_Parliamentary Reform--Charles XV_
Charles XV., the eldest son of Oscar I., succeeded his father, having
for two years presided over the government during king Oscar’s last
illness. King Charles was of gigantic stature, exceedingly handsome
and of a manly and noble bearing. There dwelt a fiery soul within him,
conscious of its power, longing for heroic deeds and in sympathy with
all that was noble in life and art. The king possessed an abundance
of youthful energy and vivacity. He was a passionate hunter and a gay
companion, who surrounded himself with men equally boisterous and gay.
He was fond of jokes and merry pastimes, and took no pains to hide his
weaknesses, which were of a convivial nature. In his social intercourse
the king was exceptionally open and frank, treating everybody alike
in a good-natured, hearty manner, winning the whole heart of his
people. He understood better than any king since Charles XI. how to put
himself in cordial relation with the masses of the people. But fond of
playing practical jokes on high and low, he did not like to receive
in the same measure. Charles XV. was devoted to the pursuits of art.
Especially in his youth, he wrote poetry and distinguished himself as
a landscape painter through his love for typical Swedish sceneries.
Sweden did not at first know what to expect of her new ruler, and no
one was able to predict the course of his policy. There were fears that
his youthfulness and his fiery southern temperament might lead him to
feel satisfied with the exterior of things or that he might give way
to the impulses of the moment. These fears soon proved to be without
foundation. The king had chosen as his maxim “Land shall with law be
built,” from the old provincial law of Upland, and he remained, with
very rare exceptions, true to the constitutional spirit of these words.
He had the good fortune to find highly capable advisers, in whose hands
he placed the details of the administration, and, in contrast to his
father, was satisfied to give his attention exclusively to matters of a
more general importance. He gave his unreserved support to his cabinet,
occupying a position above all party interests. Charles XV. often
sacrificed, sometimes only after considerable internal struggle, his
own personal sympathies and inclinations at the request of the advisers
when he saw that the welfare of his country and his own royal dignity
demanded such a sacrifice. On account of this, his true constitutional
spirit, he deserved as a ruler the blind adoration of his people. His
summer residence, the castle of Ulricsdal, in the neighborhood of
Stockholm, he changed into an artistic abode, with choice collections
in various lines. Charles XV. had, in 1850, married Princess Louise of
the Netherlands, of the royal house of Orange. Their daughter, Louise,
was married to the crown prince of Denmark, and is still in life, while
King Charles had to suffer the premature losses of his only son and of
his consort.
The cabinet which surrounded Charles XV. was one of the strongest
bodies of its kind that ever controlled the government of Sweden.
During his regency, Crown Prince Charles appointed Baron Louis de Geer
minister of justice and Ludvig Manderstrœm minister of foreign affairs.
These men continued their duties during the reign of Charles XV.,
while Gripenstedt, as minister of finance, followed up his beneficent
activity for the emancipation and development of the national
industries. The historian, Frederic Ferdinand Carlson, had been the
teacher of King Charles and had successfully continued the monumental
work of Swedish history, left unfinished by Geijer. Carlson occupied,
during the greater part of the reign of Charles XV., the position of
minister of ecclesiastics (church and education), in which capacity
he did great work for the improvement of educational affairs. The
high schools and colleges were reorganized through new regulations of
1859, being the work of Carlson before his appointment to the cabinet.
Carlson also improved the public, or common, schools. King Charles was
a warm friend of public instruction. In one of his speeches from the
throne he said: “This is my ambition that a true and living culture
shall penetrate our people and with its blessings reach the humblest of
its cottages.”
The relations between Sweden and Norway, during the first few years
of the reign of Charles XV., were strained. The Norwegian Storthing
once more voted the abolition of the office of a governor-general.
It was thought that the king, who earlier, as viceroy of Norway, had
spoken in a spirit of acquiescence upon this question, would sanction
the vote of the Storthing. But in Sweden great indignation was felt.
