and to the advanced character of the governmental system established,
is the fact that the text of the Belgian fundamental law endured
through more than half a century absolutely unchanged, and, further,
that when in our own generation the task of amendment was undertaken
not even the most ardent revisionists cared to insist upon more than
the overhauling of the arrangements respecting the franchise. Leopold
I.(1831-1865), and Leopold II. after him (1865-1909), frankly
recognized the conditional basis of the royal tenure and, although
conspicuously active in the management of public affairs, afforded (p. 535)
by their conduct slight occasion for popular criticism or disaffection.
Even the revolutionary year 1848 passed without producing in Belgium
more than a mere ripple of unrest. In 1893 the constitution was
amended to provide for universal male suffrage, and in 1899 a further
amendment instituted a system of proportional representation.
Otherwise, the instrument stands to-day virtually as it was put into
operation in 1831. It need hardly be remarked that, in Belgium as
elsewhere, the written constitution does not by any means contain the
whole of the actually operative political system. Numerous aspects of
parliamentarism, and of other well-established governmental forms and
practices, depend for their sanction upon the conventions, rather than
upon the law, of the constitution; but they are none the less real and
enduring.
*589. Content and Amendment.*--The written constitution of Belgium, like
that of Holland, is comprehensive in scope. It comprises an extended
bill of rights; a detailed definition of the framework of the national
executive, legislative, and judicial departments; special provisions
relating to finance and the army; and an enumeration of the principles
underlying the provincial and communal administration. It contains a
total of 139 articles, of which eight, being temporary in character,
are inoperative. The process of amendment is identical with that which
prevails in Holland. Upon declaration by the legislative chambers to
the effect that a specified amendment is desirable, the chambers are
_ipso facto_ dissolved. If the chambers thereupon elected approve the
proposition by a two-thirds vote, and the sovereign accords it his
sanction, it is declared adopted.[746]
[Footnote 746: Art. 131. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 146. The text of the
constitution of Belgium, in English translation, is
printed in Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 126-148,
and in the _Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science_, May, 1896,
Supplement (translation by J. M. Vincent). French
texts of the constitution and of important laws
will be found in F. Larcier, Code politique et
administratif de la Belgique (2d ed., Brussels,
1893). The standard commentary is J. J. Thonissen,
La constitution belge (3d ed., Brussels, 1879).
Works of value relating to the amendments of
1893-1894 are C. Thiebault et A. Henry, Commentaire
législatif des articles révisés de la constitution
belge (Brussels, 1894), and Beltjens, La
constitution belge révisée (Liège, 1895). The best
treatises on the Belgian constitutional system are
P. Errera, Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Belgien
(Tübingen, 1909), and Traité de droit public belge:
droit constitutionnel, droit administratif (Paris,
1908), and O. Orban, Le droit constitutionnel de la
Belgique, 3 vols. (Liège, 1906-1911). An older but
excellent work is A. Giron, La droit public de la
Belgique (Brussels, 1884). A convenient elementary
book on the subject is F. Masson et C. Wiliquet,
Manuel de droit constitutionnel (7th ed., Brussels,
1904). A useful volume is E. Flandin, Institutions
politiques de l'Europe contemporaine (2d ed.,
Paris, 1907), I.]
*590. The Crown.*--Kingship in Belgium is hereditary in the (p. 536)
direct male line in the order of primogeniture. In default of male
descendants, the king, with the consent of the legislative chambers,
may name his successor.[747] A king or heir to the throne attains his
majority at the age of eighteen. In the event of a minority, or of the
incapacity of the sovereign, the two houses are required to meet in a
single assembly for the purpose of making provision for a regency. The
powers of regent may not be conferred upon two or more persons
jointly, and during the continuance of a regency no changes may be
made in the constitution.[748] If by chance the throne should fall
wholly vacant, the choice of a sovereign would devolve upon the
legislative chambers, specially re-elected for the purpose, and
deliberating in joint session. The civil list of the crown is fixed at
the beginning of a reign. That of Leopold II., as established by law
of December 25, 1865, was 3,300,000 francs, and that of the present
sovereign, Albert I., is the same.
[Footnote 747: This privilege was conferred by an
amendment (Art. 61) adopted September 7, 1893.]
[Footnote 748: Arts. 60, 79-85. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 136, 138-139.]
*591. The Ministers and the Parliamentary System.*--The Council of
Ministers consists of ten heads of executive departments. These,
together with a variable number of ministers without portfolio,
comprise the Council of State, an advisory body convened by the crown
as occasion requires. All ministers are appointed, directly or
indirectly, and all may be dismissed, by the king. All must be Belgian
citizens, and no member of the royal family may be tendered an
appointment. Ministers are all but invariably members of one or the
other of the legislative houses, principally of the House of
Representatives.[749] Whether members or not, they are privileged to
attend all sessions and to be heard at their own request. The houses,
indeed, possess the right to demand their attendance. But no minister
may vote, save in a house of which he is a member.[750]
[Footnote 749: The minister of war, regularly an
active military official, has been usually not a
legislative member. Aside from this one post,
however, the custom of selecting ministers
exclusively from the chambers has been followed
almost as rigorously in Belgium as in Great
Britain. And so largely are the ministers taken
from the lower house that the Senate not
infrequently has no representative at all in the
cabinet.]
[Footnote 750: Arts. 86-91. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 139-140.]
Belgium is one of the few continental states in which the parliamentary
system is thoroughly operative. At no point is the constitution more
explicit than in its stipulation of the responsibility of ministers.
Not only is it declared that the king's ministers are responsible; it
is stipulated that "no decree of the king shall take effect unless it
is countersigned by a minister, who, by that act alone, renders himself
responsible for it"; also that "in no case shall the verbal or (p. 537)
written order of the king relieve a minister of responsibility."[751]
The House of Representatives is vested with the right to accuse
ministers and to arraign them before the Court of Cassation; and the
king may not pardon a minister who has been sentenced by this
tribunal, save upon request of one of the two legislative chambers. A
ministry which finds that it cannot command the support of a majority
in the House of Representatives has the right to determine upon the
dissolution of either of the houses, or of both. If after a general
election there is still lack of harmony, the ministry, as would be the
procedure in a similar situation in Great Britain, retires from
office, the sovereign calls upon an opposition party leader to assume
the premiership and to form a cabinet, and the remainder of the
ministers are selected from the dominant parties by this official, in
consultation with the king. By reason of the multiplicity of party
groups in Belgium, the king is apt to be allowed somewhat wider
latitude in the choice of a premier than is possible in Great
Britain.[752]
[Footnote 751: Arts. 63-64, 89. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 137, 140.]
[Footnote 752: Dupriez, Les Ministres, I., 210-230;
O. Kerchove de Denterghem, De la responsabilité des
ministres dans le droit public belge (Paris,
1867).]
*592. The Exercise of Executive Powers.*--The powers of the executive,
exercised nominally by the king, but actually by the ministry, are
closely defined in the constitution; and there is the stipulation,
unusual in European constitutions, that the king shall possess no
powers other than those which the constitution, and the special laws
enacted under the constitution, confer explicitly upon him.[753] Under
the conditions that have been explained, the king appoints all
officials who are attached to the general administrative and foreign
services, but other officials only in so far as is expressly
authorized by law. He commands the forces by land and sea, declares
war, and concludes peace. He negotiates treaties, with the limitation
that treaties of commerce and treaties which impose a burden upon the
state, or place under obligation individual Belgian citizens, take
effect only after receiving the approval of the two houses; and with
the further condition that no cession, exchange, or acquisition of
territory may be carried through save by warrant of a law. The king
promulgates all legislative measures, and he is authorized to issue
all regulations and decrees necessary for the execution of the laws.
In theory he possesses the power of the veto, but in the Belgian, as
in parliamentary governments generally, there is no occasion for the
actual exercise of this power. The king convokes, prorogues, and
dissolves the chambers; though the provisions of the constitution (p. 538)
relating to the legislative sessions are so explicit that the crown is
left small discretion in the matter. The king, finally, is authorized
to remit or to reduce the penalties imposed by the tribunals of
justice, to coin money, to confer titles of nobility (which must be
purely honorary), and to bestow military orders in accordance with
provisions of law.[754]
[Footnote 753: Art. 78. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 138.]
[Footnote 754: Arts. 66-67. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 137-138.]
II. THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT--THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM
*593. The Senate.*--The Belgian parliament consists of two houses, both
elective and both representative of the nation as a whole. The upper
house, or Senate, is composed of 112 members, chosen for a term of
eight years. With respect to the method of their election, the members
fall into two categories. Under constitutional provision, as amended
by law of September 7, 1893, a number of senators equal to one-half
the number of members of the House of Representatives is elected
directly by the voters, in proportion to the population of the several
provinces. The electorate which returns these senators is identical
with that which returns the deputies, and by law of December 29, 1899,
the principle of proportional representation, as applied in elections
of the lower chamber, is applied to senatorial elections within each
province. A second group of members consists of those elected by the
provincial councils, to the number of two for each province having
fewer than 500,000 inhabitants, of three for each province having from
500,000 to 1,000,000 inhabitants, and of four for each province having
more than 1,000,000 inhabitants. The proportion of senators elected
directly by the people is approximately three-fourths, being at
present 76 to 26. Prior to the amendment of 1893 all members of the
Senate were chosen by the same electorate which chose the members of
the lower chamber. Inasmuch as only payers of direct taxes to the
amount of 2,000 francs a year were eligible as senators, the upper
house represented almost exclusively the interests of wealth. By
vesting in the provincial councils the choice of a portion of the
senators, who should be eligible regardless of taxpaying
qualifications, it was hoped to impart to the Senate a more broadly
representative character. At the same time the tax qualification for
popularly elected members was reduced by a third. It may be noted that
there is a possibility of a small non-elective element in the Senate.
According to the terms of the constitution, the sons of the king, or
if there be none, the Belgian princes of the branch of the royal
family designated to succeed to the throne, shall be by right senators
at the age of eighteen, though without deliberative vote until the (p. 539)
age of twenty-five.[755] Prior to his accession to the throne, in
1909, the present sovereign Albert I., nephew and heir-presumptive of
Leopold II., was entitled to a senatorial seat. There is at present no
representative of royalty who is eligible.
[Footnote 755: Art. 58. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 135.]
All elective senators must be Belgian citizens and Belgian residents,
at least forty years of age, and in the unrestricted enjoyment of
civil and political rights. Senators elected by the provincial
councils are subject to no property qualifications,[756] but those
elected directly by the people must be drawn from either payers of as
much as 1,200 francs of direct national taxes or proprietors or
lessees of Belgian real estate of an assessed income of at least
12,000 francs. In provinces, however, where the number of eligible
persons falls short of the proportion of one for every 5,000
inhabitants, the list is completed by the addition of such a number of
the heaviest taxpayers of the province as may be necessary to
establish this proportion.[757] Save passes on the national railways,
senators receive no salary or other emolument.
