The king followed up his policy by demanding for the crown two-thirds of the ecclesiastic tithe and by placing the ecclesiastics under the duties of russtienst, in 1526. The ex-prelates, Knut and Peder, were, upon the king’s request of an extradition, given up and sentenced to death for high treason. The king arranged for their triumphal entry of mockery into Stockholm in a most humiliating fashion, for which he has been criticised; also for the consummate manner in which the judges were appointed and judgment passed. But he set an example of warning to obnoxious and intriguing prelates that was appreciated by his contemporaries.
Gustavus gained the triumph of his policy by the famous Riksdag of Westeros in 1527. It was nothing else than a coup d’état, a revolution, which, with the establishment of the Reformation, gave his throne solidity and resources. The Diet was called under the pretext of taking measures against a new revolt in Dalecarlia and for the regulation of dogmatic questions. There were present sixteen state councillors, four bishops, one hundred and twenty-nine knights and nobles, one hundred and five peasants, besides various priests, burghers and miners, but no representatives from Finland or Dalecarlia. In the great hall of the monastery the meeting was held, opening with a written address by the king, read by his chancellor, in which the situation of the country was set forth. The king refused to continue at the government, asking to be remunerated for personal losses and expense, and given a fief like any ordinary bailiff responsible to the crown. Only if fundamental reforms were made would he remain, not being able otherwise to cover the inevitable deficit of the treasury. Bishop Brask responded with the statement that he for his part was in duty bound to the king, but that Rome and its demands must, in the first place, be obeyed; showing by his remarks that he understood that the question was one of reducing the ecclesiastical power. The king rose and said in a burst of passion: “We have no further desire, then, to be your king. Verily, we had counted on quite another treatment at your hands. We now no longer wonder at the perversity of the people, since they have such advisers. Have they no rain, they blame us for it. Have they no sun, likewise. For dearth, hunger and plague we are responsible, as if we were not a man, but God. Yea, though we labor for you with our utmost power, both in spiritual and in temporal affairs, you would gladly see the axe upon our neck, but no one dares to grasp the handle. Monks and priests and all the creatures of the pope are to be placed above us, though we have little need of them. In a word, you all would lord it over us. Who under such circumstances would desire to govern you? Not the worst wretch in hell would wish the post, far less any man. Therefore we, too, refuse to be your king. We cast the honor from us, and leave you free to choose him whom you will. But be so kind as to let us leave the land. Pay us for our property in the kingdom, and return to us what we have expended in your service. Then we declare to you that we will withdraw never to return.” With tears of anger and emotion the king left the hall, leaving the assembly in consternation.
After four days of pandemonium and deadlock, the representatives decided to give in and ask forgiveness of the king, who long disregarded the appeals made for his return. When re-entering he was greeted by commotion and the humblest demonstrations of respect and repentance. The next day, Midsummer day, votes were taken upon his propositions, each Estate of representatives sending up their vote with a written construction of the propositions. These were then revised by the state councillors in their final form, called “Westeros Recess,” with amendments called “Westeros Ordinantia.” The startling revolutionary stipulations of the “Recess” were chiefly these: Authority for the king (1) to take in possession the castles and forts of the bishops, whose retinues he was to fix as to numbers; (2) to dispose of the superfluous income of the clergy and to superintend the administration of the monasteries; authority for the nobility to resume title to all their property which had come in the possession of the Church since 1454; authority to have the Gospel preached all over the country in undefiled purity. Among the “Ordinantia” the most important were: (1) Vacancies in the parish churches were to be filled by the bishop under the supervision and right of suspension of the king; (2) the king was to fix the amount of revenue due the bishops, chapters and clerks, and be entitled to use the surplus for the crown; (3) the priests were in secular suits to be responsible to secular courts; (4) the Gospel should be read in the schools. The king asked the bishops in person to surrender their castles, to which demand they all agreed.
