Charles XIV. met with a power in politics which, from the start not strong enough to carry away victory, ended by attaining its goal. It was the liberal opposition in the Riksdag, supported by a liberal press. Charles XIV., in his native country, had seen to what an infamy the abuse of liberal forms of government could lead, and he was sternly resolved to antagonize any movement which aimed to introduce more democratic principles in the handling of state affairs and in the remodelling of the system of representation. Charles XIV. was in a delicate personal position. He was the only one of the Napoleonic marshals who preserved his throne after the fall of the emperor, and the strong continental reaction looked askance at this new man who wore one of the oldest crowns of Europe. But his great reputation as a warrior and statesman, and his persistent peace policy, ought to have been to him sufficient guarantees of the fidelity of his subjects. Charles XIV., in the agitation against the self-willed cabinet, saw an enmity against himself. By a network of secret detectives, the king tried to uncover conspiracies and plots which existed in his imagination only, or in that of those who were aware of his weakness and sought to gain personal favors by making use of it. The severity with which the press was censured and its members punished created a bitterness against the king personally, which ceased only during the few last years of his reign. With the new constitution a law establishing full liberty of public utterance in print was enacted, but a temporary restraint had been placed on this liberty, in 1812, on account of violent newspaper attacks upon Russia. The government still made use of this restraint, which caused many severe legal sentences and subsequent bitterness.
Among the press organs of that period the “Argus” and “Aftonbladet” were the most conspicuous in their attacks upon the conservative government; Lars Hierta, one of the ablest of Swedish editorial writers, was the publisher of the latter. His paper was repeatedly confiscated. Anders Lindeberg was the publisher of “Stockholmsposten.” In an agitation against the royal monopoly in theatrical affairs, Lindeberg threw out the accusation that the king, for purely economical reasons, opposed a reform in those matters. He was arraigned and a sentence of death passed upon him, which was commuted to three years’ imprisonment. But Lindeberg refused to accept any clemency, declaring himself ready and resolved to die. The government, who dared not take his life, was in a delicate predicament, but saved itself and Lindeberg by announcing pardon of “political criminals,” at the anniversary of the king’s first arrival in Sweden. Jacob Crusenstolpe, a novelist and writer of note, was one of the intimate friends and supporters of the government, but turned liberal, attacking the king in a pamphlet. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, which created great commotion and a revolt in Stockholm, not subdued except after a bloody conflict with the troops (July, 1838). Crusenstolpe continued writing from his prison.