tions were concerned, Sweden and Nor- of receiving ambassadors for them. way should form one kingdom.

with some force that Norway's mercantile marine ranks second in importance in Europe, and third in the world; whereas that of Sweden is

That, nevertheless, these privileges Under the terms of the Treaty of were taken from her by Sweden beUnion Norway was thus granted a most cause she was stronger than Norway. complete measure of Home Rule. She But that now Norway having grown in was given her own Parliament and her power and wealth, is in a position to own ministers in all departments ex-demand the realization of her first cepting in that of foreign affairs. She ideals. Moreover, he has pointed out could levy her own taxes, both direct and indirect. She was to have the control of her own schools, and to retain her ancient municipal institutions and courts of justice. She could make comparatively insignificant. That it her own laws regulating bankruptcy, inheritance, and social matters in general. No Swede could occupy any official position in Norway. With all this, the king's prerogatives were limited within remarkably narrow bounds. He was not empowered to dissolve the Legislative Assembly, and had only a suspensive veto granted to him. That is to say, any law passed three times in succession by the Storthing, or Norwegian Parliament, became valid, in spite of the king's veto. It will thus be seen that whereas Sweden is, and has been since 1815, a limited constitutional monarchy, Norway is, and has been during that period, in reality a republic. In fact King Oscar at the present time is not, as his title would indicate, king of the United Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway, but instead, king of the kingdom of Sweden and president of the republic of Norway. Moreover, as president he is entrusted with a lesser degree of power than is the case probably with the president of any other republic.

is, therefore, not right or just that the control of the consular service should rest entirely with Sweden. Norway should have at least an equal voice with Sweden with regard to the appointments to the consular posts. Further, that what Norway above all desires is an assured prospect of peace, so that she may be able freely and without anxiety to develop her industrial and commercial resources. That she suspects Sweden of dabbling in Continental politics, and hankering after foreign alliances which might involve, not only herself, but Norway also, in a Continental war-and that if only for that reason it would be prudent for Norway to demand complete control over her own foreign policy. Moreover, he has contended that, as a general principle, justifying in his opinion the whole course of Norway's political action towards Sweden since the commencement of the union, Norway is within her rights when she claims to be considered as a completely independent State, united, it is true, in a defensive federation with Sweden, and sharing with her a common king and royal dynasty, but in every other respect free and autonomous, even in respect of the full control and regulation of her foreign relations.

The case for Norway has been frequently stated in English, French, and German reviews, and is comparatively familiar to the readers of them. It has, perhaps, been most concisely and effectively advocated by Björnstjerne Björnson, the well-known politician. Swedish statesmen and journalists and novelist. His arguments are that reply to these contentions of Norway under the terms of Norway's first con- by saying that, other things being fair stitution, she was to be a free and in- and equal between the two countries, dependent State, appointing her own there would be no objection, in view of consular body and ambassadors, to be the modern development of Norway's selected from her own citizens. That population, riches, and foreign trade, she was to have had power of conclud- to granting her an equal voice with ing treaties with foreign powers, and Sweden in the regulation of foreign

affairs. Also, that there need be no insuperable impediment in the way of granting her an equal control over appointments to the consular service. But other things are not fair and equal between the two countries, for Norway enjoys privileges and immunities which Sweden does not. Should Sweden make the concessions required of her without obtaining any others in return, she would be a heavy loser under the conditions of the union, it would no longer be a fair partnership. Norway, she maintains, is giving too little and asking too much. It should be noted here, that the alternative proposal of Norway, namely, that she should have a separate foreign minister, and a separate consular service, is looked upon by Sweden as wholly inadmissible. The two countries are already independent of each other as regard internal administration; if there were two foreign ministers and two consular services, the union, it is very reasonably maintained, would be no real union at all—an avowed separation would be preferable.

in Norway personally, and himself be present in Christiania every year for a certain period, so that since it has not been permissible for him to depute his office to a viceroy. Again, in 1884, the Norwegian Storthing insisted that the king's ministers should sit in the Storthing and be responsible to that Assembly. On meeting with opposition on the part of the king, they impeached his ministers on the plea that they had tendered evil counsel to his Majesty. In the upshot they were dismissed from their office and subjected to a fine of eighteen thousand kronor.

