present. This decision was determined by the position of the Norwegian Government, which did not consider a diplomatic representation in China necessary for the protection of Norwegian interests-even if the Foreign Department had been in accordance with Norway's pretensions.

On the Swedish Riksdag assembling (Jan. 17) M. Reutersvärd in the Upper House pointed out the extremely favourable financial position, which would allow of the military and naval votes being dealt with in a liberal manner, and of the defensive measures of the country being pushed forward with vigour. As far as the Union was concerned, it was the duty of Sweden to resist any unjust demand from Norway, at the same time Sweden would do all in her power to prevent the tie, which united the two countries, being severed little by little. Presidents of the two Chambers, Count N. G. A. Sparre of the first, and Count Robert de la Gardie of the second, appointed by the King, on taking their seats addressed the respective Houses. Count de la Gardie, referring to the Greco-Turkish and the Spanish-American wars, maintained that the old maxim, if you want peace be prepared for war, still held good. Sweden could congratulate herself upon having such a well-balanced Riksdag.

The

The following day the Riksdag was formally opened by a speech from the Throne, read by M. Boström, the Prime Minister. Having mentioned the friendly relations with all foreign Powers, complimentary reference was made to the Czar's peace manifesto, adding that, whatever would be the result of the Peace Conference no country could omit doing what was needful for her self-defence, and that Sweden must continue to strengthen her means of defence, which were quite inadequate. The next day the Budget was introduced, balancing with 130,807,000 kr., of which 21,316,000 kr. was surplus from previous years. The expenses for the Army and Navy amounted in the aggregate to 55,500,000 kr.

A few days later the debate in both Houses turned upon the relations between Sweden and Norway, and it soon became very animated. The more extreme of the Swedish Nationalists had for some time been criticising the Government somewhat severely, blaming M. Boström and his colleagues for not showing sufficient firmness in their attitude towards Norway. In their press, and by one or two committee nominations in the First Chamber, it had become evident that the section, of which M. Reutersvärd and Professor Alin were the principal spokesmen, was not by any means pleased with M. Boström for his standpoint towards Norway, and it was freely rumoured that they might even attempt to upset his Ministry. Professor Alin, moreover, during the sitting, attacked the Government for its attitude with regard to the resolution of the Norwegian Storthing on the "flag" question. This attitude, he described, as an attempt to upset the status quo policy, which was the only one Sweden could now follow. In order to maintain the

existing conditions, it was necessary to withstand the further Norwegian demands, and he hoped this would be done. General Björnstjerna did not think that another nation would thus desire an alternative flag as did the Norwegian. It ought, however, to be made optional for shipowners to use which of the two flags they preferred, and it would then be seen which flag would be most used. Baron Reutersvärd contradicted the report that he and his party would, on this occasion, make an attack upon the Boström Ministry. He only wished that all future Governments would take up a similar attitude.

The

In the Second Chamber M. Staaf and M. Branting were the principal speakers on behalf of the Opposition. former reproached the Government that they had not, at the close of the work of the Union Committee, stretched out a hand of conciliation to Norway, even at the risk of having with the other to wave farewell to the Foreign Minister. Count Hamilton, in replying to M. Staaf, qualified the latter's attack as mean, malicious witticisms against a member of the Ministry, and wholly unworthy of the importance of the subject under discussion. M. Boström, the Premier, declared that all the members of the Government were entirely agreed amongst themselves, and that they had also been in perfect accord with the majority of the Union Committee. M. Boström finally stated that the whole welfare of both Sweden and Norway depended on the Union.

Against some of the additional military votes there was a certain amount of opposition in the Lower House, but by a joint voting of the two Chambers (April 6) the vote for new rifles was passed by 223 votes against 143, and a vote for additional fortification defence by 191 against 172, in each case the minority voting for reduced grants. The First Chamber at the close of the session (May 15) received the compliment from M. Reutersvärd that the House, under the presidency of Count Sparre, had stood as one man when it was a question of the welfare of the country. In the Second Chamber Count de la Gardie dwelt upon the fact that the present members would not again be called together, unless, as was not at all likely, an extraordinary session should be held prior to the general elections.

The general elections to the Second Chamber, commencing in August, extended over a number of weeks, and although the proceedings lacked some of the heated agitation observable in other countries a very general and intelligent interest was displayed in the progress of the elections throughout the country. Party lines in Sweden were less sharply defined than in neighbouring countries, and throughout the elections the spokesmen in favour of a less extreme policy in the dealings with Norway found greater favour than the ultra-national party. The Storsvenska and the Fosterländska sections had to submit to one defeat after another, although there was no lack of what

was called "flag resolutions" in their support. Amongst other places, the Fosterländska Förbundet-the patriotic league -suffered a notable defeat in Gothenburg, where all their candidates succumbed to men of more liberal views. In Stockholm the candidates of the Liberal Union were returned in all five divisions, with the exception of Captain Wallenberg who was elected for the first division by the Moderates. Otherwise the members elected by the capital were either Liberal Moderates or Liberals, except M. Branting, a Social Democrat. Otherwise the Social Democratic element was not represented in the Swedish Legislature, and M. Branting's name, was moreover included in the lists of both the Liberals and of the Moderates. In some places extreme Nationalists were replaced by Conservatives of less pronounced views. How the various parties within the new Rigsdag would eventually group themselves remained to be seen; the only definite conclusion to be drawn from the returns being a strong and general protest against Sweden carrying the "flag" question to extremes, whilst resisting in some way or other, Norway's repeatedly and constitutionally expressed intention to have her flag relieved of the emblem of the Union. But if the Swedish nation showed by its general vote no wish to challenge a serious conflict with Norway on this matter, it did not follow that the former country meant to adopt a policy of universal compliance towards the somewhat aggressive sister country. On the contrary, the fact of Sweden having decided to deal with every point in dispute according to its merits, might be taken to indicate her intention of displaying firmness against Norwegian demands, which could not be morally or constitutionally justified.