It was known and understood that the Act of Union contained nothing
in regard to the office in question, but was created by a stipulation
in the constitution of Norway which admitted the possibility of its
being filled by a Swede. The Norwegian view was that the Storthing
had exclusive right to decide the question, while the Swedish view
was that it was a question concerning the Union and to be decided on
by the diets of the two countries. Practically the Swedes were right;
theoretically, and from a purely patriotic standpoint, which considered
necessary the development of a perfect national independence even at
the expense of the Union, the Norwegians were right. Ankarsverd, well
known since the days of Charles XIV., made a motion, at the Swedish
Riksdag of 1859, for the revision of the Act of Union on the basis of
the treaty of Kiel, which motion in Norway was accepted as an insult.
V. F. Dalman made a motion that the Estates should ask the king not
to render a decision in the question of a Norwegian governor-general
before the Riksdag had had an opportunity to look into the international
aspect of the question. Great was the commotion caused by this issue,
both in the diets and the press of the two countries. Swedish pamphlets
were circulated which accepted the possibility of a dissolution of
the Union. But in Norway, where the security of a union with Sweden
had become apparent, especially during the conflict with Russia, such
utterances were repudiated. Both of the motions in question were passed
by the four Estates of the Riksdag, but put in such a shape that a
request to have a revision of the Act of Union made was sent up to the
king, with the demand for a royal proposition on that issue. The king
was then asked to consider the question of a Norwegian governor-general
in connection with that revision. As there was a difference of opinion
also in the cabinets of the two countries, the final decision rested
with the king alone. The sagacity and discernment of which King Charles
gave evidence saved the situation and is worthy of praise. He declared
in the Norwegian cabinet that he could not sanction the abolition of
the office of a governor-general. Shortly afterward, he gave in the
Swedish cabinet as his opinion the advisability of postponing, for the
time being, all deliberations of a revision of the Act of Union. By
doing so, the king quieted the high feelings in both countries, and
peace returned. It had become apparent to both Swedes and Norwegians
that the Union was the result of great political foresight because
it was preserved through the increasing feeling of faith and of the
necessity of mutual protection. That great obscurity existed in regard
to the affairs regulating the Union had also become evident.
The reforms and improvements which were effected during the reign of
Charles XV. were highly important. New criminal and maritime codes
were made at the Riksdag of 1862, and sanctioned by the government.
Through the new regulations passed in the same year the foundations
for increased municipal home rule were laid. Such home rule was as
old as the country itself, but, in the same degree as the state
organization, had attained a higher development, and the centralization
of the administration was realized; it had weakened and was in peril
of being entirely lost. Now the time was come for the powers of state
to give municipal home rule new strength, adapting its old forms
and creating new ones, in accordance with modern requirements. Laws
were made which gave the towns the right to elect members to local
assemblies (_stadsfullmœgtige_), with authority to act in behalf of
their communities. Similar institutions (_kommunalstæmmor_) were
arranged for the country communities. _Landsting_ were instituted
in every governmental district, or _læn_, at which representatives,
elected by the people, were to take action on the public affairs of
the district, especially on such that pertained to sanitary conditions,
communications, etc. The conditions for suffrage and elective franchise
in municipal affairs were based on personal income. The old class
distinctions were thus disregarded and a return made to the still older
democratic institutions of the ancient Teutonic communities, in which
every free man is entitled to his word and vote in public affairs.
But those only are considered “free” who by their work can gain
enough to pay their taxes in return for the privileges of a citizen.
The church got a representation of its own in the clerical assembly
(_kyrkomœtet_), which meets every fifth year and consists of equal
numbers of ministers and laymen.
The government in the municipal reforms found a basis for the
reorganization of the Riksdag. The royal proposition for a new
parliamentary representation, placed before the Estates in 1862, was
built upon the municipal suffrage and the Landstings or district
assemblies, the latter being authorized to elect the members of
the senate, or First Chamber. The old system of representation
corresponded as little with the new municipal home rule as with the
general tendencies in politics and social life. The nobility had
lost its old importance. It was no longer advisable for the clergy
to take a leading part in political affairs. A new industrial class
of wealth and prominence had formed and demanded a representation in
the burgher class. The peasants had ever since 1809 been carrying on
their agitation for a reduction of taxes and abolition of the class
privileges. They had met with an overwhelming opposition, which would
fall with the old system of representation. A parliamentary reform
had been fervently discussed ever since 1840. The municipal home rule
reforms of 1862 had brought the question closer to a solution. The
burghers and peasants at the Riksdag of 1860 petitioned the government
to present a royal proposition for the reorganization of the Diet.