The development of the more recent phases of the dispute has been as follows. In view of the discontent oftentimes expressed on the part of Norway with regard to her share in the control of the foreign relations of the two kingdoms, the king, during his annual visit to Christiania in the spring of 1891, submitted to the Storthing a proposal initiated by the Swedish Council of State, having as object so to reorganize the foreign department that the United Kingdoms should each have a fair share in the regulation of foreign affairs. This proposal was somewhat summarily rejected by the Storthing on the ground that the Norwegian people, as represented by the Storthing, had, without even consulting Sweden, the right to decide the questions of a separate foreign minister and a separate consular service for themselves.

It has already been pointed out that Sweden was strikingly considerate and magnanimous with regard to the terms on which the union with Norway was originally drawn up. It has been a source of vexation to her ever since to perceive that Norway has never evinced the slightest gratitude. As a matter of fact, Norway has been agitating for one thing or another ever since the date of the signature of the Act of Union. The history of the period has Thereupon the Conservative minisbeen one of continual aggression on try under the leadership of M. Stang the part of Norway, of patient resist-handed in their resignation and the ance and eventual concession on the Radical party headed by M. Steen came part of Sweden. Thus, in 1835, the Norwegians obtained the privilege of being represented by their minister in any Council of State which should deal with matters of foreign politics. In 1836, they insisted on being placed on a footing of equality with regard to the appointments to the consular service. In 1844, they obtained a separate flag of their own for their ships of war. At a later date they insisted that the king must perform his political duties

to power. It was understood that the new ministry would insist on a separate minister of foreign affairs and would be satisfied with nothing short of that. Nevertheless when the Storthing of 1892 assembled, M. Steen and his ministry found it would be politic to sink that particular question for the time being, and instead to bring to the front the question of a separate consular service.

The Norwegian ministers' way of

report of a commission of experts, in the instance of the bill for a separate Norwegian consular service it was not thought advisable to follow the usual course of procedure. The experts, it was easy to foresee, would pass a judgment adverse to the scheme.

dealing with this new issue awakened | ing any measure of importance to submuch indignation in Sweden. They mit it to the consideration and for the maintained that this project also concerned Norway only and could properly be decided without in any way consulting Sweden. Nevertheless it was soon perceived that the king would not sanction such a method of procedure, and therefore the ministers did not venture to broach the matter officially It seems in fact clear enough that in a Council of State. They each spoke the consular question was only resorted privately and unofficially with the king to by the ministry of 1892, because it upon the subject, and on finding, as was not convenient at the moment to was to be expected, that his Majesty push the matter of the acquisition of a most decidedly considered that the separate or joint minister of foreign question did concern Sweden equally affairs. The ground had been cut unwith Norway, they tendered their res-der their feet by the proposal, emanatignation. ing from Sweden, to grant Norway a The king was thereby placed in a voice in the regulation of foreign affairs dilemma; he could not form an effec- upon certain conditions. If this protive Conservative administration be-posal had been accepted, Norway would cause that party were so much in a have acquired a due proportion of inminority. Affairs were at a deadlock. | fluence in the department in question, Mass meetings and popular demonstra- if she would only consent to undertake tions ensued for the space of a month her share in the common defence of or so. At last the Storthing petitioned the two kingdoms in proportion to popthe ministers to resume their port- ulation. folios, and to consider the consular question to be postponed until further notice.

