then read the following reply:
»As it is evident to Me that a new government cannot now be formed I
cannot consent to he resignation of the Ministers.»
Furthermore His Majesty referred to the Constitution § 30, and affirmed
that the Ministers had now dutifully »expressed their opinions with
boldness», and »made strong representations» against His decision;
therefore they were free from responsibility. But the same paragraph
reserved to the King the right to make his decisions, »according to His
own judgment.» He was therefore entitled, according to fundamental law,
to make the above mentioned decision, and it was the duty of the
Ministers to draw up and countersign the protocol respecting the
negotiations and agreements on the matter.
The Section of Ministers hereupon alleged that according to the
Constitutional law § 15 the Prime Minister was the responsible executive
for the accepted resolutions. Until the decision had been countersigned,
it was not obligatory; a report could, naturally, be given of the
negotiations, but not the customary protocol, including also a Royal
decree.
Countersignature implied responsibility for the King's decisions, but in
this case the government could not take that responsibility. It was
prescribed in the Constitution § 31 for all commands issued by the King
(except affairs relating to military orders). But this conclusion was not
a regular rule for the members of the Cabinet; it was a prescription for
the forms to be observed in order to give a command legal validity.
Occasions might therefore occur when it was not only right, but also a
duty to refuse countersignature. The Section of the Cabinet Council had
appealed to the Justice-Departement for enlightenment on the subject, and
they knew that there had been several occasions when the Norwegian side
had maintained the same opinions as those now presented.
The Departement now comes to the same conclusion as in 1847 when it
discussed the question in another agreement namely in a Resolution on the
intended proposal for a new Act of Union; in this there is a reference to
the Norwegian conception that there is nothing to prevent a member of the
Council from refusing countersignature and resigning his office. This
Resolution is accepted by the Government then in office: Lovenskiold,
Krog, Sibbern, Schmidt, Pettersen, Herm. Foss and Fr. Stang and by the
members then forming the Section of the Cabinet Council, Due, J. H. Vogt
and Fleischer.
The Section of the Cabinet Council finally decided that as a refusal to
sanction would manifestly not be only injurious to the Kingdom, but also
a denial of its Self-dependence, it had become a necessity to refuse
countersignature, in order to avoid being a party in the matter. The
Norwegian who did countersign would from that moment lose all national
rights.
After which the letters of resignation from the Norwegian Government, and
from the Section of the Cabinet Council were delivered and read in the
presence of the King. Respecting this matter, the customary protocol has
been drawn up.
Kristiania 30:th May 1905.
_J. Lovland._ _E. Hagerup Bull._ _Harald Bothner._
20.
The King's telegraphic protest against the declarations of the Norwegian
Government. Dated Stockholm, May 29, 1905.
Stockholm, May 29. On account of what the Norwegian Government has
declared--not only in writing in their resignations, but also verbally
in the Cabinet Council of May 27 after my rejection of the Consular
service law--I must declare that I, most decidedly, protest against the
comments made there on Me and my method of action. I adhere to everything
I have stated to the assembled Cabinet Council as to my constitutional
right. I beg the Premie minister to give publicity to this as soon as
possible.
_Oscar._
21.
The Norwegian Cabinet Minister's notification to the King that they
resigned their posts. Dated Christiania, Juni 6, 1905.
In response to our humble resignations, Your Majesty has in Cabinet
Council at the Palace of Stockholm on May 27th, decreed: »As it is clear
to me that no other Cabinet can at present be formed, I decline to accept
the resignations tendered by the Cabinet Ministers.»
According to Norway's Constitution it is incumbent on the King to procure
a constitutional Government for the country. In the same moment as the
Kings policy is an obstacle to the formation of a responsible Council the
Norwegian Royal power has become in-operative.
By your Majesty's resolution therefore, the constitutional relation
between Your Majesty and the responsible Ministers of the Crown has
assumed such an aspect as cannot be maintained. No Government and none of
its members individually can, in a constitutional country, be forced
against their wishes to remain in office with a Ministers responsibility,
when their responsible advice in great questions decisive to the
Fatherland is not followed by the King who, in persuace of the
constitution, is exempt from responsibility whereas under these
circumstances it is the undoubted right of each member individually as a
free man to resign his post, this will also, as a rule, be a duty towards
the Fatherland in order to maintain its constitutional rights.