Baron Louis de Geer, the minister of justice, was the author of this
proposition, which was presented in 1862 and placed on the table
until the next Riksdag. The great question was acted upon at the
Riksdag of 1865. There was a great deal of commotion on account of
the opposition which was expected from the nobility and clergy. The
discussions in the periodical press and in pamphlet form were lively.
The country population preserved its peaceful and sensible demeanor,
but the excitement in the towns was considerable and increased as
the decision drew nearer. The majority of towns and several rural
communities in their close proximity sent deputations to Stockholm,
who tendered their best wishes to the able minister of justice for the
success of his proposition. The commotion in Stockholm was so great
that troops were ordered ready in case of an emergency. The 4th of
December the proposition was voted on by the burghers and peasants.
At the question of the speaker, whether they were willing to accept
the royal proposition, the peasants rose to their feet in a body and
gave their answer with one laconic yea. A few of the burghers spoke
against the proposition, but it was carried also in their Estate, and
by an overwhelming majority. Long and heated discussions took place
among the nobility and clergy. The clergymen were generally opposed
to the parliamentary reform, but feared to be found remaining as the
only opponents in the storm of disapproval which would follow. For
this reason they postponed their decision until the nobility had taken
action upon the proposition.
There rested a spirit of real grandeur over the deliberations at
the Riddarhus upon this occasion, when the question of a voluntary
surrender of the aristocratic privileges was to be decided. The
Swedish nobility had its class instincts and prejudices, but very
rarely it had been found lacking in men of the loftiest patriotism and
highest attainments, ever ready to take the lead in the defence of the
independence of their country or to follow up faithfully the ambitions
of their great rulers. Arrangements had been made to allow noblemen
from distant parts and of very limited means to be present, if not
during the time of the discussions, which lasted four days, at least at
the casting of the vote. Never in the memorable history of the knightly
chapterhouse had more eloquent language or loftier thoughts been heard
than upon this occasion. Both supporters and opponents of the royal
proposition spoke with great sagacity and discernment. The former
spoke of the inadvisability of a representation by Estates and by
hereditary privileges, and of the dangers of a further postponement of
the needed reform. The latter nicely scrutinized the royal proposition,
which was considered to give too great influence to the peasants, to
weaken the executive power and to depend upon municipal reforms as yet
untried. They further considered the upper house, or First Chamber, too
homogeneous with the Second to be able to exert the conservative or
retaining power expected from it. The members of the cabinet all spoke
with fervor and persuasive power in favor of the royal proposition,
especially De Geer, Gripenstedt and Carlson. The outcome was that the
royal proposition was accepted by a vote of 361 yeas against 294 nays.
The nobility as a class thus left the political arena voluntarily
and with honor. Now the turn was come to the clergy, who unanimously
accepted the royal proposition without further discussion. The
result was accepted with outbursts of enthusiasm from all over the
country, but especially from the towns. The four Estates adjourned
June 22, 1866, forever, and the law of the new system of parliamentary
representation was sanctioned the same date.
The royal proposition, which became the law of a new Diet, is based
upon the principle of general elections. The Riksdag meets at the
commencement of every year. It is divided into two houses or Chambers.
The members of the First Chamber, or upper house, are elected for a
term of nine years, partly by the Landstings, or district assemblies,
partly by the assemblies of towns which do not take part in a
Landsting. Elective to the First Chamber are those who have a yearly
income of at least $1,000 from some business or enterprise, or as the
interest on a capital of their own. These members, or senators, must be
at least thirty-five years of age; they do not enjoy any compensation.
The members of the Second Chamber, or lower house, are elected by
every judicial district in the country which has no more than 40,000
inhabitants and by every 10,000 inhabitants of a town. Towns which have
a population of less than 10,000 inhabitants are joined into election
districts of from 6,000 to 12,000 inhabitants. Elective to the Second
Chamber are those who pay taxes on an income of at least $200 a year
and who are twenty-five years of age. These members are compensated for
the time spent at the Riksdag. The ordinary Riksdag, which meets every
year, lasts for a period of at least four months. The extraordinary
Riksdag is called by the king whenever he finds it necessary. The
members of the cabinet are elective as members of the Riksdag, and
should, during all sessions, be present at the deliberations of the
Chambers. The standing committees remain the same as during the time
of the old system. Special and temporary committees are appointed when
considered necessary. When the two Chambers end in a conflicting vote
upon one and the same subject, the committee which prepared it for
discussion should try to obtain a satisfactory solution. If such fails,
the question is dropped for that year. The expenses of state, the state
appropriations and the management of the national bank, when involved,
form exceptions to this rule and are voted upon by both Chambers
together, the majority of votes from both making the decision.
