Charles XV. died in the prime of life, and, having no sons, was succeeded (1872) by his brother, Oscar II., who is still reigning. The progress toward a more complete and consistent democracy, which had been going on, since the adoption of the constitution, has recently reached a crisis, which might have had disastrous consequences, if the king had not wisely made concessions to the parliamentary majority. There were really two points at issue, viz., the absolute veto in constitutional questions and the control of the government. As regards the former, the king held that the Norwegian constitution was a contract between him and the Norwegian people, prescribing the terms of the union. Accordingly, it could not be altered without the consent of both parties. He had, therefore, the right to insist upon the terms of the contract, and to forbid any alteration of it, that did not meet with his approval. There can be no doubt but that legally this point was well taken; and the faculty of law in the University sustained the king's position. Another question is, whether such a contract, if eternally enforced, would not cripple the nation's progress, and in time become as great a curse, as once it had been a blessing. If the framers of the constitution, when they submitted it to Charles John, failed to provide for its amendment, they committed a serious error, which may, perhaps, be binding upon their descendants, in point of law, but scarcely in point of equity. No constitution, however excellent, is fitting for all times; and the constitution of Eidsvold is no exception to the rule.