This proper responsibility she has hitherto been able to evade in the following manner. In 1814 Norway had a population of eight hundred and eighty-five thousand inhabitants, and an army of twenty-three thousand men available for the defence of the United Kingdoms, and which could be summoned to its colors at the call of the Swedish general-in-chief. At the present time the population of Norway numbers two million, and therefore, in proportion to the increase, she should be prepared to send fifty-two thousand men into the field. But, as a matter of fact, she can now only fit out twelve thousand men.

As to the intrinsic merits of the consular question, it is difficult to see in what respect the Norwegians have any just cause for complaint. It is true that the Swedish minister for foreign affairs has exclusive power to appoint consuls, but he and his predecessors have exercised that power with such discretion that at the present time the majority of the consuls representing the united kingdoms are Norwegians and not Swedes. Again, as has been before mentioned, Norway's mercantile navy is large, whereas that of Sweden is small, consequently Norway derives Under the terms of the Act of Union the most use and advantage from the it was incumbent on Norway to furnish joint consular service. Nevertheless, a certain number of troops to the army Sweden contributes foursevenths, of the line to be available for the serwhereas Norway contributes only threesevenths of the salaries and expenses. It should be added that Norwegian shipowners are as a body opposed to a separate consular service for Norway; and that whereas it is customary for the Norwegian Storthing before pass

vice of the United Kingdom, and a certain number to the reserve, a defensive force which should, under no pretext, be called upon to serve beyond the limits of the Norwegian frontier. By an unfortunate oversight it was nowhere exactly defined in the Act of

Union what the army of the line should | fifty-nine. Moreover, it is probable consist of, and what the reserve. The that, had it not been for the support of result has been that Norway has gradually abstracted from the army of the line available for foreign service, and added to the reserve available only for home defence.

It is the same also with regard to ships of war. Norway, with one of the finest mercantile navies in the world, has grudged the expense of taking her share in what should be the united fleet of Sweden and Norway, so that at the present time she has practically no battleships with which to help the sister kingdom or protect her own commerce in time of need.

The Swedish proposal of 1891, whilst it offered Norway a voice in the regulation of foreign affairs, naturally contemplated a readjustment of such unfair conditions as these. But the Steen ministry, not wishing to risk their popularity by any increase of expenditure, found it prudent to drop the question of a separate or joint foreign minister, and instead, to insist that the consular question should receive immediate attention. A grievance of some sort or another against Sweden was necessary in order to keep the party together, and furnish a cry for the elections.

the Social Democrats which was given to the Radical side upon considerations other than the questions immediately at issue, the Left would have lost its majority altogether.

At the present time the king is governing with a minority in the Storthing, M. Stang continuing to be his minister. But the arrangement can scarcely continue very long, since the Storthing refuses to vote supplies. As it is, Sweden has had to defray the expenses of the consular and diplomatic services for the period between July and December, 1894. Moreover, during the course of 1894, the Storthing reduced the amounts contributable by Norway towards the King's Civil List and that of the crown prince. Of course, such steps as these have caused much illfeeling in Sweden, and make it difficult for those in power to continue to act with that prudent moderation which has hitherto marked their policy.

In the opinion of the present writer that is the great danger of the present situation. Sweden may be tempted to teach Norway a lesson. The thing would be so easily done. Norway has few soldiers, no fighting sailors, and no ships of war. Nothing would be easier So, in fact, Norway's argument comes than for Sweden to occupy Christiania to this. She says her merchant navy is with an army corps and blockade her large, therefore, she ought to have the ports with her fleet. She would then power of appointing consuls. But doubtless be in a position to dictate her when Sweden objects that in that case own terms for the time. But how long she should be prepared to pay more could Sweden maintain her advantage? than three-sevenths of the joint vote, and how would it be possible for her she retorts that her population is small, to administer Norway after the troops and that the taxation should be in pro-and ships of war were withdrawn? portion to population. It seems clear that an irreconcilable The majority of the Steen ministry, hatred against Sweden would be enwhen it came to power in 1892, con- gendered amongst all Norwegians, that sisted of fourteen votes in a house they would slowly arm against the sisnumbering one hundred and fourteen ter country, and that eventually sepamembers. Although the consular ques-ration would be made only the more tion proved an effective party cry from certain for being deferred. an electioneering point of view, yet the Two other developments of the presmajority has nearly disappeared, inas-ent difficult situation are possible. much as the elections of 1894 resulted Either there may be a separation within a loss of ten votes, so that at present out war, or else some definite and perthe Conservatives of the Storthing manent arrangement may be come to number fifty-five and their opponents whereby Sweden and Norway may