[Footnote 756: They may not be, and may not have
been within two years preceding their election,
members of the assembly which returns them.]
[Footnote 757: Art. 56. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 135.]
*594. The House of Representatives: Earlier Electoral
Arrangements.*--The lower legislative chamber consists of deputies
elected directly by the voters of the kingdom. The number of seats is
determined by law, under the general provision that it may not exceed
the proportion of one for 40,000 inhabitants. Prior to 1899 it was
152; to-day it is 186. The term is four years. Half of the membership
retires every two years, though in the event of a dissolution the
house is entirely renewed.[758] The qualifications which the
constitution requires of deputies are those of citizenship, residence
in Belgium, attainment of the age of twenty-five, and possession of
civil and political rights. Deputies receive an honorarium of 4,000
francs a year, together with free transportation upon all State and
concessionary railways between the places of their respective
residences and Brussels, or any other city in which a session may be
held.
[Footnote 758: This is true also of the Senate.]
The Belgian electoral system at the present day is noteworthy by
reason of three facts: (1) it is based upon the principle of universal
manhood suffrage; (2) it embraces a scheme of plural voting; and (3)
it provides for the proportional representation of parties. Under the
original constitution of 1831 the franchise, while not illiberal for
the time, was restricted by property qualifications of a somewhat
sweeping character. Deputies were elected by those citizens only who
paid yearly a direct tax varying in amount, but in no instance of less
than twenty florins. In 1848 there was enacted a series of (p. 540)
electoral laws whereby the property qualification was reduced to a
uniform level of twenty florins and the number of voters was virtually
doubled. With this arrangement the Liberals were by no means
satisfied, and agitation in behalf of a broader electorate was
steadily maintained. As early as 1865 the Liberal demands were
actively re-enforced by those of organizations of workingmen, and in
1870 the Catholic ministry found itself obliged to sanction a
considerable extension of the franchise in elections within the
provinces and the communes. After 1880 the brunt of the electoral
propaganda was borne by the Socialists, and the campaign for
constitutional revision was directed almost solely against the 47th
article of the fundamental law, in which was contained the original
stipulation respecting the franchise. Since 1830 the population of
Belgium had all but doubled, and there had been in the country an
enormous increase of popular intelligence and of economic prosperity.
That in a population of 6,000,000 (in 1890) there should be an
electorate of but 135,000 was a sufficiently obvious anomaly. The
broadly democratic system by which members of the French Chamber of
Deputies and of the German Reichstag were elected was proclaimed by
the revisionists to be the ideal which it was hoped to realize in
Belgium.
*595. The Electoral Reform Act of 1893.*--In 1890 the Catholic ministry,
recognizing in part the justice of the demand, and preferring, if
there were to be revision, to carry it through, rather than to incur
the risk of having it carried through by a radical cabinet, yielded to
the pressure and consented to the formal consideration of the
electoral question upon the floors of the two chambers. Three years of
intermittent, but animated, discussion ensued. At length, in May,
1892, the chambers were able to agree upon the primary proposition
that some sort of revision was necessary. Then came the dissolution
which is required by the constitution in such a case, followed by a
general election. The newly chosen chambers, which for the purpose in
hand comprised virtually a constituent convention, entered upon their
task later in the same year. In both the Catholics maintained a
majority, but by reason of the requirement of a two-thirds vote for
the adoption of a constitutional amendment, they were none the less
obliged to rely upon the Liberals for a certain amount of support. In
the scheme of revision which was finally adopted all parties had some
substantial share.
No fewer than fourteen distinct programmes of reform were laid before
the chambers.[759] The Conservatives, in general, desired the
introduction of a system based upon occupation combined with the (p. 541)
payment of taxes; the majority of the Liberals sought to secure
special recognition for electors of approved capacity--in brief, an
educational qualification; the Radicals inside, and the Socialists
outside, Parliament carried on a relentless propaganda in behalf of
universal, direct, and equal suffrage. The rejection in committee
(April, 1893) of a plan of universal suffrage occasioned popular
demonstrations which required the calling out of the military, and
when it was proposed to stop with a reduction of the age limit for
voters there were threats of a universal industrial strike. In the end
all elements wisely receded from their extreme demands and it was
found possible to effect agreement upon a compromise. A Catholic
deputy--Albert Nyssens, professor at the University of Louvain--came
forward with a scheme for manhood suffrage, safeguarded by the plural
vote, and September 3, 1893, the plan was adopted.[760]
[Footnote 759: It will be remembered that for the
purpose of considering constitutional amendments
the chambers meet in joint session.]
[Footnote 760: The Nyssens scheme was brought to
the attention of the Belgian people through the
medium of a pamphlet entitled "Le suffrage
universel tempéré."]
*596. The Franchise To-day.*--By the terms of the law of 1893, one vote
is allotted to every male Belgian citizen who has attained the age of
twenty-five years, who is in unrestricted enjoyment of his civil and
political rights, and who has been resident at least one year in a
given commune. There is nothing whatsoever in the nature of either an
educational or a property qualification. Having conferred, however,
upon the mass of male citizens the right to vote, the law proceeds to
define the conditions under which a citizen may be entitled to two
votes, or even three. One supplementary vote is conferred upon (1)
every male citizen over thirty-five years of age, married or a
widower, with legitimate offspring, and paying to the state as a
householder a tax of not less than five francs, unless exempt by
reason of his profession, and (2) every male citizen over twenty-five
years of age owning real estate to the assessed value of 2,000 francs,
or possessing income from land corresponding to such valuation, or who
for two years has derived a minimum interest return of one hundred
francs a year from Belgian funds, in the form of either government
bonds or obligations of the Belgian government savings-bank. Two
supplementary votes are conferred upon citizens over twenty-five years
of age who (1) hold a diploma from an institution of higher learning,
or an indorsed certificate testifying to the completion of a course of
secondary education of the higher grade; or (2) occupy or have
occupied a public office, hold or have held a position, practice or
have practiced a profession, which presupposes the knowledge imparted
in secondary instruction of the higher grade--such offices, (p. 542)
positions, and professions to be defined from time to time by law.[761]
[Footnote 761: Art. 47. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 132-133.]
What, therefore, the law of 1893 does is, broadly, to confer upon
every male citizen one vote and to specify three principal conditions
under which this basal voting power may be augmented. As the head of a
family, the citizen's suffrage may be doubled. By reason of his
possession of property or of capital, it likewise may be doubled. On
the basis of a not unattainable educational qualification, it may be
tripled. Under no circumstances may an individual be entitled to more
than three votes. The plural vote of Belgium differs, therefore, from
that of Great Britain, not only in that it is based upon a variety of
qualifications of which property ownership is but one, but also in
that there is fixed an absolute and reasonably low maximum of votes.
It is of interest further to observe that voting is declared by the
Belgian constitution to be obligatory. Failure to appear at the polls,
without adequate excuse made to the election officer, is a
misdemeanor, punishable by law. The citizen may, if he likes, evade
the law by depositing a blank ballot. But he must deposit a ballot of
some sort.[762]
[Footnote 762: On the earlier aspects of Belgian
electoral reform see J. Van den Heuvel, De la
révision de la constitution (Brussels, 1892); L.
Arnaud, La révision belge, 1890-1893 (Paris and
Brussels, 1894); La réforme électorale en Belgique,
in _Annales de l'École Libre des Sciences
Politiques_, July, 1894; E. Van der Smissen, L'État
actuel des partis politiques en Belgique, ibid.,
Sept., 1898. An important work by a leading
socialist and a deputy from Brussels is L.
Bertrand, Histoire de la démocratie et du
socialisme en Belgique depuis 1830, 2 vols.
(Brussels and Paris, 1906-1907). Mention may be
made also of E. Vandervelde et J. Destree, Le
socialisme en Belgique (2d ed., Paris, 1903) and
the older work of E. de Laveleye, Le parti clérical
en Belgique (Brussels, 1874). A careful study is J.
Barthélemy, L'organisation du suffrage et
l'expérience belge (Paris, 1912). In 1910-1911 the
number of parliamentary electors was 1,697,619, of
whom 993,070 had one vote, 395,866 had two votes,
and 308,683 had three votes.]
III. PARTIES AND ELECTORAL REFORM SINCE 1894--PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
*597. The Adoption of Proportional Representation, 1899.*--The first
election held under the law of 1893, that of October 14, 1894,
demonstrated that by that measure the number of electors had been
multiplied almost exactly by ten. The total number of voters was now
1,370,000; the number of votes cast was 2,111,000. Contrary to general
expectation, the election gave the Catholics an overwhelming majority
in the lower chamber. They obtained 105 seats, the Socialists 29, and
the Liberals only 18. The elections of 1896 and 1898 gave the (p. 543)
Catholics a still more pronounced preponderance. At the beginning
of 1899 the parties of the opposition could muster in the lower house
only forty votes and in the upper only thirty-one. The Liberal party
was threatened with extinction. Its popular strength, however, was
still considerable, and from both Liberals and Socialists there arose
an insistent demand for the adoption of a scheme whereby the various
parties should be accorded seats in the law-making bodies in
proportion to their popular vote.
The idea of proportional representation was not at this time in
Belgium a new one. It had been formulated and defended in the lower
chamber as early as 1866. Since 1881 there had been maintained a
national reform organization whose purpose was in part to propagate
it; and it is worthy of note that at the time of the revision of 1893
the ministry, led by the premier Beernaert, had advocated its
adoption.[763] In 1895 the principle was introduced in a statute
relating to communal elections. Following a prolonged contest, which
involved the retirement of two premiers, a bill extending the plan to
parliamentary elections was pressed upon the somewhat divided Catholic
forces and, December 29, 1899, was enacted into law. Under the
provisions of this measure deputies and the popularly elected senators
continue to be chosen within the arrondissement by _scrutin de liste_.
Within each arrondissement the seats to be filled are distributed
among the parties in proportion to the party strength as revealed at
the polls, the allotment taking place in accordance with the list
system formulated by Victor d'Hondt, of the University of Ghent. The
number of deputies elected in an arrondissement varies from three to
twenty-one. When an elector appears at the polls he presents his
official "summons" to vote and receives from the presiding officer
one, two, or three ballot papers according to the number of votes to
which he is entitled. He takes these papers to a private compartment,
marks them, places them in the ballot-box, and has returned to him his
letter of summons stamped in such a way as to show that he has
fulfilled the obligation imposed upon him by law. The candidates of
the various parties are presented in lists, and the task of the
elector is merely to indicate his approval of one list for each of the
votes to which he is entitled. This he does by pencilling white spots
contained in the black squares at the head of the lists or against the
names of individual candidates. He may pencil only the spot at the (p. 544)
head of a list, thereby approving the order in which the candidates
have been arranged by the party managers; or, by marking spaces
opposite names of candidates, he may indicate his preference for a
different order.