Your Majesty has declared that no Government can, at present, be formed.
Your Majesty has found this so clear that Norway's King in these fatal
days has remained at the Palace of Stockholm without making an attempt at
bringing the country back to constitutional conditions.
The policy manifested in Your Majesty's attitude towards the question of
sanctioning the Consular service law is, in our opinion, incompatible
with the Norwegian Constitution. But no more than a new Government is
able to take upon itself the responsibility of this policy, no more are
we able in office to render us participant of it by remaining in office.
It is therefore our duty to resign our posts and to immediately give the
Storthing the necessary communication of it.
This shall now be done. Deep and discordant political divergencies have
thus burst the frame of the constitutional Norwegian Monarchy.
Circumstances have been stranger than the desire of the individual. But
the final settlement on the dissolution of the Union, that through Your
Majesty's resolution--no doubt passed with a heavy heart, but also with
full knowledge of its consequences--has now been started, will however,
--this is our hope--turn out before long to have been the introduction
to better and happier days for the two peoples, whose happiness and
welfare have always been dear to Your Majesty's heart.
In conclusion we venture to tender Your Majesty our humblest thanks for
the personal kindness and amiability shown to us during the time we have
had the honour of being members of Your Majesty's Council.
We beg Your Majesty to accept the assurance of our full recognition of
Your Majesty's difficult position and of our invaried esteem. But
paramount are our duties towards the Fatherland.
Christiania, June 6, 1905.
_Chr. Michelsen._ _J. Lövland._ _Sofus Arctander._ _Gunnar Knudsen._
_W. Olssön._ _E. Hagerup Bull._ _Chr. Knudsen._ _Harald Bothner._
_A. Vinje._ _Kr. Lehmkuhl._
22.
The King's telegraphic protests against the abdication of the Norwegian
Government.
To _the Prime Minister_.
I have received the communication of the Cabinet Ministers and I record a
most decided protest against the method of action of the Government.
_Oscar._
* * * * *
To _the President of Storthing_.
Having this morning received from the Government the communication of the
Cabinet Minister's resolution to resign their posts and to inform the
Storthing of it I want herewith to make known that, in a telegram to M.
Michelsen, Prime minister, I have recorded a most decided protest against
their method of action.
_Oscar._
23.
The Reasons for the decision proposed by the President, in the Storting,
on the 7th June 1905.
Having on behalf of the Storthing received open information from the head
of the Government that the several members of the Cabinet council have
one and all resigned hereby declare: We were all prepared for the
situation in which we now find ourselves. In meetings of the
representatives, the question has therefore been discussed as to what
measures would be taken by the Storthing to meet the necessities of such
a situation. Every representative has had an opportunity for making known
his personal opinions at these meetings respecting the situation and its
demands. On this day the Storthing must make known its decisive
resolutions. I must also permit myself to express the wish, that these
resolutions may be unanimously accepted, and without debate.
In respect to the communication given by the head of the Government I
propose that the Storthing shall make the following resolutions:
The different members of the Council having resigned office,
His Majesty the King having declared Himself unable to form a new
government, and the Constitutional Sovereign having resigned his powers,
the Storthing authorizes the members of the Council who resigned this
day, to assume until further notice, as the Norwegian government, the
authority granted the King in accordance with the Constitution of the
Norwegian Kingdom and its valid law--with the changes that become
necessary through the fact that the Union with Sweden under one King is
dissolved as a consequence of the King having ceased to act as King of
Norway.
24.
The address of the Storthing to King Oscar, dated Christiania, June 7,
1905.
Your Majesty,
Whereas all the members of the Cabinet have to-day, in the Storthing,
resigned their posts, and whereas Your Majesty in the Protocol of May 27
officially declared that Your Majesty did not see your way clear to
create a new Government for the country, the Constitutional Regal power
in Norway has thereby become inoperative.
It has therefore been the duty of the Storthing, as the representative
of the Norwegian people, without delay to empower the members of the
resigning Cabinet to exercise until further notice as the Norwegian
Government the power appertaining to the King in accordance with the
Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway and the existing laws with the
changes which are necessitated by the fact that the union with Sweden,
which provides that there shall be a common King, is dissolved in
consequence of the fact that the King has ceased to act as King of
Norway.
The course of developments, which proved more powerful than the desire
and will of the individual, has led to this result.