come to pass, and the Act of Union is to be remodelled on a basis satisfactory to both countries alike, then it will be needful for the Norwegians to give proof of possessing some slight spirit of compromise, and also to restrain their undoubted powers of exasperation within reasonable limits. Surely Sweden has had forbearance enough already, and ought not to be pushed farther.

maintain their defensive union under of her northern territory. If, on the one king upon conditions satisfactory other hand, the second alternative is to to them both. Of these two developments it is to be sincerely hoped that the first is not a probable one to occur. It would be a matter for the deepest regret if Norway should attempt a separate national existence, and Sweden were to acquiesce in the matter. Norway with her two millions of inhabitants is not strong enough to stand alone. She would fall under the influence or the protection of a foreign power with the consequent loss of all real independence, and probably part

M. S. CONSTABLE.
(H.B.M's. Consul at Stockholm.)

A LAWLESS ISLAND. In the Lanca- mediate sale, but would give the trustees shire Chancery Court, Liverpool, Vice-liberty to apply for the reduction of the Chancellor Robinson heard the petition of rent if called upon to do so by the tenants Pownall v. Joule, in which Mr. Maberly, for life, or until further order. for the trustees of an Irish estate, sought directions under peculiar circumstances. The property, he said, consisted of Tory and other islands, and Donegal holdings on the mainland. The land commissioners had absolutely declined to accept the surrender of Tory Island, from which no rent had been received for some years. From affidavits it appeared that for the years 1891-94 there had been a deficit on the estate of £110 9s., while Colonel Irvine, agent for the property, said that Tory Island was in a state of lawlessness, and the life of any one going there to collect rents would be in peril. A tax collector who went there had been set upon, stripped of his clothing, and sent adrift in a boat, while another was assaulted, and returned less of a man than when he went. Astbury, for the tenants for life, said that if the property were put up for sale it was very doubtful whether it would be a good sale unless they disclosed the whole of this shocking state of affairs, and if they were disclosed a sale would be perfectly hopeless, because the people of this island, who were principally women, were absolutely lawless. There was a suggestion made by Mr. Price that, owing to the fall in the price of produce, principally oats, the rents should be reduced, as other rents had been reduced. If that were done, and a little patience exercised, perhaps something Icould be done. After discussion, the vicechancellor said he could not direct an im

Mr.

THERE is an interesting note in the Bulletin of the Royal Gardens, Kew, on the use of green glass in plant-houses. The use of glass of a green tint has been for half a century a characteristic peculiarity of the plant-houses at Kew, having been adopted in 1845-46 on the recommendation of Mr. Robert Hunt, F.R.S., on the ground that while admitting light and chemical power in the same proportions as white glass, it would obstruct the passage of those rays which produce scorching. Recent investigations have, however, shown that the green glass used at Kew intercepts about one-half of the effective influence of ordinary sunlight on the processes of plant-life. Of late years the increasing haziness of the sky, due to the smoke produced by the rapid extension of London to the southwest, has produced the same effect at Kew as the use of green glass; and it has become obvious that in the future the planthouses must be so constructed as to exclude as little of the available sunlight as possible. Since 1886 the use of green glass has, therefore, been discontinued in all the houses except the fern-houses and the palmhouse; and, it having been proved by experiment that even filmy ferns thrive better under white than under green light, if direct exposure to the sun is excluded, the use of green glass will now be aftogether abandoned at Kew. Nature.