The reign of Swerker was pacific and admirably adapted to the interests of the kingdom. He was a wise and patriotic monarch. But he had one grievous fault—blindness to the vices of his son. Never, if contemporary chroniclers are to be credited, did a youth so richly merit the curses of the people. At the head of a licentious gang, he violated the persons of the noblest virgins and matrons; he was addicted to every species of riot; and the insolence of his manners gave a more odious shade to his vices. In vain were remonstrances made to the father, whose first duty, as the people thought, was to insist that his own family set the first example of obedience to the laws. Indignant at this guilty toleration, the people arose and murdered the prince. Swerker’s own end was tragical; but whether he died through the influence of the same conspirators, or through the avarice of a domestic, is doubtful. On his death, the same ruinous division took place as in the preceding century: the Goths elected CHARLES, another son of Swerker; the Swedes made choice of ST. ERIC, who had married the daughter of Inge the Good—a name dear to the people. As civil war was so much to be deprecated, the heads of both parties met and agreed to this compromise—that Eric I. should retain both crowns during his life, and on his death both should be inherited by Charles. But what was to become of the rights of their children? To prevent future disputes, the descendants of each were to rule alternately, without prejudice, however, to the elective suffrage of the people. It would have been impossible to devise any expedient better adapted to produce the contrary of what was intended. [Sidenote: 1155 to 1167.]