The union entered into in 1814 has from its first hour been differently
interpreted by the two nations both as regards its spirit and letter.
Efforts have been made on the Swedish side to extend the Union, and on
the Norwegian side to confine it within the limits laid down in the Act
of Union, and otherwise to assert the independent power of both States in
all matters which are not defined in that Act as coming under the Union.
The difference of principle in the interpretation of the character of the
Union has provoked much misunderstanding between the two peoples, and has
caused much friction. In the interpretation which, during the last
negotiations between the two countries, has been laid down by the Swedish
Government as against Norway, the Norwegian people were bound to perceive
an injury to their constitutional right, their independence, and their
national honour.
The Union was justified as long as it could contribute to promoting the
welfare and happiness of both peoples, while maintaining their
independence as Sovereign States. But above the Union their stands for us
Norwegians our Norwegian Fatherland, and for the Swedes their Swedish
Fatherland. And more valuable than a political union are the feelings of
solidarity and voluntary cohesion of both peoples. The union has become a
danger to this feeling of solidarity between the Norwegian and Swedish
people which should secure the happiness of both nations and constitute
their strength abroad.
When the union is now severed, the Norwegian people have no loftier wish
than to live in peace and good harmony with all, not least with the
people of Sweden and the dynasty under the direction of which our
country, despite many and bitter disputes affecting the union, has
attained such important intellectual and material development.
As evidence of the fact that the work and the struggle of the Norwegian
people for the full independence of the Fatherland have not been formed
on any ill-feeling towards the Royal House or the Swedish people, and
have not left behind any bitterness towards any of these, the Storthing
respectfully solicits your Majesty's co-operation to the end that a
Prince of your Majesty's house may be permitted, while relinquishing his
right of succession to the Throne of Sweden, to accept election as King
of Norway.
The day upon which the Norwegian people elect their own King to ascend
the ancient throne of Norway will open up an era of tranquil conditions
of industry for Norway, of good and cordial relations to the Swedish
people, and of peace and concord and loyal co-operation in the north for
the protection of the civilization of the people and of their freedom and
independence.
In full assurance of this, the Storthing ventures to express the sincere
hope, that the present events, will turn out to be for the good of all,
also for their Majesties, for whom personally the Norwegian people will
preserve their respect and affection.
25.
The King's telegraphic protest against the resolution of the Storthing.
Despatched June 8th 1905.
As We hereby declare that We do not approve of the revolutionary measures
which have been deplorably taken by the Storthing in violation of the
Constitution and Act of Union, and in revolt against their King, We
refuse to receive the deputation proposed by the Storthing.
_Oscar._
26.
Extract of the protocol of Civil business held in Council before His
Majesty in the presence of His Royal Highness The Crown Prince at the
Royal Palace Stocholm June 9th 1905.
[-- -- --]
His Excellency Mr. Ramstedt, Prime Minister, stated:
»According to information received from Norway the Norwegian Storthing
has, on the 7th inst. passed the following resolutions:
'The members of the Cabinet having resigned their office and the King
having declared himself unable to form a new government; and the
Constitutional Sovereign thereby having resigned His powers, the
Storthing authorises the members of the Council who resigned this day, to
assume until further notice, as the Norwegian Government, the authority
granted to the King according to the Constitution of the Norwegian
Kingdom and its valid law--with the changes that become neccessary
through the fact that the Union with Sweden under one King is dissolved,
in consequence of the King having ceased to Act as King of Norway.'
Through this revolutionary measure, the Storthing has not only without
the King's assistance, but also without referring to Sweden arbitrarily
passed a resolution respecting the dissolution of a Union which has
existed on the grounds of legal mutual agreements between the two
countries and cannot without mutual consent be broken.
The Storthing, having thus by this resolution, violated Sweden's
prerogative it becomes undeniably necessary that an extra session of the
Diet be immediately summoned in order to debate as to what measures
should be taken on Sweden's side, with reference to what has thus
occurred. Herewith I appeal that Your Majesty will resolve on the
summoning of the Diet, at the same time Your Majesty intimates
disacknowledgement of the government, proclaimed by the Storthing».
In this address the rest of the members proclaimed themselves unanimous;
And His Majesty the King consented to this, and in accordance with the
Prime Minister's recommendation was graciously pleased to decree, by open
letter and edict, the import of which are contained in the appendage to
this protocol, that the members of both Chambers of the Diet be summoned
to an extra session in Stockholm on Tuesday June 20th.
