It is not Norway's _King_ who has transgressed the law, in spite of all the accusations to that effect from Norway's government[59:1]. _The law was transgressed on June 6th by the Norwegian Cabinet, when they informed the King that they resigned office_[59:2]. [Sidenote: _The Norwegian Revolution._] Their chief reason for this proceeding they declared to be their inability to be a party to the King's policy, which according to their opinion, was not in accordance with the Norwegian Constitution, and declared themselves to be 'free men' entitled to the right to resign office[60:1]. King OSCAR immediately sent protestations against this proceeding on the part of the Ministers, both to the Storthing and the Premier[60:2]. But before these came to hand, the next act was played out. On the 7th June the Cabinet informed the Storthing of their resignation[60:3]. The Storthing forgetful of the very important little word _now_ categorically recorded the fact that the King had declared himself incapable of forming a new government, and came to the conclusion that the Constitutional Royal Power was "no longer effectual", on which the late Ministers were admonished to take up the reins of government, which, according to Constitutional law, was the King's prerogative alone. 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._]