A new era in Swedish history opens up with the acceptance of the
parliamentary reform. The constitution itself had suffered no change,
except in points of contact with the new rules of the Riksdag. But
the powers of state no longer held to each other the same position as
of yore. The government hitherto had, in the very division into four
Estates, a support against powerful class and party interests. An
equally solid support was not to be expected from a Riksdag of only two
Chambers, which in questions of state appropriations is practically
one. For this reason many would have preferred the establishment of a
system which, instead of abolishing the mediæval arrangement of four
Estates, would have added as many classes as there are really extant in
the modern state, to gain the desired equilibrium through a manifold
and dynamically operating representation. As things shaped themselves
after the two Chamber system, the government ought more than ever to
have a conservative, retaining power in order to preserve the proper
balance. But such was not the case, for the Riksdag had been placed in
a position to watch and control the executive power much closer than
before, thanks to its authority to fix for each year the appropriations
and expenditures of the state. The stipulation that the members of the
cabinet are to take part in the deliberations of the Chambers gives
another pillar of strength to the Riksdag. If the ministers of state
are to exert any influence upon the decisions of the Riksdag, it is
requisite to have its full confidence. The king is forced to select for
his cabinet such members as are supposed to have an influence with the
representatives of the people. The influence of the Riksdag has been
steadily increasing ever since 1867.
While the issue of a parliamentary reform occupied the attention of all
public-spirited men, the interest in the political situation of Europe
was hardly less intense. The sympathy with the unhappy Poles was almost
feverish. In 1863 two motions were made at the Riksdag to petition the
government to take an active part in the restoration of the kingdom
of Poland, by means of diplomatic intervention. The position of the
government was a difficult one. The complications between Denmark
and Germany had recommenced, and it was important to stand in good
relations to Russia. The Swedish public did everything to make these
relations precarious, by demonstrations of various kinds in favor of
Poland, warlike newspaper articles and subscriptions of money to the
leaders of the revolt. Thanks to the sagacity and tactful demeanor
of Manderstrœm and the common sense of the Riksdag the motions in
question were defeated and a dangerous conflict avoided. Complications
of a more serious nature arose on account of the reopened conflict
between Denmark and Germany. The Danish government had failed in its
efforts to make a satisfactory arrangement in the relations between
the crown and the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein. The Germans
repeatedly mixed themselves up in the interior affairs of Denmark,
and the Danes themselves were divided into several parties. King
Frederic VII. at last concluded to give up the idea of gathering in
the duchies as integral parts of the kingdom, satisfied to sacrifice
the ultimate connection of Holstein and Lauenburg with the crown, but
resolved to connect the originally Danish Schleswig with Denmark.
The purely German parts were, through the so-called “March Patent”
of 1863, separated from the rest of the monarchy, while Schleswig
was reunited with it, according to the constitution. This policy was
approved by the Scandinavian party in Sweden and Norway, supported by
Swedish diplomacy, and, in the first place, by Charles XV. himself.
King Charles was inspired by general sympathy with the Scandinavian
movement and by personal friendship for Frederic VII. to follow up the
Scandinavian policy of his father. The two Scandinavian monarchs met
twice during the summer of 1863 and influenced the Swedish-Norwegian
and Danish cabinets to draw the outline of a treaty of defence on the
basis of the river Eider as the Danish boundary to the south. The
Danish government made the proposition for a new constitution according
to which Schleswig was to be united to Denmark. This was contrary
to the promise made by King Frederic to the German powers in 1852.