27.
Address from the King to the President of the Storthing.
To the President of the Storthing!
To you, and through you to the Storthing and the entire population of
Norway, I address the following words, in answer to the address and
decision both of the Norwegian Cabinet and the Storthing:
The oath that the King of Norway takes according to the Constitution § 9
on his accession to the throne, »that he will rule the Kingdom of Norway
in accordance with its constitution and law», makes it a kingly duty for
Me not to pay any attention to the statement of the Norwegian Cabinet in
reference to my decree on May 27th ult., in which I declared, that, for
the present, I did not find it suitable to sanction the Storthing's
proposal respecting the establishment of a separate Norwegian Consular
Service. The Cabinet thereby declared that this decree, being in conflict
with the unanimous recommendation of the Norwegian Cabinet would imply a
depreciation of a right in accordance with the Norwegian fundamental law,
independently to settle the matter in question, and also implied a
violation of Norway's freedom, independence and Sovereignty, and at the
same time the Cabinet declared that no member of the Ministry then
sitting would be willing to countersign My Decree, and thereby, according
to the opinion of the Cabinet, give it legislative validity.
The Norwegian King's prerogative, when he thinks the welfare of the
kingdom demands it, to refuse His sanction to a proposal presented in due
form by the Storthing is unconditional. From this rule, there is no
exception even though the Storthing were to present the same resolution
ever so many times in precisely the same terms. Meanwhile according to
the fundamental law (Constitution § 79) the decision of the Storthing
becomes the law of Norway without the sanction of the King, but in order
to accomplish this, are required unaltered resolutions from three
Storthings drawn up after three consecutive elections, which resolution
must be laid before the King, »with an appeal, that His Majesty will not
refuse to sanction the resolution, which the Storthing after the most
careful considerations, believes to be advantageous. In the case now in
hand, there was no question of any such resolution from the Storthing,
and therefore the regulation in the fundamental law § 78: could be
suitably applied: »If the King sanctions the resolution, He signs it with
His superscription, on which it becomes the law. If He does not sanction
it, He returns it to the Odelsthing (Lower House) with the declaration
that for the present He finds it unsuitable to sanction.» And the
paragraph continues: »The resolution may not again on that occasion be
laid before the King by the members of the Storthing then assembled.» By
this last mentioned prescription the Constitution has evidently meant to
protect the Norwegian King's liberty in the exercise of the legislative
powers which are his indisputable right.
My resolve, not to sanction a law providing for a separate Norwegian
Consular Service, can consequently not be considered to imply any
transgression whatever of the legislative power, which according to the
fundamental law is the King's right, not even, if the matter in question
happened to be an affair which concerned Norway alone. But on the grounds
of the valid Union agreement between Norway and Sweden, it was not only
My right, but also My duty as King of Norway to refuse My sanction, for
the dissolution of the existing identical Consular Office could only be
effected through Norway's consent to free and friendly negotiations
concerning agreements for altering the Union on the basis of full
equality between the United Kingdoms, to which not only the _Powers
Royal_, but also the Diet of Sweden had unanimously themselves agreed.
That such a respect to the demands of the existing Union should imply an
attack on Norway's independence and sovereignty, is so much the more
unfounded, as the fundamental law explicitly connects Norway's
independence with its Union with Sweden. Norway's King must ever hold in
sight the 1:st paragraph of its Constitution:
»The Kingdom of Norway is a free, self-dependant, integral and
independent Kingdom, united with Sweden under one King.»
The statement made by the Council that My resolve, not to sanction the
Consular law, proposed by the Storthing, would have no legal validity, as
none of the members of the Cabinet had found themselves able to
countersign the Royal Decree supplies a supposition which I must declare
is in conflict with fundamental law. The question of the significance of
contrasignature according to Norwegian State law, is not a new question
brought up to day, but is older than the present Norwegian Constitution.
It was already solved at the Convention of Eidsvold. A proposal was then
made that Countersignature was requisite in order that the King's
commands should become valid, but was opposed on the grounds that it was
against the general principles of the Constitution for the division of
supreme power. The same standpoint was taken in the fundamental law of
the 4th November. This opinion was also expressed by the Constitutional
Committee without contradiction on two occasions, 1824 and 1839, when the
Storthing had even opposed a proposal concerning another matter. The
change, which § 32 in the Constitution has since undergone, gives
increased support to the opinion that the Prime Minister's
Countersignature is intended for nothing else than a witness that the
King has made a Decree of certain import.
