Swedish King Deposed

How many times can the King veto the Parliament of Norway’s Bills?

Continuing Norway Establishes Independence,
with a selection from Norway by Henry Seton-Karr . This selection is presented in 4 easy 5 minute installments. For works benefiting from the latest research see the “More information” section at the bottom of these pages.

Previously in Norway Establishes Independence.

Time: June 7, 1905

We now turn again to the Constitution itself. Here is its opening sentence: — “The Kingdom of Norway shall be a free, independent, indivisible, and inalienable Kingdom, united with Sweden under one King, its form of government shall be a limited and hereditary Monarchy.”

Nothing can be clearer and more unequivocal than these words, which require to be kept always in view.

Taking the Constitution as a whole, it is a most remark able effort of the statesmanship of nearly 100 years ago. It has been pronounced, on high authority, as “the most liberal of constitutions, one of which any modern nation might boast.”

When things had settled down, Karl Johan tried to regain lost ground. Among other things he particularly wanted the power of absolute veto, which, under the Constitution that he had accepted, he did not possess. The sturdy patriots of the Storthing resolutely declined to entertain his proposal, and to this day the merely suspensive royal veto remains one of the most important features of the Constitution.

On one occasion, for example, a few years after the union was entered into, the Norwegian Storthing passed a Bill for the abolition of nobility, the country being too poor to maintain an aristocracy. Karl Johan took a different view. He looked upon this abolition as a blow aimed at his power in Norway, and twice refused his sanction. The Bill passed a third time, under the Constitution became law, and so the people’s will prevailed.

During the ensuing century and up to the present time several further attempts have been made on the part of Sweden to give the King greater power, and to bring the two countries into closer union; but the Norwegians have always resisted these efforts, knowing full well the dangers of such a course for their independence. And here, it may be asked, who can blame them for such action, least of all we of the Anglo-Saxon race, who have fought and bled the world over for political freedom?

It will be seen, then, that the King of Norway and Sweden can exercise his veto only twice. The Norwegian Parliament possesses a right unknown in any other monarchy. When the same Bill has been passed by three successive Storthings, it becomes the law of the land without the assent of the King (see section 79 of the Constitution). The King can thus delay a bill from becoming law for, say, seven to nine years. This should serve as a sufficient check upon any legislative assembly, while at the same time insuring that the supreme will of the people shall ultimately prevail.

King Oscar on two occasions refused his sanction to measures passed for the second time by the Norwegian National Assembly — namely, the Bill for the admittance of the members of the Government to the debates of the Storthing; and the Bill for eliminating the symbol of the Union from the Norwegian national flag. Both these Bills on being passed for the third time became law. The present difficulty, which has culminated in the respectful dethronement of King Oscar by the Norwegians, has existed for twenty-five years. Norway wanted a separate consular service, which the Stockholm Government declined to grant. The Storthing passed a law accordingly; it was duly presented to King Oscar by the Norwegian Cabinet at Stockholm, but the royal assent was unhesitatingly refused.

The Storthing then took a startling and unprecedented step. The resignation of the Ministry having been tendered and declined, the King knowing full well that it was impossible to get anyone else in Norway to carry on the government in face of the opposition of a united people, the National Assembly met on the historic June 7, 1905, and, in effect, formally deposed the King. The concluding words of the President of the Storthing, Herr Berner, on this momentous occasion, are worth recording. In the midst of an impressive silence, all standing up, the President moved the following resolution: “As the members of the Council of State had resigned their office, and as his Majesty the King had declared himself unable to form a new Government, and as the constitutional royal power had ceased to be operative, that the Government which had just resigned should be empowered to carry on and exercise the authority (which they had formerly received from the King) in accordance with the constitution of the Kingdom, with the necessary alterations; that the Union with Sweden under one King is dissolved in consequence of the King having ceased to act as a Norwegian King.”

The resolution was unanimously carried. This action of the Norwegian Storthing has been described as an “unwarrantable provocation,” and it doubtless amazed and offended a large section of the Swedish people, as well as deeply touched the pride of King Oscar. But the foregoing brief sketch of Scandinavian history has been penned to small purpose if it does not show that there is another side to this question; that another and a very different view can be taken of the resolution of the Norwegian Storthing. Their action is the expression, so far, at all events, as an observer can judge, of the deliberate will of a united and homogeneous people, evoked by ninety years of international friction, and finally culminating in (let us hope) peaceful but determined separation.

Henry Seton-Karr begins here. Bjornstjerne Bjornson begins here.

More information here and here, and below.

We want to take this site to the next level but we need money to do that. Please contribute directly by signing up at https://www.patreon.com/history