N KNUDSEN openly confessed that he saw no forcible reasons
for dissolving the joint Consular Service.

But the issue was plain. After Mr HAGERUP'S proposal for an adjournment
was voted against with a minority of few the Consular law was passed
unanimously.

[Sidenote: _King Oscar's position in regard to the Consular law._]

Nothing remained now but to continue. The uncertainty in various quarters
as to how king OSCAR would express himself, simply implied ignorance of
the political situation in an historical light. No Norwegian acquainted
with the real facts of the case, could be in doubts as to the King's
reply. Norway herself had dictated it and the innocent distrust of
NANSEN[58:1] and Norwegian newspapers, that the King, as they said,
"would really refuse Norway her right" seemed rather unnatural.

[Sidenote: _The Cabinet meeting. 27th May 1905_]

On the 27th May a Cabinet meeting was held at the Royal Palace in
Stockholm[58:2]. To the Norwegian Cabinet's appeal for sanction to the
Consular law, the King replied that the present regulations for the joint
Consular service as resolved in a joint Cabinet according to the Act of
the Union Sec. 5, also under the same conditions, that is to say, by
treaty with Sweden, must be dissolved, and refused his sanction. The
Cabinet raised the strongest objections to this, and referred to Norway's
loyal(!) endeavours to advance the cause. The King's decree implied a
violation of Norway's independence and Sovereign right, and would
undoubtedly lead to the dissolution of the Union. The Cabinet thereupon,
sent in their resignations[58:3], which the King, meanwhile, refused to
allow, as he had _at present_ no prospect of forming a new Ministry. Then
ensued a discussion between the King and the Ministers. The King
maintained his right based on the Constitutional law, to exercise his
veto according to his own judgment and maintained the duty of the
Minister of State to countersign his decision. The Cabinet sought, on
their side, to defend the interpretation given in later years to the
fundamental law, that it presupposed the right of refusing
countersignature, but could, as a precedent, for present circumstances,
only quote the not altogether applicable opinion--after full
consideration--of the Norwegian Cabinet in 1847[58:4].

[Sidenote: _The situation after the 27nd May._]

Now the situation was as follows: The King had been forced to the
extremity of exercising his undoubted ri