And that § 31 is unconditional in its prescription of the duty of the
authorised countersignature of the Prime Minister is a conception that is
acceded to by those writers on State law who have framed the
Constitution. When the Cabinet quoted an opinion of the Norwegian
government in 1847 when the proposal for a new Act of Union was under
consideration, the Cabinet has overlooked, firstly, that this opinion, in
a manner that applies to Swedish government regulations § 38, was
intended only to refer to orders issued but not the Decree of the King
included in the protocol, secondly that the Norwegian Government could
not prove that the Norwegian Constitution really provided any law
respecting the right to refuse countersignature. The Constitution on the
contrary emphatically prescribes in § 30: »But to the King it is reserved
the right to form his decision according to His own judgment», and in §
31: »All Commands issued by the King himself (Military Orders excepted)
shall be countersigned by the Prime Minister (before 1873 the Norwegian
Prime Minister).
That under these circumstances I feel Myself entitled to demand respect
for a Decree formed by the King of Norway in a Constitutional manner, is
a matter for which no one can blame me. The powers which the Constitution
grants the King, in order to further the good of the country to the best
of his convictions, are not greater than that they ought to be preserved
to the supreme power, so that no constitutional practices in conflict
with the principles of the fundamental law are introduced, which,
according to the explicit prescriptions in § 112 may not be done, even by
an alteration of the fundamental law.
One of the chief principles of the Constitution--the most important of
all, in point of fact--is that Norway shall be a Constitutional
Monarchy. It is incompatible with this, that the King should sink to be a
helpless tool in the hands of His Ministers. If, meanwhile, the members
of the Council should have the power, by refusing countersignature, to
hinder every future Royal Decree, the Norwegian King would be deprived of
participating in the government. This position would be as lowering to
the Monarch as injurious to Norway herself.
To the circumstances that can thus be adduced against the validity,
according to fundamental law, of the Prime Minister's refusal of
Countersignature, and against the efficacy of the dogma that the King's
Decree in order to be valid, must bear the responsibility of some member
of the Cabinet, can be added, in questions touching the Union situation,
two more reasons, which have their foundation in the fact that the King
of Norway is also King of the Union.
However opinions may have varied, respecting the conception of the unity
which the Union agreements have created for the binding together of the
two Kingdoms, one fact remains clear, that Royal power is also an
institution of the Union. This position of the King's as being not only
King of Norway or of Sweden, but also as Monarch of the United Kingdoms,
makes it the King's duty, not to form decisions in conflict with the Act
of Union § 5, respecting the settlement of matters in one country, which
would also affect the other. The King's duty in the aforesaid respect is
incompatible with the opinion that the one Kingdom, by the refusal of
Countersignature by its Prime Minister or otherwise, could undo a Royal
Decree, by which he refused to make a resolution prejudicial to the other
Kingdom or injurious to the Union. In Norway, when they endeavoured to
adhere to an opposite opinion, when the Norwegian people claimed the
right to force the King to form his decision in conflict with what he
considers his right as King of the Union to concede, there was no other
way of attaining this object than making the Union, and also the King of
Sweden, in his actions, totally dependent on the will of the Norwegian
people, its Storthing and its Cabinet.
A Sovereign power of this kind I must characterize as being in strife
with the Union between the Kingdoms as confirmed by the Act of Union
It has been My constant endeavour to give Norway that position within the
Union to which it has a just claim. My Royal duty has forced Me, even in
conflict with general opinion in Norway, to try to maintain the legal
principles of the Union.
My coronation oath and the good of the United Kingdoms prompted My Decree
concerning the settlement of the Consular question, but in this I have
been met, not only by the Norwegian Cabinet's refusal of
Countersignature, but also the resignation of its members. When I
declared, »As it is clear to Me, that no other government can now be
formed therefore I cannot consent to the resignation of the Cabinet», the
Cabinet answered by the threat that the Norwegian who assented to My
Decree would in the same moment lose all national rights. I was therefore
placed in such a situation that I must either break the oaths I took
under the Act of Union, or expose Myself to being without Ministers. I
had no choice. After having in conflict with the fundamental law, tried
to undo the King's lawfully made resolution, the Council, by resigning
their office at the Storthing, have left the King without advisers. The
Storthing has approved of this breaking of the law, and by a
Revolutionary proceeding declared that the lawful King of Norway has
ceased to reign, and hat the Union between the Kingdoms is dissolved.