[Footnote 763: Another interesting proposal in 1893
was that at the discretion of the crown a
legislative measure might be submitted to direct
popular vote. By reason of the fear that such a
scheme would vest in the crown an excess of power
the experiment was not tried.]
*598. How Seats Are Allotted.*--The process of the apportionment of
seats may be illustrated by a hypothetical case. Let it be assumed
that within a given arrondissement four lists of parliamentary
candidates have been presented and that at the polls an aggregate vote
of 33,000 is distributed as follows: Catholics, 16,000; Liberals,
9,000; Socialists, 4,500; and Christian Democrats, 3,500. Let it be
assumed, further, that the arrondissement is entitled to eight seats.
The total number of votes for each list is divided successively by the
numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, etc., and the results are arrayed thus:
_Christian_
_Catholic_ _Liberal_ _Socialist_ _Democrat_
_List_[764] _List_ _List_ _List_
Divided by 1 16,000 9,000 4,500 3,500
Divided by 2 8,000 4,500 2,250 1,750
Divided by 3 5,333 3,000 1,500 1,166
Divided by 4 4,000 2,250 1,125 875
Divided by 5 3,200 1,800 900 700
[Footnote 764: In point of fact, the lists as
published and as placed before the voter are
indicated merely by number.]
The eight highest numbers (eight being the number of seats to be
filled) are then arranged in order of magnitude as follows:
16,000
9,000
8,000
5,333
4,500
4,500
4,000
3,500
The lowest of these numbers, 3,500, becomes the common divisor, or the
"electoral quotient." The number of votes cast for each list is
divided by this quotient, and the resulting numbers (fractions being
disregarded) indicate the quota of seats to which each of the parties
is entitled. In the case in hand the results would be:
16,000 divided by 3,500 = 4 Catholic seats
9,000 divided by 3,500 = 2 Liberal seats
4,500 divided by 3,500 = 1 Socialist seat
3,500 divided by 3,500 = 1 Christian Democrat seat
*599. The Making up of the Lists.*--Lists of candidates are made (p. 545)
up, and the order in which the names of candidates appear is
determined, by the local organizations of the respective parties. In
order to be presented to the electorate a list must have the
previously expressed support of at least one hundred electors. A
candidate may stand as an independent, and his name will appear in a
separate "list," providing his candidacy meets the condition that has
been mentioned; and it is within the right of any organization or
group, political or non-political, to place before the electorate a
list. The power of the organization responsible for the presentation
of a list to fix the order of candidates' names is not a necessary
feature of the proportional system and it has been the object of much
criticism, but it is not clear that serious abuse has arisen from it.
Candidates whose names stand near the top of the list are, of course,
more likely to be elected than those whose names appear further down,
for, under the prevailing rules, all votes indicated in the space at
the head of a list form a pool from which the candidates on the list
draw in succession as many votes as may be necessary to make their
individual total equal to the electoral quotient, the process
continuing until the pool is exhausted. Only by receiving a large
number of individual preferential votes can a candidate be elected to
the exclusion of a candidate whose name precedes his.[765]
[Footnote 765: Valuable books dealing with
proportional representation in Belgium are G.
Lachapelle, La représentation proportionnelle en
France et en Belgique (Paris, 1911); F. Goblet
d'Alviella, La représentation proportionelle en
Belgique, and La représentation proportionelle
intégrale (Paris, 1910); Barriéty, La
représentation proportionelle en Belgique (Paris,
1906); Dubois, La représentation proportionelle
soumise à l'expérience belge (Lille, 1906); and J.
Humphreys, Proportional Representation (London,
1911). A careful account is contained in the Report
and Evidence of the British Royal Commission on
Electoral Systems (1910), Report, Cd. 5,163;
Evidence, Cd. 5,352. Useful articles are: E.
Mahaim, Proportional Representation and the Debates
upon the Electoral Question in Belgium, in _Annals
of American Academy of Political and Social
Science_, May, 1900; E. Van der Smissen, La
représentation proportionnelle en Belgique et les
élections générales de mai 1900, in _Annales des
Sciences Politiques_, July-Sept., 1900; and J.
Humphreys, Proportional Representation in Belgium,
in _Contemporary Review_, Oct., 1908.]
*600. The Elections of 1906, 1908, and 1910.*--The first parliamentary
election following the adoption of the proportional system--that of
May, 1900--left the Catholics with a larger preponderance in the lower
chamber than they had dared expect.[766] None the less, the effect of
the change was distinctly to revive the all but defunct Liberal party,
to stimulate enormously the aspirations of the Socialists, and, in (p. 546)
general, to replace the crushing Catholic plurality of former years by
a wide distribution of seats among representatives of the various
parties and groups. Prior to the election of 1890 the Catholic
majority was 32. The election of 1900 left it at 16; that of 1902, at
26; that of 1904, at 20; that of 1906, at 12; that of 1908, at 8; and
that of 1910, at 6. Following the elections which took place in five
of the nine provinces in 1906, party strength in the Chamber was as
follows: Catholics, 89; Liberals, 46; Socialists, 30; Christian
Democrats, 1. After the elections in the other four provinces in 1908,
it was: Catholics, 87; Liberals, 43; Socialists, 35; Christian
Democrats, 1.
[Footnote 766: It will be recalled that the term of
deputies is four years, half retiring every two
years. There is, therefore, a parliamentary
election, but not throughout the entire country,
every second year.]
The elections of May, 1910,[767] were contested with unusual keenness
by reason of the fact that the Liberal-Socialist coalition seemed to
have, for the first time in a quarter of a century, a distinct chance
for victory. The Catholics were notoriously divided upon certain
public issues, notably Premier Schollaert's Compulsory Military
Service bill, and it was believed in many quarters that their tenure
of power was near an end. The Liberal hope, however, was doomed to
disappointment; for, although both Liberals and Socialists realized
considerable gains in the popular vote in some portions of the
kingdom, in only a single constituency was the gain sufficient to
carry a new seat. The consequence was that the Catholic majority was
reduced, but not below six, and party strength in the Chamber stood:
Catholics, 86; Liberals, 45; Socialists, 34; Christian Democrats, 1.
Among reasons that may be assigned for the Liberal failure are the
fact that the country was prosperous and not disposed to precipitate a
change of governments, the alienation of some voters by the working
relations that had been established between the Liberals and the
Socialists, and the advantage that regularly accrues to the Catholics
from the plural vote.
[Footnote 767: In the five provinces of Brabant,
Anvers, Namur, West Flanders, and Luxemburg, the
term of whose deputies was about to expire.]
*601. The Catholic Triumph in 1912.*--During the years 1910-1912 the
Catholic tenure of power, prolonged uninterruptedly since 1884, seemed
more than once on the point of being broken. Most of the time,
however, the legislative machine performed its functions sufficiently
well with a majority of but half a dozen seats, and the drift of
affairs operated eventually to strengthen the Catholic position. In
March, 1911, Premier Schollaert introduced an education bill looking
toward the placing of church schools upon a footing financially with
the schools maintained by the communes, and the opposition to this
measure acquired such intensity that the author of the bill was forced
to retire. But his successor, De Broqueville, a man of conciliatory
temperament, formed a new Catholic cabinet which, by falling back (p. 547)
upon a policy of "marking time," contrived to stave off a genuine
defeat. In the municipal elections held throughout the country October
15, 1911, the Liberal-Socialist candidates were very generally
successful, but the parliamentary elections which took place June 2,
1912, had the unexpected result of entrenching the Catholic party more
securely in power than in upwards of a decade. The combined assault of
the Liberals and the Socialists upon "clericalism" fell flat, and
against the Government's contention that the extraordinary and
incontestable prosperity of the country merited a continuance of
Catholic rule no arguments were forthcoming which carried conviction
among the voters. The Catholic vote showed an increase of 130,610, the
Liberal and Socialist opposition an increase of 40,402, and the
Christian Democrats a decrease of 4,692. The new chamber consists of
101 Catholics, 45 Liberals, 38 Socialists, and 2 Christian Democrats,
giving the Government a clear majority of sixteen. The elections were
marked by grave public unrest, involving widespread strikes and
anti-clerical demonstrations, with some loss of life. More clearly
than before was exhibited in this campaign the essentially bourgeois
and doctrinaire character of the present Liberal party. The intimate
touch with the masses which in the days of its ascendancy, prior to
1884, the party enjoyed has been lost, and more and more the
proletariat is looking to the Socialists for propagation of the
measures required for social and industrial amelioration.
*602. The Demand for Further Reform.*--A project upon which the
Socialists and Liberals in the last election, as upon several former
occasions, have found it possible to unite is the abolition of the
plural vote. Almost immediately after the adoption of the amendment of
1893 the Socialists declared their purpose to wage war unremittingly
upon this feature of the new system. In its stead they demanded that
there be substituted the rule of _un homme, un vote_, "one man, one
vote," with the age limit reduced to twenty-one years. Following the
triumph of the Catholics in 1900, the agitation of the Socialists was
redoubled, and in it the Liberals very generally joined. Between the
two groups there arose seemingly irreconcilable differences of method,
the Liberals being unable to approve the obstructionism and other
violent means employed by their allies. In time, however, the
Socialist methods became more moderate, and the realization on the
part of both elements that only by fighting together might they hope
to win induced a fuller and more durable co-operation between the two.
For the time being the Socialists have subordinated to the establishment
of universal and equal suffrage all other features of their political and
industrial programme.[768] Upon the desirability of maintaining (p. 548)
proportional representation all parties are agreed, and it is probably
but a question of time until the principle will be applied fully, as
it is not to-day, in the elections of the provinces and communes.
[Footnote 768: August 15, 1911, Socialists and
Liberals combined in an anti-plural-vote
demonstration in Brussels in which 150,000 people
are estimated to have taken part. For an able
defense of plural voting under the system
prevailing in Belgium see L. Dupriez,
L'Organisation du suffrage universel en Belgique.
Cf. E. Van der Smissen, La question du suffrage
universel en Belgique, in _Annales des Sciences
Politiques_, Sept., 1902. On recent aspects of
Belgian politics consult L. Dupriez, L'évolution
des partis politiques en Belgique et les élections
de mai 1906, ibid., Sept., 1906; A. Kahn, Les
élections belges, in _Questions Diplomatiques et
Coloniales_, June 16, 1910; and J. Van den Heuvel,
Les élections belges, in _Le Correspondant_, June
25, 1912. J. H. Humphreys, Proportional
Representation in Belgium, in _Contemporary
Review_, Oct., 1908, contains a concrete account of
the elections of 1908. A useful volume is A.
Fromes, Code électoral belge (Brussels, 1908).]