The proposition for a new constitution was placed before the Danish
Diet and accepted. Two days later, November 15, 1863, King Frederic
suddenly died, before he had sanctioned the new law. This was a severe
blow. The popular king left his beloved people in a most inopportune
moment, fraught with peril and disastrous mistakes. The people of
Schleswig and Holstein renewed an old contention in regard to the right
of succession. The new Danish king, Christian IX., gave in to the
pressure brought to bear on him by his cabinet and the inhabitants of
Copenhagen. He signed the new constitution, which gave to the German
powers a valid excuse to interfere. The Prussian and Austrian troops
crossed the river Eider to make good the agreements of 1852.
The Swedish-Norwegian government was placed in an embarrassing
position. The alliance of defence that was planned was to a great
extent based upon the relations of personal friendship between Charles
XV. and Frederic VII. Sweden was not legally pledged to shield Denmark
as a consequence of the acceptance of the new constitution. But Sweden
had taken a conspicuous part in the deliberations, for which reason a
change of policy could not be made without considerable difficulty. The
liberal organs of the Swedish press, headed by “Aftonbladet,” whose
editor was August Sohlman, did everything in their power to make such
a change an impossibility. But Sweden was not prepared to make war on
two of the great powers of Europe, especially as no other power was
willing to join in an alliance in behalf of Denmark. The change must be
made; and was effected, principally because of the persuasive arguments
and resolute demeanor of Gripenstedt. King Charles resolved to take
the painful measures of a retreat. The standpoint of his government
he gave to the Riksdag in the following words: “It cannot be expected
from us that we should place our sword on the scale of justice without
considering if the object can be attained with the resources at our
command.” It was a supreme sacrifice that Charles XV. made when, for
the safety of his countries, he was forced to draw back the hand of
support and comradeship which he had offered a brother in distress.
The noble-hearted king, in one of his poems, has given a touching
expression of the sorrow he felt in being unable to assist Denmark
in her hour of peril. King Charles might, with proper resources at
his command, have proved a formidable enemy. He had given evidence
of possessing all the qualities requisite for the make-up of a great
general, without doubt an inheritance from his two grandfathers,
Prince Bernadotte and Eugene Beauharnais. A few hundred Swedish and
Norwegian volunteers took an honorable part in the Danish war, which
was the only practical result of the Scandinavian policy. The Swedish
press was violent in its attacks upon the government for its change of
policy. In March, 1864, the mob of Stockholm assailed the residences
of Manderstrœm, Gripenstedt and other cabinet members, breaking the
windows with stones.
Poor Denmark was left alone. Napoleon III. made the mistake of not
attempting to defeat Prussia before she had reached her climax of
strength. He was tied up with his Mexican adventure and unwilling
to help Denmark. Charles XV. could not endure to see Denmark thus
deserted. Privately he offered Christian IX. an alliance which
stipulated that the three Scandinavian kingdoms should be joined into
a union with one common foreign policy and common defence. Charles was
also willing to make the succession one, if necessary. This alliance
was to embrace only such parts of Denmark which were not to enter
the German union. Sweden-Norway would do their utmost to prohibit a
separation between Denmark and Schleswig. Denmark refused to accept
this offer. Her leading statesman, Monrad, held stubbornly to the idea
of an undivided Danish monarchy. For this reason, Denmark was for a
second time abandoned to fight out alone her uneven battle. It ended
in the loss of Holstein, Lauenburg and the greater part of Schleswig,
through the treaty of Vienna, October 30, 1864. In Denmark a hard
feeling against the Swedes and Norwegians sprang up as a consequence
of the disastrous war fought without allies; and the Scandinavian
policy and enthusiasm had received a blow from which they have never
fully recovered. Charles XV. did all in his power to revive them. He
had the pleasure of uniting the efforts of Sweden, Norway and Denmark
in a peaceful work of great significance, the first Scandinavian
Exposition of Industry and Art, which was opened at Stockholm in June,
1866. The consequence was a perfect Norwegian conquest of Sweden, in
a cultured sense. The painters Tidemand and Gude captured the prizes.
The composers Kierulf and Nordraak took the lead in song and music.