At the election wiser counsels had prevailed, and this feeling was further emphasised by Professor Alin and M. Reutersvärd resigning their seats in the First Chamber, as soon as the vindictive policy advocated by them had been condemned by the nation at large. These two politicians, more especially Professor Alin, had by careful historic researches arrived at the conclusion that Norway's relations to Sweden ought to be those of a subordinate country, and of this untenable view the general election had disposed. Neither the consular question nor that of foreign representation was in any way prejudiced by the abandonment of the extreme flag agitation, and the two countries did not appear to be any nearer an amicable solution of the conflict which for a long while has called for a definite settlement.

That the election had materially improved the chances of the Liberal factions was universally admitted, and the formation of a new Liberal party, capable of uniting or absorbing its various groups, was discussed even before the election was quite finished. Professor Sixten von Friesen, one of the members for Stockholm, was mentioned as the probable leader. M. von Friesen during the last session of the Rigsdag had introduced a

Suffrage Bill, which found favour with Liberals and Radicals alike, and, although the representative of a town division, he was liked by many rural members on account of his pronounced sympathy with a policy of greater economy. M. von Friesen also was apparently quite independent of the Radicals, who had not been particularly successful in their efforts for the advancement of Liberalism, although they made no small noise whenever an opportunity offered itself. M. von Friesen's Suffrage Bill, the main feature of which formed an important part of the Liberal election programme, was based upon the principle that political suffrage should be given to all who were entitled to vote in municipal matters. To counterbalance this wide reform a somewhat extensive compulsory military service was at the same time to be introduced. There was, however, no certainty as to the actual results of the election, and it was anticipated that many of the new members would show less enthusiasm for a Liberal suffrage reform in the House than they had affected on the platform.

Another prominent feature of the electoral campaign of 1899 was the attitude of candidates towards the total abstinence movement; unprejudiced observers held that this question could easily be mixed up too closely with politics, to no benefit for either, and it was felt that on this subject more than one candidate had made rash promises which would be difficult to fulfil.

It

The once all-important question of protectionism and free trade was forced into the background, indicating that no great reforms in this direction were asked for or promised. Consequently more stability was to be looked for in the Swedish tariff, which promised to work beneficially for all concerned. would, however, appear that the free traders were slowly gaining ground, and at an election to the Upper House in October at Norrköping, a great manufacturing centre and formerly a protectionist stronghold, a free trader, M. Carl Schwortg, was returned, an event which would have been impossible some five or six years previously.

It

The Norwegian flag question was before the Joint Councils of State (Swedish and Norwegian) on October 6 and 11. transpired during those councils that the Foreign Minister, Count Douglas, held a view differing from that of his colleagues and of the King, his Majesty acquiescing in the demand of the Norwegian Councillors of State, that the resolution of the Norwegian Storthing should be pronounced law. The resignation of Count Douglas as Foreign Minister, which had for some time been rumoured, promptly followed, and M. Lagerheim, Swedish Ambassador to the German Court, was appointed his successor. The War Minister, Baron Rappe, also resigned, M. von Crusebiörn succeeding him; another change being that of Consulting Councillor of State, Baron Akerhielm, being replaced by M. Rostadius. M. Lagerheim's acceptance of office

was hailed in Norway by the Conservative party with satisfaction, as likely to improve the relations between the two countries. The new War Minister was understood to be in favour of universal compulsory service and a further extension of the fortifications, more especially those of Northern Sweden.

VIII. NORWAY.

The year 1899 in Norway was somewhat a disappointment to those who were looking for the dawn of a new era. The doings and tactics of the Radical party subsequent to their getting into power seemed, in the opinion of many of their supporters, to fall far short of the promises and protestations in which they indulged whilst fighting for office. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that the suffrage question had been settled in full accordance with the Radical programme, and that the principle of parliamentary Government had been fully recognised. With their all-powerful majority the Radicals might, however, have been expected to have added to their achievements during the year.

Previous to the reassembling of the Storthing after the Christmas recess, M. Stang, at a meeting at Frederikshald, spoke rather hopefully of the political outlook, from a Conservative point of view. He declared his firm belief in a peaceful solution of the conflict on the Union question on a moderate Conservative basis. The standpoint of the Left was impossible, and could only be carried by adopting hostile measures towards Sweden, which, he felt sure, the Norwegian nation would never sanction. Should the Left now become too aggressive, great difficulties would arise, and misfortunes would follow. A truce was necessary also for the purpose of healing the wounds which the resolution about the "pure" Norwegian flag had inflicted upon all sections of the Swedish nation. Time would bring acquiescence, as well as the solution of the other Unionist difficulties. This statement gave the keynote of the Conservative views, and would also appear to have, to some extent at least, influenced the Radical leaders. These showed themselves strangely reticent on various occasions, when plain speaking and moral courage were looked for by many of their followers, but discretion was much in favour with them throughout the whole of the long session. Notwithstanding the absence of any heated political obstruction, the legislative work done was very moderate in both quality and quantity, and the Government displayed no great business capacity to compensate for the political languor. The Radical majority as a body adopted a passive attitude, and rather shrank from than coveted the opportunities which offered themselves for bringing forward the high-sounding resolutions which were conspicuously paraded during the electioneering campaign.

The financial doings of the Storthing were somewhat