*603. The Legislative Chambers: Organization and Procedure.*--The two
houses meet by established right on the second Tuesday in November of
each year, at the Palais de la Nation, in Brussels. A regular session
must continue through a period of at least forty days. The king may
convene the chambers in extraordinary session. He may adjourn them,
save that in no case may an adjournment exceed the term of one month;
nor may it be renewed during the same session, without the consent of
the houses. Finally, the king may dissolve the chambers, or either of
them; but the act of dissolution must include an order for an election
within forty days and a summons of the newly elected parliament to
meet within two months.[769]
[Footnote 769: Arts. 70-72. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 137.]
Each house judges the qualifications of its members and decides all
contests arising in relation thereto; each elects, at the opening of a
session, its president, vice-president, secretaries, and other
officials; each determines by its own rules the manner in which its
powers shall be exercised. Sessions are normally public; but by vote
of an absolute majority, taken at the instigation of the president or
of ten members, either body may decide to consider a specific subject
behind closed doors. Votes are taken _viva voce_ or by rising, but a
vote on a bill as a whole must always be by roll call and _viva voce_.
Except on propositions pertaining to constitutional amendments and a
few matters (upon which a two-thirds vote is required), measures are
passed by absolute majority. They must, however, be voted upon article
by article.
From the essentially democratic character of the Belgian government,
it follows that the powers of the legislative chambers are comprehensive.
The functions of legislation are vested by the constitution conjointly
in the king and the two houses, but in practice they are exercised (p. 549)
in a very large measure by the houses alone. Each house, as well as
the crown, possesses full rights of legislative initiative, though it
is required that all laws relating to the revenues or expenditures of
the state, or to military contingents, shall be voted first by the
House of Representatives. Authoritative interpretation of measures
enacted is confided exclusively to the legislative power, and each
house is guaranteed the right to inquire into the conduct of public
affairs and to compel the attendance of ministers for the purpose of
interpellation, although the lower house alone is given power to
formulate charges against public officials and to arraign them before
the Court of Cassation.
IV. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
*604. The Courts.*--Aside from special military, commercial, and labor
tribunals, the courts of Belgium comprise a symmetrical hierarchy
modelled upon that created under the Code Napoléon. At the bottom are
the courts of the 222 cantons, each consisting of a single justice of
the peace, vested in ordinary breaches of police regulations with sole
authority, though in more serious cases associated with the
burgomaster of the commune. Next above are the tribunals of first
instance, one in each of the twenty-six arrondissements into which the
kingdom is divided, and each consisting of three judges. The court of
first instance serves as a court of appeal from the decisions of the
cantonal tribunal, and at the same time it possesses original
jurisdiction in more serious cases of crime and misdemeanors within
the arrondissement. Above the courts of first instance stand the three
courts of appeal, sitting at Brussels, Ghent, and Liège. That at
Brussels consists of four chambers. At the apex is the Court of
Cassation, sitting at the capital. In this supreme tribunal there is
but a single judge, but associated with him is a large staff of
assistants. The function of the Court of Cassation is to determine
whether the decisions of inferior tribunals are in accord with the law
and to annul such as are not. It is of interest to observe, however,
that it is the Court of Cassation that tries a minister upon charges
preferred by the House of Representatives, and this is the only
circumstance under which the tribunal exercises any measure of
original jurisdiction. The creation of the Court of Cassation and of
the three courts of appeal is specifically provided for within the
constitution. All inferior tribunals are created by law, and none are
permitted to be established otherwise. For the trial of criminal cases
there are special tribunals, in three grades: police courts,
correctional courts, and courts of assize.
All judges and justices of the peace are appointed by the king for
life. Members of the courts of appeal and the presidents and (p. 550)
vice-presidents of the courts of original jurisdiction are selected
from two double lists presented, the one by these courts and the other
by the provincial councils. Members of the Court of Cassation are
selected from two double lists presented, the one by the Senate and
the other by the Court itself. All other judicial officers are
appointed by the crown independently. Except for urgent reasons of
public order or morals, sessions of all tribunals are public, and
every judgment must be pronounced in open court. Unlike Holland,
Belgium has a well developed system of trial by jury. Jury trial is
guaranteed by the constitution in all criminal cases and in all cases
involving political or press offenses. As in England and the United
States, it is the function of the jury to determine whether or not the
accused is guilty and that of the court to explain the law and to
pronounce sentence. A jury consists regularly of twelve members.[770]
[Footnote 770: Arts. 92-107. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 140-142. Roubion, La séparation
des pouvoirs administratif et judiciaire en
Belgique (Paris, 1905).]
*605. Local Government: Province and Arrondissement.*--Upon the subject
of local government the constitution of Belgium is less explicit than
is that of Holland. Aside from specifying that provincial and communal
institutions shall be regulated by law, it contents itself with an
enumeration of certain principles--among them direct elections,
publicity of sittings of provincial and communal councils, publicity
of budgets and accounts--whose application is regularly to be
maintained.[771] Of local governmental units there are three:[772] the
province, the arrondissement, and the commune. The provinces are nine
in number.[773] In each is a council, elected by all resident citizens
who are entitled to participate in the direct election of senators.
The term is eight years, half of the membership being renewed every
four years. The council meets at least once a year, on the first
Tuesday in July. Its sessions must not exceed four weeks in length nor
be briefer than fifteen days. Special sessions may be called by the
king. The council considers and takes action upon substantially all
legislative, administrative, and fiscal affairs which concern the
province alone. It elects from its own members a permanent deputation
of six men which is charged with the government of the province while
the council is not in session. This deputation is presided over by the
governor-general of the province who is appointed by the crown and
who serves as the principal intermediary between the provincial (p. 551)
and the central governments.
[Footnote 771: Arts. 108-109. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 142-143.]
[Footnote 772: Not including the canton, which
exists purely for judicial purposes. It is the
jurisdiction of the justice of the peace.]
[Footnote 773: Antwerp, Brabant, East Flanders,
West Flanders, Hainaut, Liège, Limburg, Luxemburg,
and Namur.]
The arrondissement, or district (twenty-six in number), is important
chiefly as an electoral and judicial unit. Members of the lower house
of the national parliament are elected within the arrondissement under
the scheme of proportional representation which has been described;
and, as has been pointed out, each arrondissement is the seat of a
court of first instance.
*606. The Commune.*--In Belgium, as in France and other continental
countries, the vital organism of local government is the commune. The
total number of communes in the kingdom is 2,629. The principal agency
of government within each is a council. Members of this council are
elected for a term of eight years, under arrangements of a somewhat
complicated character determined by the population of the commune.
Voting is _viva voce_; plural votes (to a maximum of four) are
authorized; and seats, under certain conditions, are allocated in
accordance with the principle of proportional representation. A
somewhat singular fact is that the aggregate communal electorate of
the kingdom is perceptibly smaller than the provincial or the
national. The fact arises largely from the circumstance that the
communal voter is required to have been domiciled at least three years
in the commune, while residence of but a single year is required for
participation in provincial and parliamentary elections.[774]
[Footnote 774: In 1902, 1,146,482 communal electors
cast a total of 2,007,704 votes. In 1910-1911 there
were 1,440,141 provincial, and 1,300,514 communal,
voters.]
The administrative body of the commune consists of a burgomaster, or
mayor, appointed by the crown (in communes whose population exceeds
5,000 elected by the communal council) for a term of ten years, and a
college of _échevins_, or aldermen, elected by and from the communal
council. The burgomaster is head of the local police, and to him and
to the council fall the keeping of the register of births, marriages,
and deaths, the making and enforcing of local ordinances, and, in
general, the safeguarding of the welfare of the community. The more
important measures of the communal council become valid only after
they have received the approval of the provincial deputation, or even
of the ministry at Brussels; and there are special officials, known as
_commissaires d'arrondissement_, appointed by the provincial
deputation, to maintain supervision over the communes and their
governing authorities. A fundamental characteristic, indeed, of
Belgian administration is the combination of constant supervision by
the central power with a really large measure of local autonomy.[775]
[Footnote 775: Dupriez, Les Ministres, 262-276; E.
de Laveleye, Local Government and Taxation, in
Cobden Club Essays (London, 1875).]
PART VIII.--SCANDINAVIA (p. 553)
CHAPTER XXX
THE GOVERNMENT OF DENMARK
I. DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO 1814
The kingdom of Denmark is among the smallest of European states. Its
area is but 15,582 square miles, which is less than one-third of that
of the state of New York, and its population, according to the returns
of 1911, is but 2,775,076. The nation is one whose social experiments,
economic enterprises, and political practices abound in interest. As a
power, it counts nowadays for little. Time was, however, when it
counted for much, and the developments by which the kingdom has been
reduced to its present status among the nations comprise one of the
remarkable chapters of modern European history.
*607. Union of Kalmar, 1397.*--The maximum of Danish dominion was
attained by virtue of the Union of Kalmar, in 1397, whereby the three
kingdoms of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were united under the regency
of Margaret, daughter of the Danish king Valdemar IV.[776] By the
terms of this arrangement the native institutions and the separate
administration of each of the three states were guaranteed; and, in
point of fact, so powerless at times during succeeding generations was
the Danish sovereign in his over-sea dominions that for all practical
purposes each of the three affiliated kingdoms may be regarded as
having retained essentially its original independence. During an
extended period at the middle of the fifteenth century Sweden even had
a king of her own. None the less, there was a form of union, and at
times the preponderance of Denmark tended to reduce the northern
nations to the status of mere dependencies. The union with Sweden
lasted only a century and a quarter. Under the leadership of Gustavus
Vasa the Swedish people, in 1523, effectually regained their
independence, although in accordance with the Treaty of Malmö, in
1524, certain of the southernmost Swedish provinces remained for a
time under Danish control.[777] It was the lot of Norway, on the (p. 554)
other hand, not alone to be brought more thoroughly into subjection to
Denmark than was Sweden, but to continue under Danish sovereignty
until 1814, and even at that date to pass instantly from the control
of Denmark into that of Sweden, rather than to regain her ancient
independence.
[Footnote 776: The nominal sovereign was Margaret's
great-nephew, Eric of Pomerania, who was elected at
a convention of representatives of the three
kingdoms held simultaneously with the establishment
of the Union. Eric was deposed in 1439.]
[Footnote 777: R. N. Bain, Scandinavia, a Political
History of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden (Cambridge,
1905), Chap. 3; P. B. Watson, The Swedish
Revolution under Gustavus Vasa (London, 1889).]
