 813: Art. 30. Dodd, Modern Const.i.tutions, II., 128.]

[Footnote 814: Arts. 16, 17, 20-26. Dodd, Modern Const.i.tutions, II., 125-127.]

IV. THE STORTHING--POLITICAL PARTIES

*641. Electoral System: the Franchise.*--Among the legislatures of Europe that of Norway is unique. In structure it represents a curious cross between the principles of unicameral and bicameral organization.

It comprises essentially a single body, which, however, for purely legislative purposes is divided into two chambers, or sections, the Lagthing and the Odelsthing. This division is made subsequent to the election of the members, so that representatives are chosen simply to the Storthing as a whole. The elections take place every third year.

There are forty-one urban, and eighty-two rural, districts, and every district returns one member--a total of 123.

Formerly the franchise rested, as in Sweden, upon a property qualification; but by a series of suffrage reforms within the past decade and a half it has been brought about that in respect to electoral privileges Norway is to-day the most democratic of European countries. In 1898 the Liberal government of Steen procured the enactment of a measure which long had occupied a leading place in the programme of the radical elements. By it the parliamentary franchise was conferred upon all male citizens of a minimum age of twenty-five years who have resided at least five years in Norway and who have suffered no judicial impairment of civil rights. The effect was to double at a stroke the national electorate. In 1901 the same Government carried an important bill by which the suffrage in munic.i.p.al elections was conferred upon male citizens without restriction (save that of age), upon all unmarried women twenty-five years of age who pay taxes on (p. 582) an annual income of not less than 300 kronor, and upon all married women of similar age whose husbands are taxed in equivalent amounts.

During ensuing years there was widespread agitation in behalf of the parliamentary franchise for women, and the Liberal party made this one of the princ.i.p.al items in its programme. June 14, 1907, by a vote of 73 to 48, the Storthing rejected a proposal that women be given the parliamentary franchise on the same terms as men, but by the decisive majority of 96 to 25 it conferred the privilege upon all women who were in possession of the munic.i.p.al franchise under the law of 1901.

The rapidity with which woman's suffrage sentiment had developed is indicated by the fact that as late as 1898 a proposal looking toward the including of women in the parliamentary electorate had received in the Storthing a total of but 33 votes. By the legislation of 1907 Norway became the first of European nations to confer upon women, under any conditions, the privilege of voting for members of the national legislative body and of sitting as members of that body. At the elections of 1909, the first in which women partic.i.p.ated, no revolutionizing effects were observed. The electorate, however, was increased by approximately 300,000, which was somewhat over half of the kingdom's total female population of the requisite age.[815] April 30, 1910, the Const.i.tutional Committee of the Storthing, by a majority of four to three, recommended that parliamentary suffrage be extended to women on equal terms with men, i.e., without reference to taxpaying qualifications. The recommendation was rejected, but during the next month the Odelsthing voted, 71 to 10, and the Lagthing, 24 to 7, to apply the principle of it in munic.i.p.al elections. Thus the munic.i.p.al electorate was enlarged by approximately 200,000, and the way was prepared, as many believe, for the adoption eventually of the Committee's original recommendation. Prior to an amendment of May 25, 1905, parliamentary elections were indirect. In the urban districts one elector was chosen for every fifty voters, and in the rural districts, one for every one hundred. Now, however, elections are direct. Each petty political unit having a munic.i.p.al government of its own comprises a voting precinct. If at the first ballot no candidate in the district receives a majority of all the votes cast, a second ballot is taken, when a simple plurality is decisive. A noteworthy feature of the system is the fact that voters who on account of illness, military service, or other valid reason, are unable to appear at the polls are permitted to transmit their votes in writing to the proper election officials.

[Footnote 815: At the election of 1909 the total number of parliamentary electors was 785,358. The number of votes recorded, however, was but 487,193.]

*642. Qualifications, Sessions, and Organization.*--No one may be (p. 583) chosen a member of the Storthing unless he or she is thirty years of age, a resident of the kingdom of ten years' standing, and a qualified voter in the election district in which he or she is chosen; but a former member of the Council of State, if otherwise qualified, may be elected to represent any district.[816] Under recent legislation every member of the Storthing receives a salary of three thousand kroner a year, in addition to travelling expenses. The Storthing meets in regular session annually, without regard to summons by the crown. The const.i.tution fixed originally as the date of convening the first week-day after October 10 of each year; but, May 28, 1907, the Storthing adopted an amendment whereby, beginning with 1908, the meeting time was changed to the first week-day after January 10. For sufficient reasons, an extraordinary session may be convoked by the king at any time. The length of sessions is indeterminate, except that an extraordinary session may be adjourned by the crown at will, and no session, extraordinary or regular, may be prolonged beyond two months without the king's consent. At its first regular session following a general election the Storthing divides itself into two chambers. A fourth of the membership is designated to const.i.tute the Lagthing, the remaining three-fourths comprise the Odelsthing; and the division thus effected holds until the succeeding election. Each chamber elects its own president, secretary, and other officers.

Sessions are public, and business may not be transacted unless at least two-thirds of the members are present.

[Footnote 816: Arts. 59-64. Dodd, Modern Const.i.tutions, II., 134-135.]

