other European settlements which still maintained that traffic with Africa.

The king opened the meeting of the estates, at the Hague, on the 15th of October. In his speech he adverted principally to the rising state of the manufactures, and to the improvements which he had in view in various branches of the administration; but the measure, which excited the greatest interest, was the new law regulating the finances. This measure appears to have been all along a greater favourite of the government, than of the country. In the preceding year, an obstinate and vehement opposition had been able to retard, but not to prevent, its progress through the upper chamber; and the opening of the present session, seemed to threaten a still more determined resistance in the lower. The deputies, who were adverse to the measure, and particularly those of the Southern provinces, absented themselves from the estates; so that the assembly was below the number required by the constitution, to the enactment of such a law. The embarrassment, however, in which the government thus found itself, was but temporary; for such a mode of opposition is always too desperate to be long or steadily followed. A sufficient number of deputies was brought together, and the proposed law was carried. Much less difficulty was found in passing another bill, which had for its object to increase the commerce of Holland, by diminish ing the transit duty on foreign productions, from four to one quarter per cent. The party opposed to the government, exulted in the acquittal of some persons

accused of sedition, for having published a pastoral letter of the bishop of Ghent; and the government, on the other hand, showed its strength in the conviction of more than one journal, that had spoken of the interference of Austria in the Neapolitan revolution, in a way which was thought to be subversive of public order.

In Denmark, the police still followed, with a watchful eye, the remnant of a sect, whose religious fanaticism was believed to be connected with political extravagance; and the financial arrangements were completed by an English loan. The government of Sweden found itself involved in a very grave dispute with the legislature of Norway. In the latter kingdom, public opinion, as well as the legislative body, had, for a long time, pronounced itself decidedly against the exclusive privileges, and the feudal rights of the Norwegian nobility. Even when the constitution was framed, which secured the independence of Norway, after it had been ceded to Sweden by the treaty of Kiel, the popular party had endeavoured to procure the curtailment of these privileges and rights; but had only succeeded in gaining a provision, that no new privileges should be granted to the nobility reserving to a more favourable opportunity the propriety of abolishing those which already existed. The Norwegian Storthinglost no time in bringing this most delicate topic into discussion, and in their session of 1816, passed an act, which, not satisfied with curtailing the rights, struck at the very existence of an hereditary nobility. It was not to be expected, that any thing

but necessity would induce the king to sanction a measure, which annihilated what, in every mixed monarchy, has been esteemed an indispensable safeguard of the throne, and would produce so striking a dissimilarity in the political institutions of the different parts of his dominions, while his whole policy had been wisely directed to remove the distinctions which already existed. He refused his sanction to the decree. The Storthing adhered to their resolution, and in 1819 again passed the same bill, only to have it a second time rejected by the king.

In the present session the measure was brought forward once more, under much more favourable auspices for the Storthing. If that assembly only remained firm, it could not fail. The royal sanction was now a matter of indifference: for by the constitution of Norway, any measure which has been passed in three different meetings of the states, becomes law of itself, even without the consent of the king. It was not to be expected, that the legislature, which had hitherto pushed its object with so much resolution, would draw back in the very moment of victory; and on the other hand, nothing could be mor humiliating to the royal authority, than the success of a measure imposed upon the king in defiance of his personal wishes, and all the influence of his crown. As the Storthing showed no inclination to yield, nothing remained for the government, but to avoid a total and formal discomfiture by proposing a compromise, in which each party should appear, at least, to yield something; and such was the es

sence and the effect of the message, which the king sent down to the Storthing at the opening of the session. In this message, his majesty expressed distinctly his wish, that the diet should not bring the question of the abolition of the nobility to discussion in the present session; but stated his readiness to take any measure under his consideration, which should go no farther, than to abolish such of their privileges, as were inconsistent with the public welfare. At the same time, he pressed upon the diet, the necessity of fixing an indemnification for the nobility, proportional to what they should lose and the state should gain by this curtailment of their ancient feudal rights. It is impossible to deny to both of these views the praise of moderation and justice. To eradicate an hereditary nobility in a country, where it has flourished from time immemorial, is neither easy nor advisable; and pernicious as such a body may be, in so far as it is distinguished only by privileges which depress the efforts and hem the prospe rity of the other classes of the community, yet, the very fact that the Norwegian Storthing could thus triumphantly attack the aristocracy, even when shielded by the favour and the influence of the monarch, seems to prove, that this aristocracy might have been as easily amended as destroyed. Considering the state of the public mind in Norway, and the spirit of independence which its legislature had so steadily maintained, there was, perhaps, less prudence in the attempt of his majesty to work upon the Storthing, by holding out the unfavour

able impression which their conduct might make on the other powers of Europe. "Even, supposing," said his majesty, "that a total abolition of the nobility were useful, must not great caution be shown in the choice of the moment for changing a civil institution, which has existed from time immemorial, in Norway as well as in the rest of Europe? Do not prudence and policy demand, that regard should be had, not only to the people among whom the reform is to take place, but also to those with whom it is connected?