Ibsen and Bjornson became the craze in literature. The literary contact
with Norway was begun in 1861, when Lorenz Dietriechson was appointed
a docent at the University of Upsala, and for the first time made the
contemporary Norwegian and Danish poets acquainted in Sweden. What
Sweden received from Norway was a quaint, late-born Romanticism of a
strong national flavor. When this Romanticism was changed into stern
Realism its influence upon Swedish culture, especially her literature,
was only increased, Swedish literature receiving strong realistic
impulses from the neighboring Scandinavian countries. The Norwegian
influence ceased, when the Swedes at last became aware that there was
in it a deeply pessimistic trait, akin to the stern Norwegian and
Scotch Christianity, which is incompatible with the Swedish national
temperament, slightly inclined to melancholy, but of a robust and
irrepressible desire to live and enjoy.
Charles XV. followed up his practical Scandinavian policy by marrying
his only daughter Louise to Crown Prince Frederic of Denmark. King
Charles was as unsuccessful in his noble efforts to unite more closely
his two kingdoms as in his foreign policy. The king allowed some time
to pass in order to let the ill-feeling, caused by the conflict of 1859
and 1860, die out. In February, 1865, he considered that the moment
had arrived to institute the review of the Act of Union. He appointed
a committee of Swedes and Norwegians to prepare the proposition of a
new Act of Union, on the basis of perfect equality and right to decide
separately all matters, except such pertaining to the Union. The
committee performed the work, but their proposition was defeated at
the Norwegian Storthing of 1871, at the instigation of John Sverdrup
and K. Motzfeldt. The Swedish Riksdag for this reason also failed to
accept it. At the close of the Riksdag, King Charles made the following
utterance in regard to the defeated proposition: “What has now failed
to attain success shall perhaps win out without difficulty when the two
nations once have learned to place confidence in each other, as the
result of a more intimate intercourse.” He saw with great satisfaction
the completion of a railway which forever unites the Swedish and the
Norwegian capitals with ties of steel.
The administration of Charles XV. persevered in its liberal policy
concerning questions of economy and jurisprudence. This was particularly
noticeable in commercial matters. The idea of free trade had won
ascendency in Europe. Napoleon III. had entered a treaty of commerce
with England, in strict opposition to the protective system. Other
nations were one by one admitted into the free-trade system by means
of new treaties. Sweden made a treaty of commerce and navigation in
1865. This step was severely criticised by the Riksdag of 1865-1866,
both from a constitutional and financial point of view. Gripenstedt was
accused of leading the way over demolished industries, but he defended
his position with great eloquence. The treaty was ratified in spite of
the powerful opposition in the Riksdag. The press condemned both the
treaty and the government in the most violent language.
The first Riksdag of the new parliamentary system met January 19, 1867.
The “Landstings” had sent to the First Chamber the most prominent
men of the country. It was a truly representative gathering, a house
of peers elected by the people. Lagerbielke, the landtmarshal of the
preceding Riksdag, was appointed speaker. The Second Chamber counted a
larger number of peasants as representatives than of any other class.
Anton Nicolaus Sundberg, then bishop of Carlstad, now archbishop of
Sweden, was made speaker of the Second Chamber. The power of the
peasants made itself felt at once. There was formed a strong and
influential party, the _landtmanna_, or countrymen’s party, consisting
of small landowners. The peasants constituted the majority, but the
party also counted many titled and untitled country gentlemen in
interests united with them. The founder of the party was Count Arvid
Rutger Posse, later minister of state. Emil Key and the peasants
Charles Ifvarsson and Liss Olof Larsson were among the leaders of the
party. The policy of the Landtmanna party demanded simplification
of the administration, economy in the matter of appropriations and
a solution of the questions of the defence and taxation in harmony
with the interests of the owners of the soil. The party followed up
its policy with stern consistency from Riksdag to Riksdag, until in
perfect control of the whole government. The opposition consisted
of “the Intelligence” or intellectual party, which, without a solid
constitution or a fixed policy, has in vain fought the spreading
influence and power of the Landtmanna party. The latter has gone
almost too far in its endeavors for economical reform, but has also
given evidence of appreciation of the material needs of a cultural
development, appropriating large sums for the benefit of science and
education.