We may feel inclined to smile upon the drastic manner in which Gustavus enacted this important drama of Revolution, but must bear in mind his solitary position. He had no statesmen of ability at his side, nor men of great intellect and power to sustain him. He stood alone, and few knew as yet his superior qualities as a statesman and an organizer. The tame opposition, soon yielding to the appeals of the burghers and peasants, can only be explained through lack of leaders. Ture Jœnsson (Tre Rosor), the aristocratic chief of the opposition, was a vain and cowardly man. Bishop Brask, the head of the clergy, was old and more of a diplomatist than a man of action. The latest stanch Romanist, he gave up his cause, finding a pretext to leave the country and dying in his self-imposed exile. The ecclesiastical reforms were definitively arranged at a church meeting at Œrebro in the following year.
It was one of the evils which beset the reign of Gustavus that revolts constantly occurred in various provinces and for various reasons. Dalecarlia took the lead. The inhabitants were not able to bear the distinction won by their great patriotic services in the times of Engelbrekt, the Stures, and Gustavus. Their complaints were mostly unreasonable, sometimes ridiculous, as when they tried to prescribe the kind of cloth and colors to be used at court, and so forth. There was no fable, however stupid, which was not readily believed by them and the responsibility placed on the king. Particularly was everything eagerly swallowed which spoke of injustice committed against the descendants of the Stures. A daring pretender took advantage of this fact. He was born of the lowest peasant class, serving on an estate in Westmanland, where he had stolen a sum of money from his master. Appearing in Dalecarlia, where he claimed that he was a son of Lord Sten and Christine Gyllenstierna, he gained a great deal of support among the yeomen, who cried with him like children when he spoke of his noble father and asked them to pray for his soul. The false pretender had his instructions from Peder Sunnanvæder; he married in Norway a woman of noble birth, and, upon his return to Dalecarlia, surrounded himself with a regular court. An end was put to his career by a letter from Christine Gyllenstierna, written at the request of the king, in which she told the Dalecarlians that her son Nils, whom the pretender impersonated, had recently died, and that an impostor was misleading them. The false Nils Sture answered by claiming that he was born before marriage, the would-be-reason why his mother did not acknowledge him. This even the Dalecarlians found was a stretching of truth. The pretender, who had been stamping coins with his image and held the demeanor of a ruling prince, fled to Norway and thence to Rostock, where he was captured and beheaded. No blood was shed during this period of revolt; but the king, who was crowned at Upsala in 1528, proceeded from his coronation to Dalecarlia with an army of 14,000 men. He commanded the Dalecarlians to meet him, and forgave them after a severe sermon of reproach, making them surrender the chief supporters of the “Daljunker,” who were executed on the spot.
No better was the outcome of a revolt prepared by some nobles of West Gothland in the following year. They tried in vain to make the population join with them. The king managed to obtain their secret correspondence, and had the guilty ones arraigned before a meeting at which he scrutinized and repudiated the false charges made against him. The nobles asked forgiveness and were pardoned, with the exception of two, who were beheaded. But the originators of the revolt had fled. They were Ture Jœnsson and Bishop Magnus of Skara. The former joined the deposed King Christian, who, in 1532, prepared an attack on Sweden in his attempts to recapture his crowns. With him were other such distinguished traitors as Gustavus Trolle and Berndt von Melen. Gustavus I. sent a splendid army to meet Christian near Kongelf. Christian withdrew in disappointment, leaving Ture Jœnsson behind in the streets of Kongelf, minus a head. Christian was imprisoned by his uncle, Frederic of Denmark, and died in captivity.
In order to pay the debt to Lubeck it was decided at a meeting at Upsala, in 1530, that the bells of the churches should be taken to be melted down. Concessions to do so were asked and obtained from the various communities. But upon the surrender of the bells discontent grew up. In Dalecarlia it came to revolt and open violence. The people refused to give up their bells or took the surrendered ones back with force. Threatening letters were sent to the king, who at first pretended to ignore the whole matter. Christian was preparing his last attack, and prudence deemed advisable. The inducements made by the Swedish traitors to support Christian’s claims were scornfully repulsed by the Dalecarlians, who still continued with their insulting letters to the king. Gustavus answered them in a peaceful way. In 1533, at New Year, he suddenly appeared with an army in Dalecarlia, where the revolters also this time received a severe reproach and were forced to give up their leaders. These were executed, and that ended the last revolt of Dalecarlia.