*608. The Loss of Norway, 1814.*--The loss of Norway by Denmark was an
incident of the Napoleonic wars. During the course of those wars
Denmark, as long as was practicable, maintained a policy of
neutrality. But in 1807, after she had rejected an offer of a British
alliance, she was attacked by a British fleet, and thereupon she
became the firmest and most persistent of the allies of Napoleon. Thus
it came about that when the contest of the powers drew to an end
Denmark had the misfortune to be found upon the losing side. Sweden
stood with the Allies, and the upshot was that, to compensate that
nation for her loss of Finland to Russia and of Pomerania to Prussia,
the Allies gave their consent, in 1812-1813, to the dismemberment by
Sweden of the Danish dominion. The work was accomplished by the French
marshal Bernadotte, crown prince of Sweden (by adoption) from 1810,
and later king (1818-1844). By the Treaty of Kiel, January 14, 1814,
Norway was ceded perforce by Denmark to Sweden, and by the Congress of
Vienna, later in the year, the transfer was accorded the formal
approval of the powers. The Norwegians objected and proceeded to elect
as their king a Danish prince; but in the end they were compelled to
submit. Denmark was unable to do more than make ineffectual protest.
*609. Political Development: the Revolution of 1660.*--The governmental
system with which Denmark emerged from the era of Napoleon was
essentially that which had been in operation in the kingdom since the
second half of the seventeenth century. Prior to a remarkable
revolution which, in 1660, followed the conclusion of a costly war
with Sweden, monarchy in Denmark was limited and almost uniformly
weak. Through three hundred years the kings were elected by the
Rigsrad, or senate, and the conditions of their tenure were such as to
preclude both the independence of action and the accumulation of
resources which is essential to absolutism. As early as 1282 the
nobles were able to extort from the crown a _haandfaestning_, or
charter, and almost every sovereign after that date was compelled,
once at least during his reign, to make a grant of chartered
privileges. To the Danehof, or national assembly, fell at times a (p. 555)
goodly measure of authority, although eventually it was the Rigsrad
that procured the supreme control of the state. The national assembly
comprised the three estates of the nobles, the clergy, and the
burgesses;[778] the senate was a purely aristocratic body.
[Footnote 778: In the Swedish diet the peasantry
constituted a fourth estate, but in Denmark no
political power was possessed by this class.]
In 1660 there occurred a revolution in consequence of which the
monarchy was rehabilitated and a governmental system which long had
been notoriously disjointed and inefficient was replaced by a system
which, if despotic, was at least much superior to that which
theretofore had been in operation. The nobles, discredited by the
calamities which their misrule had brought upon the nation, were
compelled to give way, and the estates represented in the Danehof
surrendered, in a measure voluntarily, a considerable portion of the
privileges to which they had been accustomed to lay claim. The
monarchy was put once more upon an hereditary basis and its powers
were materially enlarged. The intent of the aggressive sovereign of
the day, Frederick III., was to proceed with caution, but not to stop
halfway. By the promulgation of two monumental documents the road was
thrown open to thoroughgoing absolutism. One of these was the
"Instrument, or Pragmatic Sanction, of the King's Hereditary Right to
the Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway," dated January 10, 1661. The other
was the _Kongelov_, or "King's Law," of November 14, 1665, a state
paper which has been declared to have "the highly dubious honor of
being the one written law in the civilized world which fearlessly
carries out absolutism to its last consequences."[779] In the
_Kongelov_ it was made _lèse-majesté_ in any manner to usurp or
infringe the king's absolute authority; it was asserted that the
moment the sovereign ascends the throne crown and scepter are vested
in him by his own right; and the sole obligation of the king was
affirmed to be to maintain the indivisibility of the realm, to
preserve the Christian faith in accordance with the Augsburg
Confession, and to execute faithfully all of the provisions of the
_Kongelov_ itself. Such were the principles upon which, during upwards
of two centuries thereafter, the government of the Danish kingdom was
based. Absolutism was all but unrelieved; but it is only fair to add
that most of the sovereigns, according to the light which they
possessed, sought to govern in the interest of their subjects.[780]
[Footnote 779: Bain, Scandinavia, 266.]
[Footnote 780: For sketches of Danish political
history prior to 1814 see Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps.
2, 4, 7, 10, 15; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire
Générale, III., Chap. 14, IV., Chap. 15; VI., Chap.
17; VII., Chap. 23; IX., Chap. 23. An important
Danish work is P. F. Barfod, Danmarks Historie,
1319-1536 (Copenhagen, 1885).]
II. THE RISE OF CONSTITUTIONALISM, 1814-1866 (p. 556)
*610. The Provincial Diets.*--Gradually after 1814 the kingdom recovered
from the depression into which by its loss of territory and its
staggering indebtedness it had been plunged, and with the recovery
came a revived political spirit as well as a fresh economic stimulus.
The sixteen years between the Treaty of Kiel and the revolutionary
year 1830 were almost absolutely devoid of political agitation, but
after 1830 there set in, in Denmark as in most continental countries,
a liberal movement whose object was nothing less than the
establishment of a constitutional system of government. To meet in
some measure the demands which were made upon him, King Frederick VI.
called into being, by decrees of 1831 and 1834, four Landtags, or
diets, one in each of the provinces of the realm--Schleswig, Holstein,
Jutland, and the Islands.[781] The members of these assemblies,
comprising burgesses, landowners, and peasants, were to be chosen by
the landed proprietors for a term of six years, and they were to meet
biennially for the discussion of laws and taxes and the drawing up of
petitions. A few landowners, professors, and ecclesiastics were to be
appointed to membership by the crown. The function of each of the four
bodies was purely consultative.
[Footnote 781: The ordinance establishing the
provincial assemblies was promulgated May 28, 1831,
but the assemblies did not come into existence
until after the supplementary decrees of May 15,
1834. In 1843 Iceland was granted "home rule," with
the right to maintain an independent legislature.]
*611. Royal Opposition to Reform.*--From the point of view of the
Liberals, whose aim was the institution of a national parliamentary
system, the king's concession was too meager to comprise more than a
bare beginning. Throughout the remainder of the reign agitation was
kept up, although at the hand of a sovereign whose fundamental
political principle was the divine right of kings, little that was
more substantial was to be expected. Christian VIII., who succeeded
Frederick in December, 1839, brought with him to the throne a
reputation for enlightened and progressive views. Further, however,
than to pledge himself to certain administrative reforms the new
sovereign displayed scant willingness to go. One liberal project after
another was repelled, and press prosecutions and other coercive
measures were brought to bear to discourage propaganda. It was in this
period, however, that there arose a preponderating issue whose
settlement was destined eventually to exert a powerful influence in
the establishment of constitutional government in Denmark, i.e., the
question of the policy to be pursued in respect to the affiliated
duchies of Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg.[782] During the (p. 557)
later years of the reign successive ministries grappled vainly with
this problem, and the political forces of the kingdom came to be
divided with unprecedented sharpness by the conflict between the
separatist tendency and the demand for immediate and complete
incorporation. The king himself was brought eventually to consent to
the framing of a constitution for the whole of his dominions, as a
means of holding the realm together; but he died, January 20, 1848,
before the task had been completed.
[Footnote 782: Holstein and Lauenburg were German
in population and were members of the German
Confederation. Southern Schleswig also was
inhabited by German-speaking people, though the
duchy did not belong to the Confederation.
Schleswig and Holstein had been joined with Denmark
under a precarious form of union since the Middle
Ages. Lauenburg was acquired, with the assent of
the Allies, in 1814-1815 in partial compensation
for the loss of Norway.]
*612. The Constitutions of 1848-1849.*--Within eight days the
constitution was promulgated by the new sovereign, Frederick VII.
Under its provisions there was established a parliament representative
of all of the Danish dominions. Neither the Danes nor the inhabitants
of the duchies, however, were satisfied, and in Holstein there broke
out open rebellion. Prussia intervened in behalf of the disaffected
duchies, and Great Britain and Russia in behalf of the Danish
Government. The result was the triumph of the Government; but in the
meantime the rescript by which the common constitution had been
promulgated was withdrawn. In its place was published a decree which
provided for the establishment of a bicameral national assembly
(Rigsdag), of whose 152 members 38, nominated by the crown, were to
form a Landsthing, or upper chamber, and the remaining 114, elected by
the people, were to comprise a Folkething, or house of representatives.
In the early summer of 1849 a constitution embodying these
arrangements was drawn up; and June 5, after having been adopted by
the new Rigsdag, the instrument was approved by the crown. For the
moment the question of the duchies seemed insoluble, and this second
constitution was extended to Jutland and the Islands only, i.e., to
Denmark proper. Its adoption, however, is a landmark in Danish
constitutional history. Under its terms the autocracy of the
_Kongelov_ was formally abandoned and in its place was substituted a
limited monarchy in which legislative powers were to be shared by the
crown with an elective diet and the executive authority was to be
exercised by ministers responsible to the legislative body. As will
appear, it was this constitution of June 5, 1849, that, with revision,
became permanently the fundamental law of the kingdom.[783]
[Footnote 783: Bain, Scandinavia, Chap. 16;
Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chap. 24
(bibliography, pp. 961-962); Lavisse et Rambaud,
Histoire Générale, X., Chap. 18; C. F. Allen,
Histoire de Danemark depuis les temps les plus
reculés jusqu'à nos jours (Copenhagen, 1878).]
*613. The Problem of the Duchies.*--Following prolonged (p. 558)
international conferences, there was issued, January 28, 1852, a new
constitutional decree by which it was provided that the kingdom proper
and Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg should have a common
constitution for common affairs, but that each of the territories
should enjoy autonomy in the management of its separate concerns. An
ultra-conservative constitution which had been worked out by the
Rigsdag in consultation with the Landtags of the duchies, was
promulgated October 2, 1855. No sooner had the instrument been put in
operation, however, than stubborn opposition to its provisions arose,
both from the duchies themselves and from the interested powers of
Germany. November 28, 1858, the Danish Government yielded in so far as
to consent to the withdrawal of the constitution from Holstein and
Lauenburg. Through several years thereafter the question of the
duchies overshadowed all else in Danish politics and in Danish
diplomatic relations. March 30, 1863, a royal decree recognized the
essential detachment of Holstein from the monarchy and vested the
legislative power of the duchy solely in the king and the local
estates. Later in the year, however, the premier Hall proposed and
carried through the Rigsdag a constitution which contemplated again
the incorporation of Schleswig with the kingdom. To this instrument
the Council of State, November 13, gave its assent, and, five days
later, with the approval of the new sovereign, Christian IX., it
became law. So far as Denmark was concerned, the solution of the
question of the duchies was now at hand. In the name of Prussia and
Austria, Bismarck demanded summarily that the November constitution be
rescinded. War ensued, and by the Treaty of Vienna, October 30, 1864,
Denmark, in defeat, yielded all claim to Schleswig, Holstein, and
Lauenburg. After continuing for a time a bone of contention between
the leading German states, these territories were incorporated,
subsequent to the Austro-Prussian war of 1866, in the kingdom of
Prussia. Denmark, shorn of a million of population and approximately
one-third of her territory, was reduced in power and area to
substantially her present proportions.[784]
[Footnote 784: Cambridge Modern History, XI., Chap.
16; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, XI.,
Chap. 12; J. W. Headlam, Bismarck and the
Foundation of the German Empire (New York, 1909),
Chap. 8; H. Delbrück, Der Deutsch-Dänische Krieg,
1864 (Berlin, 1905).]
*614. The Revised Constitution of 1866.*--The loss of the duchies, while
humiliating, cut the Gordian knot, of Danish political reconstruction.
July 28, 1866, the constitution of July 5, 1849, in revised form, (p. 559)
was re-issued, and this instrument continues to the present day the
fundamental law of the kingdom. Its ultimate adoption was the
achievement largely of the agricultural interests in the Rigsdag; but
the king, Christian IX., though not in sympathy with the parliamentary
ideal of government, gave it his cordial support. The constitution is
an elaborate document, in ninety-five articles. In addition to the
customary specifications relating to the executive, legislative, and
judicial departments of the government, it contains a wide variety of
guarantees respecting religion, freedom of speech and of the press,
liberty of assemblage and of petition, and uniformity of judicial
procedure, which, taken together, comprise a very substantial bill of
rights.[785] The method of its amendment is not materially unlike that
prevailing in Holland, Belgium, and a number of other continental
countries. Proposals regarding alterations or additions may be
submitted at any time within either branch of the Rigsdag. In the
event of the adoption of a proposal of the kind by both chambers, it
becomes the duty of the Government, provided it favors the change, to
dissolve the Rigsdag and to order a general election. If the newly
chosen Rigsdag adopts the proposed amendment without change and the
crown formally approves it, the modification goes forthwith into
effect.[786] Constitutional amendments since 1866 have been, however,
neither numerous nor important.[787]
[Footnote 785: Arts. 80-94. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 278-280.]
[Footnote 786: Art. 95. Ibid., I., 280.]
[Footnote 787: The text of the Danish constitution,
in English translation, is printed in Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 267-281; H. Weitemeyer, Denmark
(London, 1891), 203-217; and British and Foreign
State Papers, LVIII. (1867-1868), 1,223 ff. The
best brief treatise on the Danish constitutional
system is C. Goos and H. Hansen, Das Staatsrecht
des Königsreichs Dänemark (Freiburg, 1889), in
Marquardsen's Handbuch. A Danish edition of this
work was issued at Copenhagen in 1890. The best
extended commentaries are H. Matzen, Den Danske
Statsforfatningsret (3d ed., Copenhagen, 1897-1901)
and C. G. Holck, Den Danske Statsforfatningsret
(Copenhagen, 1869). T. H. Aschehoug, Den Nordiske
Statsret (Copenhagen, 1885) is a useful study, from
a comparative point of view, of the constitutional
law of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.]
III. THE CROWN AND THE MINISTRY
*615. The King: Status and Powers.*--The form of the Danish government
is declared by the constitution to be that of a limited monarchy.[788]
The throne is hereditary, and the succession is regulated by a law of
July 31, 1853, adopted in pursuance of the Treaty of London of May (p. 560)
8, 1852, wherein the powers bestowed the Danish succession upon Prince
Christian, of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, and the direct
male descendants of his union with the Princess Louise of Hesse-Cassel,
niece of Christian VIII. of Denmark.[789] By the constitution it is
required of the king that he shall not become the ruler of any country
other than Denmark without the consent of the Rigsdag, that he shall
belong to the Evangelical Lutheran Church (the national church of
Denmark, supported by the state), and that before assuming the throne
he shall give in writing before the Council of State an assurance,
under oath, that he will maintain inviolate the constitution of the
kingdom.[790] The royal civil list is fixed by law for the term of the
reign. That of the present sovereign, Frederick VIII., is one million
kroner annually.
[Footnote 788: Art. 1. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 267.]
[Footnote 789: Prince Christian became, in 1863,
King Christian IX.]
[Footnote 790: One original text of this pledge
must be preserved in the archives of the crown,
another in those of the Rigsdag. Art. 7. Dodd,
Modern Constitutions, I., 267.]
The powers of the king are comprehensive. Within the limitations
prescribed by the constitution, he exercises "supreme authority over
all the affairs of the kingdom." He appoints to all offices, dismisses
from office, and transfers from one office to another. He declares war
and makes peace. He concludes and terminates treaties of alliance and
of commerce, on condition only that an agreement which involves a
cession of territory or a change of existing international relations
must receive the assent of the Rigsdag. He exercises the power of
pardon and of amnesty, save that without the consent of the Folkething
he may not relieve ministers of penalties arising from impeachment
proceedings. He grants such licenses and exemptions from the laws as
are authorized by statute. He convenes the Rigsdag in regular session
annually and in extraordinary session at will, adjourns it, and
dissolves either or both of the houses. He may submit to it projects
for consideration or drafts of laws, and his consent is necessary to
impart legal character to any of the measures which it enacts. He
orders the publication of statutes and sees that they are executed.
Finally, when the need is urgent and the Rigsdag is not in session, he
may promulgate ordinances, provided, first, that they are not contrary
to the constitution, and, second, that they are laid before the
Rigsdag at its ensuing meeting.
*616. The Ministry and the Parliamentary System.*--For the measures of
the government the king is not personally responsible. His powers are
exercised through ministers, who are appointed and may be removed by
him, and whose number and functions are left to his determination. The
ministries are nine in number, as follows: Foreign Affairs, (p. 561)
Interior, Justice, Finance, Commerce, Defense, Agriculture, Public
Works, and Public Instruction and Ecclesiastical Affairs. Collectively
the ministers form the Council of State, over which the king presides
and in which the heir to the throne, if of age, is entitled to a seat.
All laws and important public matters are apt normally to be discussed
in the Council of State. There is also, however, a Council of
Ministers, consisting simply of the nine heads of departments under
the presidency of an additional minister designated by the crown, and
to this body are referred in practice many minor subjects that call
for consideration.
The ministers, so the constitution affirms, are responsible for the
conduct of the government.[791] The king's signature of a measure
gives it legal character only if accompanied by the signature of one
or more of the ministers, and ministers may be called to account by
the Folkething, as well as by the king, for their conduct in office.
There is, furthermore, a special Court of Impeachment for the trial of
ministers against whom charges are brought. On the surface, these
arrangements seem to imply the existence of a parliamentary system of
government, with a ministry answerable singly and collectively to the
popular legislative chamber. In point of fact, however, there has been
all the while much less parliamentarism in Denmark than seemingly is
contemplated in the constitution, and it is hardly too much to say
that since the adoption of the present constitution the most
interminable of political controversies in the kingdom has been that
centering about the question of the responsibility of ministers. Until
at least within the past decade, the practice of the crown has been
regularly to appoint ministers independently and to maintain them in
office in disregard of, and even in defiance of, the wishes of the
popular branch of the legislature. The desire of the Liberals has been
to inaugurate a thoroughgoing parliamentary régime, under which the
sovereign should be obligated to select his ministers from the party
in control of the Folkething and the ministers, in turn, should be
responsible to the Folkething, in fact as well as in theory, for all
of their official acts. Throughout the prolonged period covered by the
ministry of Jakob Estrup (1875-1894) the conflict upon this issue was
incessant. During the whole of the period Estrup and his colleagues
commanded the support of a majority in the Landsthing, but were
accorded the votes of only a minority in the lower chamber. After the
elections of 1884, indeed, the Government could rely upon a total of
not more than nineteen votes in that chamber.
[Footnote 791: Art. 12. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 268.]
*617. The Establishment of Ministerial Responsibility.*--Under the
continued stress of this situation constitutionalism broke down (p. 562)
completely. The Government, finding its projects of military and
naval reform persistently thwarted and its budgets rejected, stretched
its prerogatives beyond all warrant of law. Provisional measures, in
the form of royal ordinances, and arbitrary decisions multiplied, and
budgets were adopted and carried into execution without so much as the
form of parliamentary sanction. In time the forces of opposition fell
into disagreement and the more moderate element was brought to the
point of compromise. Between the Conservatives and the National
Liberals, on the one hand, by whom the Government had been supported,
and the conciliatory element of the Liberal opposition, on the other,
a truce was arranged, and in 1894, for the first time in nine years,
it was found possible to enact the annual finance law in regular
manner. In this same year Estrup's retirement cleared the way for the
appointment of a moderate Conservative ministry. Under Estrup's
successors the conflict was continued, but not so vigorously as
before. More and more the political center of gravity shifted to the
Folkething, and when the general elections of 1901 returned to that
body an overwhelming majority of Liberals, Christian IX. was at last
compelled to give way and to call into being a Liberal ("Left Reform")
ministry. It is too much to say that the parliamentary system is as
yet completely established in Denmark. There is, however, a closer
approximation to it than ever before, and there is every prospect of
the ultimate and thorough triumph of the essential parliamentary
principle. In 1908, and again in 1909, a ministry was virtually forced
to resign by the pressure of parliamentary opposition.
IV. THE RIGSDAG--POLITICAL PARTIES
*618. The Landsthing.*--The Rigsdag is composed of two chambers--the
Landsthing, or Senate, and the Folkething, or House of Representatives.
The Landsthing consists of 66 members, of whom 12 are appointed by the
king, seven are elected in Copenhagen, 45 are elected in the larger
electoral divisions comprising rural districts and towns, one is
elected in Bornholm, and one is chosen by the Lagthing of the Faröe
Islands.[792] The king's appointment of members is made for life, from
among active or former members of the Folkething. Elected members
serve regularly eight years, one-half retiring every four years. The
seven members for Copenhagen are chosen by an electoral college
composed of (1) electors chosen by all citizens who are entitled (p. 563)
to vote for members of the Folkething, in the ratio of one elector for
every 120 voters or major fraction thereof, and (2) an equal number of
electors chosen by the voters who, during the preceding year, have
been assessed upon a taxable income of not less than 2,000
rix-dollars. The members elected from the rural districts and towns
are chosen indirectly, after a manner analogous to that in operation
in the capital.[793] The result is a very successful combination of
the principles of indirect popular election and indirect
representation of property. In all cases the election of members takes
place according to the principles of proportional representation.[794]
Every person eligible to the Folkething is eligible to the Landsthing,
provided he has resided in his electoral circle, or district, during
the year preceding his election.
[Footnote 792: Art. 34. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 272. The status of the Faröe Islands is that of
an integral portion of the kingdom, not that of a
dependency. It is analogous to the status of
Algeria in the French Republic. No other outlying
Danish territory is represented in the Rigsdag.]
[Footnote 793: For details see Art. 37 of the
constitution. Dodd, Modern Constitutions, I., 272.]
[Footnote 794: It is of interest to observe that
Denmark was the first nation to make use of a
system of proportional representation. The
principle was introduced originally as early as
1855, in the constitution promulgated in that year,
and it was retained through the constitutional
changes of 1863 and 1866, although its application
was restricted to the election of members of the
upper chamber. An account of its introduction is
contained in La représentation proportionnelle
(Paris, 1888), published by the French Society for
the Study of Proportional Representation.]