The army question was the most important issue of Swedish politics. The
events of 1866 had made it evident that a strengthening of the defences
was necessary. King Charles was anxious to have the question solved in
a satisfactory manner, finding therein the only reliable safeguard for
the future independence of Sweden. It was apparent that any attempts to
settle the question in accordance with the system adopted by Charles
XI. would be devoid of result. It was based upon direct taxation of the
soil and must be opposed by the strong majority of small landowners of
the Landtmanna party. A compromise policy was for this reason begun in
1867, the question of an abolition of the land tax being connected with
the army question, although the two ought to have had no connection.
The question was started with promises of a reduction or exemption of
the duties of the old army system as compensation for the acceptance
of a new arrangement for the country’s defence. The government made an
army proposition to the Riksdag of 1869, promising several reductions
to the landowners who furnished soldiers according to the old system
(_indelningsverket_). The proposition was prepared by a committee,
of which the new minister of war, Gustavus Rudolph Abelin, was the
chairman. It was based upon the preservation of the old system for the
furnishing of the body force of officers and men. The larger force was
to be provided for through militia. The militia was to be drilled in
the neighborhood of their various homes during sixty days of the year.
The proposition was not accepted. The militia compulsory service, as
the duty of every citizen for the defence of his country, had nothing
to do with the regular army as provided by the stipulations of the old
system. But the majority of the Second Chamber confused the two and
refused to allow the establishment of the former on a wider basis,
because the offers made to reduce the burdens of the old system did
not appear to them liberal enough. In 1871 another proposition was
made by Abelin to the Riksdag. It was similar to the first one, and
its cause was eloquently pleaded by Abelin, Axel Gustavus Adlercreutz,
minister of justice, Peter Axel Bergstrœm, minister of civil service,
and Gunnar Vennerberg, minister of ecclesiastics. They warned against
the mistake of attaching impossible conditions to the acceptance of
the proposition. The proposition for an extended militia service was
accepted by both Chambers. But when the Second Chamber raised, as a
condition for its acceptance, the suspension, for fifteen years, of the
old system which provided for the regular army, the government found it
impossible to grant this, and the proposition was dropped.
King Charles was grieved and vexed with the fate of the army bills.
The Franco Prussian war made it, in his opinion, of added importance
to Sweden to have her defences remodelled. He called an extraordinary
session of the Riksdag, in the autumn of 1871, when Abelin brought
out a third proposition. It was chiefly of the same contents as the
preceding ones. But a remarkable change in the public opinion had now
taken place, as to the advisability of retaining the old system. Men
who looked upon the question more from a military than an economic
point of view entertained doubts as to the practical value of the
old regular army as the body force of a compulsory militia. Military
officers commenced to attack the old system as the basis of a new army.
The Landtmanna party persevered in the request for an abolition of the
old system, and this killed the army bill at the extraordinary Riksdag.
Together with the request for an abolition of the old army system,
demands for redemption from other burdens placed upon the owners of
the soil made themselves heard. The land-tax was the principal one of
these burdens and caused as much difference of opinion as the army
system. The Landtmanna party considered the land-tax to be of the
same nature originally as other taxes, which ought to be more evenly
distributed and shared by all classes in the same proportion. The
Intelligence party was of the opinion that the land-tax in the course
of time had come to be rents or mortgages which always were taken into
consideration at the exchange of property, as reducing the stock value
of the property in question. To free a present generation from the
payment of land-tax, was in the eyes of the opposition, an injustice
to the other classes whose taxes thereby were to be increased. The
Landtmanna party had, in 1869, commenced an agitation for the reduction
of the land-tax for shorter periods and on a small scale at first, but
with increasing demands at every new Riksdag.
The government, whose members had been the champions of parliamentary
reform, was soon disregarded by the triumphant party, while its old
opponents never forgot it. The earlier advisers of the king retired
one by one when they saw their influence in the Riksdag vanish. King
Charles himself took the defeat of the army bills deep at heart. His
health commenced to fail in 1871, and when his faithful consort died,
in the same year, having exposed her own health in her attempts to
improve the condition of the king, the latter grew worse. After a trip
abroad for his health, King Charles XV. died at Malmœ, September 18,
1872, deeply mourned by the two nations. In the following year his
youngest brother Nicolaus August, duke of Dalecarlia, died, leaving
only two of the children of Oscar I., Oscar Frederic, duke of East
Gothland, and Princess Eugenie. The history of Charles XV. carries the
principal traits of his character. His sweeping reforms in social,
political and economical matters, and his great plans for the future,
even if sometimes immature, or high-strung, were always characterized
by loftiness of purpose. A typical Swede both in his merits and his
faults, this was the secret of the immense popularity of King Charles,
which always followed him, although he never sought it.
