one.
The King was therefore deposed. But Norwegian logic went boldly further.
King OSCAR having ceased to act as Norway's King, the declaration
followed, that the Union with Sweden was dissolved[60:4]. This was all
communicated in an address which the Storthing prayed to be allowed to
deliver to King OSCAR by a deputation[60:5]. The King of course replied
that he would not receive any deputation from the revolutionary
Storthing[60:6].

It is now these resolutions which are not called revolutionary in Norway.
They are, on the contrary, perfectly legal[60:7]!

The King was dethroned, because, supported by rights given by the
Constitution, he refused to sanction a resolution in conflict with the
principles of the Union, to which Norway, according to the first
paragraph of her Constitution, is bound.

The Union with Sweden was declared dissolved without reference to Sweden,
or observation of the terms in which the slightest change in the
Constitution and the Act of Union must be carried out[61:1]. And this
last resolution was carried in spite of the Constitutional prescription
that changes in the same must not come in strife with the principles of
State law, to which, if ever, the Union with Sweden belongs; as the
freedom and independence of Norway, according to the first paragraph of
the Constitution, are inseparably connected with this Union[61:2].

As aforementioned, all this is not revolution in Norway. Conceptions of
laws and rights have long shown themselves in strange lights in that
country.

[Sidenote: _Protestations of Sweden and the Union King._]

On June 9th Sweden declared her protest against the Norwegian revolution.
In the Cabinet Council to which the Swedish Chambers were summoned to
meet in on Extraordinary session[61:3], the Prime Minister strongly
emphasised the fact that the Norwegian Storthing's proceedings had deeply
violated Sweden's rights.

The following day, June 10th, King OSCAR issued his protest in an address
to the Norwegian Storthing[62:1]. In clear and convincing terms the King
maintains his formal legal right to form his resolution in opposition to
the Cabinet's opinion. And he, as forcibly, maintains that it was in the
capacity of the chief representative of the _Union_ that he had
considered it his duty to refuse his sanction to the Consular law. As
Union-King, he emphasizes his right and prerogative, even in opposition
to Norwegian public opinion in general, to maintain the princip