*619. The Folkething.*--The Folkething is composed of deputies chosen
directly by manhood suffrage for a term of three years. By the
constitution it is stipulated that as nearly as practicable there
shall be one member for every 16,000 inhabitants. In point of fact,
the total membership of the Chamber is but 114, whereas at the ratio
indicated it should be upwards of 170. Deputies are elected by secret
ballot (since 1901), in single-member districts. The franchise is
extended to all male citizens of good reputation who have attained the
age of thirty years, except those who are in actual receipt of public
charity, those who have at one time been recipients of public charity
and have rendered no reimbursement therefor, those who are in private
service and have no independent household establishment, and those who
are not in control of their own property. The voter must have resided
a minimum of one year in the circle in which he proposes to vote.[795]
With the exception of non-householders in private service, of persons
under guardianship, and of recipients of public charity, all male
citizens who have completed their twenty-fifth year are qualified for
election. Curiously enough, it is thus possible for a citizen to
become a member of the Folkething before he is old enough to vote at a
national election. Members of both chambers receive, in addition to
travelling expenses, regular payment for their services at the (p. 564)
rate of ten kroner per day during the first six months of a session,
and six kroner for each day thereafter.
[Footnote 795: Art. 30. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 271.]
During recent years there has been no small amount of agitation in
behalf of a more democratic electoral system. In April, 1908, there
was enacted an important piece of legislation whereby the franchise in
municipal elections was conferred upon all resident taxpayers of the
age of twenty-five, men and women alike; and, beginning with the
elections of 1909, women have both voted and held office regularly
within the municipalities. By the legislation of 1908 the number of
persons qualified to vote at local elections was practically doubled.
Early in 1910 a measure was passed in the Folkething whereby the age
limit for voters in parliamentary elections was reduced from thirty to
twenty-five years and the suffrage was conferred upon women and upon
persons engaged in service. This measure did not become law, but in
the Folkething elected May 20 of the same year Premier Berntsen
introduced a new bill of essentially the same nature. The question of
proportional representation was deferred, the bill providing for (1)
the reduction of the voting age to twenty-five; (2) the increase of
the number of deputies to 132; and (3) the extension of the suffrage
in national elections to women, together with eligibility for seats in
both of the legislative chambers. This measure likewise failed; but at
the opening of Parliament in October, 1912, fresh proposals upon the
subject were introduced.
*620. The Rigsdag: Sessions and Powers.*--The Rigsdag is required to
meet in regular session on the first Monday in October of every year.
Each house determines the validity of the election of its members;
each makes its own regulations concerning its order of business and
the maintenance of discipline; each elects its own president,
vice-presidents, and other officers. Each has the right to propose
bills, each may present addresses to the king, and the consent of each
is necessary to the enactment of any law. By provision of the
constitution the annual budget must be laid on the table of the
Folkething at the beginning of each regular session, and no tax may be
imposed, altered, or abolished save by law. Each house is required to
appoint two salaried auditors whose business it is to examine the
yearly public accounts and to determine whether there have been either
unrecorded revenues or unauthorized expenditures. For the adjustment
of conflicts between the two chambers there is provided a method
whereby there may be constituted a joint conference committee similar
to that employed under like circumstances in the American Congress.[796]
Sessions are public, and a majority of the membership constitutes (p. 565)
a quorum. With the consent of the house to which he belongs, any
member may propose subjects for consideration and may request
explanations from the Government concerning them. Ministers are
entitled to appear and to speak in either chamber as often as they may
desire, provided they do not otherwise infringe upon the order of
business. By reason of the uncertain status of ministerial
responsibility the right of interpellation means as yet but little in
practice. The minister may or may not reply to inquiries, and in any
case he is not obliged by unfavorable opinion or an adverse vote to
retire.
[Footnote 796: Art. 53. Dodd, Modern Constitutions,
I., 274.]
*621. Political Parties: the Ministry of Estrup, 1875-1894.*--Prior to
1848 the preponderating public issues of Denmark were concerned
chiefly with the introduction in the kingdom of a constitutional type
of government. Between 1848 and 1864, they related all but exclusively
to the status of the duchies of Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg.
During the closing quarter of the past century they centered
principally in the titanic conflict which a growing and indomitable
majority in the Folkething, representing a no less determined majority
of the nation, waged with King Christian IX. and his advisers in
behalf of the enforcement of constitutional limitations upon the crown
and of ministerial responsibility to the national legislative body.
The prolonged struggle between the Government and the parliamentary
majority had its beginning in 1872, when the various radical groups in
the Folkething, drawing together under the designation of the United
Left, rejected a proposed budget and passed a vote of want of
confidence in the Conservative Government. The avowed purpose of the
disaffected elements was to force the ministry of Holstein of
Holsteinborg to retire, to compel the sovereign to select his
ministers from the parliamentary majority, and to enforce the
principle of ministerial responsibility to the lower legislative
chamber. Supported by the king and the Landsthing, however, the
ministry refused to resign. June 11, 1875, there was called to the
premiership an able and aggressive statesman, Jakob Estrup, who
through the next nineteen years continuously maintained the
Government's position against the most desperate of parliamentary
assaults. During the whole of this period Estrup commanded the support
of the Landsthing, but was opposed by large majorities in the
Folkething and throughout the country. The struggle raged principally
upon questions of finance. Estrup, who retained for himself the
portfolio of finance, was bent upon the strengthening of Danish
armaments, and over the protest of the Folkething huge budgets were
put into effect again and again by simple ordinance of the crown. From
1882 onwards ordinary legislation was at a standstill, and during (p. 566)
nine years after 1885 there was not one legal grant of supplies. The
constitution was reduced well nigh to waste paper.
*622. Later Conservative Governments: the Triumph of the Left.*--In 1886
the Radicals, despairing of overthrowing the Estrup government by
obstruction, resorted for the first time to negotiation. Not until
April 1, 1894, however, was the parliamentary majority able to agree
with the Government and the Landsthing upon a budget which, by being
made retroactive, legalized the irregular fiscal expedients of the
past two decades. In August of the same year Estrup was succeeded in
the premiership by Reedtz-Thott who, although a Conservative, and
hence a supporter of the Government's position, was more favorable to
conciliation than had been his predecessor. The struggle, however, was
by no means ended. The elections of 1895 and of 1898 resulted in
decisive victories for the Liberals and Radicals, and in the Chamber
the Government was confronted by an overwhelming majority comprising a
Moderate Left, a Reform or Radical Left, and a group of Social
Democrats. Even in the Landsthing the Government's hold was growing
less substantial. Reedtz-Thott, none the less, clung to office until
December, 1899, and after his retirement there followed two more
Conservative ministries--those of Hörring (December, 1899, to April,
1900) and of Sehested (April, 1900, to July, 1901).
On July 16, 1901, occurred the most notable political event in a
half-century of Danish history. Confronted by a majority of 106 to 8
in the Folkething, besieged by widespread popular opinion, and
possessing no longer a dependable majority in the Landsthing, the aged
Christian IX. gave way, with such grace as he could muster, and
summoned to the premiership Professor Deuntzer, by whom was
constituted a pure Left Reform ministry. At the partial elections of
September 19, 1902, the Conservatives lost absolutely their majority
in the upper chamber, while in the Folkething party strength was so
redistributed that, while the Conservatives retained their eight
seats, the Social Democrats acquired fourteen and the Left Reform
party seventy-seven. The elections of June 16, 1903, wrought but
insignificant changes of status.
*623. The Christensen Ministry (1905-1908) and the Elections of
1906.*--As was to be expected of a party whose rôle had been regularly
one of mere opposition, the Left Reform, after gaining office,
developed a certain amount of internal discord. In January, 1905, the
Deuntzer ministry broke up and a more homogeneous and moderate cabinet
was organized under the Left Reform leader Christensen. This ministry
contrived to retain office until October, 1908. At the elections of
May 29, 1906, the Government took its stand upon manhood suffrage (p. 567)
in parliamentary elections, equal suffrage in municipal elections (in
accordance with the principle of proportional representation) for all
taxpayers, and the reform of both the administrative and judicial
systems. Its bitterest opponents were its former allies, the Radical
Left (which had split off from the Left Reform party after the
formation of the Christensen ministry) and the Social Democrats,
though neither of these parties put forward a programme which was in
any measure specific. After an unusually spirited contest the
Government was found to have lost three seats, the Social Democrats to
have gained eight, the Radical Left to have lost four, and the
Conservatives to have gained two. The resulting grouping in the
Folkething was as follows: Left Reform (Ministerialists), 55; Moderate
Left, 9; Radical Left, 9; Social Democrats, 24; Conservatives, 13;
Independents, 3; member for Faröe Islands, 1. At the partial renewal
of the Landsthing in September, 1906, the Government lost five seats,
and with them the majority which, aided by the Moderate Left and the
Free Conservatives,[797] it had been able since 1901 to control. The
consequence of its losses was that the Christensen ministry drew
appreciably toward the Conservative elements of the Rigsdag, as
against the Radicals and Socialists.
[Footnote 797: A group which, after the formation
of the Deuntzer ministry, split off from the
Conservatives in the upper chamber.]
*624. Ministerial Instability, 1908-1912.*--October 11, 1908, largely by
reason of the scandal in which it was involved by the embezzlements of
the minister of the interior Alberti, the ministry of Christensen was
replaced by a cabinet formed by Neergaard. It in turn retired, July
31, 1909, defeated upon bills to which it was committed for the
strengthening of the national fortifications. The Holstein-Ledreborg
ministry which succeeded was able to secure the passage of the bills,
but, October 22, 1909, it was forced out on a vote of want of
confidence. At the election of May 25, 1909, in which the military
bills comprised the principal issue, the Left Reform government had
continued to lose ground, while the Radicals (though not the Social
Democrats) and the Conservatives had gained. October 28, 1909, a new
ministry was formed by the Radical leader Zahle. In the Folkething the
Radicals possessed 20 seats only, but with the aid of the Social
Democrats, possessing 24, they hoped to be able to attain some measure
of success. The hope proved vain. April 18, 1910, the Folkething was
dissolved, and there followed another spirited campaign in which the
military question was preponderant. The Radical government, with its
Socialist allies, went before the country on a platform which proposed
the repeal of the defense measures passed during the previous (p. 568)
year. But at the elections of May 20 both Radicals and Social Democrats
obtained precisely the respective number of seats which they had
before possessed, while 69 deputies were returned by the groups which
were favorable to the execution of the contested measures. July 1, the
Zahle ministry resigned and was succeeded by a cabinet formed by Klaus
Berntsen, leader of the Moderate Left. The new ministry, although
drawn exclusively from the Left, was well received by the Conservatives,
who pledged it their continued support against the Radical-Socialist
coalition.[798]
[Footnote 798: The salient facts relating to the
political history of Denmark since 1870 may be
gleaned from the successive volumes of the _Annual
Register_. Works of importance dealing with the
subject include N. Neergaard, Danmarks Riges
Historie siden 1852 (Copenhagen, 1909); H. Holm,
Forligets förste Rigsdagssamling 1894-1895
(Copenhagen, 1895), and Kampen om Ministeriet
Reedtz-Thott (Copenhagen, 1897); H. Barfod, Hans
Majestaet Kong Christian IX. (Copenhagen, 1888);
and A. Thorsöe, Kong Christian den Niende
(Copenhagen, 1905).]