The philosopher Christian Jacob Bostrœm is the most popular of Swedish
thinkers and the first who founded a national system and school of
philosophy, idealistic and rational, and in strict opposition to the
system of Hegel. Bostrœm was born in Pitea, in 1797, was the teacher of
the sons of Oscar I., and succeeded the able philosopher Samuel Grubbe,
a talented follower of Hœijer, as professor of philosophy at the
University of Upsala. Bostrœm was a highly fascinating and suggestive
teacher, while he neglected his literary production, which is neither
exhaustive nor quite representative of his philosophy. He exerted a
considerable influence by his outline of a philosophical state, which
pleased the conservatives, while a much more widespread and lasting
impression was produced by his criticism of the doctrines of a hell and
a devil. A whole literature sprang into life, discussing vehemently
the existence or non-existence of the fiend. To this literature and
the works and writings of Bostrœm is to be credited the spirit of
religious tolerance which characterized life and literature during the
reign of Charles XV. It fostered in the cultured few a leaning toward
Unitarianism or Theosophy, while it gave rise to a shallow materialism
and religious indifference in the less cultured classes and individuals.
The artistic, literary and musical life bore a decided resemblance
to the intellectually interested but dilettantic king. Charles XV.
was surrounded by a great number of painters who, although possessing
a good deal of talent, succeeded only in the smaller field of genre
painting. Remarkable exceptions are J. F. Hœckert, Marcus Larsson and
C. H. L. D’Uncker, who possessed sterling genius and acquired great
fame. Several promising painters, like George von Rosen, developed
later the full scope of their power. The sculptor J. P. Molin was
highly talented, a worthy follower of B. E. Fogelberg, who had enriched
Swedish art with a number of highly important sculptures.
In the world of letters, the spirit of dilettantism was more strongly
felt than in art, Swedish literature, after its several glorious
epochs, experiencing one of its most stagnant periods. A veritable
giant among pygmies was Victor Rydberg, whose remarkable novel, “The
Last Athenian,” appeared in 1859, but whose principal productivity as a
poet and scientist belongs to a later period. So do, to a great extent,
the best works of the poets Eduard Beckstrœm, also an able dramatist,
and Count Carl Snoilsky. Zacharias Topelius, the Walter Scott and
Hans Christian Andersen of Finland, must be mentioned here. Writing
in the Swedish language, and for his principal work using subjects of
Swedish history, he was as highly beloved in Sweden as in Finland. His
excellent series of historical novels, called “The Surgeon’s Stories,”
have been translated into several languages. His juvenile stories are
not characterized by the same degree of inventive power as are the
tales by Andersen, but Topelius had the latter’s ability of placing
himself in intimate contact with the pure minds of all ages.
In the most national of Swedish cultural elements, the song, the epoch
of dilettantism found its most beautiful and lasting expressions. The
quartet and chorus singing at the universities of Upsala and Lund was
cultivated to the highest standards of excellence and had a splendid
repertory in the songs of Otto Lindblad, Vennerberg, Prince Gustavus,
Josephsson, Crusell, Cronhamn, etc. The Upsala students caused a
great sensation by their singing at the Paris Exposition of 1867,
and have repeated their successes at the Paris Exposition of 1878,
and in Berlin in 1898. Swedish quartets of men’s and women’s voices
have travelled all over the world and made a lasting fame for this
minor but bewitching branch of musical art. As dramatic singers of
the first rank, Louise Michaëli and Christine Nilsson have been the
worthy successors of Jenny Lind. To this period, as well as to the
next, belongs Elisa Hvasser, the greatest and most versatile actress
Sweden has ever had. This artist was equally at home in the farce
and melodrama, but excelled in the tragic parts of the Shakespeare,
Schiller, and Ibsen repertory. Indispensable in their positions at the
Royal Theatre of Stockholm, Michaëli, the songstress, and Hvasser, the
tragedienne, did not travel, thereby losing the fame a world would have
been only too glad to give them.