Chapter 11

My resolve, not to sanction a law providing for a separate Norwegian Consular Service, can consequently not be considered to imply any transgression whatever of the legislative power, which according to the fundamental law is the King's right, not even, if the matter in question happened to be an affair which concerned Norway alone. But on the grounds of the valid Union agreement between Norway and Sweden, it was not only My right, but also My duty as King of Norway to refuse My sanction, for the dissolution of the existing identical Consular Office could only be effected through Norway's consent to free and friendly negotiations concerning agreements for altering the Union on the basis of full equality between the United Kingdoms, to which not only the _Powers Royal_, but also the Diet of Sweden had unanimously themselves agreed. That such a respect to the demands of the existing Union should imply an attack on Norway's independence and sovereignty, is so much the more unfounded, as the fundamental law explicitly connects Norway's independence with its Union with Sweden. Norway's King must ever hold in sight the 1:st paragraph of its Constitution:

»The Kingdom of Norway is a free, self-dependant, integral and independent Kingdom, united with Sweden under one King.»

The statement made by the Council that My resolve, not to sanction the Consular law, proposed by the Storthing, would have no legal validity, as none of the members of the Cabinet had found themselves able to countersign the Royal Decree supplies a supposition which I must declare is in conflict with fundamental law. The question of the significance of contrasignature according to Norwegian State law, is not a new question brought up to day, but is older than the present Norwegian Constitution. It was already solved at the Convention of Eidsvold. A proposal was then made that Countersignature was requisite in order that the King's commands should become valid, but was opposed on the grounds that it was against the general principles of the Constitution for the division of supreme power. The same standpoint was taken in the fundamental law of the 4th November. This opinion was also expressed by the Constitutional Committee without contradiction on two occasions, 1824 and 1839, when the Storthing had even opposed a proposal concerning another matter. The change, which § 32 in the Constitution has since undergone, gives increased support to the opinion that the Prime Minister's Countersignature is intended for nothing else than a witness that the King has made a Decree of certain import.

And that § 31 is unconditional in its prescription of the duty of the authorised countersignature of the Prime Minister is a conception that is acceded to by those writers on State law who have framed the Constitution. When the Cabinet quoted an opinion of the Norwegian government in 1847 when the proposal for a new Act of Union was under consideration, the Cabinet has overlooked, firstly, that this opinion, in a manner that applies to Swedish government regulations § 38, was intended only to refer to orders issued but not the Decree of the King included in the protocol, secondly that the Norwegian Government could not prove that the Norwegian Constitution really provided any law respecting the right to refuse countersignature. The Constitution on the contrary emphatically prescribes in § 30: »But to the King it is reserved the right to form his decision according to His own judgment», and in § 31: »All Commands issued by the King himself (Military Orders excepted) shall be countersigned by the Prime Minister (before 1873 the Norwegian Prime Minister).

That under these circumstances I feel Myself entitled to demand respect for a Decree formed by the King of Norway in a Constitutional manner, is a matter for which no one can blame me. The powers which the Constitution grants the King, in order to further the good of the country to the best of his convictions, are not greater than that they ought to be preserved to the supreme power, so that no constitutional practices in conflict with the principles of the fundamental law are introduced, which, according to the explicit prescriptions in § 112 may not be done, even by an alteration of the fundamental law.

One of the chief principles of the Constitution--the most important of all, in point of fact--is that Norway shall be a Constitutional Monarchy. It is incompatible with this, that the King should sink to be a helpless tool in the hands of His Ministers. If, meanwhile, the members of the Council should have the power, by refusing countersignature, to hinder every future Royal Decree, the Norwegian King would be deprived of participating in the government. This position would be as lowering to the Monarch as injurious to Norway herself.

To the circumstances that can thus be adduced against the validity, according to fundamental law, of the Prime Minister's refusal of Countersignature, and against the efficacy of the dogma that the King's Decree in order to be valid, must bear the responsibility of some member of the Cabinet, can be added, in questions touching the Union situation, two more reasons, which have their foundation in the fact that the King of Norway is also King of the Union.

However opinions may have varied, respecting the conception of the unity which the Union agreements have created for the binding together of the two Kingdoms, one fact remains clear, that Royal power is also an institution of the Union. This position of the King's as being not only King of Norway or of Sweden, but also as Monarch of the United Kingdoms, makes it the King's duty, not to form decisions in conflict with the Act of Union § 5, respecting the settlement of matters in one country, which would also affect the other. The King's duty in the aforesaid respect is incompatible with the opinion that the one Kingdom, by the refusal of Countersignature by its Prime Minister or otherwise, could undo a Royal Decree, by which he refused to make a resolution prejudicial to the other Kingdom or injurious to the Union. In Norway, when they endeavoured to adhere to an opposite opinion, when the Norwegian people claimed the right to force the King to form his decision in conflict with what he considers his right as King of the Union to concede, there was no other way of attaining this object than making the Union, and also the King of Sweden, in his actions, totally dependent on the will of the Norwegian people, its Storthing and its Cabinet.

