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 right, according to Constitutional law, to form his decision according to his own judgment. It was furthermore the Prime Minister's undoubted duty to countersign his decree, the Cabinet, by raising protestations, were released from constitutional responsibility for the royal decree according to the rules of the fundamental law. But the Cabinet maintained another interpretation of the fundamental law, and sent in their resignations, which the King, meanwhile, refused to grant as he could not _for the present_--"now"-- form a new Ministry. This word 'now' in the King's refusal to the Cabinets appeal to resign, undoubtedly implies a reminder of earlier similar situations in the beginning of 1890, when the Ministry--on one or two occasions _Radical_ --had remained in office some time after they had tendered their appeals to resign, as the King was unable to form a new ministry. It was also without doubt the legislative duty of the Ministry to remain at their post till the King released them. For, according to the general constitutional and administrative ideas of justice, it is the King who releases his Ministers; they have no legal right to retire of themselves.