, if the negotiations fell through, each Kingdom should
be able to decide, of its own accord, "the future form of its national
existence." Thus the Swedish government was to accept in advance the
Norwegian Radicals legal conception of the Union, driven, to it by the
contingency that if Norway did not get her will in the matter, she would
break out, on her own accord, of the Union. It is manifestly against this
_method_ of negotiating matters, with its legal grounds and its premature
threat to rupture the Union on Norway's side, that the Swedish Prime
Minister appeals, when he speaks of a presupposition for negotiations on
the Norwegian side "as incompatible with the Union and the Act of Union."
The Prime Minister can never have intended to contest the absurdity, that
the Union cannot legally be dissolved, so that it was not on that account
that he refused to negotiate.

But the Norwegian Cabinet hastened, craftily, to construe the contents af
the Prime Minister's speech, by maintaining that there was a possibility
for dissolving the Union[63:1]. Of all the cunning devices, the object of
which has been, on Norway's side, cowardly to cast the blame on Sweden,
this has been one of the most disgusting, so much the more so as the
majority of the Storthing itself opposed Mr HAGERUP'S proposal, and this
was certainly not previous to, nor after the Council of the 25:th April,
when it was seriously proposed, that a treaty for the dissolution of the
Union should be drawn up, in the event of the King exercising his veto;
the tactics that were adopted on 7:th June were made up a long time
beforehand.--

On the 20:th June the Diet assembled.

FOOTNOTES:

[47:1] It must be remembered that in reality Norway had an almost
entirely equal influence in the joint Consular service, as questions
refering to Consular matters were decided in a joint Cabinet, and a
Norwegian government department conducted the mercantile part of affairs.

[47:2] It does not follow, however, that at least the majority of the
members of the Norwegian government tried to come to an agreement.

[48:1] A very sensible and intelligent article written by Mr FRITZ
HANSEN, member of the last Union Committee, may especially be brought to
notice.

[48:2] N:o 10.

[49:1] N:o 10.

[50:1] This is proved by the motion on the Union question brought forward
in the Lower Chamber of the Swedish Parliament. See N:o 14.

[50:2] N:o 11.

[51:1] NANSEN does not even m