This struggle over the absolute veto was occasioned by the king's refusal to sanction a law, passed by three successive _Storthings_, admitting the cabinet ministers to participation in the debates of the house, so as to establish a closer _rapport_ between the people and the government. This seemed especially desirable, as long as the king and a division of the cabinet were resident in Stockholm, and, accordingly, were in danger of losing sight of the needs of the people whom they were governing. The king declared himself ready to sign this law, if the ministers were given the right to vote, and the right was granted him to dissolve the _Storthing_ at will. It seemed to him a disturbance of the balance of power to introduce one feature of English parliamentarism, giving an advantage to the legislature, without also granting the other, which enabled the executive to exert a restraining influence. The _Storthing_ was, however, unwilling to grant this right, being of opinion that there was no need of governmental restraint, where elections were triennial. The ministry, Selmer, which maintained the attitude here ascribed to the king, was impeached by the _Storthing_ before the high court of the realm, for having refused to promulgate the law concerning the participation of the ministers in the deliberations of the house, and for failing, in other points, to carry out the will of the _Storthing_. [Illustration: OSCAR II.] The other phase of the question was scarcely less important. A certain antagonism had early developed itself between the official class, which had been accustomed to take the lead in public affairs, and the peasantry, which became every year more conscious of its power. The king, who is naturally conservative, chose his advisers from those, whose political views accorded with his own, irrespective of parliamentary majorities. The constitution did not limit his liberty of choice, and the _Storthing_ could scarcely do it, without passing an amendment, which he would be sure to veto. The conservative ministry, Stang, conducted the government for many years with a hostile majority in the _Storthing_, and the ministry, Selmer, which succeeded it (1880), had even less popular support. The result was a deadlock; legislative business threatened to come to a standstill. The impeachment and conviction of Mr. Selmer and his colleagues brought a fresh ministry of officials into power, which, after a few months, resigned. The king then sent for Mr. Sverdrup, the leader of the "left," or liberal party, and effected a compromise, in accordance with which he agreed to sanction the law in question, and to summon a ministry, representing the party of the majority, without, however, surrendering, in principle, his right to an absolute veto in constitutional questions. Since then the executive and the legislative power have worked together in harmony, and the former good relation between the king and the people has been in a