134 both Finland and Sweden shared a common base of laws and statutes. Because during the nineteenth century members of the Finnish intellectual elite spoke predominantly Swedish as their mother tongue, it is understandable that the Swedish legal life was followed closely by the Finnish jurists. Another reason for the continued authority that the Swedish legal culture exerted over Finland’s legal professionals — especially in the first half of the century, when Germany had not yet appeared as a rival for cultural hegemony - is that during the first half of the century, when Finnish legal literature was still virtually non-existent, Swedish scholars and Jurists were already producing scholarly works on a regular and continuing basis. The first legal journal, Carl’s Schmidt’sJuridiskt Arkif, began annual publication in 1830, continuing until 1862; in 1864 another important annual publication, Christian Naumann’s Tidskrift för lagstiftning, lagskipning och förvaltning, replaced it. As for criminal procedure, important works appeared in the 1830s and 1840s. In 1842, C. O. Delidén issued the first edition of “The Mode of Legal Procedure in Sweden” (“Rättegångs-Sättet i Sverige”), and in the same year Doctrine of Legal Proof according to the Swedish Law (“Läran ombevisning inför Rätta enligt Sveriges lag”) was published byJ. C. Lindblad. Several artides on criminal procedure, the law of proof and the European jury systems - including some translations of Mittermaier’s articles — appeared in Schmidt’s Arkif and Naumann’s legal journal as well.- There were, moreover, efforts to reformstatutory law. As with its scholarly activities in the field of procedural law, Sweden resembled, albeit remotely, continental European states in some early efforts at reforming the statutes of proof. Thus, the history of Swedish criminal procedure resembles in many ways its continental counterparts more than the Finnish development. There were active spokesmen for the jury beginning in the first half of the nineteenth century, and active criticism of the existing system of criminal law appeared early. Unlike in Finland, the institutional framework for genuine legal discussions concerning the jury and other current themes existed in the form of legal literature and journals in Sweden. But Sweden also shared some peculiarities with Finland. In both countries, the replacement of the legal rules of proof by the free evaluation of evidence was, first and foremost, the work of the courts, with legislation lagging far behind, both sharing a common statutory point of departure in the Lawof 1734. Both in Sweden and in Finland, the statutory change, for similar reasons to which we will return, proved equally painful, and the attempts to reformprocedural lawin Sweden did not bear fruit until 1948 — the same year as Chapter 17 of PS was reformed across the sea in Finland. Regarding legal practice. - See; Mittermaier 1830-31 and 1834-1835; Schmidt 1834—1835; Strussenfelt 1841; Naumann 1864, 1865, 1871,and 1884.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=