A Sovereign power of this kind I must characterize as being in strife with the Union between the Kingdoms as confirmed by the Act of Union

It has been My constant endeavour to give Norway that position within the Union to which it has a just claim. My Royal duty has forced Me, even in conflict with general opinion in Norway, to try to maintain the legal principles of the Union.

My coronation oath and the good of the United Kingdoms prompted My Decree concerning the settlement of the Consular question, but in this I have been met, not only by the Norwegian Cabinet's refusal of Countersignature, but also the resignation of its members. When I declared, »As it is clear to Me, that no other government can now be formed therefore I cannot consent to the resignation of the Cabinet», the Cabinet answered by the threat that the Norwegian who assented to My Decree would in the same moment lose all national rights. I was therefore placed in such a situation that I must either break the oaths I took under the Act of Union, or expose Myself to being without Ministers. I had no choice. After having in conflict with the fundamental law, tried to undo the King's lawfully made resolution, the Council, by resigning their office at the Storthing, have left the King without advisers. The Storthing has approved of this breaking of the law, and by a Revolutionary proceeding declared that the lawful King of Norway has ceased to reign, and hat the Union between the Kingdoms is dissolved.

It now becomes the bounden duty of Sweden and Myself as King of the Union to decide whether Norway's attack on the existing Union shall lead to the legal dissolution of the same.

May the opinions of our contemporaries and also those of posterity judge between Me and the People of Norway!

28.

The Norwegian Storthings documentary address to the King. Dated Christiania June 19th 1905.

To the King's Most Excellent Majesty!

Norway's Storthing appeals, in all humility, to Your Majesty and through the Your Majesty to the Diet and the People of Sweden to be allowed to express the following:

That which has now happened in Norway is the necessary results of the late events in Union politics, and cannot be undone. And as it is certain that the nation does not wish to return to the old conditions of the Union, the Storthing considers it impossible to resume negotiations on the different constitutional and state-law questions, which in Your Majesty's address to the President of the Storthing are referred to, in connection with the settled decisions, and on which the Storthing and Government have previously fully expressed themselves. The Storthing fully understands the difficult position of Your Majesty, and has not for a moment doubted that Your Majesty's decree is made with the full conviction that Your Majesty has considered it to be the right and duty of Your Majesty.

But it is the desire of the Storthing to address an appeal to Your Majesty, to the Swedish Diet and Nation, to assist in a peaceful arrangement for the dissolution of the Union, in order to secure relations of friendship and cooperation between the two peoples of the Peninsula. From statements made in Sweden, the Storthing finds that the resolution the Storthing considered it its duty towards the fatherland to adopt, by declaring the Union between the United Kingdoms to be dissolved, has, in its form and the manner of carrying it out, been looked upon as an insult to Sweden. This has never been our intention. What has now happened and must happen in Norway, was simply done in order to maintain Norway's constitutional rights. The nation of Norway never intended an insult to the honour of Sweden.

Your Majesty having on the 27th May declared it impossible to sanction the unanimous decision of the Storthing to establish a separate Norwegian Consulate, and as no Norwegian Government could be formed by Your Majesty, the constitutional situation became out of joint, so dislocated that the Union could no longer be upheld. The Norwegian Storthing therefore found the position untenable and was forced to get a new government for the country. Every other resource was excluded, so much the more so as the Swedish government of Majesty had already in April 23:rd emphatically refused fresh negotiations, he alternative of which was the dissolution of the Union, if new regulations for the continuance of the Union could not be arranged.

The Storthing has already, before hand, stated that the Norwegian people do not entertain any feelings of bitterness or ill-will towards Your Majesty and the people of Sweden. Expressions to the contrary which may possibly on different occasions have been heard, have alone been caused on the grounds of the displeasure of Norway at her position in the Union. When the cause of this bitterness and ill-will on account of the dissolution of the Union has been removed, its effects will also disappear. A ninety years' cooperation in material and spiritual culture has inspired in the Norwegian people a sincere feeling of friendship and sympathy for the Swedish people. The consequences will be, that when Norway no longer stands in a position so insulting to its national sense of independence, a friendship will be established that will serve to confirm and increase the mutual understanding between the two peoples.

With the confidence that the Swedish people will also share these opinions, the Storthing appeals to the authorities of State in Sweden, in acknowledging the new situation in Norway, and its rights as a Sovereign State, to consent to the negotiations which are necessary for the final agreements in connection with the now dissolved Union. The Storthing is ready, on its part, to accede to any fair and reasonable wish, that, in this respect, may contribute to the guarantee of self dependence and integrity of the two Kingdoms.

