essary
condition for a safe guarantee of the Union. A resolution after His
Majesty's decision against the unanimous proposal of the government, and
after a declaration which was given with Norwegian advice, would have
incalculable results. It was in conflict without Constitutional law, it
was denial of the right according to fundamental law of independent
decision on the matter, and a violation of its liberty, independence, and
Sovereignty. It would inevitably lead to the dissolution of the Union.

The Section of the Cabinet Council further stated that no member of the
present Council would countersign such a resolution, and thus give it
constitutional legality. They must therefore tender their letters of
resignation.

His Majesty the King

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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Sec. 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 Jus