It now becomes the bounden duty of Sweden and Myself as King of the
Union to decide whether Norway's attack on the existing Union shall lead
to the legal dissolution of the same.
May the opinions of our contemporaries and also those of posterity judge
between Me and the People of Norway!
28.
The Norwegian Storthings documentary address to the King. Dated
Christiania June 19th 1905.
To the King's Most Excellent Majesty!
Norway's Storthing appeals, in all humility, to Your Majesty and through
the Your Majesty to the Diet and the People of Sweden to be allowed to
express the following:
That which has now happened in Norway is the necessary results of the
late events in Union politics, and cannot be undone. And as it is certain
that the nation does not wish to return to the old conditions of the
Union, the Storthing considers it impossible to resume negotiations on
the different constitutional and state-law questions, which in Your
Majesty's address to the President of the Storthing are referred to, in
connection with the settled decisions, and on which the Storthing and
Government have previously fully expressed themselves. The Storthing
fully understands the difficult position of Your Majesty, and has not for
a moment doubted that Your Majesty's decree is made with the full
conviction that Your Majesty has considered it to be the right and duty
of Your Majesty.
But it is the desire of the Storthing to address an appeal to Your
Majesty, to the Swedish Diet and Nation, to assist in a peaceful
arrangement for the dissolution of the Union, in order to secure
relations of friendship and cooperation between the two peoples of the
Peninsula. From statements made in Sweden, the Storthing finds that the
resolution the Storthing considered it its duty towards the fatherland to
adopt, by declaring the Union between the United Kingdoms to be
dissolved, has, in its form and the manner of carrying it out, been
looked upon as an insult to Sweden. This has never been our intention.
What has now happened and must happen in Norway, was simply done in order
to maintain Norway's constitutional rights. The nation of Norway never
intended an insult to the honour of Sweden.
Your Majesty having on the 27th May declared it impossible to sanction
the unanimous decision of the Storthing to establish a separate Norwegian
Consulate, and as no Norwegian Government could be formed by Your
Majesty, the constitutional situation became out of joint, so dislocated
that the Union could no longer be upheld. The Norwegian Storthing
therefore found the position untenable and was forced to get a new
government for the country. Every other resource was excluded, so much
the more so as the Swedish government of Majesty had already in April
23:rd emphatically refused fresh negotiations, he alternative of which
was the dissolution of the Union, if new regulations for the continuance
of the Union could not be arranged.
The Storthing has already, before hand, stated that the Norwegian people
do not entertain any feelings of bitterness or ill-will towards Your
Majesty and the people of Sweden. Expressions to the contrary which may
possibly on different occasions have been heard, have alone been caused
on the grounds of the displeasure of Norway at her position in the Union.
When the cause of this bitterness and ill-will on account of the
dissolution of the Union has been removed, its effects will also
disappear. A ninety years' cooperation in material and spiritual culture
has inspired in the Norwegian people a sincere feeling of friendship and
sympathy for the Swedish people. The consequences will be, that when
Norway no longer stands in a position so insulting to its national sense
of independence, a friendship will be established that will serve to
confirm and increase the mutual understanding between the two peoples.
With the confidence that the Swedish people will also share these
opinions, the Storthing appeals to the authorities of State in Sweden, in
acknowledging the new situation in Norway, and its rights as a Sovereign
State, to consent to the negotiations which are necessary for the final
agreements in connection with the now dissolved Union. The Storthing is
ready, on its part, to accede to any fair and reasonable wish, that, in
this respect, may contribute to the guarantee of self dependence and
integrity of the two Kingdoms.
In a legislative sense the two peoples are hereafter separated. But the
Storthing has a certain conviction that happy and confidential relations
will arise to the benefit of the interests of both. If the above
statement can find support, without prejudice and without bitterness, the
Storthing is firmly convinced that what has now happened will be to the
lasting happiness of Europe. On behalf of the welfare of the countries of
the North, the Storthing addresses this appeal to the people who, by
their magnanimity and chivalry, have won such a prominent place in the
ranks of Nations.
* * * * *