In a legislative sense the two peoples are hereafter separated. But the Storthing has a certain conviction that happy and confidential relations will arise to the benefit of the interests of both. If the above statement can find support, without prejudice and without bitterness, the Storthing is firmly convinced that what has now happened will be to the lasting happiness of Europe. On behalf of the welfare of the countries of the North, the Storthing addresses this appeal to the people who, by their magnanimity and chivalry, have won such a prominent place in the ranks of Nations.

* * * * *

Transcriber's notes

There are many typographical and orthographical errors in the original. They are listed below. No corrections have been made.

Storthing is sometimes spelled Storting; the use of apostrophes for possessives is inconsistent; and a number of words are inconsistently hyphenated. Neither these nor the frequent neologisms are noted explicitly.

Title page Ph D.

Table of Contents Consular Negatiations

Footnote 2-3 that it has confered

Page 4 which outworldly represents

Footnote 4-1 the more pernicous

Page 5 political ascendency chauvinistic strongwords

Page 7 They may have complain in the Committe of 1898

Page 8 represented in they the in administration

Footnote 10-1 Ministeral Council

Page 11 policy of whech

Page 12 Government Departements

Page 16 by which the Ministery

Footnote 18-1 wherevy it became incumbent

Page 21 January 21et 1902 an disciplinary

Footnote 23-2 is missing a full stop at the end.

Page 25 which decribes

Page 27 Buth it may nevertheless

Page 30 Norwegian gouvernment

Page 31 Swedish governement

Page 32, side note Mr Bostrom's

Page 33, "Coun" omitted before "cil" at the start of the page

Footnote 33-2 Foreign conntry

Page 34 remedy the deficiences

Page 36 tone is one af decision

Footnote 36-2 is missing a full stop at the end.

Page 38, side note accusations aganist

Page 38 illwill against Sweden Formally, therfore,

Page 40 the breaking op was prowed by

Page 43 an disciplinary sense

Footnote 45-2 frame this laws

Page 46 are unnessary

Page 47 There is a missing a full stop after "rouse their passions"

Footnote 47-1 as questions refering

Page 48 One symtom of this the tumultuons confusion

Page 50 disssolution of the Union a document adressed There is a missing full stop after "appointed by the Storthing"

Page 51 Therfore the way und Mr LÖVLAND

Page 52 for the establisment

Page 53 cause for displeausure

Page 55 whole of the procedings

Page 58 side note There is a missing full stop after "27th May 1905"

Page 59 side note 27nd May

Footnote 60-7 One reeds, for exemple There is an extra full stop after "logic"

Page 61 on Extraordinary session

Footnote 62-1 The marker for this footnote is on page 61

Page 63 the contents af

Page 64 An Norway cannot complain

Page 65 been in office. the posts

Page 66 absolutly their own

Page 67 such as they are and--have been

Document 1, § 1 inalinenable realm

Document 1, § 30 his opinon recorded proeced against him

Document 1, § 31 ezcepting matters of military command

Document 2, § 5 accompaning the King

Footnote 73-1 These enactsments

Document 3 th seame wording

Document 4, I the appointement or employment

Document 4, III make direct inquires

Document 5 should he brought against him

Document 6 the preceeding draft

Document 6, 2 this is the, intention

Document 7, § 9 bound to fullfill

Document 7, § 11 or secretely

Document 7, § 16 immedately be reported

Document 8, to § 8 when. in a matter

Document 8, to § 11 wheteher to the

Document 8, to § 16 Norwegian authonity

Document 8 forms of independecy There is a missing full stop after "viz" There is a missing full stop after "Sweden and for Norway" (see the Communiqué (should have upper case S)

Document 9 to guarrantee that the Consuls Such a guarrantee cannot the abovementioned paragraphs

Document 10 I want therfore in persuance of

Document 11 lead to the obobject thesituation we are in

Document 12 I have to-day summond you an one-sided adherence request in persuance of

Document 14 while holding in wiew

Document 15 For the treatement the Sovereignity of each country Swedish Iustice-Department

Document 16 Justice-Departement vith regard to

Document 18 well be able to Sovereignity of the country

Document 19 May 30th 1905 (should read May 27th) I cannot consent to he resignation J. Lovland (spelled Lövland elsewhere)

Document 20 the Premie minister

Document 21 Juni 6, 1905. in persuace of the constitution been stranger than

Document 26 Royal Palace Stocholm become neccessary

Document 27 There is a missing full stop after "as confirmed by the Act of Union" and hat the Union The quotation marks opened with "»with an appeal," are not closed The quotation marks opened with "»All Commands issued by the King" are not closed

Document 28 he alternative of which