ICELAND IN 874 AND 1874.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 37, 13 July 1874, Page 3

ICELAND IN 874 AND 1874.

("From the Melbourne “Argus.”]

A fine opportunity for studying “Norwegian” manners, trade usages, and laws at the fountain head is open to those desirous of doing so. In this age of national exhibitions, Iceland (originally peopled from Norway) determined some time ago on holding a millennial exhibition in 1874 in commemoration of its colonisation in 874. That exhibition is now, we believe, being held on the old lava plains of Thingvcllir, where it was to assume the form of an Althing, or National Assembly, and to be conducted in the same way as similar gatherings in the island’s most turbulent days. From this, however, we must not run away with the belief that Reykjavik, the Arctic capital, is now abandoning itself altogether to pleasure, and not doing as much good, honest work in the cause of civilisation as is done at other national exhibitions, in proportion to its size. Lest that should be the ease, the little college and cathedral of Reykjavik were to be devoted, while the exhibition lasted, to the sole use of such men of science, whether native-born or not, as could throw any light on the past history of the country, or give any foreshadowing as to its future. Other countries can boast of a more hoary antiquity than Iceland, but there are few offshoots from European nations which can say, as Iceland now does, that it has just reached the thousandth year of its age. In going over such an extended historical period these scientific men, small as the country is, should have something to tell. Ingolf Arnarson, and his companion, Leif, two Norwegians of good estate, made the first formal and fruitful attempt to colonise Iceland in 874, and they were immediately followed by the families of other Norwegian chiefs, driven by the loss of their independence under the stern rule of Harold, the fair-haired, the centralising and feudalising conqueror of the day, to seek new homes for themselves. Physically, Iceland is a land of contrasts and anomalies, of geysers and glaciers, of sulphurousburning mountains and frost-bound coasts and harbors. Ethnologically, her people form, in connection with the Norwegians, from whom they are descended, the only members of the Aryan race in the polar regions, their language being the oldest spoken idiom of the Teutonic stock. Historically, she furnishes one of the most striking examples of successful colonization, as exhibited in the struggles of her people against the destructive energies of nature, and in their creating for themselves, amidst innumerable obstacles, a sound literature, a good social system, and a form of government suited to their condition. Commercially, she has put othernations to shame ever since 1835 by the abolition in that year of the oppressive trade monopoly theretofore enjoyed by the Danes, and by throwing the island’s ice-begirt and rock-bound harbors open to the commerce of the world. This, all this, and probably much more than this, will be proclaimed at the mid-summer millennial exhibition, in the lit lie college and cathedral of Reykjavik, alike by Icelanders, Norwegians. Danes, and Swedes, for all Scan-

dinavia is to be ransacked for speakers to grace the occasion. As a matter of course, the Norwegians, seeing the Icelanders to bo neither morenor less than a couuterpartof themselves, will take the lead, and supposing the question of what we should call Constitution or Parliamentary law to turn up, thcywill, nodoubt, be loud in their praise of the institutions which the Icelanders, llcsh of their flesh, and bone of their bone, have borrowed from them. Whether they hare borrowed that particular portion of their form of government which has been so much belauded here as the “ Norwegian scheme,” is not now the question. But, supposing one of these Norwegian savans, with a good knowledge of the British Constitution and its working, to be informed that we arc about to substitute their form of Government for ours, what would he think or say of us ? Without being chargeable in the slightest degree with a tendency to national depreciation, he might, and very probably would, say, “ What a set of idiots these people must be to think of changing a form of Government which has worked so well in their own country for such a number of years, for one of the working of which they arc in a state of absolute ignorance 1” Or, suppose one of the Icelanders called upon to address himself to this question,what would he be likely to say ? Probably enough, in his own homely way, “ These Australians, Victorians, or whatever else they are to be called, seem to be doing for ns what the dogs did for Lazarus when he sat at Dives’ gate. If they would mend their ways, of which there seems to be much need, instead of adopting the ‘ Norwegian scheme ’ of bringing the two Houses to vote together, let them do what we have done, throw open their harbors to the trade of the world, and they will then attract, as we have attracted, British capital for the development of their mines and other industries, and for the diffusion of hope and contentment throughout the whole laud. People so fiscally heretical as to deny a man the right of buying and selling what and when and where he likes, unobstructed by any partial law in favor of others, and unburdened with any duties excepting only such as may bo imposed with a real and exclusive view to the interests of the public revenue, are not very safe guides on constitutional questions. Before they think of adopting what is doubtful in its application to themselves, let them adopt what is universally applicable, and of no doubtful benefit to any country.” We must not, however, pursue this train of thought, into which we have been rather unconsciously betrayed, but we close with a simple reference again to the marvellous fact of a country celebrating the thousandth anniversary of its colonisation. Where shall we be when our thousandth anniversary as a country comes round, if the world lasts so long? That is not a question about which we need concern ourselves much, but we should concern ourselves much about the laws we pass, if the country is to prosper. Nor should we jump hastily to the conclusion that what suits our country as to its form of government will equally suit another. What suits Norway in that way, an intelligent Norwegian or Icelander would declare most unsuitable for us.