V. THE JUDICIARY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
*625. General Principles: the Courts.*--In the Danish constitution there
are laid down a number of general principles with respect to the
judicial branch of the government, but the organization of the courts
is left almost entirely to be regulated by law. It is stipulated that
judges, who are appointed by the crown, may not be dismissed except in
consequence of judicial sentence, nor transferred against their wishes
from one tribunal to another, unless in the event of a reorganization
of the courts;[799] that they shall exercise their functions strictly
in compliance with law; that in criminal cases and cases involving
political offenses trial shall be by jury; that in the administration
of justice there shall be, so far as practicable, publicity and oral
procedure; and that it shall be within the competence of the courts to
decide all questions relative to the extent of the powers of the
public officials.
[Footnote 799: At the age of sixty-five they may be
retired on full salary.]
The tribunals that have been established by law comprise, beginning at
the bottom, the magistracies of the _herreds_, or hundreds, and the
justiceships of the towns; a superior court (_Overret_), with nine
judges, at Viborg, and another, with twenty judges, at Copenhagen; and
a Supreme Court (_Höjesteret_), with a chief justice, twelve associate
judges, and eleven special judges, at Copenhagen. Of hundred
magistrates (_herredsfogder_) and town justices (_byfogder_) there
are, in all, 126. Appeal in both civil and criminal cases lies from
them to the superior courts, and thence to the supreme tribunal. There
is, in addition, a Court of Impeachment (_Rigsret_), composed of the
members of the Supreme Court, together with an equal number of (p. 569)
members of the Landsthing elected by that body as judges for a term
of four years. The principal function of this tribunal is the trial of
charges brought against ministers by the king or by the
Folkething.[800]
[Footnote 800: Arts. 68-74. Dodd, Modern
Constitutions, I., 276-277.]
*626. The Administration of Justice Act, 1908.*--In May, 1908, a
long-standing demand of the more progressive jurists was met in part
by the passage of an elaborate Administration of Justice bill, whereby
there was carried further than previously the separation of the
general administrative system of the kingdom from the administration
of justice. Not until the enactment of this measure were the
constitutional guarantees of jury trial, publicity of judicial
proceedings, and the independence of the judiciary put effectively in
force. Curiously enough, the drafting and advocacy of the bill fell
principally to a minister, Alberti, who was on the point of being
proved one of the most deliberate criminals of the generation. The
measure, which comprised 1,015 clauses, introduced no modification in
the existing hierarchy of tribunals, but it readjusted in detail the
functions of the several courts and defined more specifically the
procedure to be employed in the trial of various kinds of cases. One
provision which it contains is that a jury shall consist of twelve
men, that any person who is eligible for election to the Folkething is
eligible for selection as a juryman, and that jury service is
obligatory. On the ground that it fell short of fulfilling the
essential pledges of the constitution, the Radical and Socialist
members of the Rigsdag vigorously opposed the measure.[801]
[Footnote 801: The bill was carried in the
Folkething by a vote of 57 to 42; in the Landsthing
by a vote of 38 to 5.]
*627. Local Government.*--For administrative purposes the kingdom is
divided into 18 Amter, or counties. In each is an Amtmand, or
governor, who is appointed by the crown, and an Amtsrad, or council,
composed of members elected indirectly within the county. The counties
are divided into hundreds, which exist principally for judicial
purposes, and the hundreds are divided into some 1,100 parishes. In
each town is a burgomaster, who is appointed by the crown, and who
governs with or without the assistance of aldermen. Copenhagen,
however, has an administrative system peculiar to itself. Its
burgomaster, elected by the town council, is merely confirmed by the
crown.
CHAPTER XXXI (p. 570)
THE SWEDISH-NORWEGIAN UNION AND THE GOVERNMENT OF NORWAY
I. POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT TO 1814
*628. Sweden in Earlier Modern Times.*--During the centuries which
intervened between the establishment of national independence under
the leadership of Gustavus Vasa in 1523 and the end of the Napoleonic
era, the political system of the kingdom of Sweden oscillated in a
remarkable manner between absolutism and liberalism. The establishment
of a national parliamentary assembly antedated the period of union
with Denmark (1397-1523); for it was in 1359 that King Magnus,
embarrassed by the unmanageableness of the nobility and obliged to
fall back upon the support of the middle classes, summoned
representatives of the towns to appear before the king along with the
nobles and clergy, and thus constituted the first Swedish Riksdag. By
an ordinance of Gustavus Adolphus in 1617, what had been a turbulent
and ill-organized body was transformed into a well-ordered national
assembly of four estates--the nobles, the clergy, the burghers, and
the peasants--each of which met and deliberated regularly apart from
the others. There was likewise a Rigsrad, or senate, which comprised
originally a grand council representative of the semi-feudal landed
aristocracy, but which by the seventeenth century had come to be
essentially a bureaucracy occupying the chief offices of state at the
pleasure of the crown. Under Gustavus Adolphus and his earlier
successors, especially Charles XI. (1660-1697), however, the
government took on the character of at least a semi-absolutism. The
Rigsdag retained the right to be consulted upon important foreign and
legislative questions, but the power of initiative was exercised by
the sovereign alone. The Riksdag of 1680 admitted that the king was
responsible for his acts only to God, and that between him and his
people no intermediary was needed; and in 1682 the same body
recognized as vested in the crown the right freely to interpret and
amend the law.[802]
[Footnote 802: Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 8, 11;
Cambridge Modern History, IV. Chaps. 5, 20; Lavisse
et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, III., Chap. 14; IV.;
Chap. 15.]
*629. Weakness of the Monarchy in the Eighteenth Century.*--A new (p. 571)
chapter in Swedish constitutional history was inaugurated by the
calamities incident to the turbulent reign of the Mad King of the
North, Charles XII. (1697-1718), and the Great Northern War, brought
to a culmination by the cession to Russia in the Peace of Nystad,
August 30, 1721, of all the Baltic provinces which Sweden had
possessed. Early in the reign of Frederick I. (1720-1751), chiefly by
laws of 1720-1723, the government was converted into one of the most
limited of monarchies in Europe. The sovereign was reduced, indeed, to
a mere puppet, his principal function being that of presiding over the
deliberations of the Rigsrad. Virtually all power was vested in the
Riksdag. A secret committee representative of the four estates
prepared all measures, controlled foreign relations, and appointed all
ministers, and laws of every kind were enacted by the affirmative vote
of three of the four orders. The constitutional system, while
nominally monarchical, became essentially republican. In operation,
however, it was hopelessly cumbersome, and throughout half a century
the political activities of the kingdom comprised little more than a
wearisome struggle of rival factions.[803]
[Footnote 803: Bain, Scandinavia, Chaps. 12-13;
Cambridge Modern History, V., Chaps. 18-19; Lavisse
et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, VI., Chap. 17.]
Under Gustavus III. (1771-1792), nephew of Frederick the Great of
Prussia, the pendulum swung back again distinctly toward absolutism.
The Riksdag, according to its custom, sought at the opening of the
reign to impose upon the new sovereign a renunciatory coronation oath.
Gustavus, however, raised objection, and the contest became so keen
that the king resolved upon a _coup d'état_ whereby to accomplish a
restoration of the pristine independence and vigor of the royal
office. The plan was laid with care and was executed with complete
success. August 20, 1772, there was forced upon the estates, almost at
the bayonet's point, a constitution which had been contrived
specifically to transform the weak and disjointed quasi-republic into
a compact monarchy. The monarchy was to be limited, it is true, but
the framework of the state was so reconstructed that the balance of
power was certain to incline toward the crown. Without the approval of
the Riksdag no law might be enacted and no tax levied; but the estates
might be summoned and dismissed freely by the king, and in him was
vested exclusively the power of legislative initiative. Under this
instrument the government of Gustavus III., and in even a larger
measure that of Gustavus IV. (1792-1809),[804] was pronouncedly
autocratic.
[Footnote 804: Gustavus IV., being a minor at his
accession, did not assume 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 constitutional 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 title, 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 constitution of the
kingdom.[805]
[Footnote 805: See p. 589. Bain, Scandinavia, Chap.
14; Lavisse et Rambaud, Histoire Générale, VII.,
Chap. 23; VIII., Chap. 23.]
*631. Constitutional 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 constitutional
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 nobility. 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 assumed 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 principally 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 assent
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 assent, 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, Napoléon, et les
Bourbons (Paris, 1901); G. R. Lagerhjelm, Napoleon
och Carl Johan, 1813 (Stockholm, 1891).]
*633. The Movement for Norwegian Independence: the Constitution 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 assumption 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
constitution modelled principally 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 assent to the union with Sweden (October 20),
the Eidsvold constitution 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 constitution were retained unaltered; the
remainder were revised or omitted. Amended upon a number of subsequent
occasions, this constitution of November 4, 1814, has continued in
operation to the present day as the _Grundlov_, or fundamental law, of
the Norwegian state. No constitution was ever born of a more
interesting contest for national dignity and independence.
[Footnote 809: G. Björlin, 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 constitution, 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 constitution. In each of the
states the functions and status of the crown were regulated by
constitutional 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 passed 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 pronounced; differences
of social and political ideas were still more considerable;
differences in governmental theories and institutions 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 analysis, 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 constitution 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 assent 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 participation 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 participate 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 assent. Norwegian trading and maritime
interests had come to be such that, in the opinion of the commercial
and other influential classes 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, constituted upon Swedish initiative earlier in
the year, in which the practicability of two entirely separate
consular systems was asserted, and, March 24, 1903, an official
_communiqué_ 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 Boström 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, passed 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 constitutional 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 hitherto 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 mass 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 advisement 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 reassembled 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 CONSTITUTION--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 assuming the
title of Haakon VII. he purposely emphasized the essential continuity
of the present Norwegian monarchy with that of mediæval 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 Générale,
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 Lösung (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
Documents (Stockholm, 1905). Worthy of mention are
R. Pillons, L'Union scandinave (Paris, 1899); A.
Mohn, La Suède et la révolution norvégienne (Geneva
and Paris, 1906); and Jordan, La séparation de la
Suède et de la Norvège (Paris, 1906). A useful
survey is P. Woultrin, in _Annales des Sciences
Politiques_, Jan. 15 and March 15, 1906.]