In the following year Sweden was forced into a war which lasted up to 1536, the so-called “Feud of the Counts,” the chief participants being the counts of Holstein, Oldenburg and Hoya. Sweden sided with Christian of Holstein, who fought for his rights to the throne of Denmark after his father Frederic, being opposed by the other counts and by Lubeck. Hard and repeated pressure was brought to bear on Svante Sture, a son of Lord Sten and Christine Gyllenstierna, to appear as a pretender against Gustavus; but the noble youth, who was sojourning in Germany, firmly withstood these temptations. His mother had married John Turesson, a son of the traitor Ture Jœnsson, who was as able a man as his father was a bad one, being the successful commander of a Swedish army which invaded the Danish provinces held by the count of Oldenburg. A Swedish fleet, created through sacrifices of nobles and peasants, distinguished itself repeatedly. The war ended in the defeat of Lubeck.
Gustavus had, since the end of the work of liberation, crushed the power of the Church, punished the revolting peasants, kept the aristocracy within bounds, and put an end to the supremacy of Lubeck. But he went still further, trying to deprive the Church of its last vestige of authority, to introduce a minute administration of the provinces and to enforce the absolute power of the crown. To these plans he was led by two foreign advisers, Georg Norman and Konrad Pentinger. But it must be said to the credit of the king that their influence vanished when he saw that their “reforms” were not acceptable to the people. From this period of his reign, one noteworthy and wholesome measure remains, the reintroduction of the former hereditary order of succession to the throne. It was formulated and accepted at the Riksdag of Œrebro (Jan. 4, 1540), memorable also through death sentences pronounced upon two of the apostles of the Swedish Reformation. The king had long regarded his chancellor and the two brothers, Olaus and Laurentius Petri, the latter archbishop of Upsala, with suspicion. The climax was reached when a conspiracy by German burghers of Stockholm against the king’s life was discovered, and it was proved that Olaus Petri and Laurentius Andreæ were conscious of its purport, without making it known to the king. They were condemned to death, Archbishop Laurentius being forced to take a seat as one of the judges, but pardoned at the request of the burghers of Stockholm, on the grounds that the ministers had received their knowledge on the pledge of secrecy through confession. Laurentius Andreæ lost his position as the king’s chancellor. In the following year each church in the country was presented with a copy of the complete translation of the Bible, the work of the two reformers.
The greatest, most serious and most expensive of peasants’ revolts was that called the Dacke Feud (1542 and 1543), after its leader Nils Dacke, a peasant born in Bleking, emigrated to Smaland, which became the scene of his revolt. The peasants were resolved to make war on the royal bailiffs, the nobles and the new religion, and found in Dacke an excellent leader, ferocious, daring and of some military ability. The forces sent by the king to meet him were repeatedly routed. The king was seriously alarmed, particularly since the revolt attracted attention abroad and was encouraged by Emperor Charles V., in the interests of the deposed Christian, his brother-in-law, and by several German princes. The emperor wrote to Nils Dacke a letter, preserved to this day, although it never reached its destination, in which Charles, with pride, recalls his Gothic (that is, according to the views of his time, Swedish) origin: “Sumus et nos de gente Gothorum.” Nils Dacke’s plan was to place Svante Sture on the throne. He wrote him a letter to this effect, which the noble Sture handed over to the king, together with the messenger who brought it. After much effort the king gathered an army of considerable strength, which was ordered against Dacke, who was defeated at Lake Asund. He fled and was pursued by the troops into Bleking, where he was captured and shot. This revolt cost Gustavus dearly, but was a good lesson in regard to the more immature of his reforms, against which it, to a great extent, was directed.