binets open threats (Compare with N:o 19) that the man who, after
being warned by the King, dared to approach the King as adviser, from
that moment lost his national rights; in other words, however the King
might act, the Revolution would come. The King is therefore reproached
for not endeavouring to form a new Ministry, after he had been threatened
with the revolution if the attempt had shown any sign of success. How
truly Norwegian!

[60:1] N:o 21.

[60:2] N:o 22.

[60:3] The terms of this communication are almost word for word the same
as in the address to the King.

[60:4] N:o 23.

[60:5] N:o 24.

[60:6] N:o 25.

[60:7] One reeds, for exemple, NANSENS arguments in real exaggerated
Norwegian logic. (page 94).

[61:1] Compare N:o 1 Sec. 112 and N:o 2 Sec. 12.

[61:2] "The kingdom of Norway is a free, independent, indivisible and
inalienable realm, united with Sweden under one King."

[61:3] N:o 26.

[62:1] N:o 27.

[62:2] N:o 28. They are careful not to confute the King's defence of the
legality of his action.

[63:1] Compare, with N:os 15 and 16.

VII.

[Sidenote: _The question of the Justification of the Norwegian
Revolution._]

Revolutions are not to be condemned under all conditions. History--even
the history of Sweden--records many revolutions, which are said to have
been a vital necessity. But a revolution can only be morally defended on
the grounds of its having been _the extreme means of protecting most
important interests_.

[Sidenote: _The Swedish "oppression"._]

In these days there have been numerous comparisons made between Norway's
breaking out of the Union, and Sweden's struggle for freedom from Denmark
in the middle ages. Sweden's way of using its power has been stamped as
an intolerable _oppression_. It can scarcely be necessary to give a more
powerful confutation to these very idle fancies, than simply to refer to
the fact that Norway's "struggle for freedom" has had for its object the
enormously important cause--their own consuls!

[Sidenote: _Sweden's loyalty in conducting the Foreign policy of the
Union._]

The dominating position of Sweden within the Union has consisted simply
in its administration of Foreign affairs of the Union; _in everything
else Norway has had an independent right of decision in full equality
with that of Sweden_. An Norway cannot complain that Sweden has conducted
the administration of Foreign policy in a manner that has been injurious