[Sidenote: _The question of the Justification of the Norwegian
Revolution._]
Revolutions are not to be condemned under all conditions. History--even
the history of Sweden--records many revolutions, which are said to have
been a vital necessity. But a revolution can only be morally defended on
the grounds of its having been _the extreme means of protecting most
important interests_.
[Sidenote: _The Swedish »oppression»._]
In these days there have been numerous comparisons made between Norway's
breaking out of the Union, and Sweden's struggle for freedom from Denmark
in the middle ages. Sweden's way of using its power has been stamped as
an intolerable _oppression_. It can scarcely be necessary to give a more
powerful confutation to these very idle fancies, than simply to refer to
the fact that Norway's »struggle for freedom» has had for its object the
enormously important cause--their own consuls!
[Sidenote: _Sweden's loyalty in conducting the Foreign policy of the
Union._]
The dominating position of Sweden within the Union has consisted simply
in its administration of Foreign affairs of the Union; _in everything
else Norway has had an independent right of decision in full equality
with that of Sweden_. An Norway cannot complain that Sweden has conducted
the administration of Foreign policy in a manner that has been injurious
to the interests of Norway. This was emphatically conceded during the
hottest days of the Stadtholder conflict in 1861. It is remarkable that
in the present day, when the want to prove an antithesis in Norway, they
can never produce anything but the episode from the beginning of the
Union--the well known Bodö affair in 1819-1821--an episode concerning
which _Norwegian_ investigations of recent date, have served to place
Swedish Foreign administration in a far better light than what Norwegian
tradition had done. The advantage given to Norway by the Swedish
administration of Foreign affairs, is the inestimable gift of a 90 years'
uninterrupted peace, which has given the people of Norway an opportunity
of peacefully devoting themselves to the labour of material and
spiritual development. Sweden has furthermore especially tried to insure
interests so far that, in the direction of Foreign affairs, Norwegian
assistance has been employed as far as the regulations in the
organisation of the same would permit. It has already been mentioned that
Norwegian counsels have used their influence in the council for Foreign
affairs, that Norwegian influence on The Consular system has, for a long
time, been as near as possible equal to that of Sweden. It may also be
added, that Norwegians have always been appointed to posts in connection
with those offices under the Foreign Office. In the Foreign Office itself
Norwegians have always held office: even as Under Secretary of State--
the next in rank to the Minister for Foreign affairs--a Norwegian has
lately been in office. the posts at the Embassies at Foreign Courts, even
the most important, have to a great extent been held by Norwegians. Of
those Consuls sent abroad, by far the greater number are Norwegians.
Norway has herself given the best proof that the Swedish administration
of Foreign affairs has been conscientiously carried out to the interests
of Norway, by, time after time, refusing the Swedish offers to give
Norway greater influence in the settlement of Foreign affairs, offers,
which even if they did not accede to all Norway's demands, would, if
realised, have given Norway a far better position than it had previously
held.
[Sidenote: _Has Norway been denied its prerogative._]
But it has been said on the Norwegian side--and this has been brought
forward as the main point--Norway has been denied her prerogative, as a
»free and independent Kingdom». If by that, they mean that Norway has
been denied equality in the Union, it is _not true_.
Sweden's only condition, that Norway, as they say, should enjoy her
prerogative, has been, that this prerogative in its application should be
subordinate to the demands stipulated by the Union, demands which Sweden
on her side was quite prepared to submit to. That a right should be
maintained under the consciousness that it has its limits in necessary
obligatory respects, has been almost lost sight of by Norway. The chief
impetus of the Revolution has been a reckless desire on the part of the
Norwegians to be absolutly their own masters, that and nothing else.
Norway has bragged about her prerogatives without any feeling of
responsibility, like an unreasoning whimsical child. It must be
_declared_, both on historical and psychological grounds, that it can
never be politically _defended_. Norway must already have made the
discovery that the great era of universal politics, is entitled, if ever,
_to political action under a strict sense of responsibility_.
[Sidenote: _Faults on Sweden's side._]
By this it is by no means our intention to deny that Sweden herself is to
a certain extent to blame for things going as they have done. Looking
back over the Union Policy of Sweden, it must, in the first place, be
noticeable that there has been, to a certain extent, a lack of firmness
and authority. And it cannot either be denied that there have been
mistakes that have unnecessarily roused opposition. For instance, in the
so-called Stadtholder question, in the sixties, Sweden's policy was
undoubtedly too harsh. But whatever faults may be laid at the door of the
Union Policy of Sweden, when the Swedish nation in these days tries to
make a searching self examination, opinions are not little likely to be
unanimous because Sweden has been _too conciliatory_ towards Norways'
demands.
[Sidenote: _Swedish opinion._]
It is said that a foreigner recently travelling in the Scandinavian
countries made the observation that Swedes always spoke kindly of the
Norwegians, and the Norwegians always spoke ill of the Swedes. The
observation doubtless contains a good deal of truth. It is, at least,
true that Swedish public opinion, at large, has been distinguished by
kindliness both to Norway and its people, and that every honest effort to
smooth discussions has had the sympathy of an overwhelming majority of
the people of Sweden. Swedes have been very unwilling to listen to the
prophets of evil who have pointed to the deficiencies and deformities of
Norwegian policy, and prognosticated trouble. It is just on that account
that indignation from one end of Sweden to the other is so much the more
intense when the veil is so rudely torn aside, and Norwegian politics are
shown in their true light, such as they are and--have been. The
revolutionary act of Norway has like a flash of lightning illuminated the
past background of Norwegian politics, and exhibited to the people of
Sweden all the unreasonableness, the craftiness and dishonesty which
Sweden has had to put up with from Norway during the past decennials.
In this way, the memories of the history of the Union of the latest
periods are revived with indignation among the people of Sweden. If the
indignation is at times expressed in unnecessarily strong and ill-chosen
terms, Norway has in truth no manner of right to complain.