"But the present moment appears to be not at all favourable to the matter. The ferment of people's minds in Europe, and the attention which the powers pay to all political innovations, give ground to expect, that so decisive a step as is proposed with respect to the nobility of this kingdom would excite gteat sensation in other states. The unfavourable impression for Norway itself, which might be made upon governments with which it is politically connected, is the more to be apprehended, as such measures as the proposal of the diet includes, will always appear unjust to the families who would be thereby stripped of rights which are guaranteed by the law.

"Norway is, by the constitution, a free and independent kingdom; but, it exists, like the most powerful states, as it were, with other states. Its course must be in harmony with the course which they follow, or must at least not clash with them. The opinions which other nations conceive of our laws, our policy, our wisdom, cannot be indifferent to the Nor

wegian people. The light which experience and reflection continue to throw on all important subjects, especially politics, will afford us means to take, at a future time, a resolution on this subject, which shall be more secure and more maturely weighed than present circumstances allow."

The diet was as little affected by these considerations of policy, with which the king principally supported his wish, that the measure should be postponed, as by the proposal to confine themselves to the abolition of the most obnoxious privileges of the aristocracy. In pursuance of the report of a committee, which had been appointed to examine the whole matter, two propositions were laid before the diet; that it should accept the measure recommended by his majesty, or confirm the bill which had passed two preceding diets for the total abolition of the nobility. The latter was adopted with only three dissentient voices. The indemnification, however, was conceded; and this point, on which the government had all along insisted, being given up, the king consented with a better grace to the change he could no longer avoid, and at last gave his sanction to the bill, in virtue of which, all nobility should expire in Norway, with the lives of the present nobles and those of their children, reserving to all a claim to be indemnified for the loss which they might be able to prove they had sustained in consequence of the measure.

The total abolition of the nobility, insisted upon with so much obstinacy by the diet, and the partial indemnity which

was

granted with so much difficulty, if they did no honour to the moderation or sound views of that body, were, at least, within the sphere of its constitutional powers. But scarcely had they secured their victory on this point, when they allowed themselves to be hurried into a resistance to the royal will in another matter, where even the legality of their conduct became questionable. By the constitution, the annual session of the Storthing is limited to three months; in the king alone is vested the power of prolonging its duration, if he should find it necessary for the dispatch of public business. Aware of the unfavourable light in which they must appear to his majesty, the members of the diet were apprehensive, that he might use his prerogative to prevent the continuance of their sittings; and, in fact, a royal rescript of the 10th of May had been dispatched to the viceroy, ordering him to dissolve the diet, if it proceeded to the consideration of any other matters than those laid before it by the government. To avoid, if possible, the impending danger, the diet now adopted the idea of an appeal to the nation; and on the 12th of May, Mr. Rosinskilde, deputy from Havanger, moved, That in case a further prolongation of the session should be refused, the assembly should issue a proclamation to the Norwegian nation, justifying their proceedings, and that either the president, or a special committee, should draw up the proclamation." The majority rejected the proposal of the president to proceed to the order of the day. However, as the regulations required that the debate

on the motion should be deferred to the next sitting, and the king's consent to prolong the session was received in the mean time, Rosinskilde withdrew his motion on the exhortation of the president; reserving to himself, however, the right to renew it, if it should be necessary. Lieutenant Hoel, who intended to make a similar proposal also abstained from so doing.

this

The king considered motion as a direct attack upon his prerogative, and an open violation of the constitution. In withdrawing his motion, Mr. Rosinskilde had by no means given up the principle, which was in reality still maintained in his reservation "to renew the motion if he should find it necessary:" and from the moment the principle should be made good, that the duration of the session was to depend on the will of the members, the prerogative of the crown, to prorogue them at the end of three months was empty words. The king acted with energy and celerity. Although the sittings were allowed to go on in the mean time, a new order was given to the viceroy, to dissolve the diet immediately, if any member should presume to renew Rosinskilde's motion; and on the 24th of May, a royal message was transmitted to the diet, in which, after stating what had happened, his majesty expressed himself thus. "To mislead the legislature, to appeal to the people against a measure taken by the king conformably to the laws and the constitution, is to tread all forms under foot, to dissolve all the bonds of society, and to commit a crime against the state. For what could such a justifica