and punishing, by fine and
dismissal from office, an entire Cabinet, for the crime of having
advised the King that his veto was not merely suspensive, but absolute,
in the matter of any Bill affecting the principles of the Constitution,
and that the questions in dispute between the Sovereign and the
Storthing were of a constitutional character, involving indirectly not
only the stability of a monarchical form of government, but also that of
the personal union between the crowns of Norway and Sweden--a stability
pre-eminently essential in both respects to the highest interests of
Scandinavia, and in no small degree also to the maritime and political
interests of this country. It is this form of Parliament that Mr. Laing
extols 'as a working model of a constitutional government on a small
scale, and one which works so well as highly to deserve the
consideration of the people of Great Britain.'

We have at last done with Mr. Laing's remarkable statements, views, and
recommendations; and the principal question we now have to consider is:
What is the latest phase (after an interval of half a century) of the
development of the peculiar social organization of Norway, and
especially of its system of land tenure, differing, as both do, from the
organization and system evolved out of feudality in Great Britain and
Ireland? We therefore intend to enquire: (1) Has the system of land
tenure in Norway prevented, as foretold by Mr. Laing, an excessive
subdivision of land? (2) Has a dead level of ease and contentment been
maintained? (3) Has the diffusion of land by a natural process, under
the widest form of home rule, kept the rural population of Norway within
the bounds of possible modern existence? (4) Has no pauperism affected
the taxation of landed property? and (5) generally, Is the Norwegian
yeoman farmer in a more thriving condition at the present time than the
tenants and agricultural labourers elsewhere, from whom is still
withheld the freehold possession of land to which, it is alleged by a
certain school of politicians, they have a natural right, disputed only
by monopolists and land-grabbers?

These are the questions we shall endeavour to answer with the aid,
exclusively, of the latest publications of the Norwegian Government. We
must, however, preface our replies by sketching roughly the influences
that have sprung into operation since Mr. Laing published the Journal of
his residence in Norway.

In his time the towns