網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

to the chamber of nobles in a Swedish diet-a chamber composed, in one diet, since the acquisition of the Norwegian crown by the Swedish monarch, of sixty-seven ensigns and lieutenants, forty-nine captains, one hundred and five colonels, lieutenant-colonels, and majors, thirty-eight chamberlains, twelve presidents or vice-presidents of departments, twelve prefects, and twenty in various other court offices in all, four hundred and seventy-five government functionaries, out of a chamber of four hundred and ninety-two members! Yet, Mr. Laing would quietly ask-in a whisper in which of these two legislative chambers will we find men who betrayed the king to whom they had sworn allegiance - who sold the crown of their native race of sovereigns - - which, if the sovereign who wore it was incapable or unworthy to reign, should, on every principle, radical or conservative, have ultimately devolved on his infant heir to a foreigner and who delivered up to the enemy for money the finest provinces of the realm, the strongest fortresses and positions in Europe?

[ocr errors]

But this Norwegian constitution is too democratic in one page of this statesmanlike pamphlet, and too little so in the next. He complains that the representative is not elected directly by the people in Norway, but by their election-delegates. It is certainly an evil of this intermediate wheel between the constituency and the representative, that the public takes less interest in the elections than where they appoint their representatives by direct election. This disadvantage of the system of election-men was pointed out by Mr. Laing. He also pointed out its

bribery, all undue influence over the electors, and is, in reality, the only system, except the vote by ballot, which secures the purity of election. Time alonethat greatest of all political philosophers can discover whether this system be or be not good. In the peculiar situation of Norway, with a corrupt Swedish aristocracy eager to use all the royal power and patronage for the end of obtaining an influence in the legislative body of Norway, and an exclusive management of her affairs, the system of electing representatives through election-men works admirably. Influence, intimidation, or bribery, cannot get through a double row of electors; and that of the immediate electors, the election-men, not known, until they are assembled to act for their constituents in the election of a suitable representative. No wonder such a system is too much and too little of a democracy to suit the Swedish nobility gaping for posts, and places, and public money, from the executive branch of the joint governments. Mr. Laing replies to all the observations upon the theoretical defects of the Norwegian constitution, with the simple facts that the people living under it are undeniably in a state of high and progressive prosperity; their trade, shipping, exports, imports, industry, well-being, and property, rapidly increasing; while the commerce, shipping, and physical and moral condition of Sweden are notoriously not advancing. That their taxes are reduced — their debt paid off — their money good in all countries their credit excellent; and, above all, with the fact that the Norwegian people are content with their constitution as it is, while Sweden and Denmark are both clamorous for a constitution similar to it. How comes it, he

[ocr errors]

-

asks, that a committee of the Swedish diet, now assembled, recommends a reform of the Swedish constitution, and that one single representative assembly be elected without distinction of privileged classes, and that the second or upper chamber be elected out of and by this representative assembly? This is exactly the principle of the Norwegian constitution; and this is the substance of the report of the committee of the present diet, appointed to consider the reforms necessary in the constitution of Sweden. Denmark, also, is at this moment in a state of great excitement the nation almost peremptorily demanding a constitution from their new sovereign-a constitution similar to that of their late fellow-subjects. And why? Because, while they are pressed to the earth with taxes, and public expenditure, and a wasteful irresponsible government, they see their former fellow-subjects happy and flourishing. A constitution which those who live under it are contented with, and those who live around it envy, and are intent upon obtaining one similar for themselves, may well do without the approbation of the aristocracy of Sweden. But as the prosperity of Norway under its present constitution is not to be denied is notorious to all Europe - is loudly proclaimed in every sea-port which has relations of trade with that kingdom our Swedish pamphleteer slily changes his ground, and insinuates, that this undeniable prosperity is not owing at all to the liberal constitution of Norway, to the general diffusion of property among her people, to the wisdom, intelligence, and Joseph Hume-like economy of her native legislators in expending the public money, but to

puppet-show of a court, a diplomacy, an army of many officers, a navy, and apes the establishments of a great power without the means to support them. Norway, he says, is spared all this is spared all this expense of establishments for defence or display as a nation, and therefore is flourishing at the expense of Sweden. The Norwegian storthing is certainly wise enough to see, that the people of Norway have property to defend, a constitution worth fighting for, and a sovereign to whom, as the head of that constitution, they are as zealously attached as his foolish attempts to subvert it will permit them to be: and, peasants though they be, have political tact enough to estimate much more justly than the Swedish cabinet, their real position among the European states; to see that their safety, independence, and importance, depend not upon the half dozen regiments and frigates which they could maintain, and still less upon an army of noble officers without men, strutting about the streets in idleness, demoralising the town populations, and devouring the means of the people, but upon the commercial relations of their country, which bind it, and its safety, independence, and present constitution, with the interests of European commerce, so that a shock now given to Norway would be felt on every exchange in Europe, from Naples to Archangel. They act with far more political wisdom, in expending as little as possible of the means of the people in taxes, to support an idle show of military and naval power, and in putting their country in the best state of defence which their real means permit them to do, viz. that in which the people have rights and property to fight for-arms in their hands to fight with-and a sufficient but not oppressive military organisation

to defend their own rocks against direct invasion; but resting the defence of their national independence, as all secondary powers must do, not upon their own military power, but upon the intimate junction of their interests, industry, independence, and government, with those of greater powers.

Which country is in the best state of defence? Norway, with little or nothing of an army, navy, diplomacy, and no privileged class of nobility, but with its industry, commerce, and welfare binding it up with those of every trading nation in Europe? or Sweden, isolated politically and commercially compared to Norway; and with the hereditary ties of a nation to its sovereign broken by a venal court. faction, its crown upon the head of a foreigner ignorant of the language or civil affairs of the country he governs, its idle dissolute nobility living as useless military, civil, or courtly functionaries upon the means of the people, and looked upon by the people, since their sale of Finland, and of their native race of princes, as quite capable of betraying every interest but their own; and the people themselves, driven by misgovernment and oppressive military arrangements into poverty and its natural consequence, over-multiplication; into drunkenness, and its natural consequence, immorality? Which country is the best governed-that in which the people are governed by their own laws, and employ their own time and labour on their own property, to their own advantage? or that in which the people are without any real voice in the legislature, are oppressed with taxes, to support military and civil establishments altogether ridiculous in the present political state of European

« 上一頁繼續 »