*643. Powers and Procedure of the Storthing.*--The powers of the Storthing, as enumerated in the const.i.tution, include the enactment and the repeal of laws; the levying of taxes, imposts, and duties; the appropriating and the borrowing of money; the regulating of the currency; the examining of treaties concluded with foreign powers; the inspection of the records of the Council of State; the making of provision for the auditing of the national accounts; and regulation of the naturalization of foreigners.[817] All bills are required to be presented first in the Odelsthing, by one of the members of the body, or by the Government, through a councillor of state. Only in the event that a measure pa.s.ses the Odelsthing is it presented at all in the Lagthing, for the sole function of the smaller chamber is to act as a check upon the larger one. The Lagthing may either approve or reject a bill which the Odelsthing submits, but may not amend it. A measure rejected is returned, with reasons for the rejection. Three courses are then open to the Odelsthing: to drop the measure, to submit it in amended form, or to resubmit it unchanged. When a bill from the (p. 584) Odelsthing has been twice presented to the Lagthing, and has been a second time rejected, the two chambers are convened in joint session, and in this consolidated body proposals are carried by a two-thirds vote. All questions pertaining to the revision of the const.i.tution are required to be voted upon in this manner.

[Footnote 817: Art. 75. Ibid., II., 136.]

*644. The Veto Power.*--A bill pa.s.sed by the Storthing is laid forthwith before the king. If he approves it, the measure becomes law. If he does not approve it, he returns it to the Odelsthing with a statement of his reasons for disapproval. A measure which has been vetoed may not again be submitted to the king by the same Storthing. The royal veto, however, is not absolute. "If," says the const.i.tution, "a measure has been pa.s.sed without change by three regular Storthings convened after three separate successive elections, and separated from each other by at least two intervening regular sessions, without any conflicting action having in the meantime been taken in any session between its first and last pa.s.sage, and is then presented to the king with the request that his majesty will not refuse his approval to a measure which the Storthing, after the most mature deliberation, considers beneficial, such measure shall become law even though the king fails to approve it...."[818] In the days of the Swedish union the precise conditions under which the royal veto might be exercised were the subject of interminable controversy. In respect to ordinary legislation the stipulations of the const.i.tution were plain enough, but in respect to measures which in essence comprised const.i.tutional amendments the silence of that instrument afforded room for wide differences of opinion. An especially notable conflict was that which took place in the early eighties respecting a proposal to admit the Norwegian ministers to the Storthing with the privilege of partic.i.p.ation in the deliberations of that body. The measure was pa.s.sed by overwhelming majorities by three Storthings after three successive general elections, and in accordance with the const.i.tution, under the Norwegian interpretation, it ought thereupon to have been recognized as law. The king, however, not only refused to approve the bill, but a.s.serted firmly that his right to exercise an absolute veto in const.i.tutional questions was "above all doubt"; and when the Storthing p.r.o.nounced the measure law without the royal sanction, both crown and Swedish ministry avowed that by them it would not be recognized as valid. In the end (in 1884) the Storthing won, but the issue was revived upon numerous occasions. Under the independent monarchy of 1905 there has been no difficulty of the sort; nor, in view of the eminently popular aspect of kingship in Norway to-day, (p. 585) is such difficulty likely to arise.

[Footnote 818: Art. 79. Dodd, Modern Const.i.tutions, II., 137-138.]

*645. Political Parties: Liberals and Conservatives.*--Prior to the accession of Oscar II., in 1872, the preponderating fact in the political development of the kingdom was the gradual growth of parliamentary power on the part of the representatives of the peasantry. Between 1814 and 1830 the business of the Storthing was conducted almost wholly by members of the upper and official cla.s.ses, but during the decade 1830-1840 the peasantry rose to the position of a highly influential cla.s.s in the public affairs of the nation. The first of the so-called "peasant Storthings" was that of 1833. In it the peasant representatives numbered forty-five, upwards of half of the body. Under the leadership of Ole Ueland, who was a member of every Storthing between 1833 and 1869, the peasant party made its paramount issue, as a rule, the reduction of taxation and the practice of economy in the national finances.

After 1870 the intensification of the Swedish-Norwegian question led to the drawing afresh of party lines, and until the separation of 1905, the new grouping continued fairly stable. By the amalgamation of the peasant party, led by Jaabaek, and the so-called "lawyers" party, led by Johan Sverdrup, there came into being in the seventies a great Liberal party (the Venstre, or Left) whose fundamental purpose was to safeguard the liberties of Norway as against Swedish aggression. Until 1884 this party of nationalism was obliged to content itself with the role of opposition. Governmental control was lodged as yet in the Conservatives, whose att.i.tude toward Sweden was distinctly conciliatory. In 1880 the Conservative leader, Frederick Stang, resigned the premiership, but his successor was another Conservative, Selmer. At the elections of 1882 the Liberals obtained no fewer than 82 of the 114 seats in the Storthing. Still the Conservatives refused to yield. In the meantime the Odelsthing had brought the entire ministry to impeachment before the Rigsret for having advised the king to interpose his veto to the measure giving ministers seats in Parliament. Early in 1883 Selmer and seven of his colleagues were sentenced to forfeiture of their offices, and the remaining three were fined. March 11, 1884, the king announced his purpose to abide by the decision of the court, distasteful to him as it was, and the Selmer cabinet was requested to resign. An attempt to prolong yet further the tenure of the Conservatives failed completely, and, June 23, 1884, the king sent for Sverdrup and authorized the formation of the first Liberal ministry in Norwegian history. The princ.i.p.al achievement of the new government was the final enactment of the long-contested (p. 586) measure according parliamentary seats to ministers. To this project the king at last gave his consent.

*646. The Ministerial Succession to 1905.*--The Sverdrup ministry endured almost exactly four years. In 1887 the party supporting it split upon a question of ecclesiastical policy, and at the elections of 1888 the Conservatives obtained fifty-one seats, while of the sixty-three Liberals returned not more than twenty-six were really in sympathy with Sverdrup. July 12, 1889, Sverdrup and his colleagues resigned. Then followed a rapid succession of ministries, practically every one of which met its fate, sooner or later, upon some question pertaining to the Swedish union: (1) that of Emil Stang[819]