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 principles of the Union, and he finally refers to the decisions of himself and Sweden "if Norway's attack on the existing Union should lead to its _legal_ dissolution". [Sidenote: _Address of the Storthing 19th June 1905._] The reply to this address of the King was an address[62:2] from the Storthing on June 19th formally to His Majesty the King, but in reality to the Swedish nation. In this it is explained that the Norwegian people entertain no feelings of dislike or ill-will to the Swedish people, and appeals to the Swedish State powers to promote a peaceful agreement on both sides. The Storthing addressed this appeal to the people who by their magnanimity and chivalry had won such a prominent place in the ranks of Nations. The Swedish nation had good cause for thinking that it might have received this compliment _a little sooner_, instead of the overwhelming mass of infamous accusations which it had formerly had to accept with a good grace. And above all, it is their opinion that if Norway had formerly adjusted its actions in accordance with their present ideas of the Swedish nation, the present situation would now have been different in all respects. The document of the 19:th June contains also one detail, which has since, step by step, been forced to the front by the Norwegian agitation, and therefore deserves its separate explanation. This said that the Swedish government on the 25:th April had emphatically refused to resume negotiations, with the dissolution of the union as an alternative, in case unity on the new forms of the union could not be arrived at, and on this account, from Norway's side they have tried to cast the blame on Sweden for the revolution of June 7:th under the pretext that Sweden had already refused settlement by negotiation. What are the real conditions?