close corporation, appointing their own successors or compelling the king to appoint whom they desired. Generally the members were succeeded by their sons, and in very many instances we find fathers and sons sitting in the Cabinet together. A person once a Cabinet lord was such for life. The law providing that the archbishop should have a seat in the Cabinet was strictly followed, and in practice the bishops were also always members. The other clergy seem never to have been summoned except in certain instances to aid their bishops or represent them when they could not come. The provincial magistrates were generally members, though not always. As to the number of temporal lords, it was almost invariably more than twelve, sometimes double as many. From the very first, this self-appointed oligarchy saw that in unity was strength; and while the different members of the royal family were squabbling among themselves, the Cabinet seized the opportunity to increase its power. Though not entitled to a definite salary, it was regularly understood that Cabinet lords were to be paid by grants of the chief fiefs; and when these fiefs were extended so as to embrace the whole, or nearly the whole, of a province, the grant of such a fief ordinarily carried with it the office of provincial magistrate. Thus the Cabinet became the centre of administration for the kingdom. From this it gradually usurped the right to legislate for the whole realm, to lay new taxes on the people, and to negotiate treaties with foreign powers. Lastly, it robbed the people of their ancient right to nominate and confirm their kings. These prerogatives, however, were not exercised without strong opposition. Throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the peasantry battled with vigor against the arrogant assumptions of the Cabinet, never relinquishing their claim to be governed as of yore. This struggle against the encroachments of the oligarchy at last resulted in the revolution under Gustavus Vasa. Hence we may with profit trace the relation between the Cabinet and the people from the start.

The first case in which the Cabinet distinctly asserted an authority over the whole land occurred in 1319, when the king, after a long and bitter struggle with different members of the royal house, had finally been driven from the throne. The Cabinet then resolved to place the crown on the head of the former monarch's grandson, a child but three years old. With this in view, they called all the magnates in the realm and four peasants from every county to a general diet, where the chancellor of the Cabinet stepped forward with the infant in his arms, and moved that this infant be elected king. "Courtiers, peasantry, and all with one accord responded, 'Amen.'" This was the first general diet held in Sweden, and it showed a marked decline in the people's rights. From beginning to end the proceedings of this diet were regulated by the Cabinet, and the people were practically forced to acquiesce. Even had the people possessed a real voice in the election, their influence would have been far less than formerly, since here they had but four representatives from each county against the entire class of magnates, whereas originally every landowner, whether magnate or peasant, had an equal vote. During the minority of this king the power of the Cabinet made rapid strides. He was forced to borrow from them enormous sums of money, for which he mortgaged nearly all the royal castles; so that when he came of age he was thoroughly under the dominion of the Cabinet. He struggled hard, however, to shake off his shackles, and with some success. Among other things, he passed a law which was intended to restore to the people at large their ancient right to choose their kings. This law provided that whenever a king was to be chosen, each provincial magistrate, with the assent of all landowners in his province, should select twelve men, who on a day appointed were to meet in general diet with all the magistrates, and choose the king. Unhappily this law was never followed, though the king by whom it was enacted struggled hard to maintain the people's rights. In 1359, after a series of internal disorders, his Cabinet compelled him to call a meeting of all the magnates in the realm; but in addition to the magnates he summoned also delegates from the peasantry and burghers, evidently with a view to gain their aid in curbing the insolence of the Cabinet. This was the second general diet. From this time forth the king did all he could to strengthen the people, until at last he banished a number of his chief opponents. They thereupon, in 1363, offered the crown to Albert of Mecklenburg, who by their aid succeeded in overthrowing the king and getting possession of the throne. For a time now the Cabinet had things nearly as they wished. In 1371 they forced the king to grant them all the royal estates as fiefs, and to declare that on the death of any one of them his successor should be chosen by the survivors. This astounding grant the Cabinet owed chiefly to the influence of their chancellor, Bo Jonsson, who had done more than any other to set Albert on the throne; and to him were granted as fiefs all the royal castles. In 1386 he died, leaving all his fiefs, by will, to the chief magnates of the land. Against this Albert ventured to protest. He called in a large number of his German countrymen, and by their aid recovered a large portion of his power. He then began distributing royal favors among them with a lavish hand, to the detriment of the Swedish magnates. These magnates therefore turned, in 1388, to Margaret, regent of Denmark and Norway, and offered her the regency of Sweden, promising to recognize as king whomever she should choose. In 1389 she entered Sweden with her army, overthrew King Albert, and got possession of the throne. In 1396 the Swedish Cabinet, at her desire, elected her nephew, Erik of Pomerania, already king of Denmark and Norway, to be king of Sweden; and on the 17th of June, 1397, he was crowned at Kalmar.[4] Thus began the celebrated Kalmar Union, one of the greatest political blunders that a nation ever made. It was the voluntary enslavement of a whole people to suit the whims of a few disgruntled magnates.

The century following this catastrophe was marked by violence and bloodshed. In all the setting up and pulling down of kings which ended in the Kalmar Union, the Swedish peasantry, now the body of the nation, had had no part. They had long watched in silence the overpowering growth of the magnates and of the Church; they had seen their own rights gradually, but surely, undermined; and they now beheld the whole nation given into the hand of a foreign king. All this tyranny was beginning to produce its natural effect. A spirit of rebellion was spreading fast. However, open insurrection was for the moment averted by the prudence of the regent; so long as she lived the people were tolerably content. She ruled the Cabinet with an iron hand, and refused to appoint a chancellor, the officer who had hitherto done much to bind the Cabinet together. After her death Erik attempted to carry out a similar policy, and introduced a number of foreigners into the Swedish Cabinet. But his continual absence from the realm weakened his administration, and gave great license to his officers, who by their cruelty won the hatred of the people. At last, in 1433, the peasantry of Dalarne rebelled against the tyranny of the steward whom their Danish ruler had put over them, and in 1435, under the leadership of a courageous warrior, Engelbrekt